(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama will likely sign the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package passed by the Senate over the weekend containing more than 5,000 earmarks, a White House spokesman said Monday, stressing that the number of earmarks had dropped from the previous year’s spending bill.
Obama signed the 2009 omnibus bill last March. It contained 8,570 earmarks. He vowed then that the bill signing was simply wrapping up the previous year’s business – a “departure point” – and that things would change under his watch.
SNIP
When asked about Obama’s earlier comment about “far-reaching change” in omnibus spending, Gibbs said, “We’ve seen a decrease of 15 percent in the number of earmarks. Again, it is not perfect.”
:laugh:
That would assume that President Obama even knows what his position is. Lets face it: Obama, like Bush, just reads the speeches he is given and parrots what his advisors tell him. I don't think Obama knows what he believes/thinks on these issues. Sort of a sad commentary on the state of the American Presidency when one thinks about it.
I agree if he said no more earmarks it is rather foolish of him to now support something with earmarks.
However, earmarks aren't some evil thing. In fact, I'd rather have a bill with earmarks than without. Earmarks don't create additional spending. They just specify where the funds are to be spent. Without earmarks, the executive branch will just decide where the money is spent rather than it being in the bill. A simplified example would be if congress passed a bill saying that 1 million dollars will be spent on road projects. Without earmarks, the 1 million can be spent on any road projects the executive branch wants. With earmarks, the 1 million will be sent on specific road projects that are listed in the bill.
Yes, I know earmarks can be abused to spend a bills money on things not intended for in the bill. We obviously need to pay attention to that and it needs to be dealt with. I'd much rather have the transparency of earmarks listed in a bill though, than the executive branch having free reign over the money.
That's not correct.
If you take the earmarks out, the spending would go down by that amount.
Besides...I didn't figure you'd be for buying votes, since you are a fan of honesty in government and all...
And before anyone says it...I agree with you:
the "D" or "R" suffix, with very few exceptions (what few exceptions there are tend to come from the "R" side) makes little difference in a Senator's propensity to steal my money and either:
1.
Give it to someone who didn't earn it; and/or
2.
Buy votes with it.
No, that's not how it works. Earmarks only specify what funds will be spent on. If earmarks are not there, then the executive branch will determine what the funds are spent on. By the time the earmarks are placed in the bill, the amount of funds has already been determined. Don't just take my word for it, listen to Ron Paul.
I think we can take Ron Paul as an expert on this subject. He's a member of Congress and one that seeks to limit government spending in every way possible. That should qualify him pretty well.
You won't waste your time trying to convice me because you have nothing to back up your claims. I've given you the testimony of a well informed member of Congress. A member that is among the most fiscally conservative members currently in office. I'd be happy for you to educate me on the subject, if you have any proof of your claims. All my research, however, shows that with or without earmarks the spending would be at the same level. The only difference is that without earmarks a different branch of government decides where the money goes.
Please, could you just attempt to be reasonable for once? I'm open and willing to listen to any reasonable claims you have to make that earmarks increase spending.
"Now correlation does not always equal causation, but anybody who knows how Congress actually works should find the link persuasive. Sen. Jim DeMint told Politico last year: “I talked to colleagues who would say, ‘DeMint, I gotta vote for this bill because it has my project in it,’ even though the bill was way over budget.”
Thanks for the link Rev. It proves my point. From the article you posted:
That's exactly what I've been stating in this thread. Earmarks do not add spending to a bill. Adding or removing earmarks do not modify the level of spending in a bill.
I agree with the link that you posted that earmarks may sway a congressman to vote for a bill, but that's a different topic than what I was discussing.
No its not it is exactly the same. If congressman would other wise vote down a bill (spending) but votes for it because of his earmark (spending) it adds to spending. 1+1=2 Other wise that bill(spending) may be defeated (no spending). 1+1=2
But i see you completely overlooked the last paragraph of that link which I posted and which is contrary to what you said. The problem with your position ( and Ron Paul) is the facts do not end there you cut them off. There is more to the issue than what you and Ron Paul are presenting. Time for a little honesty
either Collender doesn't know what he's talking about or he's deliberately misleading to justify spending money on pork barrel projects that doesn't have to be spent.