Obama Earmark Reform Remarks (FULL TEXT)

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Earmark Reform Remarks (FULL TEXT) stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 03-11-09 10:41 AM   |   Updated: 04-11-09 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist.

Obama plans to sign the $410 billion spending package but remains "troubled" by earmarks in the bill that have been assailed as unworthy pork-barrel spending. The president planned to use the signing ceremony to announce earmark reforms. On Wednesday morning, he spoke about his plans to sign the bill and his earmark reforms.

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I ran for President pledging to change the way business is done in Washington and build a government that works for the people by opening it up to the people. And that means restoring responsibility and transparency and accountability to actions that the government takes. And working with the Congress over my first 50 days in office, we've made important progress toward that end.


Working together, we passed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that's already putting people back to work doing the work that America needs done. We did it without the customary Congressional earmarks -- the practice by which individual legislators insert projects of their choosing. We're implementing the Recovery Act with an unprecedented level of aggressive oversight and transparency, including a website -- recovery.gov -- that allows every American to see how their tax dollars are spent and report on cases where the system is breaking down.

I also signed a directive that dramatically reforms our broken system of government contracting, reining in waste and abuse and inefficiency; saving the American taxpayers up to $40 billion each year in the process.

And I've laid out plans for a budget that begins to restore fiscal discipline so we can bring down the $1.3 trillion budget deficit we've inherited and pave the way for our long-term prosperity. For the first time in many years, we've produced an honest budget that makes the hard choices required to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.

Now, yesterday Congress sent me the final part of last year's budget; a piece of legislation that rolls nine bills required to keep the government running into one, a piece of legislation that addresses the immediate concerns of the American people by making needed investments in line with our urgent national priorities.

That's what nearly 99 percent of this legislation does -- the nearly 99 percent that you probably haven't heard much about.

What you likely have heard about is that this bill does include earmarks. Now, let me be clear: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination. And I also find it ironic that some of those who rail most loudly against this bill because of earmarks actually inserted earmarks of their own -- and will tout them in their own states and their own districts.

Story continues below

But the fact is that on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse. Projects have been inserted at the 11th hour, without review, and sometimes without merit, in order to satisfy the political or personal agendas of a given legislator, rather than the public interest. There are times where earmarks may be good on their own, but in the context of a tight budget might not be our highest priority. So these practices hit their peak in the middle of this decade, when the number of earmarks had ballooned to more than 16,000, and played a part in a series of corruption cases.

In 2007, the new Democratic leadership in Congress began to address these abuses with a series of reforms that I was proud to have helped to write. We eliminated anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency in the process, so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent. These measures were combined with the most sweeping ethics reforms since Watergate. We banned gifts and meals and made sure that lobbyists have to disclose who they're raising campaign money from, and who in Congress they send it to. So we've made progress. But let's face it, we have to do more.

I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.

In my discussions with Congress, we have talked about the need for further reforms to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism. So I believe as we move forward, we can come together around principles that prevent the abuse of earmarks.

These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer.

Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools, and police stations, and fire departments.

When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that community. When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated with a higher level of scrutiny.

Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors.

And finally, if my administration evaluates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will seek to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so.

Now I know there are members in both Houses with good ideas on this matter. And just this morning, the House released a set of recommendations for reform that I think hold great promise. I congratulate them on that.

Now I'm calling on Congress to enact these reforms as the appropriation process moves forward this year. Neither I nor the American people will accept anything less.

It's important that we get this done to ensure that the budget process works better, that taxpayers are protected, and that we save billions of dollars that we so desperately need to right our economy and address our fiscal crisis. Along with that reform, I expect future spending bills to be debated and voted on in an orderly way, and sent to my desk without delay or obstruction, so that we don't face another massive, last-minute omnibus bill like this one.

I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse. As a former senator, I believe that individual members of Congress understand their districts best. And they should have the ability to respond to the needs of their communities. I don't quarrel with that. But leadership requires setting an example and setting priorities, and the magnitude of the economic crisis we face requires responsibility on all our parts.

The future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past. So let there be no doubt: This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.

If we're going to solve our economic crisis; if we're going to put Americans back to work; if we're going to make the investments required to build a foundation for our future growth -- then we must restore the American people's faith that their government is working for them, and that it's on their side. That's the government I promised. That's the government I intend to lead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised t...
President Barack Obama plans to sign a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, even though it is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised t...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
575
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)

EARMARKS are discretionary spending. They do not automatically equal pork. Every journalist who repeats that falsehood that Earmarks = Pork should be forced to take a remedial Journalism 101 course.

Are fixing bridges and dams pork? Is air traffic safety pork? Volcanic early warning systems?

Can we put this republican red herring to death? KBR / Halliburton fraud dwarfs earmark pork, so who really cares?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 03/11/2009
- Decipherer I'm a Fan of Decipherer 117 fans permalink

Thank you, "toomuchpr," for nicely summarizing this matter which is being demagogued by the right wing sllime machine and the media to the neglect of real and very serious matters of state.

The outright frauds, thefts, and other criminality make even the worst earmarks seem like freckles on a gnat's a@@ by comparison.

I can't expect the rightwingnut echo chamber to do anything different, but it is high time the responsible media did their freakin' jobs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 03/11/2009
- drgrph I'm a Fan of drgrph 12 fans permalink
photo

No, we cannot because it is NOT a red herring. I've have heard President Obama's statement regarding his plan to ban earmarks with my own ears. It was unequivocal and clear to anyone who heard him as to what he meant.

This is indisputable - this President has completed lied to the American people and unabashedly so. He cannot be trusted and I pray he will commit a clear impeachable offense before the American people so that this liar can be replaced with VP Biden. (I won't waste my breath with seeking his resignation as he's too arrogant). Now Biden may say goofy things and did plagiarize a speech (but there's no evidence he has repeated this offense), but I consider him a relatively honorable individual. For the sake of our country this President must be replaced, the sooner the better.

I won't say "I **** you so", even though I have in past posts. His penchant for half truths compelled me to vote against him in the fall despite having voted for him during the PA primary. After the last administration we had to have an honorable, truthful President.

Sadly we do not :(

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 03/11/2009

Reposted (again for the tr0//s):

HERE IS THE ACTUAL QUOTE: "Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."" http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/mar/03/obamas-promise-go-after-earmarks-line-line/

He did not "promise" to eliminate all earmarks. You lied. Case closed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 03/11/2009

You should redirect your anger to Bush, who was supposed to have this budget taken care of last October. Some people see what they want to see. It takes months to get a budget through. If Pres. Obama would have vetoed it, and we were left without a budget, the same people calling for a veto would be calling him irresponsible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

Excuse me but if you read his speech he didn't say he was banning earmarks. He said earmarks will have to be posted ahead of time and have a sound purpose-subject to more scrutiny and transparency. If your referring to comments made in the campaign he said that he would get earmarks down to their pre-1994 levels. Also, this is the lowest amounts of earmarks in the annual budget in years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 03/11/2009
- kathy001 I'm a Fan of kathy001 84 fans permalink

"I've have heard President Obama's statement regarding his plan to ban earmarks with my own ears."

You did not. You are either gravely mistaken, confusing Obama with McCain or you are flat-out lying. Obama talked about earmark reform - period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 03/11/2009
- Brillig I'm a Fan of Brillig 11 fans permalink

You clearly have a hearing impediment. He said "reform of earmarks"

I can forgive him for using reform and ban to mean the same thing as REPUGS use Pork and earmarks to mean the same thing.

If they (REPUGS) were so against it, why did THEIR "PORK"hit the bill??

What seems to be a half truth to you is only your lack of understanding any shade except Black or White. The President is a living embodiment of the fact that there can be "shades of grey"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

Let's start by elminiating earmarks alphabetically -- no more earmarks for say, Alaska and Arizona. That should cut the earmarks budget by about 25%.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 03/11/2009
- Decipherer I'm a Fan of Decipherer 117 fans permalink

Throw in Arkansas and Alabama, and you've got a deal, "Feliz!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 03/11/2009

Tying Congress up over last years business will not help us now. It was last year's business with last year's Congress and last year's President. That its presented now is an anachronism. President Obama's decision to not obstruct it is not a bad decision, its in fact the lesser of two evils. For those of you in a different "frame" think of it as a matter of liquidity. We do not need the entire government freezing up waiting for funding and payroll.

It's amazing how many people who write comments advocate positions that would cause an actual crash in the stock market. It has not crash yet, but that is the real concern. Nationalize just one bank, and there's a run to sell bank stocks, the market then crashes. Let AIG fail, same thing. Most people know that we will have to take over the insolvent banks, restructure them and sell them off, but no one quite knows how to get there from here. Any suggestions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 03/11/2009
- Binea I'm a Fan of Binea 6 fans permalink
photo

ask Ron Paul :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 03/11/2009

Exactly. As your posts point out, Ron Paul is very much in favor of Transparency and Accountability. This is also a very strong point of the President. When those two agree, we're probably on the right track.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:12 PM on 03/11/2009

Exactly, our corporate media and the GOP tried to pull President Obama into this fight over earmarks in last year's budget but it was a trap and President Obama didn't take the bait.

We're with you President Obama!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 03/11/2009
- Lillopa I'm a Fan of Lillopa 3 fans permalink

ear marks are good if they work for a greater purpose for all--I think in this bill money will be giving to root out fraud in the health care--that is good is what Pres Obama is saying!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 03/11/2009

Few people seem to understand earmarks. Congress is empowered under the Constitution to earmark money. Some earmarks don't make much sense, some are okay, as it has always been. The fundamental issue here is that the administration seeks to wrest control, via political rather than legal means, over that power. Were Congress to earmark, for example, nothing in an appropriations bill, the administration would exercise sole discretion over where the funds were to be spent. That's the law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 03/11/2009
- sc300nc I'm a Fan of sc300nc 59 fans permalink

Earmarks are only good if they further your political agenda. If they work against your agenda, than they are bad earmarks. If states need funding for worthy projects, let the states fund them. The only way to get away from the abuse of all this is to eliminate them totally. Building a bigger bureaucracy just to manage them is idiotic.

No earmarks is what he campaigned on, not no bad earmarks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 03/11/2009

"No earmarks is what he campaigned on"

That is a lie. He NEVER campaigned on that. I know... that is the talking point you have been fed, so it must be true right?

No. It is a lie, and by mindlessly repeating it, you are a liar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 03/11/2009

Sorry sparky, he did campaign with that agenda. Get the biased glasses off.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

Find one place where he said no earmarks. You are confusing Obama with McCain. President Obama said and is reforming the way earmarks are done.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 03/11/2009
- LinuxDude I'm a Fan of LinuxDude 6 fans permalink

Once again an Obama statement comes with an expiration date.

It was only no earmarks and no more 'business as usual' when he was running. Now that he's in office, earmarks are OK when they benefit people that Democrats either owe or like.

No honesty or values whatsoever, just pay-for-play as usual. That's what earmarks are used for.

Really sad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

The earmarks are evenly distributed between both parties, plus earmarks in this bill are at their lowest level in years. If you'd do a little research on the history and definition of earmarks in the past 20 years you'd not be sad

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 03/11/2009
- Brillig I'm a Fan of Brillig 11 fans permalink

What is REALLY sad is that the poor educational system in America has led to approx 25% of the adult population being unable to read, or to comprehend speech when the words are more than one syllable.

Which is why the Republicans are so DISAPPOINTED in Obama, since they never heard him, nor even if they did, understood him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 03/11/2009
- Binea I'm a Fan of Binea 6 fans permalink
photo

part 3 Fed reserve transparency act

...If the State Department were able to do this, it would be characterized as a rogue agency and brought to heel, and if a private individual did this he might face prosecution under the Logan Act, yet the Fed avoids both fates.

More importantly, the Fed's funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury's supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility, allow the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms.

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2010, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:22 PM on 03/11/2009
- Abraxas79 I'm a Fan of Abraxas79 19 fans permalink
photo

Thank for the information Binea. I had never heard of this act. Short of abolition, or putting the Fed in public hands, this bill is the next best thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 03/11/2009
- Binea I'm a Fan of Binea 6 fans permalink
photo

You're very welcome :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:29 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

We have to add new slogans to the Oama campagne -
Don't blame me, its has nothing to do with me; blame Bush.
I don't mean what I said, just vote for me and I'll sign the paper.
No pork, no ear-mark? Look at the bill he is going to sign....
No lobbyist in my government? How many pardons have been issued?
And have you notice, when neither he nor his team say anthing about the economy, the Dow Index goes up, I wonder if there is a correlation?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 03/11/2009

He never said he'd eliminate earmarks. He restates this, again, in the post above. But that requires that dreaded "reading" thing, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 03/11/2009
- lebec I'm a Fan of lebec 3 fans permalink

Obama and his surrogates have made this worse than it needed to be. The bogus claim that "this [omnibus bill] is last year's business" insults us. It was last year's business until it reaches his desk for signature, now it is today's business.
What he says in the interview of the article makes great sense and it is clear that he is choosing his battles.. he needs Congress' support for the battles coming this year and to strip out pre-arranged earmarks at this time would antagonize.
So he should change the talking points on this issue, since the "last year's business" argument is insulting and transparent and counter to what he stands for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 03/11/2009
- mjtaylor22 I'm a Fan of mjtaylor22 45 fans permalink
photo

rightttt ont he money.
u cannot deprive a congressperson the ability to provide much needed funds for their districts. esp for public facilities.
liek trhe example of firedept funding. that is for a public good, or the police station or schools.
in NC they just announced a lay off of 425 teachers.
by bye student teacher ratio....
Earmarks by themselves are nto a bad thing. it si the use of them that shoudl be scrutinized,
was it added as a political favor or as a need of constituants

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:17 PM on 03/11/2009
- Decipherer I'm a Fan of Decipherer 117 fans permalink

What the @#$% is the "Oama campagne," some sort of sparkling beverage?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 03/11/2009
- Binea I'm a Fan of Binea 6 fans permalink
photo

part 2 new legislation Introducing the Federal Reserve Transparency Act

February 26, 2009

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed's susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests.

The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing or even seeing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly when hundreds of billions of dollars of currency swaps have been announced and implemented, the Fed's negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:19 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

I guess the dittohead talking point is President Obama is Bush 2.

LOL Bush was YOUR president tro//s. This was last year's business and the bill was supposed to be passed last year. Just because Bush did not do his job does not hurt President Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:18 PM on 03/11/2009

Actually it does hurt him because he did not have to pass it.

Obama is just another politician. He's selling change and YOU'RE buying.



...literally.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 03/11/2009

So, instead of passing the bill, written LAST YEAR, that is needed to keep the government running, he should veto the entire bill, just to keep a promise that he never made?

Sure, that makes a ton of sense.

But, since we finally have an adult in the white house, i guess we will just have to settle for getting the bill passed and moving on rather than wasting weeks of political grandstanding over 2% of the bill.

"He's selling change and YOU'RE buying." Ah, so you just got your Nov 5th newspaper, did you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:43 PM on 03/11/2009
- libbygirl I'm a Fan of libbygirl 7 fans permalink

Welcome to The Huffington Post. We welcome opposing views here as long as they are intelligent and sincere. I'm not buying your remarks as either of those.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 03/11/2009
- footfoot I'm a Fan of footfoot 2 fans permalink

Well actually, if it's last years business, and Bush's bill, why is Obama putting his stamp of approval on it? We are now in Obama's recession, and since he's choosing to do the opposite of what can restore prosperity, he gets to own it.

If you believe that Obama is doing what's best for the economy, then you are lost in delusion.

Hope that helps.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:40 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

Ok I'll answer you,

Obama is putting his "stamp" on it because this is the bill that keeps the government running and if he was to veto the 1% of the bill that's earmarks (not pork there is some worthwile projects in there and it's evenly distributed from Repubs and Dems) then we'd have to shut down the govt. So what he's doing instead is signing this bill-it's just an annual budget- and announcing the earmark reforms for next year's budget, which will be his first.

Secondly, would you like to back up your statement about being in Obama's recession? How is it his? And what alternative ideas do you have for the economy that they're not doing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 03/11/2009
- lebec I'm a Fan of lebec 3 fans permalink

Getting the budget together was last year's business, but signing it is this year's (Obama's) business. If the bill allocated a $5 billion earmark to the Republican Party in order to "equalize the 2 party system" you can bet your xx that he would veto it.
It is beneath him to let his surrogates say it is last year's business when he is the president and it is not law until he signs it. The reasoning presented in the article above is adequate explanation, the other (last year's business) is transparently a cop-out and counter to what he stands for.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 03/11/2009
- Binea I'm a Fan of Binea 6 fans permalink
photo

I Hope congress and Obama support Ron Pauls new legislation. Paul (TX14) - Speech and Statement - Introducing the Federal Reserve Transparency Act

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives


Introducing the Federal Reserve Transparency Act

February 26, 2009

Madame Speaker,

I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation.

Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency.

prt 1

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:16 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

i like President Obama and i think he got off to a good start. i know he is not perfect but we voted for change and this is not change.i believe this horrible mess that the President inherited is not easy to fix as we have never had to deal with anything of this magnitude before. but vetoing this bill would have sent a strong message to congress that the american people voted for change.

there are too many people out of work and losing their homes for congress and President Obama to allow even 1% of wasteful spending. it is unrealastic however of me to believe that he can police every govoner and senator and i hope these projects that they claim to have creates jobs.

the new housing bill is still not helping homeowners as most lenders refuse to work with homeowners and are confused about F.H.A guidelines. by the time they figure it out so many more people will be foreclosed on. President Obama: the housing crisis is still not resolved!

yet A.I.G got $30 billion more of taxpayers money when they cannot account for the $150 billion they received last year and banks continue to get bailed out when they were/are responsible for allowing subprime loans to begin with.

what is so wrong with using taxpayers money to actually help the tax payer?
congress gets their pork and taxpayers are still left OUT!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

I did the numbers on the foreclosure plan did you? It helps much more than you are implying. If you cut a subprime mortgage on a home purchased for $200,000 and lower the interest rate from 9% to 5% you save 37% over the length of the loan. Even if you cut 10% off the price of the home it only saves you 10% more. The thought home principle should be reduced is ridiculous because if you cannot afford the home with a 37% drop in your payments you cannot afford it with 10% more.

It is intellectually dishonest to say President Obama is not trying to help the taxpayers with foreclosures. Interest rates have ALWAYS been the real problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 03/11/2009
- mgloraine I'm a Fan of mgloraine 29 fans permalink

Sounds like a fair and reasonable set of standards to me. It would be a drastic improvement over the old, opaque, anonymous slam-dunk method of earmarking. My faction approves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:08 PM on 03/11/2009
- ccwguy I'm a Fan of ccwguy 10 fans permalink

Evidently, Obama's "veto pen" broke. LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 03/11/2009

Or he decided to place the needs of moving forward on critical issues over partisan bickering on 2% of the bill.... could be that...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 03/11/2009
- ccwguy I'm a Fan of ccwguy 10 fans permalink

I think you misunderstood the remarks principle insinuation; I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative, and I dislike 98% of the bill, not a mere 2%.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 PM on 03/11/2009
- libbygirl I'm a Fan of libbygirl 7 fans permalink

There seems to be an influx of new members who have short, snippy remarks today.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 03/11/2009
- footfoot I'm a Fan of footfoot 2 fans permalink

I'm thrilled with the signing of this bill, because if the earmarks represent "last year's business" and he signs it, he's approving Bush-era policies. Obama owns this economy, and the disasters his policies bring.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

LOL You tro//s are trying to defer your personal responsibility all the time what else is new.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 03/11/2009
- JoeBlough I'm a Fan of JoeBlough 61 fans permalink
photo

Looks like you caught Bush Legacy Fever.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 03/11/2009
- mjtaylor22 I'm a Fan of mjtaylor22 45 fans permalink
photo

BUSH DIDN'T SIGN THE BUDGET FOR THIS OPERATING YEAR,
WITHOUT THAT BGUDGET THERE IS NO FUNDING OF THE GOVT FOR THE YEAR.
LAST TIME THAT HAPPENED THEY HAD TO CLOSE MT RUSHMORE, ETC BECAUSE OF AN RNC STALEMATE.
SO IN YOUR IGNORANCE, PLS BE QUIET.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 03/11/2009
- JoeBlough I'm a Fan of JoeBlough 61 fans permalink
photo

So, if they shut down government, does that mean we can stop throwing money at the banks?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 03/11/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect