Obama: No earmarks for 2009

[VenusRising]

Obama: No earmarks for 2009

By Drew Griffin and Scott Bronstein
CNN


(CNN) -- Last year Sen. Barack Obama, submitted a laundry list of federal funding requests, known as earmarks, to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 112 earmarks totaling more than $330 million in taxpayer funds.

Sen. Barack Obama's staff say he won't request any federal spending earmarks for 2009.

But that was last year.

This year, as the Senate funding request deadline approaches and the final primaries of the Democratic nomination process draw near, Obama's staff told CNN the junior senator from Illinois will request no earmarks for fiscal year 2009.

The dramatic change is in line with a statement Obama issued last month in connection with an amendment calling for a one-year moratorium on earmarks in the Senate.

The amendment, sponsored by federal earmark foe Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was shot down by a vote of 79-21.

"We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project," Obama's statement said.

"The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint's amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois," the statement added.


More at link... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/obama.earmarks/index.html#cnnSTCText

[TheDoorbellRang]

1. Well, wouldn't that be refreshing

Nothing wrong with earmarks per se. It's ones like Alaska's bridge to nowhere that are true pork barrel spending.

But the idea of actually granting earmarks on the basis of merit rather than the congressperson's seniority? What a novel, fair idea! Think of all the congresspeople that districts hold on to solely because of their seniority in Congress which translates into more earmarks for the district. People would no longer feel compelled to hang onto Denny Hastert types for the pork returns!

I like it.

[redqueen]

2. I have to wonder how many Dems voted against it.

x(

[VenusRising]

3. Vote was 29-71.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/

The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote, and the Senate's companion plan passed 51-44, AP reported.

The earmark measure -- an amendment to the Senate's 2009 budget act -- failed on a vote of 29-71.

Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor of the amendment.

"We're disappointed that only 29 members of the U.S. Senate understand that the American people want us to stop this practice, which has led to corruption," McCain said.

Edited to add Roll Call vote. They didn't even vote on the amendment. They voted on whether or not to waive the amendment.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00075

[TheDoorbellRang]

5. I have a feeling that with an Obama presidency

He'll present little items like this to the American people, most of whom are ignorant about such, and the weight of public opinion will shame Congress into doing what's right.

I am so looking forward to January 2009.

[VenusRising]

4. I couldn't agree with you more.

Merit has gone by the wayside in Government.

I'm glad to see that Obama not only sponsors legislation, but also takes the appropriate action by not submitting earmarks.

Like you said...Refreshing!

[grantcart]

6. I wonder if people realize that earmarks never mean an increase in money spent

but simply the legislature directing how funds be spent in specific situations. Of course there are many stupid examples of earmarks but liberal earmarks in a conservative administration can mean that sometimes money that is already allocated will be better spent.

[VenusRising]

8. It's not about how much it's about why.

This is the most important part to me.

"We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project," Obama's statement said.

[grantcart]

10. excellent point but one that is usually lost in the hysteria about earmarks

[BlooInBloo]

7. Another red herring, part of the required pandering to the idiocracy that is the American electorate

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2008_01_27_archive.html#5682635598078114515

Some Earmarks ARE Ok

I do worry that that the war on Congressional earmarks has got a bit out of hand. They seem to have become shorthand for "pointless and irresponsible spending," but there's not necessarily anything wrong with Congress telling, say, the Department of Transportation how they should spend some of the money they give them. The earmark process is an issue, but not earmarks themselves.

I would imagine that Obama is pissed off that he has to do such stupid things just to satisfy the idiot voters.

[VenusRising]

9. Yes, some are ok.

It's not about the amount of money given, it's about to whom it goes and why. It's being given based on seniority rather than by merit of the specific project. I think that's a much more responsible way to handle spending.

[VenusRising]

11. ...

:kick: