Obama inadvertently advances a great argument for Federalism when he asserts that individual members know their districts best.

It follows from his statement of principle that local governments would know their constituencies best of all; and if they have needs, then they should go to local taxpayers to fund those needs.

Perhaps the Federal government should limit itself to those issues that transcend state boundaries.

What a novel idea.

Does Obama have any capacity for introspection and self-doubt? Can he go "I've reviewed what's happened from simply proposing the changes I'd like to make, and I've decided that now is not the time to make them - and I will immediately start the process to cancel them."? Or look at earmarks and go "I HAVE to keep my promise - these things need to be cut!"?

Or is there instead a small voice in his head (or from his advisors) going "If not now, when there's a crisis and you've got everything going your way - when would the people actually accept what will be good for them in the long run, no matter how much has to be destroyed in the short run?"

Eventually, it boils down to income and expenses. Obama's not paying any attention to expenses, figuring the IRS will be able to screw enough out of the 'people' to pay for it.

He keeps writing checks WE are going to have to cash. I sure wish he'd stop doing that!

Obama is a liar. I expected this from the empty suit. The left should be so proud. They hated GW so much, they forgot to pay attention to the candidate. ww

"Gone from the president's remarks was his campaign pledge to go through the budget "line-by-line"

My guess is that someone finally told this fucking idiot that he doesn't have a line item veto.

He just needs a bigger bus. Gotta be running out of space under there by now.

"...and before the trolls trot out the few Republicans that put earmarks in the legislation let it be noted that they are scoundrels also..."

The reports are that there were only 5 senators who didn't have earmarks in this bill, 6 if you count Senator Franken.

The top 10 earmakers (Solo Earmarks) were
Byrd $122,804,900
Shelby $114,484,250
Bond $85,691,491
Feinstein $76,899,425
Cochran $75,908,475
Murkowski $74,000,750
Harkin $66,860,000
Inhofe $53,133,500
McConnell $51,186,000

Kind of makes you miss the honesty and straight-forwardness of Ol' Bill Clinton doesn't it?

Politicians Lie. Obama is a politician. Therefore, Obama Lies.

Matt -

But he lies so well.

He could have made a FORTUNE as a scam telemarketer with that voice of his and the right script!

The king of spam strikes again. He will now be referred to as Barack Ospama.

Rance, the topic is Obama pledging to his supporters that he will go through the budget line by line and getting rid of earmarks. Got it. Not the earmarks themselves. That is a discussion of it's own. ww

rance - The fact it was noted the Republicans are also "scoundrels" for their part in this debacle place your comment squarely in the non sequitur/shiny object category.

That you make a sad attempt at adding to the totals by including "Senator Franken" [sic] clearly marks you as living in LaLa Land.

Sadly there is not a shred of credibility to this man. He did/said whatever was needed to get elected and now he is a puppet for the democratic/socialistic party trying to destroy America's freedoms from within.

"...no one should believe a word he says."

Oh, that's a little harsh, Hugh. I, for one, 100% believe he meant what he said about bankrupting the coal industry, and I, for one, 100% believe that he will do everything possible to fulfill this promise. I also believe he truly means every anti-American word he utters, especially when he's talking to other countries, and even more especially when he's talking to folks who have sworn to destroy America. So cut the little dear a bit of slack, why don't you?

marc,

The remark was made about "the few Republicans", my comment was that it was more than a few.

My comment on Franken reflects that if you're not in the Senate, you can't put earmarks into a bill.

WetWillie,
This is a spending bill, not the budget. I will reserve judgement until I see what he does on something he produces from scratch, rather than something he inherited. By the way, if you look at the numbers, Obama had zero earmarks in this bill.

"This is a spending bill, not the budget. I will reserve judgement until I see what he does on something he produces from scratch, rather than something he inherited. By the way, if you look at the numbers, Obama had zero earmarks in this bill."

Well, whoopee for Obama - he didn't have any earmarks! But he couldn't send the bill back and say "Yank the earmarks and we'll talk about it", could he?

After all, who does he think he is - the President or someone who's actually in charge?

lmao, Bush doubled our debt load and is the cause of all the problems today and the OP is too stupid to even recognize it, hilarious.

Rance

"My comment on Franken reflects that if you're not in the Senate, you can't put earmarks into a bill."

" By the way, if you look at the numbers, Obama had zero earmarks in this bill.
"

Obama is not in the Senate so why make the 2nd statement at all? Indeed if you look here

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123680763049200481.html

Obama can issue signing statements ignoring parts of the bill. Why not put in the signing statement something about not funding the earmarks?

JLawson
"He could have made a FORTUNE as a scam telemarketer with that voice of his and the right script! "

Do telemarketing companies have teleprompters for their callers?

They do have scripts, I understand.

But with his style? They'd get him one!

They do have scripts, I understand.

But with his style? They'd get him one!

Dang - sorry about the double.

Then again, in a few months we might all need one!

rance - "This is a spending bill, not the budget. I will reserve judgement until I see what he does on something he produces from scratch, rather than something he inherited."

You must be part of those "talking point conference calls" held each morning. Inherited comes right out of obama's playbook.

"Inherited" my ass, he signed a bill that spends TODAYS money. He's in charge and takes FULL responsibility for that.

rance - "My comment on Franken reflects that if you're not in the Senate, you can't put earmarks into a bill."

In making that statement you slyly avoid the fact you added to the numbers, i.e. "6 if you count Senator Franken"

Nice try, but an obvious failure on your part.

I'm not sure why everyone is suddenly hyperventilating about earmarks.

The total of all the earmarks in the spending bill is about the same amount that we're spending in Iraq.

In a month.

So it's not worth cutting out - after Obama PROMISED to cut out earmarks?

Rance - a few billion here and a few billion there... and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

rance, said I'm not sure why everyone is suddenly hyperventilating about earmarks.

The total of all the earmarks in the spending bill is about the same amount that we're spending in Iraq.

In a month.

Who do you actually think pays for all those earmark. The tooth fairy, nooooo it is you and me and every American Tax payer, unless you are one of those that don't pay taxes and are waiting for your Obama check. Oh, by the way we are paying for those too!!!

What Rance is having a problem with, as I also notice with the other lefty trolls, is Obamalama is not who he convinced them he was. The war is still going on. He escalated troop numbers in Afghanistan, he has picked several cabinet positions that had to resign because they were not properly vetted, he has gone back on 17 campaign promises already. I would be depressed also, if he were my candidate.

He does love playing with the toys of office. This empty suit is what he always has been, just cruising. No core. ww

retiredmilitary,

I mentioned that Obama had no earmarks because the bill was drafted in the previous session and there were an number of earmarks that were put in the bill by senators who are no longer around.

Domenici $19,588,625
Coleman $1,055,000 (may or may not be back)
Dole $9,162,250
Salazar, Ken $7,500,000
Hagel $7,195,000
Allard $5,798,750
Sununu $3,207,500

In case you are wondering about the nubmers, this is the source:

http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Appropriations/fy2009/FebOmnibus/FY2009%20Omnibus%20Earmarks%20v.4.xls

Salazar's been bumped up to 'Secretary of the Interior' - he's got to be kept happy or else he'll allow drilling again. (LOL)

Seriously, Rance - can you explain WHY Obama didn't pull out the earmarks? It would have been easy enough to do, and would have earned him political credibility he BADLY needs.

Of course Obama didn't put any earmarks into this budget. He didn't do any Senate work over the past 2 years. Oh, I'm sure he phoned in a couple 'present' votes, otherwise he spent half of his entire Senate career campaigning.

JLawson,

You must have slept through government class the day they explained how bills get passed.

Obama can either sign the bill they sent him, or veto the bill. He can't delete the earmarks.

If he vetoes it, it has to back to congress for a rewrite, revotes, etc. He may have wanted it passed sooner rather than later.

Then again, may he did it to see people's heads explode.

Rance, or whoever--serious question: can't he make line item vetos? (I don't understand this process and would like a genuine explanation.)

hyper
The president cannot veto by line item. He must sign the bill as is or veto the entire bill.
Presidents from both parties have asked for line item veto authority but congress will not grant it.

Rance -

He could have sent the bill back, told them he wouldn't pass it without the earmarks being removed.

He didn't.

He's more afraid of his 'friends' in congress than he is of the people he's pissing off who elected him. I'd almost be willing to bet he won't grow a spine when the next budget comes in, loaded with earmarks. He'll whine and equivocate - and pass it saying all the while that he's going to do something about earmarks!

A few billion here - a few billion there - pretty soon we're ALL broke.

Thanks, Hugh.

I guess I see the rationale for not granting that authority, but at the same time there's obviously a strong case to be made for granting it.

JL: John Stewart explained last night that earmarks represent about 2% of the total bill. So, they aren't nothing, but if they were removed, the bill would still look about the same in total.

JL - "I'd almost be willing to bet he won't grow a spine when the next budget comes in, loaded with earmarks. He'll whine and equivocate - and pass it saying all the while that he's going to do something about earmarks!"

He's pretty much equivocated on that point this week. He stated flatly earmarks that were targeted for "public projects," meaning govment run, will be included in future budgets/bills.

"Rance, or whoever--serious question: can't he make line item vetos? (I don't understand this process and would like a genuine explanation.)"

Hugh partially answered this, a line item bill was passed - Clinton's Line Item Veto Act of 1996 and was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget - but was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.