Media Pans Obama Over Earmarks

[spanone]

this is the enemy......



Hours after calling for reforms to the earmark process, President Obama yesterday signed a spending bill that contains some 9,000 earmarked projects -- described by critics as pork-barrel spending. The move sparked criticism

from Republicans and some Democrats, and generated starkly negative media reviews -- including reports in all three networks that suggested that the President's action ran contrary to his own campaign rhetoric. ABC World

News, for example, reported that "away from cameras," Obama "signed a massive spending bill containing roughly 9,000 earmarks, despite his past campaign rhetoric." NBC Nightly News noted "critics said the President should have

put up more of a fight when it came to those pet projects." The CBS Evening News similarly reported there was "no photo-op for this signing."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090312.htm

[madokie]

1. Until we get some control over the ownership of our media conglomerates we haven't a chance

of a snowball in hell of getting the changes we hope too.

[Obamanaut]

6. OK, I don't understand this. If one says "No more earmarks" and

then signs for 9,000 of them, then in effect that is saying "No more earmarks after this one time."

Now the part where I'm confused is where the media conglomerates impact the signing of the 9,000 earmark package.

[Caliman73]

21. I don't recall Obama ever saying "No" earmarks

I remember in the debates he talked about the need for earmark reform, and more scrutiny. I don't remember him being against them. It was McCain who was having a fit about them. Obama pointed out that in a 500 billion dollar budget in 2008, earmarks were 18 billion for the year, big number, but not significant compared to the 10 billion we were and still are, spending in Iraq every month. What Obama said yesterday was simply, "Hey, this bill is not real great, but weighing between the principle of challenging 1% to 2% of the budget and holding up the other 98% to 99% so that the Federal Government grinds to a halt, I am going with the not so great 98% bill.

California recently flirted with the situation of allowing the government to run out of money over Republican principles of not raising taxes in our budget. We lost untold amounts of money because of it and we will be suffering for this for quite some time to come. I don't want to imagine what that would look like on a Federal scale.

[Obamanaut]

27. You are correct, he did not say "no earmarks." It was something to

do with scrutiny, examining the budget line by line, getting rid of the frivolous ones, and reducing the earmarks to the level of an earlier time.

[Caliman73]

32. Yes I remember that,

President Obama has the power to go through the Budget and look at spending. Unfortunately President Obama does not have the power to go line by line through legislation and take things out. Reduction of earmarks is something that President Obama can pressure Congress into doing, but ultimately the Congress is the body that appropriates the funding for the administration to implement programs. This was a spending bill left over from the last Congress, under Bush's term. President Obama's choice was to sign the bill as it stood, or to veto the entire bill and face the risk of government funding drying up for all government programs. Imagine the heat that he would have taken if he had vetoed it and government actually ground to a halt. Potential term killer in your first 2 months.

The bill was not perfect, but seriously, earmarks are not really the horrific thing that the media is portraying. They should be reformed and I am sure that President Obama will use his weight to try and get it to happen. What he seems to do well is pick the times when he wants to fight. He will do it on this issue as well. The Republicans are trying to use every little piece of crap issue to save their floundering ship. 40% of the earmarks were Republican and some of those were from legislators who voted no on the bill. We need to focus on that hypocrisy and continue to expose them and help them make themselves irrelevant.

[madokie]

28. He never said no earmarks

I just heard him reiterate his position yesterday when he said that is the way we get things done. So whats the deal with attempting to make it appear that President Obama has gone back on a promise when he hasn't???

President Obama is doing good if not great. Thats a fact too

[Obamanaut]

34. Please see my post #27. I admit I misspoke (mistyped?). I also

like Pres Obama. I even have relatives who no longer talk to me or Miz O because we like Pres Obama. But it is okay, when something looks screwn, to question it, isn't it?

We (Miz O and I) also like Michelle Obama, her children, her mom, and her sleeveless dresses.

[Belial]

8. Don't blame the media.. its not their fault people have the attention

span of a bug..

[spanone]

9. i directly blame the media.

[madokie]

30. So do I

I've been saying that here since day one that we have to get the media right if we ever have any hope of fixing anything. They are the problem and until we do something about that we're screwed

[Cha]

19. Yes, I will blame the fucking corporatemediawhores

after 8 years of knowing what they have done to our country.

[biopowertoday]

2. I think an effort could have been made by the WH to

take out these earmarks.

Russ Feingold refused to vote for this bill and I am with him on this one.

[spanone]

3. it would have taken months...this bill should have been passed last year.

why didn't the republicans refuse to accept any earmarks?

[biopowertoday]

10. Now he has negitive

publicity over this. and worse-he is branded hypocritical. He -our country does not need this now when so many important things need to get done. The WH was not politically savvy on this one at all.

[spanone]

11. he needs to pick his fights cautiously...they will brand him no matter what he does imo

[phantom power]

4. At 2% of the total budget, it was not nearly worth the political effort.

[Dawgs]

16. Earmarks aren't necessarily bad things.

Looks like someone bought the right wing spin.

[Dawgs]

17. Earmarks aren't necessarily bad things.

Looks like someone bought the right wing spin.

[Belial]

5. I don't think its just the media.. it's anyone with an opinion

about what has been going on. The promises are not being broken.. so much as the creation and modification of the terms. We went from 4 million new jobs being CREATED to 3 million jobs SAVED or CREATED.. (the upside is the Federal Gov't is hiring) We went from NO earmarks to some earmarks to reformning earmarks. I am not holding my breath at this point. I think it is simply a case of someone making promises that people wanted to hear that had no way to back it up. Sigh..

I am not against earmarks as there is a good argument when they will work.. but when we are ALL downsizing.. you.. myself.. business.. is it REALLY the time to UPSIZE the Govt?

[spanone]

7. yes

i don't think that any politician in any country at any time can deliver word for word what he promised as a candidate, otherwise he would be a dictator.

[redqueen]

12. Precisely.

But we are expecting critical thought from a populace poorly equipped to practice it.

[Belial]

24. well.. they got out and voted.. so lets hope they are not all

ignorant?

[redqueen]

26. "They" are not a homogenous entity.

Some might have expected him to be Jesus... some Superman.

He's a politician, and a damn good one at that, a fact which I'm sure the vast majority of us are aware.

[hughee99]

13. Who is the enemy?

[sweetpotato]

14. stop watching

I gave up tv *news* years ago. Its all info-tainment anyway.

Maybe if we all stop watching, they will go away. (A girl can dream)

[spanone]

15. this didn't come from teevee....it was an article about the media's coverage

i doubt it will go away

[DireStrike]

18. Isn't this the bill that Rachel said HAD to be signed?

And if it wasn't, lots of stuff would come to a screeching halt?

[Cha]

20. I was watching Jon Stewart a

bit last night and he showed clips of all these media jokers screaming about this before I turned it off in disgust.

[Caliman73]

23. You should have kept watching.

It was pretty funny. Yeah the blowhard Repubs were in all of their "splendor" but he came back and spoke about the 2% of the budget the these earmarks entailed. He then proceeded to point out that Congress has food safety laws that allow for up to 2% content of "insect filth" in canned peaches while he was feigning eating some peaches from a can. He said, I am paraphrasing "You are screaming about 2% spending in a budget, but your ok with 2% filth in our canned fruit?" He did rib Obama as well for ultimately signing and offered some peaches to the picture of the president on screen. Good stuff.

[Cha]

25. You're right..

thanks for filling me in on what I missed. :)

[aquart]

22. They forget that the president does NOT have a line item veto?

Nor should he.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. If President Obama hadn't signed the bill...

the federal government would have shutdown last night at midnight, costing the country an arm and a leg.


Jesus Christ, people is dumb.

[gratuitous]

31. Oh, and by the way?

We're having to deal with the federal budget here in March because the previous occupant of the White House didn't think he needed to have a budget passed for this year before he skedaddled. So, instead of working on his own program and agenda during his first 100 days, Obama is cleaning up the unfinished business that the last president was supposed to attend to.

Strangely enough, I haven't seen this point made very clearly (okay, at all) by the major news outlets.

[redqueen]

33. Of course not. It doesn't fit with the narrative. (nt)