Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- The President’s Plates: What’s Missing?
- New Deputy White House Press Secretary: Twitter.com?
- POTUS: 'Everybody Just Step Back for a Moment'
- Summers: Despite Rising Unemployment, Stimulus Has Not Failed
- “Back from the Abyss”: Obama Adviser Touts Economic Rescue
- Defying President Obama, House Takes What Critic Calls "Hardcore Bipartisan NIMBY" Action on Chrysler and GM Auto Dealers
- Gates on the F-22: "Does Not Make Much Sense"
- President Obama to NAACP: "No Excuses"
- The Health Care Reform Price Tag
- President Obama: It's Getting Hot In Here
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
How Kosher is Obama's 'Ban' on Pork?
January 06, 2009 4:05 PM
"We are going to ban all earmarks," President-elect Obama pledged today after a meeting with his economic team, discussing the multibillion dollar stimulus package.
Mr. Obama made the promise carefully -- his definition of earmarks was "the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."
One reporter asked the President-elect about this, noting, "you said there will be none that get in there without review. Some people would argue even the so-called 'Bridge to Nowhere' got ... some level of review."
Supporters of the "Bridge to Nowhere" have long argued that the raison d'etre of the bridge was to connect the mainland to Ketchikan International Airport, not to the small town of 50 or so residents.
And in fact the State of Alaska examined eight different proposed bridge crossings in 1973, when the airport was built. And then, according to Alaska officials the following reviews took place:
In 1981, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough examined bridge and underwater tube crossing alternatives. In 1984, Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton provided a cost analysis of proposed bridge, tube, and ferry crossings. In 1988, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough passed a resolution supporting a "hard link" crossing and the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In 1989, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough studied road routes on Pennock and Gravina Islands to the airport. In 1991, the Alaska Legislature authorized funding for the Ketchikan "Hard Link" EIS. In 1994, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities prepared an in-house draft EIS of ferry, bridge, and tunnel crossing options. In 1998 the Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) allocated funds specifically for this project. And in 2004, an approved EIS selected a bridge alternative as the Preferred Alternative for improving access.
It was only in 2005 -- after all these reviews -- when former Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, tried to get funding for the project that it became a notorious symbol of pork.
But President-elect Obama's response was to offer his definition of earmarks once more. "Let me repeat what I said about that: We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package," said Mr. Obama. "And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I'm saying is, we're not having earmarks in the recovery package, period. I was describing what earmarks are."
The reporter was confused, asking if the President-in-waiting was suggesting there's a level of review that's okay, and one that's not okay.
Because by Mr. Obama's definition, Alaska's Gravina Island Bridge -- the notorious $398 million "Bridge to Nowhere" -- was not an earmark depending on what "without review" means.
"I'm saying there are no earmarks in the recovery package," the president-elect said, interrupting. "That is the position that I'm taking."
**
A related item: on January 29, 2008, President George W. Bush signed an executive order directing federal agencies to ignore earmarks contained in conference reports (which is where most of the wasteful earmarks are found).
During the campaign Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he would keep the order in place, but then-Sen. Obama’s campaign never answered the question as to whether he would.
Citizens Against Government Waste has since urged the President-elect to keep the order in place.
But no word yet.
-- jpt
January 6, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Earmarks are a Congressional procedure. The President has no say in the matter. He can only veto or not veto the entire bill. He can try to take a stand and veto everything with earmarks, but then he runs the risk of being blamed for shutting down the whole system.
What exactly do people expect the President to DO to "ban earmarks?"
Posted by: jock59801 | Mar 11, 2009 6:46:44 PM
There appears to be a fine line between "banning" and "advocating". Lawyer presidents are great at mincing words. Do we all remember the meaning of the word "is"?
Posted by: Open-Mind | Mar 11, 2009 6:34:50 PM
"Ummm... is that really the same as banning?"
Sure. Its a political banning.
Are you eagerly awaiting for Ashley Todd to be released for the mental institution?
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 8, 2009 3:43:21 PM
"Question -- Where is Obama's constitutional authority to ban pork? Isn't writing bills -- in which pork is inserted -- the constitutional purview of the legislative branch? So how is Obama going to ban it?"
Ummm veto power.
Are all the right wing Constitutional "scholars" working round the clock on proving Obama is not a citizen?
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 7, 2009 7:26:37 PM
Question -- Where is Obama's constitutional authority to ban pork? Isn't writing bills -- in which pork is inserted -- the constitutional purview of the legislative branch? So how is Obama going to ban it?
Tskk, and him a constitutional authority (per himself) and all. And what about the reporters on this matter?
Posted by: beth | Jan 7, 2009 2:15:26 PM
Earmarks are the way most things get funded and done by government (federal and state) at a local level. Something that may seem like a worthless project by one group may be viewed as critical to the economic success of a region by another group. Earmarks become absolutely critical to getting something done especially in more rural areas that don't get the publicity or have a large vocal population to pressure politicians. Even if this federal money is given to states as block grants, the states will distribute it through their own earmarks. It is frequently the most efficient way to get a project done and in reality, congressional earmarks are made only after a Congressman is convinced that a project is worthwhile and will benefit a significant number of people or a region.
Posted by: Ron | Jan 7, 2009 1:11:35 PM
The only way Obama (or any other President) can get rid of earmarks, is for Congress to give the President the right to a line-item veto.... since that is never going to happen, he won't be able to do it.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | Jan 7, 2009 7:35:54 AM
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Posted by: MadeInUSA | Jan 6, 2009 8:42:52 PM
I would think 'reviewing' earmarks means review by the Senate not by the benefiting state's own political system. To say the the 'Bridge to Nowhere' was reviewed because numerous Alaska state agencies looked at it it downright silly.
To spend $398 million on a bridge to a small airport when so many existing highly used bridges around the country need serious repair or replacement is a good example of pork.
I'm glad that Obama is letting us know that this kind of wasteful spending will not be in the stimulus package.
Posted by: Lydia | Jan 6, 2009 7:14:58 PM
A thoughtful article with a couple of facts wrong. The bridge to Gravina is proposed from Ketchikan to Gravina island, the mainland does not figure into the bridge. Ketchikan is a city of about 14,000 people who are separated from their airport because it's on a separate island. Ketchikan is on Revillagigedo Island. Thousands of people land and take off from Ketchikan International Airport each year. The idea that the bridge would service 50 people on Gravina island is not only misleading but wrong.
If this project went under some congressional radar to be somehow clandestinely stuck in the transportation bill, then congress is asleep. Few projects have been vetted as much and as long as this one.
Posted by: Anita Hales | Jan 6, 2009 6:59:51 PM
Even if he is serious (and I hope he is) can he accomplish this? Will Congress go along? Will Obama call on his e-mail supporters to help him? If he does, I am ready.
Posted by: Passin Thru | Jan 6, 2009 5:37:55 PM
Does it mean he will not give the money away which he promised it in the campaign?
People are waiting.
They voted for you because of those promises you've made.
Posted by: catleya | Jan 6, 2009 5:07:28 PM
The Bridge is infrastructure that was to be built as part of the Airport Project 35 years ago when the airport was built. it was not a pork project at 1st but as years passed people forget and then try to make this remote area of Ketchikan, Alaska into a political Story. Either way we are not going to get a bridge to the airport and if there is ever an emergency hope you are not on the Gravina side...
Posted by: Gravina Resident | Jan 6, 2009 5:02:43 PM
"Whois on first? no "whats on first."
double speak? triple speak? talking while saying nothing?
I can't figure out at what level PEBO is speaking but I am sure it is one of the above.
I will be happy if some of the pork is "pulled"
Posted by: smith | Jan 6, 2009 4:17:35 PM
Post a comment
