ABC's Gibson falsely claimed Obama "campaign[ed] on a promise to end pet projects"
SUMMARY: On ABC's World News, Charles Gibson advanced the false claim that prior to President Obama's statement that he would sign an omnibus appropriations bill that includes earmarks, Obama "campaign[ed] on a promise to end pet projects, earmarks." In fact, Obama had actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.
On the March 4 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson advanced the false claim -- propagated by conservatives including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) -- that prior to President Obama's statement that he would sign an omnibus appropriations bill that includes earmarks, Obama promised "to get rid of earmarks." Introducing a report, Gibson stated, "You may ask, didn't the presidential candidates last fall agree to get rid of earmarks?" Later, Gibson repeated the claim by stating, "And President Obama did campaign on a promise to end pet projects, earmarks." In fact, as PolitiFact.com and Media Matters for America have noted, Obama had actually promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.
From PolitiFact.com:
Speaking on the House floor, Republican Leader John Boehner railed against a spending bill with some 9,000 earmarks, calling on President Obama to veto it and insist on one free of pet projects.
"The President campaigned against this type of legislation, this number of earmarks," the Ohio Republican said on Feb. 25, "and I would hope that the President would veto this bill because Republicans in Congress will be here to uphold his veto of this piece of legislation."
Several news organizations made even harsher claims. The New York Times, for example, reported that Obama would sign the bill, earmarks and all, "despite campaign promises to put an end to the practice."
That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to "reform" it, and eliminate "screwy" or wasteful earmarks.
While Sen. John McCain repeatedly said during the presidential debates that he would "veto every earmark pork-barrel bill" if elected, Obama said in the first debate that "the earmarks process has been abused" and said he had "suspended any requests for my home state ... until we cleaned it up." During the second presidential debate, Obama said McCain's criticism of earmarks was "important," but that he wanted "to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper." And in the third presidential debate, Obama said: "There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem."
Similarly, in May 2008, Obama issued a statement that "the entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed." The statement said:
I also have championed greater disclosure requirements for earmarks to ensure that the public knows which member of Congress is sponsoring an earmark.
However, even with all of these reforms, I have come to believe that the system is broken. 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. We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it. And we can no longer accept an earmarks process in which many of the projects being funded fail to address the real needs of our country.
The entire earmarks process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting [South Carolina Republican] Senator [Jim] DeMint's amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois. Over the next year, I hope to work with my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to improve the earmarks process."
As Media Matters documented, many in the media -- including The New York Times and Times columnist Maureen Dowd -- have falsely claimed that Obama, in the words of a Washington Times editorial, "promised no earmarks" in spending bills during his administration, and that he has since broken that pledge.
From the March 4 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: When having passed the giant stimulus bill that [correspondent] David [Muir] was talking about two weeks ago, Congress has now moved on to a giant $410 billion bill to fund the government for the next year. And today, the Senate was sparring over 9,000 earmarks that are included in that bill. You may ask, didn't the presidential candidates last fall agree to get rid of earmarks?
Here's our senior congressional correspondent, Jonathan Karl.
[...]
KARL: The White House says it will fight to eliminate wasteful projects from future spending bills, but don't count on it. Democratic leaders and more than a few Republicans say they will fight to defend Congress' right to fund their pet projects.
Jonathan Karl, ABC News, Capitol Hill.
GIBSON: And President Obama did campaign on a promise to end pet projects, earmarks. So do you think he should sign this year's bill, stuffed with earmarks? You can weigh in on our question of the day at our World Newser blog at ABCNews.com.
Tough to do in one month. Maybe President Obama should play the fiddle while the country collapses. The guy is working on it Dave. Give it time. Remember, we are still looking for those WMDs'. The ones that Rummy knew where they were.
Patience is a virtue..
wow, i would have never thought charlie gibson would actually sell himself out like this. regergitating such a debunked talking point.
Some earmarks are good. As in our case in Lousiana, funds directed for the ultimate purpose of hurricane protection and restoration are much needed. If earmarks are the only way we can get the funds needed then I'm okay with that.
"Earmarks" has just become another negative buzzword, it sounds more official than "pork", and eliminates the need for any critical thinking by the audience.
Good point. By changing the word you use to describe the exact same thing, you can conveniently forget everything attributed to the previous word and start from scratch! Man, I'm not married, I'm co-habitating! Why should my partner be concerned if I'm picking up chicks in the bar now?
She's not.
For us it's not "pork"...it's survival. But Republicans will point to a minor appropriation and pretend that it's representative of the entire package. For example, the spending bill has a $190,000 earmark for the new Insectarium operated by the Audubon Institute here in downtown New Orleans. John McCain has singled it out as an inappropriate earmark. I would point out to Sen. McCain that tourism is our lifeblood here in New Orleans and is the economic engine that must drive our recovery. The Insectarium is a popular attraction. $190,000 seems like a cheap price to help us out. It's not exactly a bridge to nowhere.
Let me add that Sen. David Vitter has sponsored some of the so-called earmarks for Louisiana. I guess he's just trying to be bipartisan...
so pay for it yourself then. the people of minnesota, or any state, shouldn't have to pay for some pork project meant to boost New Orleans tourism. $190,000 is peanuts in a budget this size, but it's the principle, not the dollar amount.
Then you won't mind dropping that $20 million for the central corridor light rail between minneapolis and st. paul. Pay for your own dang rail and stop leaching off of us taxpayers down here in Texas.
How about rebuilding your own damn bridges? I've never driven on a Minnesota bridge anyway...
infrastructure projects are hardly the same thing as some pet tourist attraction, figured you could see the difference.
You don't get...without tourism right now, we die. Get it...? Come down to New Orleans and, if you have the cojones, go check out what's left of the 80% of the city that was underwater.
look, we don't have the money. that is reality. and when money is as tight as it is now, spending priorities have to be first and foremost. I know the government doesn't know how to do with less, or cut spending, but we have no choice. who do you think is going to pay for all of this, the taxpayers are taxed out and broke, struggling to stay in their homes and pay their bills - and you want to ask them to pay more to the govt to fund tourism projects in another part of the country? good luck.
But I thought wingnuts held the belief that deficits don't matter?
Let me add something about the Audubon Institute, which has been a shing star in the New Orleans community. It operates the beautiful Audubon Zoo in Audubon Park in Uptown New Orleans. No scandal or irresponsibility there as one might normally associate with New Orleans. Audubon Zoo recently had to lay off about half its staff because the numbers of visitors to the zoo has declined significantly since Hurricane Katrina. The Audubon Institute also operates the Insectarium at the old U.S. Customs building on Canal Street on the edge of the French Quarter, which is the prime tourism area. Until the City rebounds from Katrina we can't afford to have major tourism attractions decline or cease to operate. We are scraping for, and gladly accept (excpet perhaps Bobby Jindal) every dime we can get. $190,000 for the Insectarium is NOT a wasteful earmark.
everybody from every city could most likely give damn good reasons why a particular earmark is worthy of every penny it can get, that is not the point, at this point.
Really...? How many U.S. cities were completely destroyed because of the incompetence of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Allow me to remind you that had the levees not broken New Orleans would have been back and running within a few weeks. People STILL don't get it...
Irony, in case I wasn't clear, I was agreeing that some spending is good, I was only commenting on how these words can be demonized by the Good/Evil thinkers to who like to put everything into shorthand code.
No, I understood your point...and it was a good one, particularly about no critical thinking. I just went off on another tangent. ;>)
Your mistake was including the word "Insectarium". That's like Marsh Mouse or Snail Darter to the Beavis & Butthead party. Unless there are some terrorist-fighting or marriage- protecting bugs being engineered, it just sounds like more silly little animals, and it's hard to understand the connection to your economy, or to hear the reasoning over the "heh heh - Insects".
in other words, don't use the word that is accurate, do what liberals always do and that is try and sell it with deception instead. like don't say raise taxes, say invest. typical.
Yea...like WMD.
Yeah, that's what I meant Jimmy. "In other words". I believe you missed the point, Beavis.
Correct in two months what was established in eight years or more!
WAM
Well..Since they dubbed him the "MAGIC NEGRO", they expect him to fix their mess in 2 months.
Earmarks are not bad if they are used right the problem is that both parties have over used them. The first way to refome and reduce the the number of earmarks is to pass a Constitutional Admendment that requires that any admendment to a bill must pertain to the topic of the bill. A second admendment is needed to give the President the line item veto. This would let the President sign a bill into law while getting rid of earmarks that are wastful.
I actually don't like the line item veto because the worst case scenario is some partisan president, oh, say maybe someone like the last one for example, would abuse the power of the line item veto to kill every single earmark of the opposition party thus making them ineffective. The president could then use that as a means of coercing the public to vote for one party's candidates over the other. There would have to be some serious controls in place before I would ever support that much power in one person.