by Mark Silva
President Barack Obama, demanding honesty in budgeting and forbidding "earmarks'' for individual congressmen in the bills he is seeking, is likely to sign a multibillion-dollar spending bill which critics contend is riddled with now-forbidden earmarks.
Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff and a former Democratic House leader and congressman from Chicago, was asked today on CBS News' Face the Nation: Will the president veto the $410-billion omnibus spending bill that Congress is sending him, with Republicans complaining that it is chock full of the "earmarks'' that Obama has warned against?
"That's last year's business,'' Emanuel said of the spending bill to keep the government moving through much of the 2009 budget year. Obama has proposed a new 2010 budget, his first.
"When President Obama came to office, two major bills were passed without earmarks,'' he said - both the economic stimulus bill and the expansion of health insurance for children - he noted. Yet the '09 omnibus spending bill is hardly earmark-free.
.
"This bill has some of those,'' Emanuel allowed of the earmarks in the disputed new spending bill. "When he was a senator,'' he said in defense of Obama, "he put his own individual requests on his Web page... What the American people want to know is if these individual earmarks meet a worthy'' goal.
Does that mean, essentially, that the president may not like this bill, but will go ahead and sign it while advising the Congress not to do it again, CBS host Bob Schieffer asked?
"In not so many words, yes,'' Emanuel said.
(Rahm Emanuel, pictured above in the push for the economic stimuls bill in Congress. Photo by J. Scott Applewhite / AP)
The president had taken some heat for a $7.7 million set-aside in the bill that he had requested many months ago, when he was a senator. The one with his name on it, $7.7 million earmark for a Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions, had many cosponsors.
The request was to restore funding for a longstanding vocational education program that then-President Bush targeted for elimination. "President Obama requested funding for the broader educational program. It was not an earmark," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor told the Washington Post about that one.
Asked about raising taxes during a recession, the chief of staff maintains that no one will see that during the first two years of the president's new budgets. With the $787-billion economic stimulus, Emanuel said, "95 percent of Americans will see a tax cut... Second, nobody will see a tax increase for two years.''
The administration last week presented the president's new $3.55-trillion budget for 2010 as the start of a four-year effort to cut spending and cut the annual deficit in half while raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for new initiatives such as access to health care for more of the uninsured.
"People expect to you to say one thing in a campaign and then run on something different,'' Emanuel said, but Obama now is doing precisely what he said he would do while campaigning.
Emanuel maintained that the administration has made some gains in its bid for bipartisanship despited the well-known setbacks in the stimulus vote and other fronts.
The conversation with the chief of staff was something short of a grilling, however -- as evidenced by Emanuel's comment at the end:
"I actually enjoyed it.''









Comments
Earmarks. Yet another of Obama's solemn campaign pledges that have been discarded 30 seconds after he took office.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Change You Can Believe In | March 1, 2009 11:40 AM
These people are a joke. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. They have to be intertionally trying to destroy the economy to make people dependant on them and the government. Enough is enough.
Biden, Obama, Emanuel and the rest of that crew are out of control and totally out of touch with the people.
Posted by: John Cap | March 1, 2009 11:49 AM
These people are a joke. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. They have to be intentionally trying to destroy the economy to make people dependent on them and the government. Enough is enough.
Biden, Obama, Emanuel and the rest of that crew are out of control and totally out of touch with the people.
Posted by: John Cap | March 1, 2009 11:50 AM
"This bill has some of those,'' Emanuel allowed of the earmarks in the disputed new spending bill.
Almost 9000 earmarks Rahm, not, "some of those"!
Keep spinning Mr. Silva. The Chosen One is counting on your support. He's lost ours.
Posted by: Greg | March 1, 2009 11:50 AM
The President should subject the current spending bill to the same scrutiny he has promised for future legislation. I do not accept the artificial notion that, because it is "last year's business", he can sign it. If he wants to sell the country on the notion that the massive spending he advocates is necessary to regain our economic footing, he should not start by ignoring the fiscal discipline he claims he intends to maintain.
Vetoing this bill would send a needed message to Pelosi and Reid that, for the foreseeable future, the White House is going to control the economic dialogue.
Posted by: Stephen D Diamond | March 1, 2009 11:59 AM
Ya gotta love the liberals! For 8 years i have heard them squack about the 2 trillion dollar deficit that Bush racked up in 8 years, 2 wars a recession and 9/11. Now we have Obama coming out with a 3 1/2 TRILLION DOLLAR budget that will last for the next 20 months and all the lefties are defending it and the drive by media has yet to criticize. I couldn't imaging what the media and libs would do if this was a repuiblican president doing this.
Obama has broken just about every promise he made so far. This is going to be an easy 2010-2012 for the republicans.
Posted by: Dave | March 1, 2009 12:21 PM
Bob Schieffer allowed the double talking and not challanging them on the obvious fact that their budget proposal doesn't add up....folks just do simple math and you'll know.
Posted by: Jim | March 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Yep Change you can believe in!!!!!
Posted by: Bill Miller | March 1, 2009 1:06 PM
Enjoy your short time in office Rahm!...as soon as the "Blago tapes" come out and people hear what you are all about...Obama's going to throw you under the bus!!! Just like he did his grandmother. Remember her? That white lady who was afraid of black people. Even the liberal media will have trouble defending you!!!! Bye Bye..Rahm.
Posted by: Joe | March 1, 2009 1:32 PM
It's NOT a tax cut!!! All they are doing is reducing the withholding amount. You'll get more in every check, but a smaller refund.
I'm amazed that still paying the same amount of taxes is being called a "tax cut"
Posted by: Colin | March 1, 2009 1:41 PM
People are pretty ignorant about the process that leads to the eventual earmark. They are even more in the dark about the huge amount of work that goes into securing the funds (application and reporting) once an appropriation is designated.
Most earmarks are really noble and I would argue an aspect of the best of representative government. There is a big difference between earmarks in the budget -- which take a year's worth of work to develop -- and the way Republicans have abused them (when they were in power) by turning them into middle-of-the-night deals used to pay off their cronies The Democrats since 2006 have really worked to make the former process pretty transparent. These appropriations really help citizens in districts everywhere in the country.
In fact, if it were not for earmarks, Bush would have done a lot more damage to dem/progressive districts and the poor and working people in them than he did. Rove's goal was to completely politicize government for the beneit of Republicans. Earmarks held that back a bit and in the process helped millions of Americans.
Posted by: Juan Hernando | March 1, 2009 1:50 PM
Rahm "send a dead fish" Emanuel is a jew who favors Israel;
a liar who cuts a swath through Obama's lies about earmarks,
and a hypocrite who wants your children to be drafted into "service" while he ran off to serve Israel during the war.
Emanuel is a curse on freedom and a bigot on earnings.
Posted by: Dil | March 1, 2009 1:52 PM
Bad as this earmark-laden legislation may be, the downside of scrapping it and starting over may be worse at this late date. It will bog down Congress in fixing it at at time when it needs to be on to other, more pressing business. Obama has other options at hand, including blocking the actual spending of many of the earmarks even after signing the bill.
Posted by: Humanist | March 1, 2009 2:01 PM
Doesn't matter "when" these guys wrote the earmarks ... they're in there!
Posted by: doityourselfweather com | March 1, 2009 2:31 PM
Why can't all of you "conservative" Republicans get over the fact you lost and quit whining. You Republicans have no agenda of your own, but you can sure find plenty wrong with the guy who is trying to fix things. If you're so worried about the way things are headed, why don't YOU run for office??? You seem to have all the answers.
Posted by: Richard | March 1, 2009 2:33 PM
Mark, why not mention that Obama had his name removed from the Congressional Record as a sponsor on any of "last years" earmarks. That way he can state that he did not sponsor (officially) earmarks, although said earmarks remained in the bill. After all, we must "officially" maintain a reasonable appearance of keeping campaign promises, so the herd can be oblivious.
Posted by: bubba Porter | March 1, 2009 2:36 PM
Wow, you conservatives have sure turned into a bunch of whiners. It's turning out to be great fun listening to your carping, while all the time knowing that for every complaint you make you just dig yourself in further as being "idea - less".
Posted by: Mark Dourn | March 1, 2009 2:53 PM
The arrogance of the new administration is appalling. Yet the media continue to allow it to skate. Maybe the taxpayers will remember.
Posted by: Bob | March 1, 2009 3:00 PM
Hey faithful flock, are you believing all of these wonderful changes barry's making? I am. Same garbaged promises and even the same wrapper. Guess obammy's just "yesterday's news." Let's move on to the new dog, since we got past michelle's sleeveless dress. After the dog, we'll be reviewing granny's atire I would guess.
Posted by: jfr | March 1, 2009 3:42 PM
I'm very disappoined in President Obama. I thought he would be something different, yet it's just more of the same. Actually, it's a lot worse, both in the money they are giving away and all the tax cheats in his administration.
Posted by: alana k | March 1, 2009 3:58 PM
I don't think any money should go to education programs unless something is done about the outrageous pension programs of teachers and other educators, which has few, if any parallels in the private sector. The teachers in much of Illinois are generously paid and have very generous pensions. We were told that lotteries and casinos were going to fund education, and still we need more money. I think everyone should be talking about the money already committed to education and educators and ask why we should devote anymore when their performance in many areas is poor.
Posted by: Mary OK | March 1, 2009 3:59 PM
Another campaign promise discarded as soon as it can be.
Posted by: Elizabeth | March 1, 2009 4:13 PM
Sign it Mr. Transperency...it was last years business..just like the executive bonus nonsense that you and your admin continue to hammer.
If you want to really stop irresponsible spending- like exec pay, then you have to veto this bill on the earmarks alone..it is no more/less irresponsible than a corporate jet, large bonus or corporate sponsored event at a resort. Congress should be held to the same standard as he private sector.
Some context- $8B in earmarks = $15M in bonus for every one of our "leaders" in congress....
But you will sign it- because this was never really about the principle was it?
Veto it- and I might even think about voting Dem - I am not holding my breath..
Posted by: heartburn | March 1, 2009 4:25 PM
Those in power are self-absorbed and deaf.
When those earning under $250,000 get their $13 in each paycheck and then in 2010 have to PAY taxes on that money along with ALL the other taxes that Obama is going to initiate, there will be a wrath that no democrat can overcome.
Democrats out of office in 2010 at the local, state and federal level.
Work hard, O, because it will only be 4 years.
O is already telling the black community it will be extra hard on them, even when they don't pay taxes and are benefitting from his stimulus program.
Government isn't supposed to be the employer, businesses are the employer or open your own business.
Too many on the government payroll and dole.
Why doesn't O do something about the health benefits that congress gets? Fix that O.
Whatever is "good" for the public is good for the congress.
Come on O be a man. Man up and make congress give up their health benefits and get what the rest of us are going to get.
Make mama proud.
Posted by: o no | March 1, 2009 5:02 PM
Who does Emanuel think he is kidding? The entire economic stimulus bill was nothing but an earmark for the Democrats in Congress.
Posted by: Bob in Naperville | March 1, 2009 7:07 PM
All of this discussion of “earmarks” was disingenuous when McCain crowed about them, and it is no less disingenuous coming from the mouth of His Majesty, the Savior of Pseudo-Liberal Progressives, Barack H. Obama or his henchmen. Assurances about earmarks are just so much part of the double talk and “smoke and mirrors” politicians use to buffalo voters. An earmark is merely a specific designation of where money is to be spent within a given appropriation. Even if money is not spent on a specific earmark, it doesn’t mean the money isn’t spent or that the appropriation becomes smaller. It just means the money will be spent differently. Quit worrying about earmarks - which take up a few billion annually in any given budget - and start worrying about the massive appropriations the Democrats are putting on the table. Those have always been the killers, and they still are today. Start going after those politicians for the bottom line in the appropriations.
Posted by: John W. | March 1, 2009 7:50 PM
Ron Paul has 22 earmarks, as do the other Republicans. U buncha blowhards.
Posted by: gladys | March 1, 2009 8:30 PM
Emanuel said: "That's last year's business,"
Sorry, but the worn-out excuse of blaming Bush for all the problems is long since over. The 2009 Budget was created under a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate. The 2009 Budget is Obama's and it will be him who decides to sign it into law or veto it. No more excuses Democrats, the 2009 budget with 7.7 Billion dollars in Earmarked Pork is all yours.
Posted by: Darren Potter | March 1, 2009 9:18 PM
Mary OK-- In the states that do have teacher retirement systems, the teachers pay their own retirement. Usually they have 10% taken out--more than SS. Teachers have less current take home $$$ so they can have a retirement later.
Posted by: Vivian | March 2, 2009 4:37 PM