During tuesday's speech to Congress, President Barack Obama spoke of the need for fiscal responsibility, eliminating wasteful government spending, and cutting the deficit in half, among other things. Republicans and Democrats alike cheered. Sitting directly behind Obama was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who appeared positively ecstatic with our new President (was I the only one creeped out by Pelosi's cult-like rapture ?) In particular, the Republican side of the aisle cheered (derisively ?) when Obama made a pledge to reduce spending. We'll get back to that in a minute.
But tuesday was tuesday. Let's call it Fiscal Responsibility Tuesday (ladies drink free), because what a difference a day makes. On wednesday, when the whole country wasn't watching the dog and pony show on teevee, Pelosi's House of Representatives passed a huge $410 billion Omnibus spending bill, with 8,570 porky earmarks attached. The price tag for the spending bill was $32 billion more than last year. Clearly, there's no recession on Capitol Hill, and there darned sure isn't any fiscal responsibility. The vote on the bill was largely along party lines. It passed 245-178, with 159 Republicans and 20 Democrats opposed.
I would have thought all the pet pork projects were used up in Obama's stimulus bill, but apparently, there is no end to the ways Congress can dream up to spend our hard-earned tax dollars. Here's just a taste of the pork – $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program, a dozen earmarks for a lobbying group currently under federal investigation for corruption (PMA Group, linked to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and others), $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory, $346,000 for research on apple fire blight, $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, $1.8 million to conduct research on swine odor and manure management (pork spent on actual pork !), $173,000 for research on asparagus production, $206,000 for wool research, $209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production, $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass, $1.2 million to control cormorants, $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah, $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii, $17.5 million for Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidential library, $22 million for John F. Kennedy's presidential library, $2 million for Lyndon B. Johnson's presidential library (what, no money for Republican presidents ?), and on and on and on.
While I'm glad the Republicans voted against the bill, it must be noted that 40% of the earmarks WERE INSERTED BY REPUBLICANS. What in the heck is wrong with the GOP ? They are supposedly trying to rehab their image from the Bush days, and then they do this. If they want to be taken seriously, they have to walk the walk, but it looks like they only talk the talk. What a bunch of hypocritical morons.
If that's not enough "fiscal responsibility" for you, the Congressional Budget Office released a report analyzing Obama's stimulus monstrosity, and determined the permanent increase in the size of government resulting from the bill could cost $3.27 trillion.
Then there's the $634 billion health care reserve fund in Obama's budget, to help pay for his health care reforms.
The hits just keep on coming.
There is no fiscal responsibility in Washington D.C. There is no leadership coming from Obama on this subject. There is no leadership coming from Congress. It's just spend, spend, spend, the taxpayer be damned. The soaring rhetorical fluorishes from our President are little more than misdirection, meant to fool the rubes. Our government is growing to a place it's never been before, and if any of you really think "the rich" are going to pay for it all, while the rest of us suffer no consequences, you're living in a dream world. We will ALL pay in the end, one way or another. That lunch still isn't free, and it never will be.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
King,
Excellent post; thanks for finally mentioning the republican hypocrisy on this issue. I will say, I like blueberries…………..
da truth, I also love blueberries and I love pork, the kind I can eat, not so hot on the kind that I will soon be paying for out of my income tax money. I don't think The One will leave office before I get in on the higher income taxes and we don't make $100,000 at our house, either.
Two things here.
One….If you research this spending bill, I believe you will find that it's left over from the last administration, who didn't want to pass it because….well…they had already doubled the debt in 8 years and handed out $700 billion to rich bankers.
Two….it seems like no matter the basic insignificance of earmarks to the larger picture….fiscal scolds, like King, still raise their voices to a fever pitch.
The fact is that the earmarks in this funding bill equal less than 1% of the total bill.
I mean, honestly, why get sidetracked by such trivial things? Representatives go to D.C. to help their constituencies, and as long as the less-than-1% earmarks are transparent….what difference does any of this make?
It seems to me that obstructionist, basically fact-free conservative scolds, want to make earmarks appear crooked, dirty, criminal…..when that's not the case at all.
The pork in the Omnibus spending bill comes to $7.7 billion. I should have mentioned that in my original post. That is NOT trivial, though our government has conditioned the American lemmings to think it is. In addition, the spending bill increased overall by $32 billion from the previous year. Again, NOT trivial, and btw, aren't we in a RECESSION ?
And Reverend, how can you call my post "fact-free" when it consisted almost entirely of the actual FACTS ? Never mind. Look who I'm talking to.
Sorry about the fact-free part. I shouldn't have included that.
The Bush administration encouraged the American people to spend beyond our means by keeping interest rates low and encourged the mindset that the ever rising equity in our homes would cover our deficit spending. The constant rise in spending resulted in ever growing government revenues which did not begin to cover the out of control ogvernment spending which resulted in ever growing deficits. So here we sit with a country bankrupt and a citzenship that is for the most part overextened.
So what do we do? We spend even more. Since the public doesnt have the abitlity to spend more the government will redouble its efforts to spend more.
The consequenes of out of control spending are unavoidable but dont worry be happy we will tax the rich and life will be good.
How stupid can we be?
"One….If you research this spending bill, I believe you will find that it's left over from the last administration, who didn't want to pass it because….well…they had already doubled the debt in 8 years and handed out $700 billion to rich bankers."
So, you're saying that, since the Republican president didn't want to approve of this kind of spending, the Democrats waited until they had a president who would sign this kind of budget, a Democratic president? You sound like you're rooting for the Republicans.
I think that you're missing the point of this blog entry. It is that no one who's running our government (from either party) seems to care whether we can pay for the bills they create or not. Those that do from either party are clearly in the minority. I think that Da King would have made the same statements if a Republican president and congress were screwing American citizens like this. It's an attack on irresponsible policy. The fact that Obama and his crew are Democrats is merely coincidental.
#1 the stimulus package was approved so we are going to spend. And the republicans haven't as much given us any ideas to stimulate the economy and produce jobs other than more the same tax cuts.
#2 I just have to say one thing, because some times if you don't understand why we need certain things, you immediately call it pork. Well maybe you don't care about the honey bee's but some are concerned for you see honey bees are mysteriously disappearing (maybe because of global warming) and why should we care BECAUSE Bee pollination, which most farmers depend on, is responsible for as much as 30% of the U.S. food supply. That 's why . And their are a couple of other things in there that will help the farmers so why might not mean much to you does to some. And I am very glad you pointed out that 40 % of the earmarks were put in by republicans and agree they are hypocrites for saying they don't want the package- but are taking it with a few exceptions like the parts they don't like ,( such as unemployment insurance.)
As for Obama's leadership you can sit there and say he should get rid of the earmarks which 40 % was republican but he thought by allowing some of it he get their vote ..but he didn't ….yep he was fooled !
Andrea,
The agriculture industry and the beekeeping industry should pay for honey bee research if they need it, not every American taxpayer. The assumption that everything is always the province of government is a big part of this problem we have with our out of control government.
My list of pork projects barely scratched the surface of all the pork attached to this bill. I chose a few at random. I could have listed 500 more. You missed the point.
But I'm sure it was vitally important to spend $41 million for those presidential libraries. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, you know. And those libraries create a few jobs.
Tory,
Not only would I complain about Republicans engaging in spending beyond our means, I did complain about it, over and over during the Bush years. So did Democrats, but now that they have one of their own at the helm, they are perfectly fine with spending even further beyond our means. "Hypocritical" isn't a big enough word for that.
Angryc asks "how stupid can we be ?" in spending beyond our means.
Good question. We haven't reached the limits of our stupidity yet, and the country is on a direct path to bankruptcy. Sometimes I think it will take an economic nuclear blast to wake this country up. Based on Obama's actions so far, it appears he will provide one.
Obama has presented a framework to halve the deficit in 4 years, a deficit he inherited from the previous guys. On top of inheriting this huge deficit, Obama inherited the worst economic conditions in 70 years. Tax dollars must be spent to dull the crash. Yet Tory says this…
"It is that no one who's running our government (from either party) seems to care whether we can pay for the bills they create or not."
That is simply not true.
This….
"King would have made the same statements if a Republican president and congress were screwing American citizens like this. It's an attack on irresponsible policy. The fact that Obama and his crew are Democrats is merely coincidental."
"irresponsible behavior", as Obama pointed out, would be doing nothing while 700,000 jobs are being lost every month and virtually all corporate and industrial indicators are pegged on depression.
"screwing" the population, you know, kind of like Katrina, would be if elected officials did nothing in the nation's time of need.
When government actually spends money, the economy is stimulated. Just the way it is.
And once more, who would like to answer my question? The one about why it is that a less-than-1%-of-the-budget earmarks issue has become such an emotionally charged topic. I mean, honest to goodness cross my heart, I don't get it.
Why wasn't the economy stimulated while Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, Reverend?
Rev,
I DID answer your question about earmarks. You think $7.7 billion is trivial. I don't, and neither should anyone else. That is the attitude that has gotten us in over our heads. That is a significant amount on money, and it also avoids the fact that the spending bill increased by $32 billion, and that was AFTER the $787 billion in "stimulus" spending (mostly on pork projects). Is there ANY amount of spending that would be too much to you ? It seems not.
You're right. You don't get it.
The "earmarks" split: 60%-DEMS 40%-REPUBS according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.I'm assuming this % flips with control of the House?