Reid dismisses Obama's call for ban on earmarks

[cowcommander]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's top ally in the Senate Tuesday brusquely rejected the president's call for a ban on the practice of stuffing home state projects known as earmarks into spending bills.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president "has enough power already" and that Obama's reported embrace Tuesday night of an earmark ban promoted by Republicans is just a "lot of pretty talk."

Reid made his remarks at a news conference in which he otherwise praised Obama in advance of Tuesday's State of the Union address.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_reid_earmarks

[bluestateguy]

1. An earmark ban would give the Administration more discretion over how pork is spent and where

Tea party lunkheads do not know this. They are essentially advocating giving Obama more power over federal funds for pork projects.

[texshelters]

2. Reid is smarter than the average tea partier, of course

and I never knew he had the courage to basically call our the president. Good for him, this time.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[JudyM]

5. Just because the tea partiers and rethugs like this doesn't mean it's a bad thing

Earmarks are how the 'bridge to nowhere' came to be, and countless other massive wasteful projects.
Congress critters say, all the time, "I'll vote for this bill if you add this pork project I want for my home state/constituents" - and the project itself may have *no value* other than lining the pocket of some wealthy local corporation, yet it costs US taxpayers. Is this horse-trading a valid legislative process? Things should be voted on directly for their merit. We all need to call BS on that. Reid is notorious for doing this, and it helps him get reelected. I'm not suggesting all earmarks are unethical, but congress should have some reasonable restrictions on them. IMO.

[karynnj]

7. The key is to not allow things to be added in "the dark of the night"

They should be added in committee - in the open - and voted on there.

There is no way that the Senate or House could vote individually on every line that is added.

[texshelters]

15. Ditto

yep, right on there.

Thanks.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[texshelters]

14. Earmarks are also

ways schools get built and repaired and bridges that need retrofitting are fixed.

Some earmarks are a waste, and some are not.

That is why we need a "read the bill" law and we need to hold Congress accountable.

My point wasn't that Reid is ethical, but he is smart enough to know that giving up all earmarks only lets the President decide what to do with the money, and perhaps that is too much power for one person to hold.

You are absolutely right that there are better ways to do our budgetting.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Bandit]

20. No it would allow Governors to decide what to do with the money.

The money is still going to go to the states, just without earmarks.. If certain projects are not earmarked then the decision will be up to State Governors and the State Legislature..Obama can not make any of those decisions..I actually think this might be a good thing, althopugh it would cause most lobbying to be done at the local level instead of each Congress Critter's office. It certainly would cut down on corruption on the Federal level. Congress critters would have to get all their money from Defense Contracters since that is where most ofour federal dollars go anyway.

[texshelters]

21. The main point is that

not all earmarks are bad.

And if there is funding for a program that effects more than one state, it needs to be coordinated nationally, like hydro electric, solar, highways, rails and other interstate infrastructure projects.

Basically, read the effing bill and be tranparent.

Peace,
Tex shelters

[JudyM]

23. Yes, but key is for an earmark should be judged on its merits and not just horsetraded. nt

[SemperEadem]

3. what is interesting is that today I read that

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/scalia-tentherism/

some of the tea booger thugs in congress asked Antonin Scalia about the unconstitutionality of earmarks and he basically said that it's not unconstitutional because it is a function of congress to appropriate:

“It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically,” Scalia told the members, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). “He pointed out historically, like when Jefferson was president, said here’s a big pot of money, you decide where it goes, and Jefferson ended up paying up a big hunk of it to the Barbary Pirates.”

--snip--

Because Article I of the Constitution gives Congress broad authority to “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” Scalia is exactly right that it is almost entirely “up to Congress” to decide how it wants to appropriate.

Now, this begs the bigger question: seeing that Obama fucking taught courses in constitutional law, where the hell did he get that notion that earmarks should be banned? Damn! Get your ass out of the air already.

[No Elephants]

16. Why does Scalia keep giving advisory opinions before cases reach the court?

[louis-t]

4. Which brings up the question again "If you had the president's ear

for 3 minutes, what would you say to him?"

"Mr. President, please stop caring what Republicans think." There, only took about 5 seconds.

[madrchsod]

6. earmarks are the mothers milk to the voters

0ver 4 million to my town by both a republican and democrat. this morning my republican rep was crowing about a 1.5 million transportation facility for the county wide senior citizen busing program.

i have no idea why in the hell obama would mention this

[robcon]

8. Earmarks are a disgrace.

It's using government money for incumbents to get re-elected.

Causes a lot of horse-trading and over-spending.

Creates enormous inefficiencies because of non-competitive bidding for government work.

Encourages corruption and tit-for-tat by lobbyists angling for government contracts.

The president is right.

[No Elephants]

17. Banning earmarks will not stop horse trading, which pre-dates earmarks.

Ditto overspending.
Ditto corruption.

[and-justice-for-all]

9. A bill is a bill is a bill

and that is ALL that is should be. If some one wants to build a bridge to no where, that would be a single bill and voted on with no additions to the bill.

So I disagree with Reid.

[timo]

10. hear ye hear ye

bring on the bread and circus acts!!

[rayofreason]

11. earmarks=graft n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. The executive branch has already made the earmark processes much harder

without banning them. If Obama loses this one, he can effectively choke them off administratively.

[Arkana]

13. Reid doesn't want it because earmarks are basically why Nevada keeps electing him.

[No Elephants]

19. What if Dummya were in office?

[Arkana]

24. I don't think Dubya would ever have proposed anything like a ban

on earmarks. How do you think old-line Republicans make their bread (while simultaneously railing about 'excessive spending')?

[No Elephants]

18. Interesting Constitutional power struggle Veto power vs. spending power.

[Broderick]

22. There was a day and time

when folks went to government to get things done and then go back to normal life. Now they go to office and do whatever is necessary to stay there.