Last night, President Obama took his show on the road to Elkhart, Indiana to sell his “stimulus bill.”
I was quite impressed with his ability to cover all the points he wanted to cover and make each point the answer to a question from the press. I was quite impressed that Helen Thomas, at 88, is still able to stand and ask a question, let alone be mobile and lucid enough to continue to do her job. I was quite impressed by Mr. Obama’s composure and his ability to stay above the level of those who resort to attacks and name calling. I was impressed that it appears that Mr. Obama has actually conferred with advisors from all political stripes.
I was most concerned by a couple of things that, for me, undermined most of the other good things that I saw and heard.
First, I was highly disappointed that Mr. Obama continued to use the “fear” card to sell his plan. He clearly told us, ”For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied” he warned. ”And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.” He could have said that we need to be serious and commit the government to doing things that will stimulate the economy. He could have said that it is important to do this soon. I am worried about the rush to get this done and the size of it. I REALLY don’t like the President’s use of fear to sell this.
Second, I could not help but see President Bill Clinton sitting in front of the cameras saying, “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.” How could Mr. Obama say with a straight face (and he did. I saw it.) that there were “no pet projects. Not a single earmark” in the stimulus bill? When he handed the drafting of the bill over to Nancy Pelosi and crew, they labored long and hard to include every pet project and all the lard they could find onto the bill. They knew that Mr. Obama would do his best to get the bill passed and they wanted all their goodies to ride along on the coattails of both Mr. Obama and the fear of depression if we don’t pass the bill.
Let’s see – pet projects and earmarks. As first written by Pelosi and the House*, no funds would be allowed to go to Illinois unless Rod Blagojevich is removed as Governor. What does that have to do with stimulus? It is a pure and simple political move or “pet project.” No funds can be used by any entity that does not agree to participate in the Immigration “e-verify program.” This is another voluntary pet program that they are using this bill to force on contractors. Again, I don’t see how this is a stimulus to the economy. The bill from the House added “enhancements” to the whistleblower act (to be called the ‘‘Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009’’.) This is to put back into the legislation (40 pages of) things that the Dems could not get with the first whistleblower act. Is this a pet project or a stimulus? There are salaries and expenses for information technology for the Farm Services Agency, a billion dollars for periodic censuses and programs, $400,000,000 for habitat restoration and mitigation activities for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The list goes on for 680 pages. Most of those 680 pages are dedicated to pet projects and earmarks.
I was certain that Mr. Clinton knew the meaning of the word “is.” I am certain that Mr. Obama knows what an earmark is. He also knows as well that the “stimulus bill” is the granddaddy of all earmark bills.
I am so disappointed.
* Disclaimer: I have only read (large parts of) the original House bill that was sent to the Senate. Some of the offending items may have been struck by the Senate.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 11, 2009 at 11:29 am
Blue Proctor
I am so enraged that the republicans are opposing helping the real people out. Obama doing the fear thing? Please get real. Real people are in real trouble losing real jobs and their real homes. Personally, I lost all my retirement funds trying to survive the Bush years. This is real.
February 11, 2009 at 11:48 am
Rick Beagle
Most of the blatant earmarks have been pulled, but with that kind of money there could be a lot of local ones. With that said, he stated that he would rely on the American people to let them know if the funds were not being utilized in the manner intended. There is going to be a website with the entire funding process and a mechanism by which you can report fraud at the local level.
You know it is kind of funny that there has been so much stated about the pet projects. I mean, when was the last time we got to see the bills in their “discussion forms”, debate them and then call our government officials to complain? A ton of stuff has been pulled because of the bloggers, and pundits being able to point out the pork! Kind of refreshing actually. Of course what some people think is pork (money toward education modernization), could be defined by others as “investment spending”. Kind of depends on your personal slant I suppose.
February 11, 2009 at 11:50 am
ttoes
Dear Blue Proctor,
First I apologize for my sloppy writing in the post. I am now posting more often and have taken the approach that I should write it as I can and not spend lots of time refining the post. I appreciate you taking the time to read it and comment.
My intent, which I believe you missed, is to point out: 1. my disappointment with Mr. Obama for the way he is trying to push through a bill that he knows is terribly flawed; and 2. to point out some of the types of things that should not be in the bill. I would be very curious to know how you feel the economy will be stimulated by restricting funds from the state of Illinois because someone who is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party is (was) the Governor of that state.
Like you, I want Mr. Obama to succeed. If he does not, I think America will have serious problems. He is my President, too. When a parent gives a child constructive criticism, it is not because he or she hates the child. It is because the parent feels there is more potential there, more promise. Criticizing will help the individual improve.
I criticize Mr. Obama because I think he has a rare opportunity to create the “change” that he promised to us. By not only continuing but expanding the politics-as-usual with earmarks and pet projects, he is doing the opposite of what he promised and what this nation needs.
If you, as one who could be helped by a stimulus plan (I think we all fall in that category), would write or call your Congressmen and women and tell them to use the dollars more wisely, there may be something value to this bill. If we accept is as it is, I think we will all lose and inflation will take most people’s retirement savings.
February 11, 2009 at 12:08 pm
GMA
ttoes:
I am in agreement with your comments, I too am very concerned at the size of this bill and how much is being included, too many things that really have no value in stimulating the economy. I have not heard of one thing that will be done to really help the middle class, I am not talking about people who had no real ability to buy a home and then lost it or are losing it because they took balloon mortgages on a guess that they would make more money then they do, I am talking those of us who still are making our payments, struggling, sacrificing other things to do so, we are still not being helped at all. We are the people who bought about 25% less than the bank said we could afford because we didn’t want to be in this mess, but then the price of gas went to $4.00 and groceries have never come down since they went up, even though gas did and everything else was increased, making it hard to even make the payments on a home that we could afford easily before. What, if anything, in this package is really going to help the middle class, I mean the real middle class? Can you tell me, I can’t see anything. I also find it hard to believe that we will bail out businesses, what ever happened to America being a place where you can rise to greatness and fall on your face? Seems like we have forgotten what made us America. No one bailed out steel, and I lost my job then, stood in an unemployment line for 5 hours every week for $69.00 a week. We lived through it and were stronger for it. Bailing out is not the answer. Steel put itself out of the market, so has GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and countless others, how is this our grandchildren’s problem, because they will be the ones who are still paying for this little ditty. Is this the legacy we want to leave our grandkids and their kids as far as I can see?
February 11, 2009 at 12:39 pm
ttoes
Rick,
Thanks for your comments. I, too, am very pleased with the “transparency” provisions that I have seen in the act. Assuming it is in the final bill, the posting of most of the documentation of how the funds are used on http://www.recovery.gov will be very worthwhile. I’m not as excited about the fact that the bill would set up an Accountability and Transparency Board and the rest of the bureaucracy to go with it. I am similarly unimpressed with the appointment of an Independent Advisory Panel and its bureaucracy.
I agree that bailing out businesses is a very bad precedent.
I don’t have the solution either, but I am convinced that government cannot spend us out of a recession. I can, however, print money in excess and cause inflation to devalue our currency.
February 11, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Rick Beagle
GMA,
I have seen the legacy argument before, but let me paint some reality for you, people are starving. That’s right, children and families in America are starving and not because of anything that they did.
At what point does our tough it out dogma soften and humanity step in?20,000 jobs a day are being lost. Communities that had four percent unemployment have jumped to double digits with no end in sight.
Do you have a right to be mad as hell that you are having to bailout the very same people who caused this mess, ABSOLUTELY. And if it were up to me, they would be swinging by their necks. But real people are suffering and we have a moral imperative to help.
As for that legacy, yes its unfortunate, but the deed is done. Time to roll up our sleeves and fix the mess we are in.
February 12, 2009 at 10:30 am
pmv
I agree that, at least according to my definition of an earmark, the bill is full of them. I think, however, that Obama and the other supporters of this bill actually want lots of earmarks (so, yes, saying there are no earmarks is politically expedient and untrue).
They’ve resigned themselves to spend a bunch of federal money to try to jump start/increase confidence in the economy (whether or not that is a good idea is another question). States (certainly California where we have a $42 Billion deficit) want a blank check with no accountability. Having earmarks where federal money goes to specific projects allows the feds/congress to at least have an idea of where the money is going to go. That way they can decide which earmarks to allow (education, environmental protection, etc.) and not have to worry that states are just going to pay off their debts or spend the money on something that is not a priority for Obama/Dem-controlled congress.
February 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm
ttoes
Thanks, PMV. I am in agreement with your comment about not wanting the States to just spend the money as they please and therefore the earmarks. I actually think many of the earmarks serve a very good purpose. I think that “earmark” has become the politically correct term for “pork.” I think the only reason for pork is a political one. It is used to buy votes, whether they be votes of Congressmen to get a bill passed or to please a group of constituents who may later help keep someone in office. My beef with Mr. Obama saying there is neither an earmark or any pet projects is that it is just plain a lie. I want the bill to specify, within reason, how the funds are to be spent. To me, that is earmarking funds. To add 40 pages of a new whistleblower act (that did not make it through Congress before) into a stimulus bill is pure politics and a “pet project,” if ever I saw one.
February 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm
rickbeagle
You know people really are getting tired of Republican circular logic. For example under the much vaunted Reagan administration there was a push to get the money to the states and let local governments run with little to no Federal interference. Now its, don’t send a blank check to California! Of how about this, anything that isn’t a tax break is pork and an earmark?!
At what point do Dems throw up their hands and say screw you while the Repubs make themselves even more irrelevant? Watch them polls boys and girls, the Repubs are dropping like our 401k(s) under Bush.
Here is a thought, inject some common sense into your thought processes and get off the merry go round with your arguments.
Just my two cents.
Rick Beagle
February 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm
ttoes
Rick,
I appreciated your first comment regarding the push for more “transparency” with the http://www.recovery.gov website for public comment. I also agree that the debate going on at blogs like this help to form the public opinion which in turn could act as a guide for Congress.
I am not sure I understand your latest two comments. In particular, I don’t understand what you mean when you say that “anything that isn’t a tax break is pork and an earmark.” If you will read my response to PMV, above, you will have a better idea of my position regarding “earmarks” and “pork.” If I am still unclear, let me know and I will try to better clarify.
I have missed your point regarding “Republican Circular Logic,” and, “the legacy argument.” It would help me if you explained what you mean by those two terms as they might apply to something on this post.
Thanks
February 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
rickbeagle
Ttoes,
Fair enough, the legacy argument was directed to GMA who writes, “Is this the legacy we want to leave our grandkids and their kids as far as I can see?”. In my mind worrying about our legacy is far less important than dealing with the impact of the current financial crisis. Again, ensuring that there is a tangible ROI is a good idea, but getting help to people needs to be our primary concern.
I will readily admit that I am tired of seeing the word “pork” splattered everywhere, and used interchangeably with “earmarks” within the contents of these comments. The traditional definition of an earmark has always been an item inserted into a bill to secure a positive vote by a congress person. Usually these items were items which resided in the state of the needed voter. Pork on the other hand, has typically defined as money spent for no tangible or discernible reason. If we accept that these are the accurate definitions of these items, then this bill has no earmarks, and very little pork (partisanship aside).
However, I will agree that a few “sacred cows” are in the mix. Assuming that we agree that “sacred cows” are projects that are generally useful but seemed to be pushed into every bill irregardless of whether the bill is an appropriate vehicle for the idea. The sponsor is usually on a “sacred mission” for their constituents if you will.
As to examples of Republican Circular Logic, my comment about states need to be watched for accountability by the federal government, but then say in the same breath, that the Federal Government has no business being in the business of running a state. How can you argue or craft a piece of legislation around that? It is impossible and very prominent on most Republican blogs lately (not all but quite a few).
The other thing that irritates me about these discussions is the reinvention of history. I realize this is a rant at this point but bear with me please. How can the Repub pundits invent buzz words about the effectiveness of the New Deal? There are still people alive who lived through that horrible time, and I assure you they do not think the New Deal was a waste of effort. Based on the elections of those times, I am guessing most people thought FDR had it right. The Republicans got pummeled at every level (sound familiar?).
Please don’t get me wrong, I am not a die-hard Democrat, but I am contemptuous of disinformation and stupidity whoever decides to spew it forth. Unfortunately, the Repubs at the moment win the “booby” prize for most absurd logic.
Hope that clears things up a bit for you!
Thanks for hearing me out.
Rick Beagle
February 12, 2009 at 2:21 pm
ttoes
Thank you, Rick, for your thoughtful and thorough response. I now much better understand your viewpoints.
My definitions are different from yours but that does not mean that we are in complete disagreement. To my way of thinking, an “earmark” is a portion of a bill which is limited in its use. For example, let’s look at a bill stating that $1,000,000 is “earmarked” for use only for shipbuilders. This may or may not be “pork” or someone’s “pet project.” It serves the purpose of preventing the funds from being spent on support of, for example, the U.N. In general, I think “earmarks” (by my definition) are a useful tool, not so much a political tool. Pork, on the other hand, is to me an expenditure for the purpose of achieving a political goal, therefore a political tool. “Pork” may be added to a bill to convince a Congressman to vote for a bill he would otherwise not have. It may be used for the political purpose of buying votes by giving something. The classic example is paying to support the price of hogs, thereby pleasing hog farmers and effectively buying their votes. I think “pork” is almost always bad. So, If you buy my definitions, the Bill has lots of earmarks (not necessarily bad – depends on whether the use being earmarked is a good or bad one) and lots of pork which I think needs to be stripped from the bill.
Again, thanks for your time clarifying for me.
Tom
February 12, 2009 at 2:56 pm
rickbeagle
There are several definitions for earmarks and pork:
From wikipedia discussing the use of the word in a political context, I believe you cover the upper half of this definition while I, and obviously the POTUS, use the lower half:
“In US politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called “Hard earmarks” or “Hardmarks”) and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called “Soft earmarks” or “Softmarks”). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.”
I would add that earmarks are often used to affect the outcome of an election in congress. Giving an earmark to a particularly powerful senator in exchange for his vote or support is the more negative connotation of an earmark versus the “processing” term to which you refer.
Pork, using the same source:
The term pork barrel politics usually refers to spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.
It should be noted that Pork has also been used to define as projects with limited local impact that are payed by a large constituency (Hoover Dam).
So depending on which definition you choose to believe, then the answer could fly either way. And even if you do decide on a definition, the motivation of the bill could have an impact.
An example, we want to build some sort of river walk thing over by me, and when the government went on the call for projects that could be “fast tracked” and create “immediate” jobs, into the hopper it went. At any other time I would bemoan its inclusion as pure pork, but given the bill and the goals of said bill, it belongs.
Peace.
Rick Beagle
February 12, 2009 at 2:58 pm
rickbeagle
Sigh…. wishing for an editing option atm.
February 13, 2009 at 8:49 am
ttoes
Rick,
Again, I’m a bit dense but am not sure I understand your wish for an editing option. Did hope that you celebrated Darwin’s birthday yesterday since much of his work was done on his trips on the HMS Beagle.
Tom
February 13, 2009 at 9:26 am
rickbeagle
Reading my last few posts, there are a few grammatical, spelling, and sentence structure errors that I seemed to have missed first pass – hence the desire to edit. It isn’t a complaint insomuch as it is an acknowledgment of the many errors plaguing my comments.