By focusing on earmarks -- less than 2 percent of spending bill -- media allow bill's opponents to dictate debate
SUMMARY: Numerous media outlets have devoted significant coverage to the earmarks contained in the pending omnibus appropriations bill, even though, according to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the total spending in the bill. In many instances, the media have allowed attacks by Sen. John McCain and other opponents of the omnibus bill to dominate their coverage of the legislation -- at times themselves characterizing the bill as laden with "pork."
In reporting on the pending omnibus appropriations bill, numerous media outlets have devoted significant coverage to the earmarks contained in the bill, even though -- according to most estimates -- earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the total spending in the bill. For instance, several media outlets have highlighted attacks by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and others on what McCain says are the "porkiest projects" in the bill. Beyond highlighting these attacks, in many instances the media have allowed these attacks to dominate their coverage of the legislation, in some cases even adopting opponents' characterization of the bill as laden with "pork."
For example, on the March 8 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory stated: "I want to get to an important debate this week, and that's about this spending bill, this omnibus spending bill that's full of pork, full of pet projects." Gregory then aired a clip of McCain decrying the "9,000 earmarks" in the bill and, while Gregory did note that the earmarks were bipartisan, he did not note that earmarks represent less than 2 percent of spending in the bill.
Similarly, outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press described the bill as "laden with earmarks" and "contain[ing] more than 8,500 earmarks with an estimated price tag of $7.7 billion," respectively, without noting the cost of the earmarks in comparison to the overall bill, which totals an estimated $410 billion. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates earmarks in the bill total $7.7 billion -- or 1.9 percent of the total bill -- while Democrats estimate the number is $3.8 billion -- or 0.9 percent -- and the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee estimate the number is $5.5 billion -- or 1.3 percent.
In many other instances, the media have reported on the number or cost of earmarks in the bill or characterized the bill as "stuffed" or "laden" with earmarks without noting the cost of the earmarks as a percentage of the overall spending bill. For example:
- In a March 9 Washington Post article, staff writer Scott Wilson reported that McCain "challenged Obama to veto a stopgap spending bill that contains about 8,000 earmarks, which are projects requested by individual lawmakers, usually for their states or districts" and that "[a]dministration officials have argued that the earmarks, which McCain estimated add up to $8 billion, have been carried over from last year's budget process" without noting the total cost of the bill or the cost of the earmarks as a percentage of the overall spending bill.
- In a March 9 Los Angeles Times article, staff writer Janet Hook wrote that the "the bill is laden with earmarks" without noting the overall cost of the earmarks or the cost as a percentage of what she noted was a "$410-billion spending bill."
- In a March 8 Houston Chronicle article, Chronicle Washington bureau chief Rick Dunham and staff writer Stewart M. Powell reported that Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) "blasted his fellow House Republicans, former President George W. Bush and, most vociferously, House Democrats for covertly devoting billions of dollars to earmarks" without mentioning the total cost of the earmarks or their cost as a percentage of the overall spending bill.
- In a March 8 Wall Street Journal article, staff reporter Christopher Conkey reported on "Senate Republicans ... block[ing] a $410 billion bill that would fund government operations through September, objecting to some 8,500 earmarks it contains" without mentioning the cost of the earmarks or their percentage of the total "$410 billion bill."
- In a March 7 Washington Times article, staff writers David R. Sands and S.A. Miller reported on "the more than 9,000 member-directed earmarks in the omnibus bill" but never provided the total cost of the earmarks or their cost as a percentage of what they noted was a "$410 billion spending package."
- In a March 4 New York Times article, staff writer Jeff Zeleny wrote that McCain "strongly criticized the president as failing to follow through on a campaign promise to oppose a spending bill that contains billions of dollars in legislative earmarks for special projects" but never provided the total cost of the earmarks as a percentage of the overall spending bill.
- In a March 4 Associated Press article, AP writer Henry C. Jackson reported that the omnibus bill "contains more than 8,500 earmarks with an estimated price tag of $7.7 billion" as well as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) stating, "We've got 9,000 earmarks that the House passed last week, $7.7 billion. 4,000 of those earmarks are from Republicans." But the AP never noted the overall cost of the bill or the percentage of the cost represented by earmarks.
Repug media allows it but I think it doesn't have the effect that repugs hope for. As unemployment continues to rise the unfavorable factor towards repugs will also go up.
I am unclear as to the process by which this bill containing the objectionable earmarks was carried over from the previous administration. Who agreed upon it and when? And how much was added to the bill under this Congress? It strikes me as an "okay, just this one last tme" type of arrangement with respect to the earmarks, but in the interest of transparency it might serve the White House better to explain the arrangement.
This reminds me of the dilema that Bobby Jindahl faced when he took office as Governor of Louisiana last year. He adamantly opposed a legislative pay raise. However, one of the first things the Legislature did when the new session began was to grant themselves a pay raise. Jindahl came under great criticism for refusing to veto the pay raise, his explanation being, essentially, that he had to work with the Legislature and didn't want to start a political fight with them that early in his administration. But, the Legislature came under great fire from the voters for granting themselves the pay raise and, as I recall, they ultimately overturned the pay raise. But, Jindahl was revealed as a political player right from the start.
I would greatly like to know what were the politics involved in confecting the spending bill and earmarks and if anyone can shed some light it would be helpful.
First, you need to understand what Pork and Earmarks actually are. They are necessary elements of federal legislation.
Pork is nothing more that federal money spent on localized projects.
Earmarks are just directives from the Congress to a recipient of federal spending.
http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2009/03/theres-nothing-wrong-with-pork.html
Jindahl did not sign the bill, yes at first he said he may let it go. He got smart and later reliezed he worked for the people and did not sign the pay raise.
CNN yesterday snarked on various "Pork-barrell" projects in Idaho, Wyoming and Georgia- and concluded that "these earmarks may provide ammunition for the Republicans against President Obama...."
Quick Quiz: Of the six senators from Idaho, Wyoming and Georgia, how many are Democrats?
What the media and the Repubicans want is for Obama to refuse to sign the appropriations bill, let the economy collapse, and then the GOP can step in and pick up the pieces in the next election. Obama's not falling for it.
Quiz answer: Less than 1.
I'm surprised CNN, being based in Georgia, mentioned Georgia. After all, its pork only if it is in the other state (or congressional district).
what's amazing is the criticism of obama because he hasn't "turned around" the economy yet. of course, a lot of this criticism is from the same people who supported all the policies of the last administration that helped get us here. paul krugman was warning four years ago about the real estate crash that was coming because of all the interest only adjustable loans being handed out. this crisis was years in the making and obama is not going to turn this around in weeks or even months.
obama is also facing something that no president has had to face since roosevelt, and in a way, this is worse than that. because we are seeing the bankruptcy of firms that have been around for many many years and the possible bankruptcy of industrial giants like general motors. this is far more than an economic slowdown. this is a questioning of the basic economic underpinnings of the country. and a lot of happy talk from obama will not solve this.
but if obama is a failure already because he hasn't waved a magic wand and solved this mess, then what was saint ronnie? he came into office with an unemployment rate of 7.5%. two years later, in early 1983, it peaked at over 10%. two full years after him taking office.
the fact is that all this is going to take time to work out of the system. nor is this meltdown limited to this country. we cannot expect that this is going to turn around on a dime. i have misgivings about the long term debt some of this spending will add, but we have yet to even begin to see the effects of obama's plan. we got into this mess because we assumed, as has been done before, that if we just let business do it's thing, then everyone will prosper. the problem is that it works for awhile, everyone is making money by shifting money from here to there, but eventually the merry go round stops. we need to get over our juvenile expectations, which helped get us into this, that these problems are easily and quickly solved.
yes and krugman himself has been critical of president obama. not that he isn't doing what should be done....but that what is being done isnt enough. he has said consistently for months now that first the tarp wasn't enough and that more should have been done, but that the recent stimulus wasn't big enough and should have had more to it.
but of course the neo con ideologues discount krugman, since he won a nobel prize.
and the latest in consipiracy theories is this:
"A Nobel Peace prize used to mean something but now they are given out to liberal darlings of the media" - theclocktowersniper8151
it is amazing that now the top prize given in the world for doing good work is now somehow corrupt and meaningless.
but then again the Mannity already sounded that bell when he claimed that there was a conspiracy giving president obama Times Person of the Year award......and was promptly hosed by, of all people, Brent "Redbeard the Pirate" Bozell himself.
here's mccain's best senate bud, senator lindsey graham of south carolina, condemning earmarks, unless it's the 950,000 he wants for a convention center in myrtle beach.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/08/graham-flip-earmarks/
well of course earmarks are bad.....unless they are republican earmarks. then they are good, and necessary.
Nobody EVER advocates earmarks. Even republicans.
They do, however, occasionally promote reserved spending stipulations for mission critical projects, which are usually unfairly compared to the earmarks everyone else proposes.
ok neon....can you explain the difference to me? ive been looking but.....haven't found anything yet that would be able to tell me the difference between the two.
I believe what Neon means is that the reserved spending stipulations preferred by Republicans are tools for ensuring America's continuing greatness, whereas the earmarks that Democrats sneak into bills in the dead of night are used to pay off the radicals who steal elections for them while simultaneously transforming the country into a nightmarish communist state.
Well...that's the way the dirty liberal media would describe it.
oh yes that dirty liberal media is muddying the waters AGAIN!.
get a clue you neither provided any kind of substative answer that could show the difference between the two.
and the one who did.....simply proved that they are two ways to describe the same damn thing.
so do the world a favor and shut up
Neon is just funnin' JBomb.
oh ok....well then neon my apologies. i thought you were being serious. you can chalk that up as a misunderstanding and opposite your own satire.
again im sorry
It's no problem, happens all the time. As has been pointed out here many times, it's difficult to parody a wingnut.
sarcasm can get lost in writing
Near as I can figure "earmarks" is when you use tiny little branding irons to create (supposedly) attractive patterns on one's outer ear.
Yust in case<sarcasm off>
No apology necessary, Mr. Bomb. I'm well aware that when I caricature the righties, I will leave my posterior dangling out there just begging to be handed to me. I have a nagging perception that a large portion of today's wingnuts are so closley treading the lilne between opinion and delusion that it's honestly hard to tell which side they're on. Ridicule away, sir.
I find it sad that true Journalism is gone. The media use to be the peoples protection. They no longer give all the facts or report the truth with unbiased faith. You can no longer trust them or the Government. I am tired of same old Washington taking us down the road to destruction. They have become to big for their britches and no longer work for the people. I am so tired of the left and right who are both wrong and both influenced by lobbisT and their own greed. Maybe there are a handfull who really care and love this Counrty and who are not caught up in the galmour of Washington. I think American better wake up and smell the coffee. It is time for New Leadership and A New Party. Both the Dems and Rebs Big Government agendas are destroying our freedom and prosperity. I'm Voting them all out and Voting a 3rd party in. If you love this Country and believe in taking responsibility for yourself and Freedom to dream and fullfill those dreams then you better take time to look at 3rd parties. Its time we take back America
And these rebubs whining about the '9,000' earmarks never say that this is 50% LESS than last years budget...
..actually, I should have said 'FEWER'.
And they never really say which of the earmarks are wasteful. All they do is mention those earmarks that have funny words in them, like "pig odor". If it has funny words, it must be wasteful.
Huh huh "beaver management" that funneeeee.
I don't think it matters. Either a legislator is for 'earmarks' (whatever the definition is) or he/she is not.
If it is not 'wasteful', get it into the budget as not-an-earmark.
It is ridiculous that the Reps and reporters are all getting their panties in a bunch over less than 2% of the bill. But by the same token the Dems could say 'It's only a small part of the bill. We'll take out all the earmarks.' Then when the Reps found something else to bitch about it would be even easier for the Dems to say they're just be obstructionist.
So, here the Republicans go "again" with the 'just say "NO" approach' to the Omnibus Spending Bill and MSM is reporting every crazy, non-sensical, unbelievable, argument 24/7 on a daily basis.
I wonder what would happen if MSM would ask Republicans to debate the other 98% of the OSB that is "earmark" free. I wonder how many Republican Pundits would be booked to CNN, FoxNoise, & MSNBC for their debate on the good at 98%, and not the bad at 2% regarding the OSB. Hmmm....
Also let's not forget... the number of earmarks in spending bills has DECLINED every year since the Democrats took back the Congress. Republicans used earmarks as a sneaky way to please their constituents back home while still decrying big government spending. F---ing hypocrites!
When I first heard about the 9000 earmarks, I was almost certain that it was an ingenious prank pulled on the media by 4chan or a similar internet group. But, as it turns out, the media really is that stupid. And why not? Those able to think (liberals and conservatives alike) find most of their news elsewhere.
The mainstream media, while mislabeled liberal, is turning into one large tabloid.
Too funny. These cons vote against the recovery act, then like Mitch McConnell, they're the first in line to try and suck as much money from it as they can.
Jerks.
They're like the kid who murdered his parents and then begged for mercy---as an orphan.
Please. Republicans are pathetic.
not only are the earmarks (roughly 8 billion, out of 480 billion dollar bill) less than 2%, not all of them are bad things. of course, if you don't bother your pretty little head to find out what the earmark is actually for, you too can make an ass of yourself in public.
mccain is among the worst. he can't be bothered to look beyond the title of the earmark, so he ends up looking even more of a foolish old man, when he twitters away his stupidity.
thank god mccain didn't get elected!
The conservitive tactic is to focous the debate on the small things while you use the big to rip of the American people and the money to big business.
Under their God Ranald Reagan they focoused on Welfair, Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security witch made up less than one percent of the budget while the gave over five percent of the budget in corporate welfair.
Don't be fooled America! The miniscule amount of time that we have to endure so far has been all about what we knew was coming, "redistribution of wealth." The floodgates threaten to open even wider RIGHT NOW and more to come.
NOW, on top of the social security account going broke, the government wants your retirement too. They are talking about this right this very minute!!! They want to control BOTH sides of the market. By owning our 401K's, this is ownership of the market. Unbelievably alarming news for our future. Broke Argentina just did this same action in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts.
Maybe the full depth of the definition of socialism is not yet in motion. If I were spelling the word, I feel like we would all be at "S-O-C-I".
Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts.
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at
the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee
on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a laughable 3 percent return.
What? Obama WANTS to do THIS?! (You CAN opt out... but either way.?) This is barreling down the path to socialism. Take this next one to the bank...This is a Nationalist movement and it is text book nationalism. Read your textbooks kids! Read back to the times of Democratic Republicans, Anti-federalists and federalists. Andrew Jackson riding the hog cartoon.
We see who is riding the hog now. The Redistribution Captain! The Captain of Cost! These people will call it welfare or what it's not until this happens. The government is making the choices. This is not privitization. Automatic enrollment? I am at a loss.
Nice cut and paste.
Oh noooo! Socialism!
Whatever, loser. You dorks haven't stopped screaming that word since 1929 and despite all the good things liberals brought to you, all the efforts you decried as socialism, business still thrived and the middle class expanded at rates unprecedented in history.
As for 401k's, how stupid do you have to be to not see what calamitous mess Wall St. has made of our retirements?
Your ignorance is legendary.
Socialism has always failed, period.
You mean except for when Republicans socialize the cost of doing business for the oil companies... and privatize the profits. How about all those subsidies for Blackwater? What do you call that? Bootstrapping it?
What do you call the GI Bill? The VA?
You have no idea what you are talking about, now go away dinosaur.
I know what I am talking about because I AM a veteran. Walked into duty during "don't ask, don't tell." THAT was real fun. Thanks Bill Clinton. It sucked when you dropped the soap and you felt like you were in prison!
Why can't they fix what is already broken before they make a bigger mess. Use the veteran hospital mess as a model to fix. Why make more messes?
Make more messes? You mean like investing our social security in the stock market? That would have been awesome.
But really what do you call subsidies for profitable corporations, like the oil companies, if not the most vulgar form of socialism? What do you call the GI Bill if not he most noble form of socialism?
It doesn't matter with you. The more you're presented with the truth, the more your conservative brain retreats into conservative la-la land.
Grow up and make a serious argument.
No. The government owning Wall St. on the path down Socialism Lane.
No, you won't grow up and take your seat at the grown up table, or no, you think social security would be just dandy today had Bush privatized it in 04, or no the GI Bill is not socialism?
Who is feeding you your delusions? The government owning Wall St, indeed. As if anybody could have screwed the pooch worse than those lustful, privatization junkies on Wall St.
What will it take to purge you brain of all that partisan wax?
Wake up already. Republicans have lost their minds.
Bush, Bush, Bush.
I am not talking about yesterday even! I am talking about today. The medical community needs to put a name to this phenomenon, Bush-itis.
You guys are worse on a budget than my wife out shopping.
You're the one who was speaking in favorable terms of privatization.
It's all clear now. You don't want to recall the past because you apparently can't learn form the mistake that almost was. It would have been an abject disaster to have privatized SS. You know it's true.
By the way, sorry the name Bush gets you in a lather. You should work on that.
Now, since you brought up the budget, finally we have a budget that puts people first. You have a problem with that? We have a budget that will reward hard work with a strong safety net because that's what America is about. We have a budget that will target the vast inequality that tax cuts for the wealthy have made worse, because that kind of imbalance is unsustainable and immoral.
You are the one repeating yesterday's news and we are now in TODAY.
If you say so on the socialism. I don't want to keep forkin it over.
As a good friend of mine says that I think MUST pertain to you all, "You can't HIDE money". You guys got it all stacked up like that?
Just 2%, just love how MMFA breaks that down. 7.7 Billion in Earmarks, see MMFA wants to only use the 2% tag so we all want know the amount. The amount makes people stand up and say NO, but 2% makes it sound small so the sheeple will just bhaaa along.
I find myself having to quote a friend on another bb here:
"Mt Everest would still be the tallest mountain in the world if it lost 1.7% of its height. It would be a much more responsible mountain, though. ." :p