AP cited Republican criticism of the "more than 8,000 earmarks" in omnibus bill without noting they requested many of them
SUMMARY: The AP reported that Republicans "have called on [President] Obama to veto a pending $410 billion spending bill because it includes more than 8,000 earmarks," without noting that many of the earmarks were included at the request of Republicans.
In reporting that "Republicans in Congress have called on [President] Obama to veto a pending $410 billion spending bill because it includes more than 8,000 earmarks," the Associated Press did not note that 40 percent of the earmarks in the bill were reportedly requested by congressional Republicans, or that an analysis by independent budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense reportedly found that six Republican senators are among the top 10 sponsors of earmarks in the bill. The March 4 AP article also ignored the fact that nine Republicans, including seven who sit on the Senate Appropriations Committee, voted against an amendment by Sen. John McCain that would have stripped earmarks out of the bill.
As Media Matters for America documented, on February 26, the AP similarly reported that "Republicans assailed" the omnibus bill as "too costly" and quoted Republicans criticizing the bill for containing earmarks, without noting that many of the earmarks were included at the request of Republicans.
From the March 4 AP article:
Asked whether Obama wanted line-item veto power, [White House press secretary Robert] Gibbs said the president -- who on Wednesday announced changes in the awarding of government contracts he said would save billions of dollars -- wants to work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending.
"That's the best way to go out and do this, to continue to look for the inefficiencies and the waste, to follow prescribed solutions for this, that in many cases have been identified and just simply not acted on," Gibbs said at his daily news briefing.
Republicans in Congress have called on Obama to veto a pending $410 billion spending bill because it includes more than 8,000 earmarks, or spending targeted for specific projects in lawmakers' districts, totaling billions of dollars. The bill is necessary to keep the government operating through the end of its budget year on Sept. 30.
The White House has indicated that Obama will sign the bill.
President Obama WILL sign the bill. That should end that story. I guess ELECTIONS DO MATTER. I hope that immediately after signing, Prez Obama looks up and says "NEXT".
How about explaining that earmarks are nothing more than directives on how a state or organisation is to spend federal money?
Republitoad Motto: Do as I say, not as I do.
I thought their motto was "GIMME!"
Almost. It's "GIMME, you communist nazi america hating freak of nature!"
Do I get points for being close?
Exactly. The revered Reagan said many things ,but never did what he said. This was good enough for the repubs.
For ex. No big govt, but the opposite occurred. Fiscal responsibility was preached but the deficits were enormous. Tax breaks for the middle class were eliminated (Dole ,the point man) while some rates were cut, netting many people a bigger tax bill. The dept of Education was not eliminated, nor were other so called wasteful Government programs. Reagan did not make the hard choices, he merely lived in his own dream world, not unlike modern day republicans.
True about Reagan, Putt, but don't leave out Daddy Bush's "Read my lips..." joke.I can still remember the tv reporters interviewing Republicans after that lie blew up, and that they were pretty unanimous in that they appreciated that Bush I said those words, even if he was lying.
I kind of give Bush 41 a pass on that. He had to raise taxes due to the massive debt that Reagan left him. It was a pragmatic move that was good for the country, but bad politically.
He had to, and I think he knew he had to. Maybe he had to lie to get elected, I'm just saying my most vivid memory of it is the people who voted for him based on the promise, and thanked him for lying to them.
Admittedly... Obama should not have said that 'earmarks' are a thing of the past.
As nice as it would be for the Congress to pass each and every 'earmark' as its own seperate bill would be great! But we all know that would be quite impractical.
Even with that said... President Obama demanded a website WWW.RECOVERY.GOV be created so that we can all follow the money.
So the big difference between the 'earmarks' this time and 'earmarks' from all past presidents (where the internet) was a viable option (do the math) is that now we can see how that 'earmark' money is being spent! And not hidden from our eyes. Or deemed a national security concern.
Yet, even this is not enough for the rightwing and the corporate media... President Obama 'promised' no 'earmarks'... so they will do what the GOP leader 'Rush Limbaugh' starts... they will follow.
its like those Senators who voted against the stimulus bill and then happily took credit for the money they were getting and taking credit for helping the bill pass.
Some of whom will now vote for the omnibus spending bill which contains their own earmarks. That's their idea of bipartisanship.
Now there's some irony: "It's Obama's fault that I put that earmark in there! I wouldn't have done it if he didn't make me do it!"
So much for the party of personal responsibility.
Then they'll blame Obama and the liberal media for trying to make them look bad. The Republicans have put themselves in such a trick bag the only way they can regain any credibility is by either denouncing Rush Limbaugh conservatism and behaving in a bipartisan fashion...or by being 100% obstructive and refusing any stimulus money or earmarks. But they can't have it both ways.
I thought it was Clintons' fault. Maybe I was thinking of dress marks.
You want to go there? Here's my headline:
MMFA wrote a story slamming Republican criticism of the "more than 8,000 earmarks" in omnibus bill without noting that at least 2 Democrats have also called for Obama to veto the bill.
Also, there was no reason in the AP article to point out that Republicans requested some of the earmarks. They never referred to them as "democrat earmarks". An earmark is an earmark, no matter who put it in there. These types of weak (at best) reports take away from the ones where MMFA actually catches a falsehood in the media. They make people like me quicker to dismiss all of MMFA's reports as being conservative-hating propaganda.
jpeagle21, OKAY, you are dismissed. you are now jpeagle88
I dunno Prince, that 's a pretty serious threat JBeagle's laying down. Sounds like if he doesn't start to understand MMFA's items a little more clearly than he does now, he may start dismissing them.
Awwwww....that's cute how you guys are sticking together. It's also cute how you take someone's name and change it a little. I like that. It is so witty and clever.
"It's also cute how you take someone's name and change it a little. I like that. It is so witty and clever." - jpeagle21
Guest eagle, referring to you as "JBeagle" must have been a typo or based on a misread. *Everyone* knows there's only one true forum beagle.
Givin' a shout out to Snoopy!
Psst... not so loud. POV? He don't wike me vewwy much! ;)
Snoop, you probably don't have much to fear from someone whose view has collapsed to a single point! Microbes, however, better beware.
Hey snoopy, don't make assumptions. I don't remember getting any immature school-girl responses from you. For all I know, I may like you just fine. If you disagree with me and come back with an actual intellectual rebutal, I can respect that. When you start hurling insults just because you disagree and can't think of a good rebutal is when we have a problem.
Awwwww....that's cute how you guys are sticking together.
Gee, I'm sorry, JPEagle, I didn't realize it would offend you if I made a comment to another poster.If you're that sensitive, this may not be a good place for you.
PLease understand, there are a handful (or less) of decent conservative posters here, the rest of you are just here for our amusement. If it weren't for the laughs, you wouldn't be good for anything, and you don't want to be worthless, do you?
You clearly had trouble understanding the item, or didn't care to try, or are pretending not to inorder to start an argument. In either case, I took the time to read your post, and should at least have a laugh for the time I wasted.
As far as the name thing, that was deliberate, and I'm sorry if it seemed mean. I didn't even consider that Eagle was your real name. There are so many con posters here with pretentious, chest-puffy screen names - Truth-this and Freedom-that, American-this and Proud-that- that I just assumed it was some American Eagle flag fetish thing.I have trouble addressing most of these whiny submissives by their self-aggrandizing macho names with a straight face. Is your name really Eagle?
Maybe it's pea gle.
There is NOTHING wrong with a earmark !!! An earmark is nothing more than a directive telling a state how to spend federal money. Would you rather have the Congress give out money with no instructions?
correctomundo!
While I do appreciate you coming here with an actual legitimate argument instead of juvenile name-changing insults and giggling elementary school humor, I have to disagree. The earmarks I have a problem with are those that are slyly stuck into a budget or bill to fund pet projects of politicians in their home state. It seems like they are thinking "Hey, free money. Let's get it while we can" instead of doing what is best for the country. As Obama said, funds that are spent should be prioritized to only fund those needed projects that will have the most impact on getting out of the economic crisis. Are all 8000-9000 of these earmarks really NEEDED?
What a liar. I don't believe you when you say that 'reports like this make you dismiss all of MMfA's reports'. I've read too many of your posts.
The reason it gets pointed out is because of the hypocrisy. It is hypocritical to slam the more than 8000 earmarks when the minority party is responsible for a larger proportion of them than they represent in Congress without a concurrent acknowlegement of the responsibility of the Republicans in Congress.
And there's no such thing as "democrat earmarks." It's the Democratic Party, so they are "Democratic earmarks." Neither you nor Rush get to decide what the Democratic Party's name is. You don't get to re-name them.
You don't believe me? Well than it must not be true. If you have read my other posts, you would see that I have not exactly bee complimentary to MMFA's so-called reports. Thus, they are dismissed. And, your hypocrisy argument makes no sense. This report is not about hypocritical republicans, it is about a news organization's failure to report so-called hypocrisy by republicans. My argument is that the AP had no reason to report that there were republican earmarks in the bill. Finally, what exactly is a "democratic earmark"? Is that an earmark that is based on the principles of democracy? Let me rephrase "democrat earmark" so you can understand better: earmarks submitted by democrats.