On allowing the earmarks in the omnibus bill, it looks bad, but it may be politically necessary. He's the new prez, been in office 2 months, starting with the worst economic crisis in 80 years. His side has the majority in the house and senate. His stimulus is heavily criticized by the repubs. Do you want to pick a fight with your side over 1% of the money in the omnibus spending bill? Maybe not. BO needs the dems down the road. He does not know who can be counted on, or who can't. This may be a battle you lose in order to win a bigger one later. With the public, it will cost him a little political capital among a few independents. The republican core already hates him and the dem core will not go away. Its the people in the middle, and his popularity is high enough that the hit won't be terminal. That's the way I see it. As I understand an earmark, it does not make the cost of the bill go up. It "allocates" money to a pet project, money that was already in the bill.
We can't afford earmarks or special favors under the circumstances. I suspect we may spend our way right into a 3rd world country similar to Argentina.
We will never know because Obama did not have the balls to stand up to Congress - neither the republicans nor democrats. They all got theirs and he let it happen, after promising it would not. That is mere opinion on your part. Obama could have done the same thing to congress that he did to bush in the campaign. Play the blame game and congress would have been forced to act quickly. My scenario is far more realistic. First of all the economic crash happened before he got elected. Maybe you need a calender for the timeline. The campaign was in progress, the economy tanked, and Obama spouted "no earmarks", "no lobbyists", and "change". He has since hired lobbyists, put forth several tax evaders(some of which got the job), allowed earmarks, fanned the flames of economiic fear in order to ram his social agendas down our throats, done zero about the banks, and this is the "change" of which you speak? Oh, but he needs more time? More time for what? To quadruple the deficit? Something of which you howled loud and long under Bush, but now Obama is an intelligent, versatile, think on his feet(as long as I have a teleprompter at my pressers) kind of guy, for doubling the deficit within 50 days. None of which has had a positive effect on any aspect of our economy. And enough of the impending Great Depression talk. It is tired and inaccurate when Obama uses it, and looks no less ridiculous when you use it. Then there is no reason to blame Bush for a single dime he spent, regulation lifted, or law that was enacted. You know....'cause he don't get no say in it, right? Totally laughable. But you just said Congress does this and Obama doesn't. Get it straight. By no legal authority could he make changes other than the moral one by which he was elected. As to taking time to change, that is pure bs. No there is no magic wand, there is merely will, and Obama showed he had none in regards to Congress. No it isn't. It is merely something you are forced to defend, and have tried to make look like some intellectual strength, when instead it shows a glaring weakness. Your apologies for this guy and what he has done are both inexcusable and entirely predictable.
Maybe not, but this one could have started it by whipping out his VETO stamp and saying, "I told you guys, NO EARMARKS!! Now try it again."
What's the maximum number of rep points available? This post deserves twice as many. My friends, we are witnessing the evolution of The Obama Apologist in this thread.
I dont think its being apologetic to have high hopes for Obama. I didnt vote for him but I dont want him to fail. However, you must call a spade a spade and with the omnibus bill he did not deliver on his campaign promises. There may or may not be legitimate rational but say what you mean and do what you say. He swept into office on principles he compromised within 60 days of being sworn in. Principles that where his guiding mantra of change which played a huge role in his election. When he doesnt follow through it casts him in the same mold as every other politician he chastised on the campaign trail.
With the thoughts that I bold-faced, you make my point....high hopes are fine, but less than 2 months in office and we have.....lied about lobbyists in the administration, lied about no earmarks, doubled the deficit (mostly with expenditures that didn't address the problem we're supposed to be fixing), and a rash of questionable cabinet appointments. Remember the absolute hissy-fit thrown when Bush 41 reneged on "read my lips, no new taxes?" Why is Obama different?
In fact, he doesn't. The separation of the Executive and Legislative branches means that the President cannot simply order Congress to do his bidding. The public elected Obama to fix the Presidency. We have to elect Congressmen that support change to change Congress. Which is why he put them on warning that future budgets will be vetoed if the earmark system does not change. All he can do is try to influence them to change and he laid out what he'd like to see in awarding projects--better transparency, public hearings, and more competitive bidding. This will take cajoling, pressuring, bargaining, convincing, and more pressure . . . all of which take time. He has two parties to deal with, that disagree on everything, and two houses of congress to deal with, who also disagree on everything. Why do you insist that this can be done overnight? The more pragmatic plan is to focus on doing all that before next year's budget
