Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

President Obama to Sign Pork-Laden Omnibus Spending Bill

March 02, 2009 8:29 AM

Obama administration officials Sunday announced that despite expressed "concerns" with the billions in earmarks contained in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill -- and campaign pledges to "slash earmarks by more than half" -- the President would sign the bill.

Taxpayers for Common Sense says the bill contains 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion. An estimated 60% of the earmarks are from Democrats, while Republicans requested the remaining 40%.

In his list of the Top Ten Porkiest projects that he tweeted on his Twitter page last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. -- who is urging President Obama to veto the bill -- cited both the $300,000 earmark for a Montana World Trade Center from GOP Rep. Dennis Rehberg of Montana, and a $1.8 million pig odor and manure management program from Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

"This last year's business," said Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos.  "We want to just move on.  Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel noted on Face the Nation that when "President Obama came to office, two major bills were passed without earmarks.  The major economic recovery act -- earmark-free; the children's health care bill -- earmark-free. He has said clearly his policies about earmarks, which is you've got to be -- more accountability, more transparency, and a reduction."

Host Bob Schieffer asked "why didn't he just tell the Senate, 'Look, take these things out of here; I've told people we were not going to have these earmarks; then send it back to me'?" which prompted Emanuel to repeat the exact same talking points he'd just given, in more bullet-pointy form.

"What he's clear is, again, the economic recovery act, earmark-free, a major bill," Emanuel said. "Second, this is last year's business.  And third most importantly, we're going to have to make some other changes, going forward, to reduce and bring more -- reduce the ultimate number and bring the transparency."

On the campaign trail, then-Sen. Obama sounded far less accepting of earmarks.

In Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Sept 22, 2008, he said, "the truth is, our earmark system -- what’s called pork-barrel spending in Washington -- is fraught with abuse.  It badly needs reform -- which is why I didn’t request a single earmark last year, why I’ve released all my previous requests for the public to see, why I’ve pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am President of the United States."

In February 2008, in Bangor, Maine, Mr. Obama said that McCain "complains about earmarks, but it was his party, the Republican party under George Bush and a Republican Congress that presided on the biggest increase in pork barrel spending that America has ever seen and that is what we're going to change when I'm President of the United States." In July 2008, the President started talking about returning earmarks to their 2001 levels.

After McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, Obama criticized her for having been of two minds on earmarks.

"When you been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person," Obama said, "that is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something."

Members of Obama's cabinet who were until recently in Congress -- including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis -- all have their names attached to various earmarks in the omnibus spending bill. Emanuel's name is attached to an earmark as well.

The President's assertion that he hadn't requested any earmarks in his previous two years in the Senate seemed under question last week when his name turned up attached to an earmark along with three dozen other senators who wrote a letter advocating a vocational training program for native Americans in North Dakota and New Mexico. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that there was "no funding level" mentioned in the letter, so the president's name should not have been cited as an earmark sponsor.

"The President, as a senator, did not request earmarks for the final two years he was in the Senate," Gibbs said.

A spokesman for the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday said the president's name would be excised from the congressional report identifying earmarks and their sponsors, Congressional Quarterly reported.

- Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

March 2, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (300)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

==the problem is coming from both sides==

Not this time, Ed.

== obama is not god==

He is a god to Obammybots. He's not God, not our Savior.

== we need to get on our knees and pray==

Obammybots are doing just that...to him.

== remember this country once had morals values==

I remember. Things have changed, not cuz God wants this change but cuz men think they have more power than God does. So, under those conditions, it is only a remnant God will save cuz only a few will find the gate.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 3:02:38 PM

enough is enough the problem is coming from both sides obama is not god we need to get on our knees and pray remember this country once had morals values we need to get back to them

Posted by: EDWARD L. BARNETT | Mar 6, 2009 2:02:55 PM

==Enough already! It is politics as usual in Washington. Obama promised us no more pork or pet projects. So much for HOPE. He is no better than the other politicos in Washington.==

We try to tell you this last November. You people wouldn't listen. You people thought you know it all. Now you people can suffer with the rest of us who knew better.

==That tea party is looking more appealing every day.==

You mean to tell us that, now, this is change you CANNOT believe in??? The Dear Leader says that it is change that you CAN believe in. So, which is it? Shouldn't you have thought about this last November?

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 12:06:11 PM

==Obama promised us no more pork or pet projects. ==

However, there's a lotta payback for all the support he got. The amount of pork and the number of pet projects and their costs are a reflection of that support, and, so, it, of course, must be paid back. Principle must take a back seat to payback.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 11:50:23 AM

==I don't think that congress should be allowed to handle the nations [sic] money.==

Then, change the Constitution so that it gives YOU the purse strings and everybody should be happy then, huh?

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 11:40:39 AM

==Obama promised us no more pork or pet projects. ==

However, he didn't promise Party bosses and his comrades in the Congress that there would be no more pork, nor pet projects.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 11:24:21 AM

==We can only change/control what the future willbring (or not bring).==

That's what the voters thought last November, too. It didn't turn out exactly the way they thought it would.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 11:22:29 AM

==why can't he keep his campaign promise to eliminate unecessary earmarks and NOT sign the bill?==

Cuz the promises he has made to his Dem bosses in Congress and the Party have greater priority. Sure, the People have needs, but Obama's comrades have greater needs.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 11:20:16 AM

==I don't think that congress should be allowed to handle the nations [sic] money.==

Then, change the Constitution.

==It's like giving money to a child. They have no idea how to spend it properly or it's [sic] value to begin with.==

All you gotta do, then, is change the Constitution.

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Mar 6, 2009 11:17:15 AM

I don't think that congress should be allowed to handle the nations money. It's like giving money to a child. They have no idea how to spend it properly or it's value to begin with.

Posted by: Travis | Mar 6, 2009 1:09:08 AM

How does one spell Veto?
With a big V and a big E and a big T and a great big O. Oh my.

Posted by: Geraldo | Mar 4, 2009 11:09:40 PM

Enough already! It is politics as usual in Washington. Obama promised us no more pork or pet projects. So much for HOPE. He is no better than the other politicos in Washington. He definitely should not sign this budget, until it is purged of all the unnecessary spending contained in it. That tea party is looking more appealing every day.

Posted by: Freda DV | Mar 4, 2009 10:03:28 PM

HE needs to veto this spending bill...
The president campaigned on elimminating earmarks and now he is going back on his word which is demonstrating a LACK of CREDIBILITY. This is money that will be spent under his administration and they are trying to say it is last years business.. Baloney...

Posted by: w johnson | Mar 4, 2009 8:34:55 PM

This "last years business" has become this years business. President Obama needs to show the American people that he REALLY meant it when he said "change has come to America"! He needs to send a very loud message and VETO this bill with over 6,000 earmarks. If he doesn't veto this bill, it will, in fact, be business as "usual" in Washington.

Posted by: Neelie | Mar 4, 2009 8:27:52 PM

VETO IT!! This had nothing to do with Congress' right to request funds for their own pet projects. If Congress had the country's interest at heart, they wouldn't even consider this kind of spending right now. It's not appropriate when people are losing their homes, jobs, and don't know where their next meal is coming from.

Posted by: RidesOnIce | Mar 4, 2009 8:26:24 PM

Oh, so this is last years budget. Then why are we going to spend the money this year?

Posted by: Herb | Mar 4, 2009 8:23:34 PM

NO! Not until after he returns it to Congress to have ALL of the earmarks removed.

Posted by: Carolyn | Mar 4, 2009 8:15:47 PM

Obama needs to veto this bill! We need to stop the pork spending. Whats a pig farm suppose to smell like Roses? Give me a brake! Thats just one of the ear marks that just makes me shake my head. - I'm a Democrate

Posted by: Garyd | Mar 4, 2009 7:23:50 PM

If President Obama was able to change Bush's ruling to close Guantanamo Bay, then why can't he keep his campaign promise to eliminate unecessary earmarks and NOT sign the bill?

Posted by: Jerome | Mar 4, 2009 7:13:02 PM

I agree with plumber this is the same old crap. "Last years business" my butt. That's just another excuse Pres. Obama came up with for not taking responsibilty for the budget he's about to sign. That is pathetic.He won't take responsibility because he put us in a debt that my great great great grandchildren will still be paying for. He promised change; well here it is. This budget and the "stimulus spending" bill are both so full of pork they both belong on a pig farm. So much for campaign promises. Just another politician in a fancy suit.

Posted by: john s | Mar 4, 2009 7:12:20 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS