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
advertisement

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 (8 pages total)
- Abraxas79 I'm a Fan of Abraxas79 19 fans permalink
photo

Who does Obama think he is kidding ? There will be no earmark reforms. Earmarks will go into next years bill just like they went into the last one. He had a chance to take a stand and refused to do it. The public was defintely on board for obama veteoing the bill or at very least getting the non-productive earmarks removed. Still, Obama refused to do it.

This is why I don't like about Obama. Whenever he has to take a stand on principal or confront the house/senate he always caves in. I see a repeat of Jimmy Carter.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:29 PM on 03/11/2009

You just refused to read, right? Or too stupid to comprehend maybe?

"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."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 03/11/2009
- Abraxas79 I'm a Fan of Abraxas79 19 fans permalink
photo

It is you that needs a lesson in reading comprehension. I am saying that there will be no change in the way earmarks are allocated for the next spending bill. It is all smoke and mirrors. At best, congressmen will be a little more creative in how they "dress up" their pork.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 03/11/2009

The Senate voted on whether to remove the earmarks and rejected it by an almost 2-1 margin. Why should Obama waste valuable political capital getting into a confrontation with the Senate about a bill that is old business? Even Obama has only a limited amount of political capital and needs to save it up for issue that are really important, like universal health insurance. To waste valuable political capital because this carry over bill from the last congress devotes 2% of its expenditures to earmarks would be increadibly foolish.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 03/11/2009
- Abraxas79 I'm a Fan of Abraxas79 19 fans permalink
photo

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. However, the country is bankrupt. When as a nation you are going into trillions of dollars of defecit spending, even small excesses resonate with the Public. Far from spending political capital, Obama could have significantly gained some by taking a stand on wasteful spending.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 03/11/2009
- DallasMike I'm a Fan of DallasMike 11 fans permalink

CaptainVideo,

7 Billion = 2% that is alot of money that could have been SAVED!!! by the free wheeling big Gov't Dems

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 03/11/2009
- bpress I'm a Fan of bpress 5 fans permalink
photo

Several points. This is the current federal fiscal year budget (October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009) which should have been completed last fall. It was not completed, so continuing resolutions were needed to keep our government going... not the best way to operate. An actual budget was needed. He did not cave in on earmarks. He has been in office 50 days and has proposed earmark reforms. Congress now has until July or August to put in place earmark reform for Obama's actual first budget year which starts October 1, 2009. He is saying that he will make a stand when it comes to his own budget. He also indicated that he was not happy about the current earmark situation, even though it is about 1% of the current budget.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 03/11/2009
- Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Stephen C. Rose 72 fans permalink
photo

This is a fundamental and common misunderstanding. It happened back during the FISA flap. I have a list of 144 things Obama has indicated he would do and I bet they all get done over his first term, or at least that he will fight to achieve them.

http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/194-things-barack-intends-to-do-as-president/

Whoops I will not add what I was going to say. Cheers, S

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 03/11/2009
- mervr1 I'm a Fan of mervr1 32 fans permalink

Well obviously you don't read or see too well. You need to read the speech and not interpret to what you believe but what the President actually said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 03/11/2009
- Servility I'm a Fan of Servility 12 fans permalink

Sen. Jon Kyle from AZ said today... "we are spending $1B an HOUR at this point..." Yikes!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

Kyl does not know his "gluteus maximus" from his deltoid condyle. (ass from elbow)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:36 PM on 03/11/2009
- Hank10303 I'm a Fan of Hank10303 78 fans permalink

We were spending that since the start of the Iraq war are was that particular republican Senator not paying attention at the time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 03/11/2009

All that shows is that the United States is a large country with a large economy. Yawn!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 PM on 03/11/2009
photo

Can we all please de-program ourselves from using the deliberate, 30-year old term of disinformation, "spending program" (much less "massive spending program") which was invented by conservative Republican propagandists during the early 1980's to deride and attack what are perfectly useful, constructive programs to improve public services and public resources at the federal level? In their ideological zeal to vilify everything that government does apart from engaging in wars, conservatives have defined as "spending programs" everything from the National Weather Service to the National Parks, from support for engineering education to support for dredging harbors and lakes. These are the kinds of services that the federal government has been managing or funding for 50 or in some cases for over 100 years. And yet Republicans, by labeling them "spending programs", would have you believe that they are wasteful, socialist, taxpayer-abusing activities that take money away from you and give it to people who haven't earned it. That's totally nonsensical, of course -- unless you'd like to live in a country with harbors full of sludge, no weather forecasting, no engineering education, and essentially no public sector. That would be a country that could not compete in the world economy, would have a vast underclass, and would end up resembling Albania or Botswana in a generation or two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 03/11/2009
- Hank10303 I'm a Fan of Hank10303 78 fans permalink

Well put - the misinformation of the GOP has gone on for far to long. It would seem the republican party is incompetent and has been spinning their position for tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts as the answer to everything. When you take that position you alternatively say you don't intend to do any work. Let the markets handle it - just give them more tax cuts. As a result you slam every infrustructure project, research project and scientific investment the government makes. Your point is well made in another way - the republicans have never been advocates of infrastructure and the America you depicted would be their end result.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 03/11/2009
- baxtron I'm a Fan of baxtron 7 fans permalink

Republicans wait until the infrastructure crumbles, then hire a study group funded by taxpayer money to show they are not responsible for anything. See Gov. Tim Pawlenty of MN after 35W bridge collapse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 PM on 03/11/2009

perfectly useful? do you know what's in this thing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 PM on 03/11/2009
- ejhickey I'm a Fan of ejhickey 12 fans permalink

Wow! James Joyce has been reincarnated ! Welcome back. Loved your Wake!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 PM on 03/11/2009
- bogues I'm a Fan of bogues 53 fans permalink

It was last years business period. The Republican party threatened to shut down the government over this and they have over 40% of the earmarks in the bill even though they are the minority. Going forward the Obama administration will deal with earmarks in a very different way. The reform is now in place and it is changing the way Washington has worked for far too long. Earmarks in and of themselves are not bad. Each one will now be examined and the author of the earmark will now have to explain why he or she needs that money for their district. If you do not see the change in this, then you have chosen not to see the obvious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 PM on 03/11/2009
- DerekRC I'm a Fan of DerekRC 6 fans permalink

Wrong!!!

The democrats did not put forth a bill last year to avoid election year questions about the contents. Perhaps you simply don't understand that Democrats controlled the House and Senate for the last two years.

Stupidity lasts a lifetime!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:52 PM on 03/11/2009

Your last line invites many remarks of irony, but I'll resist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 03/11/2009

He is a liar, just like Bush.

Left ....Right....whatever

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 03/11/2009
- ejhickey I'm a Fan of ejhickey 12 fans permalink

You got that Right or Left .. or whatever.

Looks like the similarities between Bush and Obama go beyond an advanced degree from Harvard and Big ears

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 03/11/2009

Seriously... can any of you tr0//s actually READ?

HE NEVER PROMISED TO ELIMINATE EARMARKS!

Never. Not one single time. So each time you lie, and say he did, you only undercut your own argument more.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 03/11/2009
- mervr1 I'm a Fan of mervr1 32 fans permalink

No he just states what you don't like to hear, the truth hurts sometimes, but it's necessary.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 03/11/2009

No.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 03/11/2009
- jetgirl I'm a Fan of jetgirl 2 fans permalink
photo

Obama was always about Earmark reform and not getting rid of them. In fact he said earmarks really weren't that big of a deal considering all the other wasteful spending. I don't get why the media keeps saying he was anti-earmark. That was the guy who lost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:08 PM on 03/11/2009
- sarabono I'm a Fan of sarabono 18 fans permalink

Obama is really saying my poop don't stink

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 PM on 03/11/2009

Just because Obama said he was going to cut earmarks doesn't mean he actually is going to cut earmarks...that would be silly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 03/11/2009

Nice lie. Try actually reading for once...

"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."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 03/11/2009

I did..Obama said he would go line by line to get rid of pork when speaking in the debates...he just hasn't found the time to get rid of the 8 billion or so in this one. Stop the kool aid lemming your turning blue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 PM on 03/11/2009

...and a hush ascends from the left..

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

If you'll remove your hands from over your ears, a whole new world will open up to you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 03/11/2009

what a surprise - NOT!!! the hypocrisy continues......

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 03/11/2009

"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."

Please post one link where he said he would eliminate earmarks... oh that's right... HE NEVER SAID THAT.

Nice lie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 PM on 03/11/2009

i believe, and i could be wrong, that he said that often during the campaign. he would eliminate earmarks. and didn't he say at the state of the union that the stim package had no earmarks?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 03/11/2009
- Abraxas79 I'm a Fan of Abraxas79 19 fans permalink
photo

Its true he never said he would abolish earmarks, but he did say he would eliminate the wasteful ones. Recall his mantra during the debates "Line by Line, Line by Line"

Truth be told, I doubt he has even read the omnibus bill, just as he never read the economic recovery bill. But hey, its change we can believe in right ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 PM on 03/11/2009
- Warmglobe I'm a Fan of Warmglobe 9 fans permalink

So if it "is stashed with the very kinds of pet projects that the campaigning Obama promised to resist" (from the article) then why is he signing it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 AM on 03/11/2009
- Servility I'm a Fan of Servility 12 fans permalink

It's last year's business therefore it is Bush's fault he signed it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 03/11/2009

if bush signed it - Obama would not have to..... duh!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 03/11/2009
- sarabono I'm a Fan of sarabono 18 fans permalink

Do you know that this bill was not signed last fall because Pellosi and Reid refused to bring it up for a vote? Saying it was last years business is a BOHICA smoke screen. Why this deception?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 03/11/2009
- nomobull I'm a Fan of nomobull 52 fans permalink
photo

yeah right

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 03/11/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect