President Obama's Weekly Address - February 12, 2011

"It's Time Washington Acted as Responsibly as Our Families Do"

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 13, 2010

Exports & Earmarks

Why I Chose Correctly On November 4th

I am so glad John McCain is still a Senator and not a President. Here's a "tweet" I just received.

Here's my response.



This is just a reminder for those of you who don't remember the old curmudgeon yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

Earmark Hypocrites

There's something to be said for John McCain railing against earmarks. And he has every right to complain about wasteful spending tacked on to a budget that would bring monies home to certain districts. After all, McCain had not attached a single earmark to the bill, whether as a solo project or in conjunction with other Senators.

But what about some of the others that have taken the opportunity to take the stage, have the vapors and shake their fists in a rage over the outrageous "pork"?

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) “...At a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means."

Senator Bayh had $1,118,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime."

Senator McConnell had $51,186,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R): "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."

Senator Inhofe had $53,133,500 worth of earmarks in the bill.

Of the 35 Senators that voted against the bill, 28 of them had solo earmarks included in the bill. Of those 28 Senators, 27 were so-called "fiscally conservative" Republicans and only one was a Democrat.

Here's the list:

Barrasso (4 earmarks, $2.7 million)
Bayh (4 earmarks, $1.2 million) -Democrat
Bennett (23 earmarks, $18 million)
Brownback (21 earmaks, $12 million)
Bunning (5 earmarks, $735,000)
Burr (3 earmarks, $1.3 million)
Chambliss (7 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Collins (1 earmark, $380,000)
Corker (1 earmark, $760,000)
Cornyn (5 earmarks, $2.5 million)
Crapo (1 earmark, $100,000)
Enzi (5 earmarks, $1.7 million)
Graham (14 earmarks, $9.5 million)
Grassley (8 earmarks, $350,000)
Gregg (19 earmarks, $10 million)
Hatch (7 earmarks, $700,000)
Hutchison (35 earmarks, $9.9 million)
Inhofe (34 earmarks, $53 million)
Isakson (2 earmarks, $1.4 million)
Kyl (3 earmarks, $5 million)
Lugar (10 earmarks, $3.3 million)
Martinez (8 earmarks, $18.8 million)
McConnell (36 earmarks, $51 million)
Roberts (11 earmarks, $2.2 million)
Sessions (12 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Thune (6 earmarks, $4.3 million)
Vitter (16 earmarks, $4 million)
Voinovich (6 earmarks, $13.5 million)

Total: $234 million. This is only for solo earmarks. This doesn't include co-sponsored earmarks that account for about $7.7 billion in spending.

But here's the thing: earmarks aren't necessarily a bad thing. You need that bridge repaired in your district? Want to add speed bumps by the grade school? Does the park that has fallen into disrepair need an overhaul to detract undesirables from loitering and provide a much needed playground in the area? All those are worthwhile items and earmarks can provide federal funding for certain needs that can't be afforded by local government revenues.

So why flip out over the earmarks and call them pork and wasteful spending? Well, how else to pose as a fiscal conservative and have soundbites ready for your next campaign commercial? How else are you suppose to show your Republican outrage at the way Washington works, wag your finger at President Obama and accuse him of not keeping campaign promises?

Speaking of campaign promises, let's get back to Senator McCain. Unless you live in a cave, you've probably seen the 15 second loop of McCain on the Senate floor waving his freak arms and shouting, "So much for the promise of change, Mr. President. So much for the promise of change" and all too stiffly, as if reading stage direction, slamming the bill with his hand. Well, like I said, McCain can argue against earmarks because he hasn't signed on for any, even though he can let other politicians in his state do the dirty work to the tune of $54.6 million in earmarks for Arizona.

But let's not confuse who made what promise. It was Senator McCain, while running for President who said he'd "make famous" the procurers of earmarks while waving his magic Sharpie™.



That was your promise, Senator McCain, not President Obama's. Besides the fact that your outrage at the earmarks this year account for less than 2% of the total bill. Are you saying that we can balance the budget with a 2% cut? I think I'll leave the economics to the professionals instead of listening to Mr. The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Still Strong.

President Obama promised transparent earmark reform and to scale back earmark spending to pre-1994 levels, when the Republican Party took over control of Congress. That year, Congress spent $7.8 billion on earmarks. The new $410 billion Omnibus bill? $7.7 billion in earmarks. Mission accomplished, if you will. Next year we plan to see the remainder of his promise to make all earmarks transparent and accessible.

McCaskill Rips GOP Hypocrisy on Earmarks

I love this woman.

Earmarks By The Numbers

The Omnibus bill currently being debated in the Senate is being attack by the right as just more pork with thousands of earmarks categorized as wasteful spending. But the people doing the most talking account for practically half of all the earmarks. That's right, almost half.

Bob Cesca: Okay, so it's time for another wingnut revolution (get a permit!) to protest the staggering amount of pork in the omnibus bill that's moving through Congress right now. So let's go, wingnuts. Get your little tea bags and your awesome signs and get going.

Here are the top three offenders (solo earmarks):
1) Senator Byrd (D-W.Va.) - $123 million
But Byrd supports the earmark system, so of course he's going to take advantage. He always does. But look...
2) Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) - $114 million
3) Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) - $86 million

Senator Inhofe? $53 million. Senator Cochran? $76 million. Senator McConnell? $51 million.

Could this be correct? I don't doubt that Cesca's numbers are wrong, but you'd think that the fiscally responsible Republicans would tone down the rhetoric if they were just as guilty of adding earmarks to the 2009 Budget. But I tend to forget that for the most part, they are idiots.

So here's what I found when breaking down the numbers (Excel file) provided by the non partisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense even further:

SOLO EARMARKS:
6 of the top 10 solo earmark procurers were Republicans for a total of $454.4 million.
The remaining 4 Democrats in the top 10: $312.9 million.

Of the 78 Senators asking for solo earmarks, 40 were Republican.
Of the 22 Senators that didn't ask for solo earmarks, only 5 were Republican.
Of the seven Senators that didn't ask for ANY earmarks, only one was Republican.

Total amount for 55* Democratic Senators: $681.3 million.
Total amount for 45* Republican Senators: $665.8 million.

EARMARKS (SOLO AND WITH OTHER MEMBERS):
Democrats: 3,956 earmarks for a total of $4.75 billion.
Republicans: 3,536 earmarks for a total of $4.6 billion.

PERCENTAGES:
Democrats: 52.8% of earmarks totaling 50.8% of the money.
Republicans: 47.2% of earmarks totaling 49.2% of the money.

So there you have it. The fiscally responsible Republicans in the Senate who have been front and center complaining about earmarks as pork account for basically HALF of the earmarks... with less members.

But we're supposed to take them seriously as they grovel at the feet of Rush Limbaugh, see Bobby Jindal as the future of the their party and play identity politics with their choices of Sarah Palin and Michael Steele.

* list includes members that are no longer in the Senate.

Morning Joke™ (The Snarky Mika Edition)

Nothing like a little Morning Joke™ to get the blood flowing in the morning.

While ending their interview with Steny Hoyer and the bumper music playing out, here is what transpired:

Joe Scarborough: Hey, Steny we gotta go but I got a question from Twitter here. Somebody e-mailed me and said, "I see the House $410 billion spending bill has 9,000earmarks. It's totally insane. What's wrong with these people?!" Are there really 9,000 earmarks in that bill?

Mika Brzezinski: Please tell me that's not true.

Steny Hoyer: I think that's two and a half times what they're - about 4,000 earmarks for all the members and for 435 districts around the country. Um...

MB: That's kind of a lot, isn't it?

SH: It is a lot, but it's been very substantially reduced - cut in half over the last two ears.

JS: Alright. Very good, Steny...

MB: ...That doesn't make it alright though.

JS: Hey you know, isn't it great following a Republican party that for eight years porked it up, uh, huh, it's uh...

MB: ...Everything's RELATIVE.

JS: ... it's easy to draw a good contrast.

MB: Yeah! Good on ya.

SH: Well, we're in the process of getting back to a place where we were some years ago before the Republicans, as you say, quadrupled the number of earmarks.

MB: Okay, that doesn't make it okay. But alright.

JS: Good to see you.

SH: Making progress.

MB: (laughs) He's honest.

Now, I understand the earmark issue, but if it's obviously that important to Joe and Mika, why not come out and ask Hoyer at an appropriate time in the interview and debate the issue instead of blindsiding him with the excuse of a "tweet"?

Let's also not forget that not all earmarks are bad things. This is how congressional leaders help their individual districts. There might be some waste, but you can't generalize - they should be looked at individually.

This also begs the question - will President Obama send this bill back because of the earmarks?

By the way, Chris Matthews was on the show for an extended period - does he ever sleep?

ADDING... Pat Buchanan learned something on the show today.

"I think that Barack Obama is taking the biggest gamble in American political history, I think he's at his peak I think we learned, and he's headed for real trouble."

To which Joe Scarborough responded: "Buchanan! He's already predicted the downfall of Barack Obama! I'm stunned!"

Me too.

McCain: No More Blood For Oil

McThuselah is losing his mind.

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

Again? Prevent us from sending our kids to the Middle East... AGAIN?! Five years ago, when "No Blood For Oil" was being chanted by anti-war protesters, the right wingnuts were calling that theory absolutely insane and the tinfoil hat liberals were at it again, conjuring up some crazy conspiracy to defame the intrepid president and his astute administration officials.

Of course McCain's campaign tried to wipe off the shit he stepped in and expected us to be stupid enough to believe that Mr. Double Talk was speaking about the FIRST Gulf War. When pressed, McCain conceded he wasn't thinking of Gulf War I. Nice try, fellas.

Republican John McCain was forced to clarify his comments Friday suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict.
...The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil.
"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.
One reason was Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn't want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it's more important than any other part of the world," he said.
"If the word `again' was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that's all I mean," McCain said.

McThuselah is making it a habit of misspeaking, although he would like us believe it is we who are "misconstruing" his words. The "no more blood for oil" gaffe comes on the heels of blaming the deadly Minneapolis bridge collapse on too much pork-barrel spending... and then backing off that one too.

I suppose the campaign should just hire an interpreter for Grandpa Moses and have him attached at the waist at all times, so they can decipher what he means to say from what he actually says.