CNBC's Kernen, Bartiromo falsely claimed Obama promised to eliminate earmarks
SUMMARY: CNBC's Joe Kernen falsely claimed that President Obama "promised ... no more earmarks," while colleague Maria Bartiromo similarly asserted that "during the campaign, [Obama] said he would eliminate" earmarks. In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.
Discussing the 2009 omnibus spending bill on the March 11 edition of CNBC's Squawk Box, co-host Joe Kernen falsely claimed that President Obama "promised ... no more earmarks." Kernen's colleague, Maria Bartiromo, host of CNBC's Closing Bell, similarly asserted on March 11 that "during the campaign, [Obama] said he would eliminate" earmarks. In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether. Indeed, NBC News White House correspondent John Yang noted during the March 11 edition of MSNBC Live that "the president has never said he wants to eliminate earmarks."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the March 11 edition of MSNBC Live:
YANG: Now, the president has never said he wants to eliminate earmarks. He's opposed the outright elimination of earmarks. He says they do -- he has said in the past that they do serve a valid purpose of directing money back to worthwhile projects in lawmakers' home districts. But he wants to make sure that in addition to the transparency that Congress itself has put in place -- people have to identify by name the earmarks, put their names on the earmarks -- they want to make sure that these are worthy projects and it's not wasted spending.
Addressing claims that Obama campaigned on a promise to end earmarks, PolitiFact.com similarly wrote: "That's incorrect. Obama did not promise to end earmarking, only to 'reform' it, and eliminate 'screwy' or wasteful earmarks."
On Closing Bell, Bartiromo claimed Obama "said he would eliminate" earmarks despite airing an excerpt of Obama's March 11 speech on earmark reform in which he stated that he has "opposed [the] outright elimination" of earmarks.
Numerous media figures have similarly misrepresented Obama's statements regarding earmarks to accuse him of breaking a promise.
From the March 11 edition of CNBC's Squawk Box:
KERNEN: President Obama says he's inherited it from Bush, but there's earmarks galore across the board, and they're just saying this is not the time we're going to tackle that issue. Only five senators don't have earmarks -- only five of them.
REBECCA QUICK (co-host): Which five?
KERNEN: [Sen. John] McCain, [Sen. Russ] Feingold [D-WI], there's a couple of others. But you know, like, [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell's [R-KY] got a boatload of them, and --
QUICK: Yeah. I've seen some of the ones who are even complaining about how much is stuffed in there, but then they have their own stuff that they've jumped in, as well.
KERNEN: They've got constituents, right?
QUICK: Yeah, who was it who was saying it was -- one of the farm state guys was saying there's not enough in here to -- in terms of making sure that we cut back the budget deficit and, at the same time, he wouldn't let them do anything with the farm appropriations.
KERNEN: Exactly. I think I read 8 or 9 billion, and -- but I see columnists saying that this is not the president's -- it's not his time to pick his fight with Congress. He's got this budget bill he wants to get through, so why alienate all these guys now --
QUICK: I can understand that.
KERNEN: -- getting their earmarks out.
QUICK: I can understand that.
KERNEN: But he promised that no more earmarks. So Gibbs has been answering, you know, soon. Or the next omnibus bill, we're going to have our imprimatur -- is that how you say it? We'll put it on that but not on this one.
QUICK: Our fingerprints on that, but -- well, we can probably understand that. Also [unintelligible] --
KERNEN: Well, you always take the --
QUICK: [Investor Warren] Buffett, the other day, said you can't do everything at once.
KERNEN: Right. You're always --
QUICK: You can't do everything at once.
KERNEN: You're always very generous with these guys sometimes. You're nice. You try to be --
QUICK: I have to sit on the other side of the table as you, so we have to balance the whole thing out.
From the March 11 edition of CNBC's Closing Bell with Maria Bartiromo:
BARTIROMO: Welcome back. President Obama today tackling the criticism directed at him for allowing earmarks into the federal budget.
OBAMA [video clip]: Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination. ... But the fact is that, on occasion, earmarks have been used as a vehicle for waste, and fraud, and abuse.
BARTIROMO: The president and Senate Democrats will have to contend with my next guest to get this budget through, Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. He's the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator, it is wonderful to have you on the program. Thanks for joining us.
GREGG: Thank you for having me, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Your reaction to the president's description there about earmarks. We know that during the campaign, he said he would eliminate them.
If you ran your house budget the way GWBush ran the Iraq war, you would be a trillion dollars in debt and it wouldn't show up in your budget.
You wingnuts always scream that deficits don't matter when a Republican't in in power, and then deride the Democrats for not eliminating the results of years of profligate GOP spending in two months.
Should be "is in power"
"You wingnuts always scream that deficits don't matter when a Republican't in in power, and then deride the Democrats for not eliminating the results of years of profligate GOP spending in two months."
No, I deride them for exacerbating it. And look at yourself: you deride Republicans for out-of-control spending, and then you special plead for Democrats when they do the same thing.
? The original post from Dave is not accurate. "Earmarks" are in some cases useful projects that the Federal government funds; it aids the states in repairing bridges and roads for example. So eliminating them is not a positive thing necessarily.
Reform would require transparency in who is inserting earmarks and why.
Right, and the whole five days of it being online for everyone to see thing we heard about.
when they do the same thing...
Here's a history lesson for ya little buddy. The budget was basically balanced when Bush the Lesser took office. A war here, a tax cut there, and now we are where we are.
And in a consumer driven economy, who has the resources to spend money when most common people are broke - THE GOVERNMENT.
Your "put your turtle head back into the shell" theory was tried once before. And it led to the GREAT DEPRESSION.
So your cry of hypocrisy is just that - crying and whining.
You're shrill and annoying; you oversimplify tremendously complex historical issues while purporting to educate me based on nothing I have even said; and you haven't even constructed a coherent argument while doing any of it. Great job!
Wrong again, bub. It was YOU who didn't even refute ANYTHING I wrote. It is your apparent lack of knowledge that is "shrill and annoying".
Try again. This time with facts.
And that's understandable. I didn't want this damn war either. But BO's first order of business was to get the US out of debt and running again, and his option to accomplish this was by spending more money than we have. Printing it in the basement of the Federal Reserve may be legal, its not much different than Mrs. Dave spending $10,000 to save 200 bucks. It makes no monetary sense. And passing it on to those making more than $250,000? He's nuts.
Have you ever heard the saying you have to spend money to make money the same thing goes on a much bigger scale for the government and socity. You are believing the numbers put out by the right wing extreemiksts not the numbers by the CBO and other middle of the road groups. They bring up the multiplecation factor. That is for each dollar a person at the bottem ears or recieves it is equal to putting more than three dollars into the economy while increasing the richest peoples income is equivalant of taking money out of the economy. Which of these do you want.
That was baised on the last time I heard the numbers. It may have changed by now.
Yes, I've heard that saying. And it makes good business sense, advertising, equipment, etc, costs money. But if I wished to spend more money than I had in assests, no bank in the world would give me a loan on a "what if". And the numbers are the numbers. BO is spending more money on this than the US has to spend, unless they print it, and to make matters worse, he's only increasing the taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent. IMO, spending us out of this mess is not a good answer.
I don't think he's spending enough on the domestic front.
Look at history when Bush was given a record surpluse he turned it into a record deficit in the very first budget he proposed and signed. Obama can only use what he was given to fix the mess of the cut income increase spending crowd on the right.
Spending us out is the only historicly proven method tax cuts and spending cuts do not work and have never worked.
Dave.
It's not Obama's budget that just got passed. It's a continuation of Bush's budget from last fall.
Obama's first spending plan was free of earmarks. His budget that gets introduced in the summer should be free of unnecessary earmarks! If not, then you'll have something to criticize!
He instituted many more checks on the bank bailout bill too!
A realistic view of Obama's behavior gives him high marks for every effort he's made!
LU, who's name is signed on the spending bill, though? Blame W all you want, I do, but who signed it into law? BO wanted the CEO job and now he's got it....I blame him.
I blame him
And to think, it only took 53 days for you to assign "blame" for something that may or may not help the economy.
Sometimes you have to continue with a little of what is bad while fixing the major bad first. Can you see that.
Yeah, he signed it into law to complete what Bush should have completed.
This budget funding bill has to be signed by the President. Bush isn't President any more, so Obama had to sign it. That doesn't make him responsible for it or responsible for changing it.
If my son fails at school while with his Dad, and then I get him to come live full time with me, when that bad report card comes home, and a parent has to sign it, I don't get the blame for the bad grades my son got while he lived with his Dad!
How do you not understand this?
Funny I did not see the right getting mad at the deficit sending to fund the wars in Iraq and Afganistan or the suden deficit in Bush's first budget proposal he sent to Congress when Clinton left him a surpluse. However I see the right complaining about the Deficit and spending by Obama in less than 2 months. Get real and Get a life you right wing wacos.
Well, you have at least one ally in your war against spending.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_re_us/sanford_stimulus
Wow, here we are with the 16th MMFA posting on people misquoting his highness on the subject of earmarks. First, MMFA no one is listening to your little diatribes on the subject :( . Second, maybe MMFA and his highness will get the message that many earmarks lead to cooruption and wasteful spending. And despite others' comments contained later herein, if it is spending for roads and bridges, etc. it can form part of the normal line items inthe budget - there is no need for any earmark of any kind. If you can't convince your fellow legislators to have it in the main part of the bill then abusing your power is not the way to get normal business done.
Lets' eliminate entirely the process of earmarks - not the elimination of needed psending approvals.
Well, that's a pretty reactionary point of view. I've made this point before, and I'll make it again. I live in Washington (the only place actually called Washington, not the city) and Scoop Jackson almost single-handedly modernized our state and became legendary through porkbarreling the living hell out of the government. Really, it seems that for most people, whether something is valuable or "pork" seems to depend on whether or not the money is going to their state. I've always said that there's something kind of Machiavellian and undemocratic about the earmark process, and it does need to be reformed, but earmarks are a congressperson's main way to go about doing what should be their job: hustling money for their state.
And if you really want to have a real conversation on this, or any other subject, you shouldn't couch your argument with little insults and pejoratives.
OK I agree with the perjorative comment. I was actually doing it purposefully to show the others onthis post how they respond to requests for dialog or at least an airing of an opposing opinion. Look at all the posts on this page and add up how many left leaning bloggers actually use demeaning and perjorative comments in response either to the topic of the article or to right leaning bloggers - absent you it is 100%!!
Hopefully snnop dog, foggy bottom, wingnut, shaggy, colorado and the gang will head your admonition.
True, true. We shouldn't get caught up in a "who's worse" argument, so I'll admit that my side definitely does it's fair share of aspersion-casting. I can understand getting frustrated when you think the other side just...isn't...getting it. It can be really hard to avoid getting too emotional when it comes to politics. Especially on the internet, when you can't see the person you're talking about. I'll definitely do my best not to be too inflammatory. I'm no saint, of course, but I'm doing my best.
Methinks someone doesn't know the meaning of demeaning and perjorative comments.
-- earmarks are a congressperson's main way to go about doing what should be their job: hustling money for their state. -- butterypat
Whoa Nelson...
The oath that our representatives swear says nothing about hustling for money...it says they will support and defend the constitution.
But I'll give you this...the current congress is more full of pimps, whores, and hustlers...than those concerned with fulfilling their sworn duties...and that is the root cause of most of our problems today.
The oath also says that they will faithfully discharge the duties of their office. Getting funding for their state would seem to be part of that, since they represent the people of their state. Of course, our public servants should be responsible and accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars, and if that's your point then the Constitution is utterly irrelevant.
If supporting and defending the Constitution was their only duty, that would be a pretty easy job, especially considering that interpreting the Constitution and evaluating the validity of passed laws would be more in the realm of the judicial branch anyway.
"The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution"
you're correct Wes, the Constitution does not specify they hustle money.
OK...based solely on the Constitution what should they be doing, since you seem to be implying that they can only have purposes laid out for them in the Constitution.
The Constitution also say provide for the general welfare and that is what the spending is aimed at doing.
"Second, maybe MMFA and his highness will get the message that many earmarks lead to cooruption and wasteful spending."
I think that saying that one wants to eliminate wasteful earmarks indicates an understanding that many earmarks lead to corruption and wasteful spending. That doesn't lend itself to the idea that all earmarks should be eliminated any more than the fact that many people keep their guns where their kids can blow their brains out with them lends itself to the idea that all guns should be confiscated.
It is not the earmarks that lead to this but the unregulated pork in many of the budgets. Earmarks are instructions on the spending while pork is wateful spending. If you believe otherwise you have been mislead.
"Earmarks are instructions on the spending while pork is wateful spending."
I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. If you have an earmark for seven-lane highway expansion between two moderately-populated towns, that's wasteful. It's not as if you can just say "that's an earmark" and it suddenly becomes appropriate.
They are because with out earmarks there would be no way to make sure the states spend the money Congress gives them as it is intended to be spent a state might then have bridges collapse and no one could be punished for it because the money for maintaining the bridge was spent on another state project.
I'm not saying that earmarks are inherently wrong. As a means of understanding and dictating where funding is going, I think they can be useful. Again, that does not mean that a project can not be both an earmark and wasteful at the same time.
Like your fake outrage over millionaires paying more taxes. Gotta hand it to you wingnuts there is never gonna be a time you wise up.
If what I expressed was "fake" outrage, I think I need to step it up.
Dave is a "top 5 percenter". That's income, not intelligence obviously. His outrage is real. He's a rich fat cat who lives in a mansion and wants to retain the right to horde as much of his money as possible.
"And the clincher, you guys making more than 250,000 a year will pick up the tab for this mess."
Including you, right?
Which liberal on MSNBC? Joe Scarborough?
Erin Burnett, e.g.
Media Matters has been monitoring MSNBC since its inception. It's funny that you can't understand that.
We understand that partisans on the right won't ever criticize someone else on the right.
That's not the way MMfA works - thank the Lord. They don't protect anyone from criticism, because it's not the person they are criticizing anyway. It's the behavior!
Top that off with the fact that Erin Burnett is not liberal, and
We have a Loser!
Two things: This is CNBC, not MSNBC. CNBC actually tends to have a much more right-wing, "pro-business" slant. And MSNBC is not ideologically consistent, in the way that Fox News is. If you really think the organization is top-to-bottom folks like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, then you don't know a damn thing about General Electric. Trust me, GE is no friend to the left.
He never said he would eliminate them. That was McCain. McCain hates earmarks almost as much as he hates regulations. Most of this hoopla over earmarks comes from McCain shooting his mouth off about stuff he knows nothing about. There's nothing wrong with earmarks. Even the famed Bridge to Nowhere was arguably a worthwhile project. According to McCain it was a bridge to an island where only about 50 people lived. It seems outrageous to spend millions of dollars on that, right? Oops. Grampy forgot to mention (or didn't bother to find out) that the Ketchikan airport is also on that island. That puts a little different light on the subject.
Coming next: "Why is Obama promising to withdraw troops from Iraq? During the campaign, he promised to keep them there for a hundred years!"
I mean, as long as we are going to attack Obama for not keeping John McCain's campaign promises, isn't that a logical next step?
Jeesh these people are idiots.
You are correct. It was McCain that got his panties in a bunch over earmarks, not Obama. Obama rightfully pointed out how miniscule the earmark problem was in relation to the larger budget issues, like a extremely expensive war of choice in Iraq.
No, it really doesn't, Shaggles. Neither the 50 residents nor the airport justify that bridge.
I know it's a pipe dream, but, wouldn't it be GREAT if, when *reporters* said 'He said...', they would air a clip OF that person ACTUALLY saying it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/06/obama-to-ban-earmarks-fro_n_155787.html
From the stimulus bill. Jeez, it's right in the headline!
http://www.examiner.com/x-2759-Business-and-Finance-Examiner~y2009m2d28-Top-10-wasteful-earmarks-on-stimulus-bill
My point is he lied then. And again, I don't call 8000 earmarks in the budget "reform." He didn't do anything differently.
I stand corrected. There are 9287 earmarks. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2318.cfm)
Let's start with these earmarks...
No argument here. I think it's disgusting and that those Republicans are a disgrace.
Yeah, who the hell needs science and engineering research? What possible good could ever come from that? Mississippi environmental structure?! F Mississippi and its useless environment--I don't live there. Houston METRO?! What, they need to be chauffeured around like Hollywood movie stars? Those idiots can walk to the grocery store like everybody else. I don't even know why agricultural research is even a concept. What's to know? Plant some seeds and feed us, you stupid farmers. How hard could it be?
Thank you for that impassioned defense of Republican earmark spending.
If money is earmarked for a worthwhile purpose, then why would I care if the state's senator is a Republican or a Democrat? You're taking the knee-jerk position that all earmarks are bad. It's a moronic position, and that was the point of my post.
It would help, for sake of argument, if you knew what a lie was. The Stimulus bill was largely earmark free, and because there are those few earmarks that does not mean he lied. It was more of a broken promise, because when he committed to the promise to ban them, in that bill, he was not aware it would not be plausible to do so.
You're dishonest on several fronts. First, it's not a budget, but a spending bill to the fund the govt through the rest of the fiscal year. Next, this was Bush's baby that he sat on and didn't do his job before he left office. Naturally, Obama is left with another mess to clean up. Lastly, these earmarks make up just 2% of the bill. You'd rather have the govt shut down then nitpick over something so minute? At least Obama is doing his job; something the last office holder didn't do.
Don't call me dishonest and then create a false dilemma and play with semantics. There are alternatives to the government shutting down if this isn't passed. You know that. The percentage to me only means that the sum total of the bill is too massive. You don't get 9287 earmarks to be only 2% of a bill unless it's massively overgrown; I don't consider it a minute issue. Then again, I'll just assume that's a difference in ideology.
There are alternatives to the government shutting down if this isn't passed.
So what are the alternatives?
And if you don't like earmarks, call your congressman or move to South Carolina.
I thought SC was rejecting the stimulus money but wanted to keep their earmarks?
The law would have caused the government to shut down so there were not alterinitives.
No, those earmarks weren't in the stimulus bill. They were in the omnibus spending bill.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/a-sarcastic-joh.html
Yeah, I guess that site was wrong. The latter link I posted has it right.
This was not the budget and it is less that half of what were in the average spending bill under your "St" Bush.
Do they now get mentioned on the Daily Show?
If they do at least then we would get the truth. The Daily show may be commady but at least what they say that is not a joke is correct. Is it not funny that a show poking fun at the news is more accurate than the real news.
Kernen and Maria along with most other "reporters" (term used loosely) are nothing but a bunch of hacks.
I think all this "earmark" talk is a deliberate distraction by the corporatists, who'd like us all to forget that they tanked the economy.
Stewart handed Cramer his head. And Cramer is the pick of the CNBC litter.
That tells ya all ya need to know about the value of business news. They just take whatever the likes of John Thane says and takes it at face value.
Still, at least Cramer had the stones to show up and take his lumps. That's more than ya can say for the rest of those clowns.
"Daddy, What's a Republican?" links to a relevant Kristof and adds the following comment:
Many pundits and politicians (Howard Kurtz, John McCain and Maureen Dowd to name a few) get a big laugh every year when they get to the money in the budget going to improve the health and safety of hog farms and reduce the environmental damage they do. Apparently when you have a nice condo in New York or D.C., the plight of rural areas dealing with contaminated water and the possible threat of a hideous, sometimes fatal disease is comedy gold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZAXLhkAwl8&feature=related
By Rove! Obama promised no earmarks in the stimulus...