Congressional Democrats Made a Big Mistake Including Earmarks in the Spending Bill
Democrats in Congress could really use a lesson in the art of politics from President Obama.
Millions of Americans turned on their computers this morning and went to Yahoo, only to find this headline:
Obama will sign spending bill despite earmarks
Instead of being a positive headline about President Obama's bold effort to try and address the myriad problems facing the nation, the news was about the Democrats in Congress doing something stupid. They have handed the Republicans a legitimate issue to complain about, and there isn't a single good reason for it.
On This Week yesterday, George Stephanopoulos's first question to Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor was a softball, asking him to comment on President Obama's refusal to veto the spending bill because of the presence of earmarks. The interview should have been a disaster for Cantor (and the rest of it was). Stephanopoulos showed him poll figures that demonstrated that Americans overwhelmingly supported President Obama and not the Republicans in Congress (Democrats in Congress got more support than Republicans, but far less than President Obama). And Cantor had nothing to add beyond the tired Republican lower-taxes-solve-all answer to the economic crisis. But instead of the interview being about the lack of solutions being offered by the Republicans, Cantor got to take the offensive on earmarks. The Democrats gave Cantor (and the rest of the Republicans in Congress) a lifeline, and there was no benefit to be gained in doing so. (You can watch the interview with Cantor here.)
Let's be clear here: When the Democrats stand up for something important, as President Obama is trying to do on the economy, health care, green energy, education and a more fair tax system, then combating the GOP talking point of "tax and spend Democrats" blowing up the debt is completely worth the fight. We know that the Republican policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, no regulation and corporate welfare led to the mess we are currently in, so standing for a change to these policies, and President Obama's hugely ambitious agenda of trying to tackle several major needs at once, is a worthwhile fight.
But why, why, why did the Democrats in Congress insist on including earmarks in the most recent spending bill? Especially since President Obama opposes them, and spoke out against them during the campaign? There is no political, moral or ideological basis for including them.
I have been a frequent critic of Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House speaker Nancy Pelosi since they came to power. I thought they were too weak in opposing the Republicans in Congress when the GOP was in the majority, and they were even weaker in opposing President Bush, especially on Iraq, after the American people handed both houses of Congress to the Democrats in 2006, largely because of Bush's mishandling of the war.
And now that President Obama is in the White House, it seems to me that Reid and Pelosi have made a large miscalculation: They seem to believe that the increased Democratic majorities in Congress were somehow an endorsement of their leadership and policies when, in fact, the Democratic surge was more a product of belief in the leadership of President Obama (and anger at the fecklessness of the Republicans that ran the country into the ground over the last eight years).
President Obama has demonstrated at every turn, from his campaign through the early days of his presidency, that he's pretty good at political strategy. Reid and Pelosi have demonstrated in the last four years that they are not. So why not take a page from the master?
There is no upside to being on the pro-earmarks side of the debate. In fact, including them paints the Democrats in Congress as being part of the same culture in Washington that the voters rejected in November. Again, like they were after the 2006 elections, Reid and Pelosi are demonstrating that they are tone deaf as to the demands of the electorate. They don't seem to understand why they were put into power. In 2006, it was to end the war in Iraq. And in 2008, it was to support President Obama's change agenda.
Now the president is forced to make a lose-lose decision: Does he veto the spending bill to show his displeasure on earmarks and risk not getting his ambitious agendas through Congress? Or does he swallow hard and accept the earmarks to keep his programs moving forward? He has apparently chosen the second option, and it's hard to argue with him, but it's easy to lament that his fellow Democrats in Congress have placed him in this no-win situation in the first place.
Here's the bottom line: I have always firmly believed in the principals that President Obama is trying to assert in the early days of his presidency. I am palpably relieved at the direction he is taking our nation after eight years of the Bush administration's embarrassing view of the U.S. and the world, and its total incompetence in operating the government. I know that the necessary reshaping of our national priorities that President Obama is attempting to undertake needs to move through Congress, so he needs Reid and Pelosi to wake up and get on board. Americans voted for Democrats in Congress to support President Obama, not to preserve earmarks, a piece of the broken political system the president railed against as a candidate.
President Obama's battle for change will be difficult enough, and the last thing he needs is for Reid and Pelosi to give ammunition to the enemy by advocating something as indefensible as earmarks. Obama has earned the right to lead, far more than Reid and Pelosi. They need to wake up and realize this fact, sooner rather than later.
Loading comments…
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
Nobody seems to suggest a clear answer to this problem. Democrats in congress believe that they have a right to use process, to be "appropriators." Obama may see it coming up again and be faced with a dilemma. The only answer I see is to lay out a process, way ahead of time that all earmarks have to be brought up at least a month or so ahead and run through committees. Since congress sees them indispensable to their way of legislating, they should compromise by accepting a truly open way to bringing them up. No more pet projects unless Congress completely discusses them.
For anyone who's riled up about the superficial level of the debate about the Stimulus/earmarks, and want to do something productive about it, please join me in visiting this non-profit website, called "StimulusWatch"
http://www.stimuluswatch.org/
It's supposed to be neutral, made by a group of people that didn't know each other beforehand, but it's been over-run by RWers drawn to the site by Bill O'Rielly on FOX. There is a review of a report he did on Stimulus Watch, with comments dominated by ditto-heads. But that's not the really bad part. This site lists every project, in every state, that has been proposed at the state level, allows people to wiki-edit the descriptions of the projects, and vote on, quote, whether each project is "CRITICAL." Well, naturally, if you phrase the question in a value-loaded way, you'll get the (negative) response you're probably looking for. Hence, every project in my state has a negative vote differential, which is suspicious, because Vermont is in terrible shape regarding infrastructure in general, and if you look at our list, it's all shovel-ready infrastructure spending.
Goto this site, please, and look up your state. You don't have to even register to do this. Look at the descriptions, and make sure they haven't been cyber-trashed by people who can't spell. Then go to the comments on the O'Rielly article, and take on some ditto-heads in neutral forum!
No, this is not a "legitimate issue." Earmarks are a miniscule portion of the budget, something people easily get riled up over--because it smacks of, and sometimes is, corruption--and something that politicians have figured out they can make hay out of in lieu of doing anything in the way of real reform. Obama opposed them during the campaign because he is a smart politician. He doesn't worry about them now because he's smart, period.
We're dealing with trillion dollar deficits and a doubling of the national debt over the last eight years to 10 trillion dollars and people want to focus on a few billion a year in earmarks? We've got a financial system sucking down trillions of dollars with no apparent end in sight and this is the national debate?
You appear to have taken the GOP's bait same as their base has.
Yes it IS a legitimate issue.
If the ONLY cover the republicans have is "this bill is full of earmarks" and they start listing them, the the Dems just handed them their talking points.
If it is such a small percentage then we could do without them. Why gift wrap a club for the GOP to beat the dems with. It was bad strategy, plain and simple.
Do without them, take the high ground, and leave the republicans nothing...
Earmarks may not be a legitimate issue for the republicans to complain about, same for the democrats. Both parties are gulity of slipping their pet projects and personal funding agendas into funding bills. In this day and time however, earmarks are a legitimate issue for Main Street to complain about. Billions of dollars may seem insignificant to some, but for those folks living out of their cars, others choosing between life-saving medications and food, and some living in unheated homes during one of the coldest winters in a decade, a "few billion: dollars could be awfully comforting if targeted toward life's priorities.
Earmaks and "pork barrell" spending must be forever removed from legislative bills. If the project is important enough to spend taxpayer money on, it is important enough to warrant a bill of it's own where it must pass the transparency test.
Finally, my grandfather was very fond of saying, "if you take care of your pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves". Good advice from a wise old man who had lived through the great depression. A few billion in a trillion dollar budget bill may appear to be pennies to some, but those pennies need to be taken care of for they are very limited.
Funny that the Republicans are getting just as many earmarks as the Dems!
Your argument holds no water since they accepted so many earmarks.
If you go by a per capita basis the Red states are getting MORE money than the Democrats!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html
60%-40% Democrats have the lead in earmarks. Red/Blue states has nothing to do with it. Look at who is introducing the earmarks.
Earmarks per se are not wasteful pork-barrel spending, so, the point is MOOT.
It seems to me that the congressional politicians on both sides are fiddleing while those of us at a grass roots level burn. They pontificate about the problems we face while they continue their practice of partisan nit picking at the solutions. In the mean time the real issues that face those of us on main street, like rising phone bills, insurance premiums, credit card interst rates and the escalating cost of almost everything that makes our daily lives possible, seem obscure to them. They are spoiled, wealthy, privledged people who seem out of touch and immune to these issues and are unaffected by the incremental costs that add up to finally overwhelm our meager paychecks. Oh, they pay lip service to us in an attempt to appease our ire at their arrogant political schenangins on Capitol Hill, but they show their apathy at our situation by their continuing inability to unify on the soultions that might actually bring us tangible relief. We don't have the luxury of time anymore to play partisan politics. We are being forclosed on,our electric is being turned off and we have to make decisions between paying bills or buying clothing or groceries on a daily basis. How do we get these people to behave like the responsible representatives we elected them to be?
Wow, a post from "real America" (as opposed to so many others that apparently originate from the RW cyber/talk-radio echo chamber of mindless rhetoric...)
My sympathies to you, and best luck dealing with your situation. I hope you get results from your local, state, and federal representatives, plus help from any social services that may exist in your area.
Great post NW. It is time Main Street started defending themselves as opposed to defending the actions of their favorite political parties. Your'e right of course, the divisive partisan rhetoric is nothing more than a distraction from the critical issues affecting all of us. Both sides of the aisle must share the burden of culpability for the terrible crisis confronting this country. How can we expect Capitol Hill to provide real solutions to our probelms when their partisan and caustic rhetoric is a mirror image of Main Street's partianship. Family and country first, political allegiance must be placed way down life's list of priorities if we are to survive our struggles to subsist as a nation. Otherwise, The USS America will perish beneath the waves of history while we witness her piteous cries of anguish, taking with her the dreams and aspirations of generations past and generations yet to come.
For Dems to do this is too stupid for words.
Yeah, I know, they never should have let all those red state earmarks in the bill. LOL.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html
For the Republicans to accept so much money in earmarks of their own, then to bitch about the earmarks Dems are getting, is far more IDIOTIC!
It's only been 2 years and 2 months that Pelosi/Reed have been in charge of Congress. They won in November of 2006 and got into office in January 2007.
Pelosi who came out of Baltimore politics is hardly a "San Francisco liberal" otherwise whe would not have taken "impeachment off the table."
But I agree, unfortunately they have just added a whole lot of fuel to the fire to the screeching Republicans. Nevermind that it is Republicans who benefit greatly from what they demonize as "earmarks." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html
Unfortunately the less critical public and the media take this soundbite and run with it. Knowing that, I do not understand why they gave the GOP screechers ammunition.
Reid and Pelosi are going to drag Obama down...
Can someone please give me a legitimate explanation/definition of what an earmark is?
Is it funding for a specific project, not necessarily related to the basic bill, that is tucked in without debate? Maybe the bill is to fund the VA and a rep. tucks in funding for a pet museum. Do I have it?
Basically, yes.
The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
Bloomberg news says, "Earmarks are directives in the bill ordering agencies to spend money on specific initiatives."
I agree with Bard, I also think that Pelosi is too weak for the Job. She should step down. Whats at stake is far more important than her ego..
Too WEAK? She pushed her weight around, and acted like her control of the House was equal to control of the entire Legislative Branch!
Democrats in congress need to quickly get on board and stay positive because the opposition party is being lead around by a radical right wing radio show host! I mean this is a no brainer for the dems!
Reading the comments of Sen. Reid about "faceless bureaucrats" determining spending instead of the valiant "public servants" in the House and Senate, about made me puke. Do neither Pelosi nor Reid realize we voted for change? Not "Happy Days Are Here Again", with Democratic and Republican hack politicians! Call your Senator and Representative and demand that they follow the President's lead, this time!
Wasn't this bill written when Bush was still the President? It's just finally coming up for a vote now.
Yeah, it was. I found Coleman and Dole earmarks, still in, but attributed to others after the markup.
i agree completely with your post. wisdom seems like it would be within the reach of those elected to our nation's highest offices. apparently not?
the senate requires 60 votes to pass legislation necessary to save our planet and our middle class and to free us from despots in the middle east. our congresspeople, in their constant striving to stroke their petty egos, insert earmarks that not only hamper passage of extremely important legislation, but also threaten their own re-election by painting them as the dirty grubbing swine which they apparently are.
there are times in one's life when you are asked to rise above your normal existence, to become men and women who exemplify what has made great people of the past legend today. there are few statues to the self-absorbed. there are many to the selfless.
democrats in congress, become worthy. pelosi and reid, for god's sake do the hard work, not the easy. take the hard high road. we beg you.
From the article:
"First, this is a $1.7 trillion deficit he inherited. Let's be clear about that. We inherited this deficit and we inherited $4 trillion of new debt," Emanuel said. "That is the facts."
What is Rahm talking about or did he forget he added a lot to that in the last month? $800 billion for stim package, $35 billion for SCHIP, $410 for omnibus and $350 billion for TARP part II.
The $4 trillion was for occupation spending and tax cuts for the wealthy that were supposed to revive the economy.
All the spending since Jan. 20 belongs to the Democrats, even though 49.6% of the earmarks were added by Republicans.
No one seems to ever say that almost HALF of those earmarks come from Republican representatives!
So that makes it OK?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
