"We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project. The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed." - Senator Obama, April 15, 2008.
"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it is necessary for the ongoing functions of government. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change," - President Obama, in a speech on earmark reform, March 10, 2009 after signing a $410 billion omnibus bill.
"..........." - President Bushbama after signing another omnibus bill, this one worth $447 billion, on December 13, 2009.
Replies (4)
And before my gifted young friend can post his most compelling equivalent of Arnold Drummond's famous catchphrase, "watch you talkin' 'bout Willis" - I fail.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 8:15 PM
Perhaps my memory is failing me but ... I could have almost sworn that Obama mentioned (or at least hinted about) doing away with earmarks (as well as curtailing much of the lobbyists' activities) during the campaign last year.
I realize that some of the justifications for earmarks might be somewhat valid ('in the interest of time' when our representatives have so little to devote to every single thing), however ... My suggestion still stands on this matter ...
They should be abolished ... They are often attached to bills that are considered 'important' or crucial to pass in a timely manner, and they are generally things that would not voted on favorably on their own merits.
It makes more sense to me that the states should each get an equal percentage of the federal income taxes collected ... fair to all, no need for made-up, ridiculous projects to stick into earmarks ... No state getting almost twice what their residents have paid in ... What a ridiculous system that all is!
Uh oh, wait ... What's the question, lumpy?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Dec 16, 2009, at 10:25 PM
I think it would be much better if the peoples money was not sent to the federal government. If we have to be taxed so heavily that the excess monies entice earmarks, let the states do the taxing and then forward what is left to the federal government for the purpose the constitution indicates. Since that aint going to happen, maybe we could send a bunch of veto pens. But first somehow we have to end the power in Washington to spend money not had in hand.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 1:22 AM
Anyone who thinks its possible for the Washington crowd to economize, balance income with outgo, and relinquish any power dreams the dreams of opium dens.
Power must be wrenched from their hands.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Dec 17, 2009, at 9:45 AM
Menu
"We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project. The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed." - Senator Obama, April 15, 2008.
"I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it is necessary for the ongoing functions of government. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change," - President Obama, in a speech on earmark reform, March 10, 2009 after signing a $410 billion omnibus bill.
"..........." - President Bushbama after signing another omnibus bill, this one worth $447 billion, on December 13, 2009.
Replies (4)