More Earmark Debate: Even Obama Gets One

The incomparable Jonathan Allen of CQ finds Barack Obama’s name on one of the earmarks in the spending bill that just passed the House, which is essentially a leftover bill from last year to fund the current fiscal year.

President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill (HR 1105) passed by the House on Wednesday. . . . The $7.7 million earmark — for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions — is cosponsored by a long list of other members of both chambers. The program appeared in Senate report language last year but its sponsors were not identified at that time.

UPDATE: The White House bit back at Allen’s report Thursday afternoon, pointing to a letter, dated April 2, 2008, in which Obama, along with 36 other Senators, requested an increase in funding for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Program, which administration officials say led, after several more bureaucratic twists and turns, to Obama’s name being attached to the $7.7 million earmark. In an afternoon press conference, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs maintained that the request to fund the program should not be considered an earmark request, in part because there was no dollar figure attached to the request. “The president, as a senator, did not request earmarks for the final two years he was in the Senate,” Gibbs said. Separately, I am advised that a request has been made to appropriators to remove Obama’s name from this provision in the spending bill.

UPDATE AGAIN: Allen aptly summarizes the entire disagreement in a new piece:  “Whether Obama cosponsored the earmark depends on what the definition of earmark is and when an earmark becomes an earmark.” He also confirms that Obama’s name will be removed from the bill, though not neccesarily the names of the other cosignatories of the April letter.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/communications/EPC/Fall06/shelterbelts.html

    I think a careful study of the economic impact of Hog manure will do much to shed light on the general strategy of pooling and redistributing resources in order to mitigate the failure of market forces to adequately address the negative impact of selfish economic activity on our broader well being.
    .
    It will also make clear that those who insist that market forces are adequate are self-dealing liars.
    .
    It’s certainly time better spent than pointing and snickering.

  • FlownOver

    So the president got his vote in the Senate back? Who knew?
    .
    Wait… what? It was done “many months ago, while Obama was still a senator”? So PRESIDENT Obama did no such thing, eh? Thanks for making that so clear, MS.
    .
    Anyway, you get a “gotcha” and he should be raked over the coals for advocating education for Native Americans, eh?
    .
    Another pathetic excuse for journalism.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    MS– Clearly you are doing all you can to ensure that deception continues to be the new currency of journalism.
    .
    I’ll take a Blago any day at least I understand his motives. What drives you to use deceptive practices to imply presidential hypocrisy where there is none? Is this some sort of perverse public service? And if so does it count toward tuition/student loans?

  • stuartzechman

    Michael Scherer:
    .
    I’m really disturbed, because I’m trying to make sense of this spending bill, and I don’t understand something.
    .
    It seems like $410 billion is a lot of money at a time in which most of us are watching our wallets like hawks.
    .
    But I don’t really know so much about this sort of thing –mostly because I really haven’t been paying much attention up until now — so I can’t tell whether this is more or less money (as a percentage of GDP or in real terms or something –you know, to account for inflation always making it seem like we always spend more money) than has been spent before, like, say in the past eight Congresses.
    It would be helpful if I could understand if this were trending drastically up or down, or if it was essentially the same as last year.
    .
    Also, I’m hearing a lot about “earmarks” and how bad they are, how wasteful they are. You mentioned a “$7.7 million earmark”, so could you tell me if that’s a lot of money –I mean, comparatively, like to the two wars we’re fighting, or even a single Virginia-class submarine or something? I’d like to get a sense of proportion, so that I can understand what’s really a major waste of money, and what’s like, I don’t know, comparable to Chris Matthews’ vacation home.
    .
    Just one more thing, Michael Scherer: could you maybe give us an idea if there are drastically more or less of these earmarks in this year’s budget, than say, in 2005′s or 2007′s? It would be super-helpful if I could understand whether this budget’s earmarks represent a step toward cleaning them up, or whether it represents the Democrats taking advantage of their majority and Presidency. If the amount of earmarks in this bill was down considerably –or even slightly– from the last few sessions’, that would be a remarkable change for the good, wouldn’t it?
    .
    So thanks so much in advance for helping a poor idiot out here in the sticks like me understand the complex ways of Washington, Michael Scherer! Thanks in advance for putting this debate in proper perspective!
    .
    Thanks in advance…

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    This was yet another dog whistle post. Sorry not biting this time. For anybody with a lot of time on your hand you can check out the omnibus bill here. BTW co sponsors aren’t attributed ownership of an earmark and from what I understand the money wasn’t going just to Illnois but I could be wrong.
    .
    http://appropriations.house.gov/FY2009_consolidated.shtml

  • merelymyopinion

    Slow news day, eh, Michael? That really is some “incomparable” journalism you’re forwarding on to the world.

  • mccainfluffer

    Good work, Michael! I bet Drudge and Halperin are smiling.

  • Paul-no not that one

    This childlike “reporting” on earmarks exhausts me. This “Ah-ha! We caught you!” style is so pedestrian.
    I have to say I have been encouraged by the reaction of citizens. It seems they have an almost instinctual understanding of our current mess that eludes the professional media.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    Very funny comment thread at Patrick Ruffini New Right web site.
    .
    http://bit.ly/mOWyZ
    .
    Ruffini and his fellow bloggers are on a quest to save the Republican party from itself, by returning to core values and so on. Today, Ruffini posts lamenting the JoethePlumberization of the party.
    .
    Commenters are, like, Joe the Plumber is SO the leader of our party. Rush too.

  • palininatowel

    Isn’t it great that a reporter actually did some reporting and you get to report on the reporter who is reporting, Michael?
    .
    What would happen if you tried that? Maybe you could buy that home you want in the swanky neighborhood.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    MS– while you didn’t write the original article, in my eyes passing it on without critique seems a bit pointless, so here are some suggestions on areas that could benefit from your attention:

    1) “CQ’s review of the sponsors listed in the legislative documents and a separate compilation provided by a GOP aide.” — Partner with a Democratic aide and run through a brief history of Republican earmarks for perspective.
    .
    2) Just for perspective compile a list of the campaign promises Obama has kept in the last month and compare a similar list for the last five presidents using the same time frame.
    .
    3)Perhaps you could use the abundance of time on your hands to illustrate how difficult it is to be perfect. Let compile a list of how often you’ve been corrected in your posts and compare that to the administration. Don’t you think its only fair that those who are judging Obama have to meet the same standard of perfection as Obama?

  • plukasiak

    I thought that the article on earmarks was about as low as you could go on a given subject.
    _
    But the ever-resourceful JNS pulls this one out of the hat.
    _
    Clue time… this isn’t an “earmark” in the traditional sense of the word. It doesn’t benefit a specific state or congressional district (or company). Instead, its directed toward Indian tribes and education in the over 300 Indian tribal areas in the USA, which exist in a huge number of states. Moreover, one of the states WITHOUT any Indian tribal area is ILLINOIS.
    _
    In sum, this provision is no more an “earmark” than money for charter schools would be, and insofar as it provides no benefit to the state of Illinois, citing Obama’s sponsorship of the provision as an “earmark” is complete and utter BULLSH*T
    _
    (see people, I can defend Obama!) ;)

  • pearlybaker

    Ho hum. I was discussing the octuplet phenomena with my wife last night and we came to the conclusion that the media companies hire some really lazy people as journalists and reporters.

    MS, why don’t you look out your window and give us a weather prediction too.

  • Friar Tuck

    Note to self: Never, ever irritate Stuart Zechman.
    .
    Especially when he’s right.

  • http://nicewhitelady.blogspot.com/ joyomama

    The earmarks debate reminds me of the late William Proxmire’s “Golden Fleece awards” back in the 1970s. Just to show that even Democrats can play the Beavis and Butthead game with federal projects. Just because something is earmarked, is it bad? Can legislators get transcend the superficial reporting and discuss the real value (or not) of these projects?
    .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Fleece_Award

  • plukasiak

    oops, it wasn’t JNS who posted this nonsense, it was Scherer.
    _
    and here’s a map which shows federal indian tribal areas from the National Parks Service, to show that there are no tribal areas in Illinois. http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/ResMAP.HTM

  • Friar Tuck

    I call open thread!
    .
    Here’s a genuinely funny feline copilot:
    .

  • ivb3016

    To quote Atrios, kill me now.

  • stuartzechman

    Ruffini and his fellow bloggers are on a quest to save the Republican party from itself
    .
    Jay Ackroyd:
    .
    It’s incredible that they can’t even get the conversation up to the level where they can resolve the inherent contradiction between being the “anti-tax, anti-big goverment” party of federalists at the same time that they’re the “massive KGB, big-daddy national security state” party of war.
    .
    They’re idiots, apparently.

  • gysgt213

    Michael-Louisiana got 130 billion dollars in post Hurricane aid. As far as I know Jindal didn’t turn any of it down nor did he send any back to date.
    .
    The 7.7 million you are playing gotcha Obama on is an earmark no doubt, but is it wasteful spending? Which is more important, the fact that it is called an earmark or rather if it is wasteful or not. Because reading you I think the fact the spending is called an earmark and the fact that Obama said he was against them is what is most important to you.
    .
    The reason why I ask is because the republicans would like to label any program that helps the american people as wasteful spending. All of them. But any program that supports business is good spending. All of them. I don’t think the 130 billion to LA for Hurricane relief was wasteful. Do you?

  • Art Pepper

    OK – Michael, if you are using Windows, there is a calculator app under All Programs / Accessories. I’m sure the Mac has one too.
    -
    Now, carefully type in the following. Make sure you get all the zeroes.
    -
    7700000 / 410000000000 =
    -
    The result should be something like 1.87e-5.
    -
    I know you are a humanities guy, but here is a hint: That is a very small number.
    -
    If journalists don’t treat the budget as a serious topic for discussion, then why should I care about it? I guess it’s not very important.
    -
    Gergen and the other blockheads on AC360 were just as dumb last night. The most trenchant analysis they came up with was: “Boy, that’s a lot of money!”

  • sneezeguard

    Who really cares about earmarks? To me they’re one of the smallest problems we have on our plate at the moment.
    .
    But, to rephrase the outrage ‘Oh no! Obama agreed with dozens of other senators on the value of a project that’s less than $10 mil in a bill that’s around $410 billion dollars, this is terrible!’

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Krugman discusses volcano monitoring.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/what-should-government-do-a-jindal-meditation/

    I still say that hog manure odor mitigation remains the perfect example of a common good for which no profit incentive can be counted upon.
    .
    Disagree that it’s a Federal problem but don’t dare suggest that it’s not a government problem.

  • Friar Tuck

    Vintage Rock and Roll from Cream:
    .

    .
    Well worth a look for the plummy-voiced intro alone.
    .
    I can keep this up all day long, Mikey.

  • gysgt213

    Its breaking that Obama will lift the ban on photos of coffins, but allow families to request that no photos be taken. Obama has obviously broken another campaign promise.

  • stuartzechman

    Who really cares about earmarks?
    .
    sneezeguard:
    .
    I do.
    .
    In many ways, John McCain was right about how the earmark process is both a symbol and actual mechanism of systemic, corrupted government. It’s too bad for the country that McCain was foolish and venal enough to allow that message to be degenerated into the common Rush-ist rant against all remedial state activity.
    .
    Earmarks and lobbyists are much of how the incumbency racket is kept going. That’s something that we need to address, since we’re now smart enough to attempt to break the incumbency racket.
    .
    The problem with this piece is that it’s another lazy, thoughtless, blaring Drudge-ripoff lede from Scherer, who doesn’t get that Drudge is already an anachronism –and getting more so minute by minute.

  • ogliberal

    So, wait. Earmarks account for $7.7B of this budget bill, or less than 2%. (1.87%, to be exact) The $7.4 billion is below the 1994 level of $7.8B. 40% of those earmarks were request by House Republicans, which basically means that they requested – per capita – as much as the Dems. Yet somehow this is evidence of Obama’s hypocrisy? Color me completely effing baffled.

    McCain’s silly obsession with earmarks never caught on during the presidential campaign. The GOP’s yammering about condoms and volcano monitoring and marsh mice did little to dent support for the stimulus package. Yet Scherer and JNS – and most of the Beltway media – continue to obsess over this silliness almost as much as McCain and his GOP buddies. Focus on 1.9% of a budget to find a “gotcha” (LOOK! Obama’s name was left on this spending that may or may not be an “earmark”! We’ve struck gold!) and spend as little time talking about value (or non-value) of the rest of the budget and/or about the freaking economic nightmare our country is currently facing. Even if you remove all of these so-called earmarks, you save next to nothing, relatively speaking. And let’s remember that not all earmarks are bad.

    Silly journalism, Jay and Mike. Please, break free from the cocoon. Actually, don’t. Keep reinforcing the idiocy of the GOP with your stories, pushing them further into irrelevancy.

  • Cliff

    Gotcha!

  • Art Pepper

    I have a serious suggestion which will of course be ignored. Look at earmarks in terms of:
    -
    The total Federal budget.
    -
    How they work vs how “normal” appropriations work. Do they distort the budget process, ala Stuart’s point?
    -
    A real analysis of what kinds of projects are earmarked. And not a stupid “10 worst earmarks” feature that takes GOP talking points about how funny it is to say “lobsters.”
    -
    Oh f##k never mind. Go back to your usual “reporting.”

  • Art Pepper

    I’m spamming the board today, but last one. From the JNS/Scherer article:
    .
    “$2.2 million to study grape genetics”
    .
    Yeah, agricultural science has proved itself to be so useless. Fruit fly genetics, volcano monitoring… What is it about Republicans and their media enablers that is so opposed to science? And not even “pure” research, like the supercollider, but practical useful science. WTF? You want technological stagnation?

  • Friar Tuck

    Of course they want technological stagnation: none of that stuff’s in the Bible.

  • ivb3016

    “$2.2 million to study grape genetics”
    .
    Hmmm. Might that provide helpful information for wine industries in, say, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, etc.?? No better to mock.
    .
    That said, I found the topic of this post particularly offensive. As others have pointed out, Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions may be important and won’t benefit to any degree the state of Illinois. Perhaps the number of senators that signed on did so because they believed in it?
    .
    The real problem with earmarks is that they were slipped into bills in the dark of night. Ideally projects like this should be submitted as part of the budget process. Set aside a certain amount for individual projects and have them all voted on.

  • plukasiak

    How they work vs how “normal” appropriations work. Do they distort the budget process, ala Stuart’s point?
    _
    that depends who you ask — in fact, when the Congressional Research Service studied earmarks, they had to come up with separate definitions for each of 13 budget categories. And the Bush administration defined “earmarks” as any money not requested by the administration. (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/m012606.pdf )
    _
    But in general (and there are exception), “earmarks” do not add to the overall budget. Instead, what happens is than an agency will be appropriated a sum of money, and “earmarks” direct how some of that money must be used by that agency. In essence, earmarks are the way that Congress sets the priorities for spending by government agencies.
    _
    The problem with some earmarks is that they are location specific — i.e. while problems associate with pig flatulence may deserve federal dollars, there is no reason why Congress should be saying that the money to study/deal with the problem should be directed to Iowa.

  • 2cute4prison

    I don’t get it. I really don’t understand how a pro journo thinks this is a post. Is it that a certain percentage of fools will see “Obama” and “earmark” and think to themselves “Obama’s a damn liar, knew it all along!” without even a cursory examination.
    .
    What do you get out of this? You know SZ & co. are gonna let you have it.
    .
    Why is deception being flaunted by the media like this? You’re just begging someone to call you out. And they did, and it just keeps on going, round and round.
    .
    Stop the spin machine, I want to get off.

  • ogliberal

    God created grapes and other flora on the third day, that’s all you need to know. Why do we need to study their genetics? And what are genes? I never read about them in the Bible.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Of course they want technological stagnation: none of that stuff’s in the Bible
    .
    Except of course for that movable type printing thingy….
    .
    Disdain for science, of course has a long history. But it, like hog manure odor mitigation, remains a public need that market forces alone cannot address.

  • Joe Bftsplk

    Off-topic but perhaps useful, under the heading of knowing the full cost of our wars:
    CNN reporting that the Pentagon is lifting the ban on photographing coffins:
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/pentagon.media.war.dead/index.html

  • Friar Tuck

    Weapons, and satellites for Christian TV, are exeptions, but it’s a pretty good rule-of-thumb.

  • Friar Tuck

    @Joe B – about f*cking time!

  • Friar Tuck

    Sorry – things are a bit warm in the Church Militant this afternoon.

  • http://nicewhitelady.blogspot.com/ joyomama

    OK, this is too much fun:
    .
    live stream from CPAC 2009
    .
    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/townhall-presents-cpac-2009

  • Cliff

    Some people get bothered when they show their abysmal ineptitude for the whole world to show. Not Scherer.

  • Cliff

    That should have been, for the whole world to see.
    .
    Great. Now my finely crafted snark is ruined. Thanks a lot, brain.

  • jarais

    “$2.2 million to study grape genetics”
    .
    Because the last thing the American people want is more wine at lower prices. Oh, wait…

  • stuartzechman

    Since Michael Scherer can’t be bothered to put down his latest issue of DrudgeHouse, and come out of the bathroom, here’s an amazing thing:
    .
    a link to the President’s Budget, so we can all be better informed.

  • mccainfluffer

    I wonder if Swampland will be covering the comedy that is CPAC?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    will be covering the comedy that is CPAC?..
    .
    AMC’s there but she’s no longer a Swamplander….

  • http://nicewhitelady.blogspot.com/ joyomama

    AMC is twittering CPAC @anamariecox. You can also follow at http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23cpac
    .
    If that doesn’t work, go to http://search.twitter.com and search on #cpac

  • http://nicewhitelady.blogspot.com/ joyomama

    Here’s the schedule, so you can all feel bad about missing stuff.
    .
    http://www.cpac.org/agenda_20708.html
    .
    My fav is the “Youth for Western Civilization” reception. I think it’s something like the the Aryan Youth. Here’s their Facebook listing
    .
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12462690189

  • stuartzechman

    Oh wow!
    .
    Hey Michael Scherer!
    .
    I was just looking through the Defense Department section (WARNING PDF) in the President’s Budget, and I came across the most remarkable thing:
    .

    • Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent
    increase over 2009.
    • Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and
    drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.

    .
    Can you believe it??? They included the cost of wars and occupations in the budget…as if they were actually going to be budgeted and paid for somehow!
    .
    Isn’t that an amazing, unbelievable change in the way that the government works, Michael Scherer? You know, that they’re actually going to describe war as spending?
    .
    I know that it pales in comparison to the whole $7.7 million thing –it just feels so great to catch that bad, ol’ President with that classic Russert kung fu move (Hiii-yah!)– but, maybe, just maybe it could be examined.
    .
    You could probably analyze it afterward –you know, just to find something that lets us insiders all laugh about out how they’re all hypocrites and liars, and we know so much better, since we’re so savvy and all…

  • dunedweller

    The selective science supported by many conservatives has always perplexed me.
    A few examples:
    .
    Support: pharmaceutical R&D – Don’t support: grape genetics
    Support: weapons technology – Don’t support: green technology
    Support: in vitro fertilization – Don’t support: stem cell research
    .
    The list continues, but particularly interesting is the notion that it’s okay to use embryos scientifically to create life (even 8 lives) but not to save existing lives. Although saving lives is crucial when it comes to abortion, yet losing lives is acceptable when it comes to fighting unnecessary wars. It must be so hard for them to keep track.

  • Matt

    Don; mess with Jon Allen!

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • flagrantenigma

    Dear Michael, please change your byline to “Here lies Michael Scherer”. If nothing else, you’d have at least one honest sentence per column.

  • stuartzechman

    UPDATE: The White House bit back at Allen’s report Thursday afternoon…
    .
    UPDATE: Our discourse is so stupid.

  • Friar Tuck

    Update: I’m going to keep flogging this, no matter what you say! Nyah, nyah, nyah!

  • Art Pepper

    UPDATE: We got some staffers to run around for us when they could be doing something useful. We’re relevant!

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    UPDATE: Mikey Scherer is too stupid to realize that the White House is also biting back at the ass hole who saw fit to excerpt from “the incomparable” Johnathan Allen at the Swampland blogs without doing any fact checking.
    .
    Also what SZ said.

  • jcapan

    Am I the only noting MS’s absence from the threads? He was at least making paltry attempts until a few weeks back. That means KT (AWOL) is the only person to really engage. AS, as far as I can tell (though I’m maintaining my no comment rule on her posts), has never responded.
    ~
    Isn’t it possible that the reason KT has more sympathy from the commenters due to the fact that she makes a genuine effort to engage, recent snarky turn notw/standing? MS had earned a good plate of contempt already, but his opt out of comments sure ain’t aiding his cause.

  • mccainfluffer

    Speaking of Drudge/Republican talking point parrots, how long before we have a breathless Swampland post about Tattoo Removal? I suspect within the next 24 hours – with Michael or JNS, (perhaps Amy Sullivan) as the likely authors.

  • plukasiak

    Am I the only noting MS’s absence from the threads?
    _
    MS (and JNS) seems to provide a lot more content for Time.com than Karen does — which may provide (part of?) the explanation.

  • Cliff

    pluk – do you see why we’re so consistently hard on Scherer?

  • flagrantenigma

    pluk, the Two Stooges provide more verbiage, yes. Content however .. not so much.

  • FlownOver

    MS – I think Smeagol said it best: “Leave now and never come back!”

blog comments powered by Disqus