Obammer* and his earmarks

Blacque Obammer* missed a golden opportunity: He could have just thrown down the gauntlet and said No to earmarks.

If BO had really meant what he said about "change you can believe in," then he should have looked Congress square in the eye and said:

"I am vetoing this $410 billion omnibus spending bill, since it's overloaded with earmarks. Starting immediately, if you want money to be spent on miscellaneous items, you will have to submit those items to me as separate pieces of legislation.

"I invite you to rewrite this current omnibus bill as two separate bills: One to be in its current form but having absolutely no earmarks; the other to consist solely of earmarks (in effect, an Omnibus Earmark Bill). Furthermore, I will tell you in advance: I'll sign the first bill, but I won't even consider signing the other unless its price tag is reduced by 50%."

[Side note: Should Congress have presented an Omnibus Earmark Bill (with the 50% reduction requested), Obammer's* team could have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb and sent it back to Congress with (in effect) his line-item veto. Remember: My suggested Obammer* response (above) used these words: "I won't even consider signing ...unless its price tag is reduced by 50%." I didn't suggest that Obammer* should have promised to sign it.]

If Congress wanted (at some future date, after the Omnibus Earmark Bill was signed into law by the president) to advocate on behalf of the deleted earmarks, it could have picked one of them (just to make a point) and taken to the Bully Pulpit on its behalf. It's true Obammer* might have responded by digging in and saying, "I said 50% and I meant it." In that case, Congress could have attempted to pressure BO by extolling loudly and publicly the virtues of this particular earmark.

Of course, it's doubtful that a Democratic Congress would choose to embarrass a Democratic president. So Obammer* really had nothing to fear had he employed my strategy. So what stopped him?

Our fearless leader defends earmarks

QUOTE:

"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," [BO] said.

:UNQUOTE**

Those words speak volumes. For instance, what does your president mean by "done right?" In my opinion, doing right by earmarks means that the president insist that they not be attached to any other bill.

BO could have stayed true to his word - "I've opposed their outright elimination" - and still have taken a significant step toward their eventual elimination. With 7,991 earmarks in the current bill (which Obammer* signed), I see a lot of room for improvement by reducing their sheer volume.

Closer scrutiny: I quoted Obammer* above as saying, "...earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts."

First of all, not all legislators are created equal in their ability to weasel earmarks into legislative packages. The more senior among them (committee heads and other super incumbents) have more leverage in this area.

Second, there is no mechanism in place to determine which projects are "worthy."

Third, why should Congressmen be empowered to "direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts?" Shouldn't federal money be appropriated for the benefit of all Americans, and not just for those who happen to be Senator Blowhard's constituents?

If these earmarks are so obviously good for the country as a whole, they should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merits. They shouldn't be crammed into a larger bill and forced on a weak-willed president - yes, that's what Obammer* is turning out be - who feels mystically compelled to sign quickly in order to access the non-earmarked dollars (around 99% of its total). This weak-willed president wanted to put this current bill behind him, call it "imperfect," call it last year's business and not really his concern since he wasn't president when it should have been passed in the first place.

So why did he sign this bill?

But...he is the president now, isn't he? And it was his decision to sign or to veto, wasn't it? If the answer is Yes to both questions, then why was he being such a wuss about this? After all, even if BO had refused to sign the Omnibus, Congress could have done one of two things (and quickly, I might add, since that seems to be the new Barack-ratic buzz word):

• Congress could have immediately stripped away all earmarks and re-submitted this bill for Obammer's* signature. This could have been done very quickly - far more quickly than the time needed to pass the Patriot Act (which, in the view of certain skeptics - me among them, was enacted conspiratorially quickly).

• Congress could have bought a little time by submitting for signature an emergency appropriation measure - enough to finance government operations for (say) a month - while it feverishly worked on preparing another Omnibus with (only) a token number of earmarks deleted. Or with more deleted, if Congress wanted to risk the appearance of buckling under to the president.

What Congress could not have done: Pass the vetoed Omnibus by a two-thirds majority in both houses. This majority would have required bipartisan support, which would not have materialized if Obammer* were to have put the matter in this light:

"I made a promise to the American people to scrutinize the budget line by line. While it's true that the president does not have line item veto power, he can refuse to sign a bill laden with pork. I am being reasonable with Congress, saying that earmarks can no longer be attached to larger bills. Earmarks must stand or fall on their own merits, either by each being submitted to me as a separate piece of legislation (if that is Congress's wish) or by being bundled together in an Omnibus Earmark Package.

"Please note: I am not saying No to earmarks. I am just saying No to attaching them to larger bills. That's change you can believe in."

Hyperventilating

QUOTE:

... David Obey, D-Wis., hinted at irritation with the public's focus. "With all of the hyperventilating over the 1 percent of the omnibus appropriations bill that is made up of earmarks," he said, "Washington has mostly glossed over the important results it has achieved with the other 99 percent of the bill."

:UNQUOTE**

David Obey needs a thrashing, so I'll do that right now:

QUOTE:

Mr. Obey, times are tough, so can you really blame people for trying to insist that their government either save or redirect that 1%? We're supposed to be trying to be more frugal these days - or at least wise in spending what we've got.

The reason we're "hyperventilating" is that We-the-Sheeple cannot understand why our so-called Change President did not insist on Congress removing all earmarks from the Omnibus Bill and resubmitting them as a separate bill or bills. This was entirely and easily within his power. This was not hard, was good for brownie points, wouldn't have cost him anything, nor would even have caused him to break out in a mild sweat.

And, while I'm at it, why don't we call it by its real name? Yes, it's 1% (actually, 1.3%) but that means we're talking about $5.5 billion. Why didn't we take that $5.5 billion and use it to improve the ability of the SEC and other regulatory agencies, as well as the Department of Justice, to more aggressively enforce the law? Maybe if SEC had been more adequately funded, Bernie Madoff would have been caught long ago. And that would have benefited all of us, not just Senator Porky's people.

And that's another thing: Why aren't Obammer* and his fellow Democrats raising high holy hell about SEC's role as a virtual unindicted co-conspirator in the Madoff case, since SEC chose to ignore key whistleblower evidence?

:UNQUOTE.

President Obammer* vs. President Searle

Barack Obama won the presidency and I didn't - granted.

But just to be speculative for a moment, consider this question: What would a President Searle have done when presented by Congress with a spending bill so laden with earmarks?

A quick look at Point # 5 of my 47-point Electoral Contract will easily answer that question. Remember: I was the only candidate who ran against McCain and Obammer* on the basis of a contract containing my campaign promises, to be enforced with this provision:

If I violate any of my promises, I forfeit the presidency: See http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/9/the_electoral_contract_of_steven_searle_for_us_president

QUOTE (Point #5):

I will veto every single bill from Congress that comes my way until it passes:

• a Single Payer health care reform package, which will provide medical coverage to all US citizens free of charge - that is, without co-payments, deductibles, or any requirement to pay insurance premiums. This will also establish reasonable medical billing practices and rates.

• a nationwide cap on personal credit card interest rates of 18%.

:UNQUOTE.

I would have vetoed Obammer's* Pork Bill (it's safe to call it Obammer's* Pork Bill now, since he did absolutely nothing to stop it). And concerning something else BO did absolutely nothing to stop, see Point #2 of my Electoral Contract:

QUOTE:

Point #2: Within 90 days of my inauguration, all U.S. military forces will be completely withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the "situation on the ground." This withdrawal also applies to any covert operatives currently operating in Iran.

:UNQUOTE.

I think we can safely call the Iraqi Occupation by another, more appropriate name now: Obammer's Occupation. Not to mention Operation Subjugate Afghanistan - that's his, too. Then there's the upcoming (be sure of it) Operation Destabilize Iran for the Benefit of Israel.

If I had won this election, all of this militaristic nonsense would have been stopped dead in its tracks, with our forces completely removed from Iraq and Afghanistan by my deadline of April 20 - and I'm talking about April 20 of this year.

So I invite you to mark your calendar for April 20, 2009 and to remind yourself on that date:

"If Steven Searle had been elected president, we'd be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now."

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Obammer* mishandled the earmark issue very badly - missing a slam dunk if ever there was one. Tell me, do you think he'll do much better with Health Care Reform?  - Steve

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

**article by Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer, Mar. 11, 2009.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.