Liasson repeats tired Obama earmark falsehood on NPR
SUMMARY: Mara Liasson falsely claimed that President Obama "vowed to eliminate" earmarks. In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not "eliminate" earmarks altogether.
During the May 1 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, national political correspondent Mara Liasson falsely claimed that President Obama "vowed to eliminate" earmarks. In fact, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not "eliminate" earmarks altogether.
Numerous media figures have similarly misrepresented Obama's statements regarding earmarks to accuse him of breaking a promise.
From the May 1 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
LIASSON: There are other ways to measure how much the president has or hasn't changed the way Washington works. He's lowered the partisan heat of political debate and set a new civil tone. And he's used relatively few gimmicks in his budget plan. He actually provided a way to pay for some of his big priorities, like health care and middle class tax cuts.
But when Congress took that funding out and put budget gimmicks back in, the president didn't object. Neither did he fight back when Congress stuffed a spending bill with earmarks he had vowed to eliminate. Giving in so quickly may come back to haunt the new president, says Ornstein.
NORM ORNSTEIN (American Enterprise Institute resident scholar): The more your rhetoric gets flowery in terms of all that you're going to do to change the way Washington does business, the higher the standard to which you will be held and the harsher the criticism for hypocrisy.
What are your preferred sources of news?
Why don't you ask me the question you really want an answer to: "What are my preferred sources of news with liberal, socialist, fascist overtones?"
Nice try...
Answer either one. Curious minds want to know.
AA,
If you don't mind, I'm curious as to where you get your news.
funny. mainstream tv, radio, two daily papers, two weekly papers, one weekly magazine and online. You?
You don't have any idea what I really want to know. I asked a simple question.
I watch CBS,ABC,FoxNews and read the WSJ. I read comments on Media Matters,
Daily Kos, Heritage Foundation, Huffington Post, Bloomberg.com and more.
Now where do you get your news?
Are there any "wasteful" earmarks in the Rescue bill and the Omnibus spending bill ?
Seems like he didn't do anything at all to elminiate them. Seems like he didn't have much input to the bills at all. Could anyone have gone "line by line" over the bill when it wasn't even in print 48 hours before it was signed? The message from Obama was that wasteful spending would be eliminated. As far as the spending and rescue bills are concerned he hasn't lived up to his campaign promises.
Could you tell us what you find to be wasteful earmarks in the bill? Without knowing your definition of what a wasteful earmark is, this discussion will go nowhere.
fried, Do you think any of these qualify as wasteful earmarks?
-- $6.6 million for Formosan subterranean termite research in Louisiana, requested by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
-- $1.7 million for the honeybee lab in Weslaco, Texas, requested by Sen. Jim Johnson (D-S.D.)
-- $1.1 million for mosquito trapping research in Gainesville, Fla.
-- $1.8 million for “swine odor and manure management” in Ames, Iowa, requested by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
-- $1 million for “mormon crickets” in Utah, requested by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah)
-- $935,000 for egg pasteurization in Michigan requested by former Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.)
-- $2.9 million for “shrimp aquaculture” in Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas
-- $1.5 million for “pinniped research” in Alaska. Pinnipeds are a class of animals that includes walruses, seals, and sea lions.
Financing and land-use issues also accounted for considerable amounts of questionable projects such as:
-- $491,000 for the Baltimore City Public School System’s health care program
-- $950,000 for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
-- $100,000 for a “robotics training center” in the City of Union, S.C.
-- $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center
Land and construction provisions provided probably the richest areas for pork-barrel spending, with projects ranging from parking garages to nature trails – all being funded by U.S. taxpayers:
-- $1.5 million for the California National Historic Trail Interpretive Center in Nevada
-- $2.2 million for the Arkansas River Special Recreation Management Area in Colorado
-- $500,000 for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail in California
-- $332,000 for buses at the Bronx Zoo in New York City
-- $855,000 for the Chelsea Intermodal Parking Garage in Chelsea, Mass.
-- $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi in Connecticut
-- $2.9 million for bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements in Illinois
-- $475,000 to renovate the façade of the Italian American Museum in New York City
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44660
I bet most of these resulted in job creation. Are you anti-jobs?
Job creation? I hear termite research jobs have gone through the roof...
He said "most of" no "all."
Termites destroy property. To echo Brab, I'm not sure why you would consider an attempt to fix a problem to be wasteful.
pete,
Obviously, by not stating which earmarks are job creating, it leaves fog open to criticism about any one of them. Nice try.
I say most if not all will create jobs. You say I'm open to criticism. How about you tell us which of these will NOT create jobs in a time of recession.
You can't tell what's wasteful spending from just looking at the list. The republican senator who requested the money for "Mormon crickets" went on FOX News to defend the earmark and he convinced me it wasn't wasteful spending. The crickets destroy millions of dollars worth of crops in Utah each year and he wanted the money the eradicate them. There may be similar stories behind the other earmarks.
And the "egg pasteurization" sounds like it stems from a health concern. That doesn't sound particularly wasteful either.
AA just chose the earmarks with funny sounding names that he doesn't understand and can easily ridicule due to his ignorance.
Again, nice try at deflection. You are the one who made the open ended statement. You have yet to prove any of them are in fact, job creating programs.
It is laughable the extent some here will go to defend the indefensible spending and the corrupting influence of earmarks.
OK - starting at the bottom and working my way up:
Facade renovation - workers will have to be hired to complete the renovation.
Bicycle/pedestrian trail improvements - workers will have to be hired to complete this improvements.
Pleasure Beach water taxi - workers will have to be hired to build the water taxis and/or docks as well as workers to operate the taxi.
Chelsea parking garage - workers will have to be hired to build this garage.
Etc. Etc. Etc. It's laughable that some here will criticize spending in a time of recession even though it leads to much needed jobs.
Before the election most people considered the vast number of earmarks a form of corruption. That is why both Obama and McCain campaigned against them and there was no difference in their view points.
Now we find out that going line by line through bills isn't really going to happen. The problem with the the earmarks isn't that money is being spent on something useful, it's that all too frequently, it results in corruption. It has proven to be form of vote buying. That's why Obama and McCain wanted to get rid of it or at least reduce it drastically.
That part of the campaign agenda has not materialized. Does anyone think they will?
In case you missed it, this was Bush's last budget. It's only been 100 and a few days into the Obama administration. Impatient, aren't we?
Why do you have the "mormon cricket" one there? They destroy crops. That's a problem. I'm not sure why you would consider an attempt to fix a problem to be wasteful.
I'd love to hear more on some, but the only ones I can talk to (Colorado, Louisiana, Baltimore) those are well worth it.
Are you saying spending money on a children's health program is wasteful?
I would love to hear more specifics on all of them before judging though.
One needs to be specific. It depends on the program. Are you in favor of earmarks?
Legislating the spending of money should be open to debate and those proposing the spending should be known. Earmarks in many cases are not. It is a system that is built for corruption and payback by politicians to special interest groups. Do you deny that?
Just to take one of these and write a phone book. Are you INSANE?
-- $1.7 million for the honeybee lab in Weslaco, Texas, requested by Sen. Jim Johnson (D-S.D.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have you heard of the Colony Collapse syndrome? This is SERIOUS. Honeybees are dissapearing at an alarming rate all over the world. Something like one THIRD of all food we eat is pollenated by bees.
I've heard of it.
ps. Does this almost $2 million dollar earmark work on that problem you mentioned? It doesn't say. Who knows? Why have a honeybee lab in Weslaco, TX? Why not Wyandotte, MI or Sedona, AZ, or Atlanta, GA? None of that was debated. Maybee there are other labs already in existance studying the problem that could better use the money. But it will never be known because it is an earmark.
The same holds true for the other earmarks. Obviously some are well intentioned, some are plainly just funnelling government money to pet projects. Over 9,000 of them have been added to the ominibus bill and voted on without debate. Do you think that is the right way for Congress to spend our money?
Are you kidding? We have a worldwide, very SERIOUS problem that could collapse our agriculture sector in that bees are disappearing. They are studying bees and WHAT you think perhaps they are studying their preference in colors? What in the world does it matter WHERE the lab work on the bees is done? Are you really arguing from MAYBE AGAIN? MAYBE is not an argument. You can make up a hypothetical to cover virtually any scenario it is worthless to even TRY to make or answer a MAYBE argument MAYBE the Sun will go nova tomorrow and none of this will matter, MAYBE aliens from Alpha Draconus will drop by next week and they will be able to speak directly to the bees and we will find they are doing a job action and holding our crops for ransom to get better working conditions. MAYBE Santa will give us the answer and NONE OF THAT is worth discussing. Your OLD argument was that they were WASTEFUL not that they should have been debated. Your list really WASNT a list of WASTEFUL earmarks which is what you claimed so what WAS your argument again it seems to have changed. Earmarks dont MAKE new money, they take a PORTION of the money already allocated for a reason and send it to specific places. While it is a practice often abused itself it isnt a bad thing. It is like fire it can be used well or misused. THAT is a different argument than you originally posted
I think we need more earmarks for common sense research. We can direct it to AA's congressional district.
I only read the first few of your examples, but you have got to be kidding me. You cannot think of why Louisiana would need termite research? Really?
You really don't know why we need to be studying the bees? Really?
Swine odor and manure management? You have no idea why? You should talk to some people who live up here in Iowa near the pig farms. They would be more than happy to explain to you why this research is not only necessary, but LONG overdue.
I am not as educated on the crickets. But, from what I read it is a real problem that needs to have some preventative measures put into place in Utah immediately.
These are the best that you can do? What website did you get these from? It has to be some ignorant right-wing site. Where is the volcano mointoring? Did they remove that from their list finally?
He listed the website at the bottom.
I should have known Conservative news service. Where the Limborg goes to find out what they think when they DONT want to quote Rush directly
LOL, the Limborg. Never heard that one.
It popped up with a simple google search.
Well personally when I do a google search to source a claim that I have read much ealier I SKIP the obviously partisan sites. You dont SEE me list common dreams or Huffpo. I go DOWN THE LIST till I can find an ACTUAL news source. IF it is a solid citation that shouldnt be too hard to find.
seems like you get all your misinformation from fox news and right wing talking heads. seems like you can't think for yourself. seems like you're part of the permanent minority.
Seems like all republicans do is whine about things that aren't there when they should be doing their jobs and reading the bills. If they shut their yaps long enough they would have had plenty of time.
I tried to send an email to the ombudsman link but got this:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
Ombudsman@npr.org
"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."
-- Barack Obama, Jan. 6, 2009.
From the stimulus bill.
Not even a good try
Nice crop job, Psycho...
"And that's why my recovery and reinvestment plan will have -- will set a new higher standard of accountability, transparency, and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review."
Whether or not this held true is a separate issue from banning earmarks altogether.
OT, but notice how quickly miss california disappeared off of the right wing radar now that it's been revealed that she had breast implants and the beauty pagent paid for them?
I wonder if she'll have to return them now a la Palin's pricy campaign wardrobe.
I didn't hear that. Why would the pagent pay for someone's implants?
good question. The article about it is here.
It's amazing that even NPR is spouting RNC talking points.
Whether or not Obama promised to eliminate earmarks or reform earmarks is immaterial.
He did neither in the Ominbus Spending bill that included over 9,000 earmarks. that is the relevant criticism. Obama didn't even try. Why anyone believed Obama in the first place was beyond me as he had mastered the earmark process in the short time he was in the Senate.
Here's what Obama said last fall, ""We need earmark reform and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure we're not spending money unwisely."
Yeah. right.
Whether or not Obama promised to eliminate earmarks or reform earmarks is immaterial.
No, it's not immaterial unless you are trying to reframe the debate. And I find the GOP hipocracy on this subject absolutely stunning. They put half of them in and then criticized every earmark except their own. Your party has zero credibility on criticizing earmark reform, and as the party of no, I fully expect that they will try to block any piece of legislation submitted on the subject.
Snoop,
I agree with you about most of the GOP succumbing to the corruption of earmarks along with the Democrats. We'll have to look at specific people in the GOP to see if they are consistant or hypocritcal (as Obama) regarding earmarks. I am not a McCain fan, but I admired his stance on no earmarks.
The Omnibus Spending Bill was a holdover from the previous year, administration and congress. Obama made the judgment that it was best to sign this bill with the earmarks, at least 40% Republican BTW, rather than to take the time to rework it, especially given the severe economic crisis he had to deal with.
I'm willing to wait and see if Obama reforms the earmark process for his first budget before I complain.
Yes, Obama made the decision. He could have easily have pressured Congress through the bully pulpit and his soaring popularity, especially in light of these economic times, to remove them. He simply broke his campaign promise regardless of the fiscal year budgeting. (That doesn't remove the blame from the Republicans either. The GOP could have scored big gains by insisting the earmarks be removed. But they didn't so they are as guilty as the Dems.)
You can wait, but don't hold your breath.
And I am sure you wrote to your Republican Congressperson and told him or her to stop requesting money for your district, correct?
Nice attempt. However you miss the point completely. It is not the funding, but the hidden method of funding by avoiding debate that I, and many others, object.
That aside, I have never requested that my Representative spend money in my district. Have you? Don't you see the problem with that? If you don't, you illustrate that that Democratic Party is now the "GimmeGimme" Party.
It isnt up to YOU what is material and what isnt. This site is NOT about politicians it is about the media and specifically the conservative media and THIS time about why they LIE so darn much. It isnt up to YOU to say we need to change the subject to what YOU think should be talked about. MMFA says and I agree that HERE on THIS THREAD the relevant criticism is about those who LIE about what Obama said.
I listen to NPR every morning on my way to school and hear GOP Talking Points. Most of the time they are not called out as false and followed up with the actual truth.
I heard the NPR ombudsman on San Francisco's KQED "Forum" interview program one day and frankly she's pretty worthless. In fact, I'd say she is part of the whole NPF (National Public Fox) takeover.
She was talking about the "political balance" of programming and she was basing it purely on a *count* of incidents of a story (in her example) on McCain or Obama. Nothing about the thrust of the story, nothing about how words were loaded in the story...truly, nothing in the slightest preceptive. She was only spinning a cloud of psuedo meaning.
The ombudsperson is the first person who should be given the boot from the network.