Obama urges earmark elimination in weekly address

[ProSense]

Obama urges earmark elimination in weekly address

by Susan Gardner

I agree with those Republican and Democratic members of Congress who’ve recently said that in these challenging days, we can’t afford what are called earmarks. These are items inserted into spending bills by members of Congress without adequate review.

Now, some of these earmarks support worthy projects in our local communities. But many others do not. We can’t afford Bridges to Nowhere like the one that was planned a few years back in Alaska. Earmarks like these represent a relatively small part of overall federal spending. But when it comes to signaling our commitment to fiscal responsibility, addressing them would have an important impact

<...>

Hard to tell if the topic of this week's Saturday presidential address--earmarks-- was chosen to fan the flames of the divide in the Republican Party over the issue or signal Serious Fiscal Discipline Concern in the wake of the draconian deficit commission proposal by the panels' two chairs.

The president opened his remarks with a discussion of his swing through Asia on behalf of trade agreements and business alliances, with a hat tip to allegiance to American exeptionalism:

America doesn’t play for second place. The future we’re fighting for isn’t as the world’s largest importer, consuming products made elsewhere, but as the world’s largest manufacturer of ideas and goods sold around the world.

What was on his mind, though was domestic fiscal policy, and more specifically, earmarks. Even as he acknowledged they have little impact on the overall bottom line of the budget, he pointed out their symbolic value and argued for transparency and accountability when they are inserted into legislation:

We can’t afford Bridges to Nowhere like the one that was planned a few years back in Alaska. Earmarks like these represent a relatively small part of overall federal spending. But when it comes to signaling our commitment to fiscal responsibility, addressing them would have an important impact.

As a Senator, I helped eliminate anonymous earmarks and created new measures of transparency so Americans can better follow how their tax dollars are being spent. As President, time and again, I’ve called for new limitations on earmarks. We’ve reduced the cost of earmarks by over $3 billion. And we’ve put in place higher standards of transparency by putting as much information as possible on earmarks.gov. In fact, this week, we updated the site with more information about where last year’s earmarks were actually spent, and made it easier to look up Members of Congress and the earmarks they fought for.

more

[BeyondGeography]

1. Unrec'd because earmarks are a bullshit issue

And the President shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[ProSense]

2. Funny,

the AP article, posted in LBN, distorted the headline and most people are opposed to the President's alleged position.

Earmarks are not a bullshit issue, just ask Senator Feingold.

If the President said the sky is blue, some people would say BS.

[BeyondGeography]

3. In FY 2010, the gov't spent $3.7 trillion, $11.1 billion of that was on earmarks

We used to make fun of McCain for making this an issue. Remember?

[ProSense]

5. So?

$11 billion x 5 = $55 billion

Every damn dollar counts.

"We used to make fun of McCain for making this an issue."

You must remember the point differently. We never made fun of Senator Feingold.

Remember when people slammed Ted Stevens for the Bridge to Nowhere?

[BeyondGeography]

6. I remember who made the most noise

Sarah Palin. Are we reaching out to her now?

[ProSense]

7. The most?

Ted Stevens was slammed for earmarks.

And are you confusing Sarah Palin with Russ Feingold?

[BeyondGeography]

9. This speech is a meaningless space filler

That's allowed. If the White House thinks otherwise, their 2012 will feel a lot like Russ Feingold's 2010.

[ProSense]

10. To you

There are a lot of responses to the Daily Kos thread, and the vast majority of them don't agree with you.

I don't agree with you.

[GSLevel9]

8. +1... nt

[rug]

11. The Administration is spending more than $11.1 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan.

$159.3 billion budgeted this fiscal year alone.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1416

Now, I wonder what he could do to reduce government spending.

[ProSense]

12. "Now, I wonder what he could do to reduce government spending."

Withdraw 90,000 troops (done) and the rest by the end of 2011?

[rug]

13. He did the former and is still spending $159.3 billion.

Admittedly, sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan is costly.

[Andy823]

14. You got that right!

A billion here, a billion there, and it all ads up. To say stopping earmarks is not an issue is insane, along with all the other "billions" we can save cutting other areas. Sure there are some really big places to cut, like the military budget, but other things can be cut also, like earmarks!

[Enrique]

4. political games

it probably makes sense politically, split the GOP, confuse the teabaggers, etc.

Problem is, we have an economic emergency. We need jobs, we can't afford too many of these games.

[ClarkUSA]

15. It serves many purposes. I welcome a Dem President who calls Republicans' bluff & saves US monies.

[niceypoo]

16. A republican issue

Save $11 billion in a year!! This is the GOP deficit reduction 'plan' and it is petty. Like all republican 'ideas' it does nothing at all to solve anything and is useful only in that it makes like them sound like they have an idea.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Not anymore, since GOP leaders have totally flip-flopped on the issue.

I don't know about you but saving $11 billion per year doesn't sound like a "petty" amount of money to most US taxpayers.

Saving money is a top American taxpayer economic "issue" these days. Nothing is wrong with cutting more than $11 billion in waste per annum.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. GOP congressmen/women have to give up pork for good