Dems: Earmarks are good now, trust us
With their willing accomplices in the press running interference for them, the Democrats are trying their hand at changing the public’s perception of earmarks. Last year, campaigning Senator Obama said earmarks are bad (CNN link);
“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,” Obama’s statement said.
“The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,” the statement added.
But the Democrats in the Senate this year, are doing their best to convince voters that earmarks are good. Senator Dick Durbin (The Washington Times link);
“That there is something inherently evil, wicked or criminal or wrong with [earmarks], it’s just not the case,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, noting that he earmarked millions of dollars in the pending omnibus spending bill for what he said were worthy projects in his home state.
Mr. Durbin said lawmakers’ pet projects are listed in the bill and exposed to public scrutiny, and that members of Congress know how to best spend taxpayer dollars in their districts and states.
“Otherwise, what happens? We give the money to the agency downtown and they decide where to spend it,” Mr. Durbin said on the Senate floor. “It isn’t as if the money won’t be spent. Oh, it will be spent. But it may not be spent as effectively or for projects that are as valuable.”
See? You legislators know best how to spend your tax money (or, more accurately, the money from some other taxpayer across the country from you). Even government bureaucrats don’t know how to spend your money like a Senator knows how to spend your money. That’s why he’s your Senator.
But Durbin isn’t the only Senator who thinks earmarks are necessary – Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid think so, too;
The refrain has been the same from other top Democrats, whether from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada or House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. Besides touting the merits of earmarks, these Democrats balked at Mr. Obama’s announcement last week of a plan to reel in pork-barrel spending.
Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Hoyer made clear that they thought it was out of Mr. Obama’s constitutional jurisdiction.
What does Nancy Pelosi think of earmarks?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, last week defended earmarks as an “appropriate function” of Congress, even as she pledged to work with the White House to cut the number and increase transparency – but only after passage of the omnibus bill.
“The idea is lower number, more transparency, total accountability,” Mrs. Pelosi said.
We’ll lower the number of earmarks – well, after this year. In other words, they’re hoping (and planning on) the media forgets that they said that next year. The Obama Administration is taking the same position – wait’ll next year (CNN link);
[Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget] argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.
“This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game,” Orszag said. “Next year we’re going to be the starting pitcher, and the game’s going to be completely different.”
Obama argues that he was saddled with this spending bill because the Bush Administration didn’t get a spending bill through Congress last year – that’s because Democrats wouldn’t take it up and put it off until this year. Sounds like he needs to sit down and talk with the children in his party. Unless, of course, he enjoys breaking a new campaign promise every week.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Economy, Media, Politics, Usual Suspects
