Obama’s Dishonesty On Earmarks 2

I received some interesting comments, one of them distinctly unfriendly, in response to my post on President Obama’s dishonesty with respect to earmarks.  The most interesting criticism comes from my friend and frequent interlocutor, AI.  It’s worth taking apart.  First a mea culpa:

You say Obama promised to end earmarks. Maybe he said something to that effect, but you cite no example (unless it is in the Andrew Taylor piece which I can't establish a link to). Please provide a quote where Obama campaigned on eliminating earmarks.

You are quite right, AI.  Obama promised on the campaign trail only to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels.  My bad. 

I have seen posts in which you were critical of others for uncivil or ad hominem attacks on yourself. Might I suggest a good inoculation against such attacks is to avoid calling someone else a liar--which you have essentially called Obama in this piece.

I agree with the Supreme Court that public figures are held to a different standard than private citizens, and I think that Presidents must be held to very high standards.  I don’t think I was being unreasonable in my judgment of Obama.  But was I wrong?  You say:

As to the basis for claims of Obama's dishonesty, I would like to see at least two examples of "earmarks" in the stimulus. Spare me the "sin train" and mouse in CA. talking points as those have long been debunked as partisan hackery. Show me real earmarks where a member of congress inserted language that funded a specific project primarily benefiting only their state or district.

Okey dokey.  Here’s Michael Grabell and Christopher Weaver, from MSNBC:

The [stimulus] package includes an insurance exemption — but only for companies that work on recreational boats longer than 65 feet. Another provision would lift a Medicare regulation affecting only three long-term care hospitals in the country.  There’s also language requiring the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers.

Let me go out on a limb here.  I say that the “longer than 65 feet” rule applies to some production line in some Congressman’s district.  I am betting that the Medicare regulation affecting only three hospitals owes its inclusion to some Congressperson or Congresspersons who have such hospitals in their districts, or who owe favors to someone with an interest in such hospitals.  Those look like earmarks to me, even if the language is tailored to make them look like general rules. 

We both acknowledge that the term “earmarks” is not so precise.  Here is how Grabell and Weaver parse the question: 

What is an ‘earmark’?
In part, the answer hinges on the definition of an “earmark.” Democrats insist they are nowhere in the plan; Republicans see “pork” everywhere. So we cribbed from criteria Congress laid out in a 2007 reform bill: language that aims spending at specific programs, states or localities, often at a member’s request.

Specific location? The Senate stimulus contains $50 million for habitat restoration and other water needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. There is another $62 million for military projects in Guam.

Specific industry? The House bill includes an amendment authored by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley setting aside $500 million for biofuel makers, which he says, would bring jobs home to Iowa.

Specific program? There’s $198 million to compensate Filipino World War II veterans for their service. Most don’t live in the United States.

There’s earmarks in that there bill!  So when Obama said in his speech to Congress:

I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks -- (applause) -- and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities. 

He wasn’t telling the truth about his “recovery plan,” was he?  Either he was clueless about the bill he signed, or he wasn’t being square with us.  I am hoping it’s the latter.  But he tactfully forgot to mention the pending spending he is backing in Congress. 

Maureen Dowd spent the last eight years writing scathing columns about George W.  She writes a column for the New York Times.  So when she tears a hole in Obama’s backside, it’s a hole that counts.  That hole is shaped just like John McCain:

Before the Senate resoundingly defeated a McCain amendment on Tuesday that would have shorn 9,000 earmarks worth $7.7 billion from the $410 billion spending bill, the Arizona senator twittered lists of offensive bipartisan pork, including:

• $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa.

• $1 million for Mormon cricket control in Utah. “Is that the species of cricket or a game played by the brits?” McCain tweeted.

• $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama.

• $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi.

• $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas. (McCain, a devotee of Vegas and gambling, must really be against earmarks if he doesn’t want to “sustain” Vegas.)

• $2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii, as McCain twittered, “because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy.”

• $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles. “Hopefully for a Back in the Saddle Again exhibit,” McCain tweeted sarcastically.

• $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program to help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past. “REALLY?” McCain twittered.

When President Obama bragged about an earmark-free recovery plan that wasn’t free of earmarks, and promised a future budget that will be free of earmarks, but was silent about a current bill that is crawling with 9,000 earmarks, that is deliberate mendacity.  I was being gentle and as civil as can be expected when I called it dishonesty.  But you are probably right to say that I was accusing him of being a liar.  Well, I may have been a bit rude, but I wasn’t wrong, was I? 

Comments

[A.I.]

I love the smell of mea culpa in the morning! How about a three-fer?

Sorry, you still haven't cited "earmarks" in the stimulus. The MSNBC piece was written before reconciliation was complete and before final passage. Were even the no-cost provisions included in the final bill--the version Obama was referring to as not having earmarks?

As for the omnibus, it is a continuation of work on legislation started before Obama took office, so his argument that new rules don't apply may have some validity. But, even if you call that a cop out, you haven't shown the rule is broken in regard to exceeding 1994 earmark spending. And that may be hard to do considering we again must define earmark and then must define exceed. It seems to me it would have to be inflation-adjusted earmark spending that would be more than 1994 levels as a percentage of total spending--which is to say, Obama left himself a lot of leeway when he made the pledge. Like many politicians, he's pretty smart that way.

So am I willing to admit you're correct in calling Obama dishonest? Not on the basis of what you've presented so far, but if you want to keep trying, I'll keep reading--and probably disagreeing.

[J.Y.]

Isn't there a potential church-state conflict in controlling Mormon Crickets.

[KB]

AI:

This is a rockin' exchange, in my view, and I am grateful for your comments. I am responding in a third and I expect final post on the subject. I just like to have all the formatting devices at my disposal, and I want to highlight the dialogue.

J.Y.: Good one on the Mormon crickets.

[KB]

AI:

Some additional remarks on your comment: I conceded the point that Obama promised on the campaign trail only to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels. Well, I gather the standard would be about $7 billion a year. It looks like Obama will meet that standard if he gets to sign this omnibus. Do you really think there won't be additional earmarks in any more legislation this year? By the way, I don't think that a failure to meet promised targets is necessarily a sign of dishonesty. But it is worth noting.

But the argument that the omnibus bill is "old news" is silly evasion. A bill that goes through Congress this year and is signed this year is this year's bill. As Dowd points out, Obama could have insisted that Congress (both parties are parties to the problem!) strip out all the earmarks. He could have said that this moment of national peril requires it. He didn't bother, so how serious is he about reducing earmarks?

But I say again: to brag about reducing earmarks when he knew this thing was headed his way, without doing anything about it, that is not honest government.

[Sarah]

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know

what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Sarah

http://www.craigslistsimplified.info