Great News: CBO: Deficit Has Tripled This Year, Change Has Come

To be fair, Bush was still in office when the fiscal year started in September of last year. So, one might argue that this deficit isn't 100% Obama's fault, but let's be real, $787B of that is from Obama's Porkulus boondoggle: Now, we have gone from the frying pan and straight into the fire of debt:

The CBO said Wednesday that the deficit for FY09, which ended Sept. 30, totaled about $1.4 trillion, a $950 billion increase over the shortfall posted in FY08.

This on top of the upcoming healthcare reform and climate change bills that will also cost hundreds of billions more. Where are all the Democrats that were terrified of the rising deficits under Bush? Most of them have been silent on this even though Obama's spending is far higher than Bush's.

"Coach" Craig T. Nelson: I'm Not Paying Taxes Until Politicians Take Responsibility

The former TV star was on the Glenn Beck show earlier when he made this shocking statement.

I don't know whether he was being real or being facetious, but it was quite an interesting declaration.

He went on to call on others to join him in his civil disobedience crusade.

Hey, civil disobedience is good for ACORN. It should be good for Coach, too.

GOP MN Governor Pawlenty Outsmarts Democrats: Pulls Rug Out From Their Spending Spree

Pawlenty played the Democratic free spenders in his state's legislature like a fiddle here. It was a brilliant move by the Republican Minnesota governor to stop his state legislature that is dominated by the Democrats drunk on the taxpayers' money:

Like most states, Minnesota has been facing a huge budget shortfall -- an estimated $4.6 billion over two years. These dire financial straits didn't deter the DFL-controlled legislature (the DFL is Minnesota's chapter of the Democratic Party), which got to work on big new spending bills. Included were not just the usual increases in appropriations but gems like $1.2 million in grants for TV and film producers and $200,000 for a youth environmental education program. Recession? What recession?

To fill in the hole they'd blown in the upcoming fiscal budget the DFL then proceeded to float every tax hike known to Garrison Keillor. A short list: A new top income tax rate of 9% (the fourth highest in the nation); across-the-board income tax increases; sales taxes on Internet downloads; the end of the local property tax cap (enacted only last year); alcohol taxes; cigarette taxes; eliminating the deduction for an organ donation (no joke); and killing the home mortgage interest deduction.

Throughout this spectacle, Mr. Pawlenty kept voicing three simple principles. "Number one, we must have [because of the constitution] and should have a balanced budget," he told me. "Number two, the state government needs to live within its means, just like everybody else. Number three, we shouldn't raise taxes in the worst recession in 60 years." Minnesota already has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation.

The DFL wasn't listening. As the clock wound down (the session ended at midnight this past Monday), the legislature sent Mr. Pawlenty one large spending bill after another. The assumption was he'd veto them, be forced to call a special session, and then be negotiated into tax hikes. That's when the governor got Minnesota nice.

Upon receiving the last spending bill, he announced that he would exercise the power of "unallotment," which has been on the books since 1939 and which has been used four times. Under it, the governor is allowed to "unallot" (take away) any state spending for which there is no money to pay. Panicked, the DFL passed tax legislation to cover its blowout spending bills, 10 minutes before the session's end. Too late. The governor said he'd veto the bill and would not be calling back the legislature to do any more mischief.

Mr. Pawlenty is now free to strip $2.7 billion from state spending to balance the budget. Tax hikes are dead. He tells me this will be one of the first times in modern Minnesota history that the state will reduce the size of government in real terms, not just slow its rate of growth. "The correlation in recent history has been between job growth and states that have reasonable government cost structures," he says. These cuts, he says, will position Minnesota to take advantage of the recovery when it comes.

Huh! A Republican acting with fiscal responsibility. That's something we haven't seen from the executive branch of any level of our government in a long time. If the Republicans would've been doing more of this, we might not have ever lost the Congress or White House.

Hopefully, this a sign of things to come from the Grand Ole Party. We need someone looking out for our grandkids' financial future. The Democrats don't seem to care.

Gibbs Scoffs at Loven's Criticism, Obama's $100 Million Budget Cutback Is A Lot Where I Come From

The AP's Jennifer Loven, usually liberally biased, actually asked a tough question to Obama press secretary, Robert Gibbs. She asked why is the amount of cuts Obama is proposing, $100 million, so small in comparison to the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Gibbs couldn't hold his amusement in while giving a ludicrous response. Although, to give Gibbs a little understanding, what else could he say:

GIBBS:  (Smiling) Well, I think only in Washington, D.C. is a hundred million dollars...

LOVEN:  The deficit's very large.  It's not a joke.

GIBBS:  No, I'm...

LOVEN:  The deficit's giant.  $100 million really is only a step.

GIBBS:  But no joke.

LOVEN:  You sound like you're joking about it, but it's not funny.

GIBBS:  I'm not making jokes about it.  I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money.  It is where I'm from.  It is where I grew up.  And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

It's quite a bit of money to me, too. However, we aren't talking about $100 million in Gibbs' hometown or mine. We are talking about Washington DC. They work on trillion dollar budgets. We work on thousand dollar budgets. There is a huge difference in between anytown, USA and DC. Can't Gibbs see that, or is he just trying to blow smoke?

Jack Tapper asked Gibbs a follow-up question. He basically asked how can $100 million be a lot and $8 billion small? What was Gibbs' response this time?

His answer was that it is a step in the right direction, and cutting $100 million here and $100 million there will add up to cancel out the $1.3 trillion deficit. By my calculations, it take about 1,300 of those small steps to cancel out the budget deficit.

The timetable that Obama gave the various departments to take this "step" was 90 days. If he continues on this timetable of cutting $100 million every 90 days, it would take Obama about 325 years to wipe out the deficit. Last time I checked, he only has 4 years, or 8 at most, to cut the budget deficit in half as he promised. At this pace, even cutting it in half will take well over 100 years. He doesn't have that long. He has to come up with a bigger number as Jennifer Loven suggested.

Obama's Response to TEA Parties: I'll Cut $100 M Out of $3.5 Trillion Budget, AKA: DC Pocket Change

In response to the TEA parties last week, Obama must have realized that he was in a little trouble. His extravagant policies are beginning to get under the skin of the American people that he represents. He tries to answer them with this pathetic excuse for being more "fiscally responsible":

President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time today and instructed department heads to trim their budgets by a combined $100 million over the next 90 days, cuts he said would help overcome a "confidence gap" among the American people about the use of their tax dollars.

While in any town, USA, $100 million is a lot of money. However, in DC, it's pocket change especially when you consider that they will spend $3.5 trillion in this year alone. That is largest federal budget ever by far.

To put it in perspective to the everyday Joe and Jane, let's say one has a $30,000 per year salary and budget. It would be the equivalent of that person cutting almost $900 yearly, or $75 monthly, out of the budget. It is not really that much.

"In the next few weeks, we expect to cut at least 100 current programs in the federal budget so that we can free up those dollars in order to put them to use for critical areas like health care, education, energy, our foreign policy apparatus," Obama said.

So, what this says to me is that he isn't "freeing up those dollars" so we can pay back our debt. No, he is going to respend the money. Contrary to CNN's belief, that doesn't make him fiscally responsible. He still the big spender. He's just going to spend his money elsewhere. This isn't going to get us out of debt any faster.

"I'm very pleased about the work that we've done, but we've got more to do," he said. "And one of the things that everybody here is mindful of is that as we move forward, dealing with this extraordinary economic crisis, we also have a deficit, a confidence gap, when it comes to the American people. And we've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."

This will not satisfy those who were protesting the spending orgy in Washington. They will see it for what it is. It's just a ploy to soften his opposition's stance to him. He doesn't want the TEA party movement to gain any more momentum. He wants to get any protests that are against his policies out of the news. If he doesn't, the truth about his policies will be brought into the light, and his approval ratings will continue to fall.

This token gesture is just that a token gesture. In the big scheme of things, $100 million means nothing especially since the money he "saves" will be respent on other equally inadequate in decreasing the deficit.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air explained that the $100 million is equal to "a whopping 0.0029% of the budget". Ed broke it down for us:

• $100 million from a $3.5 trillion budget for FY2010: 0.0029%

• $100 million from the $1.2 trillion White House deficit projection for their FY2010 budget: 0.008%

• $100 million from the $700 billion Porkulus stimulus bill Obama demanded: 0.013%

• $100 million from the $634 billion “down payment” on nationalized health care: 0.016%
• $100 million from the $555 billion omnibus spending plan completing the 2009 budget: 0.018%

• $100 million from the $13 billion in pork from the omnibus spending plan: 0.77%

The cuts that Obama proposes don’t even amount to 1% of the pork Obama signed into law last month in the omnibus spending bill.

Obama: Requires Agencies to Trim Budget, McCarthy: You First

President Obama said Saturday he will ask all of his department and agency heads for specific proposals for cutting their budgets at his Cabinet meeting early next week as he searches for ways to streamline government spending.

Stopping the constant bailing out of failing companies should be job one. Two should be to stop feeding pork to the many liberal agencies that do little more than grow the Democratic slush fund.

"In the coming weeks, I will be announcing the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective," he said. "In this effort, there will be no sacred cows and no pet projects. All across America, families are making hard choices, and it's time their government did the same."

Would Barney Frank be considered a pet project? Maybe Nancy Pelosi could be considered a sacred cow? They've both been wasteful and ineffective. Maybe Obama can make the "hard choice" of kicking them out of Congress.

Hey, I can dream can't I?

Kevin McCarthy, Republican representative from California said that the GOP's been screaming that all along while you were spending like a drunk sailor home from a nine-month journey:

"Earlier this week, President Obama said that we need to get serious about fiscal discipline by trimming waste in the federal budget," Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said in the GOP address. "Republicans couldn't agree more. We want to work with the president to get our financial house back in order."

"It's irresponsible to borrow more than all previous American presidents combined. And it must stop if we want to get our economy moving again," McCarthy said. "When will all this spending and borrowing end?"

It'll end when the Democrats and even some Republicans drive this country into bankruptcy unless we stand up to their spending orgy that will be the end of the American dream. This needs to start from the top. Obama needs to lead by example. If he says one thing but does another, no one will take him seriously when he asks them to do something.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/18/obama-request-budget-cuts-agency-heads/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration: What Middle Class Tax Cut?

Obama's Middle Class Tax Cut May Not Survive Budget

The President's Budget Chief Says Senate Dems May Scrap Tax Cut
By JAKE TAPPER, KAREN TRAVERS and SUNLEN MILLER
March 25, 2009

President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The president stresses that despite tough times, things will improve.

On a conference call with reporters in advance of the president's trip to the Hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag indicated that, while 98 percent of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle-class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor.

The administration had tied the revenue raised from its environmental "cap-and-trade" proposal to the middle-class tax cuts -- known as the "Making Work Pay" tax credit for families -- both of which have been brought up as possibilities to be scrapped from the Senate and House budget resolution.

Obama's middle-class tax cut is locked in place for the next two years as part of the stimulus package he signed into law last month, but Orszag told reporters today that the White House will have to use those two years to figure out how to keep that tax cut in place for middle-class families beyond 2010.

Obama took his budget campaign to the Hill today to discuss his $3.6 trillion budget face to face with some skeptical Democrats, a day after he addressed the nation in a prime-time news conference.

Democratic leaders emerged from the 45-minute lunch expressing confidence that they will be able to work with the White House on provisions the president wants included in the budget.

The Senate will "protect President Obama's priorities -- education, energy, health care, middle-class tax relief and cut the deficit in half," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"We have attempted to preserve -- and I think have preserved -- the president's key priorities," said Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee "All those are possible to move forward in the budget resolution I've written."

Reid said the budget will be passed next week.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have blasted the president's budget as too expensive and irresponsible because of the $7 trillion to $9.3 trillion national debt his proposals are projected to create during the next 10 years.

In his news conference yesterday, Obama had some strong words for his Republican critics.

"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them," he said.

He challenged them to draft an alternate budget instead of simply criticizing his version. On Wednesday, Republicans responded to that challenge.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Economy/story?id=7166810&page=1
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

"I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them,"-Obama

This whole blame Bush for my bad behavior is getting very old and transparent. People could understand if he couldn't get a surplus because of Bush's deficit but not multiplying the deficit. When is Obama going to admit my bad behavior is his fault?

Leaving the middle class tax cut on the floor for two years, one of his main campaign promises, could hurt the Democrats in the 2010 midterms and possibly 2012. It's like when Bush 41 went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in 1992.

GOP Split: Rep. Ryan Courts Blue Dogs' Support, Rep. Boehner Says Who Needs Them

GOP Split on Whether to Reach Out to Moderate Democrats in Budget Battle

While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."

By Mosheh Oinounou FOXNews.com Thursday, March 26, 2009

House Republican leaders appear to be split on whether to reach out to their moderate colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fight the Democratic agenda.

While Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., held out an olive branch to moderate Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" Wednesday, calling on his "friends" to join the GOP in opposing the budget, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, slammed the group as "lap dogs."

The split underscores the difficulty the Republican Party is having finding a way to fight President Obama's budget blueprint, endorsed Wednesday by the House Budget Committee.

Ryan made a blunt appeal for Democratic allies this week.

"I want to make a plea to a special select audience. I want to ask my friends, the Blue Dog Democrats, do you really want all this government? Do you want your fingerprints on this massive and unprecedented growth in our national debt? You hold the cards. You hold the votes that can make a difference in this," said Ryan, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, during a hearing on the 2010 budget Wednesday.

Ryan's office went so far as to post his remarks to YouTube. And the Wisconsin congressman promoted the comments on his Twitter page.

Meanwhile, Boehner, who has said multiple times at recent press conferences that he had no plans to reach out to moderate Democrats, has teased the coalition.

"We'd love to have conservative Democrats join us. But every time they get a chance to do that, they always end up voting with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and the left," he told FOX News Thursday, ahead of a planned unveiling of the GOP alternative budget plan.

He called the group "lap dogs" who refuse "to get off people's laps and actually do something," during a speech Wednesday, according to Politico.com.

"They're not the force they used to be in terms of moving the Democrats to do something," Boehner reportedly told the Yale Club and Federal Policy group.

The Blue Dogs, a coalition of 51 moderate House Democrats, include legislators from conservative districts who often cross the aisle to vote with Republicans on spending, gun control and social issues. A number of caucus members have been quoted in recent weeks expressing concerns about the size of Obama's budget.

The mixed GOP message comes weeks after House Republicans declared that they had found their "voice" as the 187 members voted unanimously to oppose Obama's stimulus plan.

However, the split message is the second example in a week of strife within the conference. Nearly half of House Republicans voted for a bill last week taxing the bonuses of AIG executives, with Ryan joining GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., in supporting the legislation. Boehner and the rest of the Republicans voted no.

Ryan made his plea Wednesday directly to Blue Dogs Co-Chairman Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., during the budget markup hearing calling on the group of centrists to "join us to stop this fiscal train wreck." 

"We're asking our friends on the other side of the aisle ... to help us defeat this unprecedented taxing, borrowing and spending spree, and let's get back together and fix these fiscal problems in this country, which this budget exacerbates and makes much, much worse," Ryan added. 

GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., also told reporters recently that he was hearing some "very interesting rumblings" coming from Blue Dogs on spending and envisioned a coalition with like-minded Democrats.

For their part, Blue Dog leaders said Boehner should look in the mirror before accusing another caucus of being "lap dogs."

"These statements come from the same individuals who wrote the president a blank check for eight years, driving spending to the highest levels in our country's history," Melancon said.

"Rather than just saying 'no,' the Blue Dogs will continue working in a productive manner to moderate legislation and offer commonsense policy alternatives. We do not subscribe to the extreme philosophies of the far right or the far left, and we certainly do not take serious issues and use them for political gain," he added.

A Blue Dog aide said that members of the caucus are still willing to work with GOP legislators but that Republicans have so far failed to make any effort to reach out to the group.

---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/26/gop-split-reach-moderate-democrats-budget-battle/
---------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

I am going to agree with Paul Ryan on this one. We need to get moderate Democrats to join us to stop Obama, Pelosi, and Reid from bankrupting this country. The GOP is at a distinct disadvantage by being outnumbered. In the Senate is extremely important for us to pull a couple of "blue dogs" to our side.

Republicans barely hold filibuster capability in the Senate, and that is by a thin thread because of the Turncoat RINO Caucus' tendency to vote with the Democrats.

Boehner's approach of flipping the blue dogs the bird isn't going to help. It is too partisan, and the people are tired of hearing of partisan bickering just for the sake of partisan bickering.

Why wouldn't we want their support? We shouldn't compromise our principles for it, but we should try to convince them that our proposals are better than Pelosi's.

Perhaps Boehner's right in his criticism of the blue dogs not standing up to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama so far, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop from working to join us in the opposition to the Democrats' spending orgy.

English Bank Governor Tells Prime Minister: Stop Spending

Mervyn King warns Gordon Brown to stop spending

The Governor of the Bank of England laid bare tensions between Gordon Brown and the Treasury yesterday by warning that Britain could not afford a second economic stimulus in the Budget.

Mervyn King threw caution to the wind as he sided with Alistair Darling and the CBI against Downing Street in raising strong doubts over any prospect of another round of “significant fiscal expansion” next month.

Mr King spoke as the Prime Minister, beginning an international tour to co-ordinate measures for next week’s G20 gathering in London, called on leaders to do “whatever it takes to create growth and the jobs we need”.

President Obama, Mr Brown’s main stimulus ally, writes in the same vein in The Times today, saying that America is ready to lead the world out of recession, while calling for swift and robust action to stimulate growth “until growth is restored”.

No 10 and the Treasury deny any split but ministers admit that Mr Brown is keener than his Chancellor to go for further expansionist Budget measures on April 22.

Mr Darling said two weeks ago that a fiscal stimulus “has now been widely agreed but now needs to be implemented”, hinting that he believes a second boost is unnecessary and unwise. There have been no similar signals from No 10.

Bank governors do not normally talk about Budgets in advance, just as ministers do not comment in advance about Bank decisions on interest rates. The conclusion drawn from the unusual intervention of Mr King, who met the Queen yesterday in her first audience with a Bank governor, was that he was backing the Treasury in resisting pressure for a further stimulus. It seems certain that his already strained relations with No 10 will hit a new low.

Mr Brown told the European Parliament in Strasbourg: “I believe that we are seeing the biggest cut in interest rates the world has ever seen and seeing implemented the biggest fiscal stimulus the world has ever agreed.”

However, Mr King, appearing before the Treasury Select Committee, pointed to the size of the financial deficit and said: “It would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits.”

He gave himself some leeway by saying that “targeted and selected” measures should not be ruled out. However, monetary policy — interest rates and quantitative easing — should bear the brunt of restoring the economy to health, he said.

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, said that Mr Brown was now “isolated at home and abroad”. He claimed that Mr King was vindicating the Conservatives’ stance and that Mr Brown’s plans for the G20 and the Budget were “in tatters”.

No 10 and the Treasury appeared relaxed about Mr King’s remarks but some ministers close to Mr Brown were irritated at the “unhelpful” and “poorly timed” intervention.

Britain was urged by Brussels, meanwhile, to make “additional efforts” from next year — code for tax increases or spending cuts — to reduce its burgeoning budget deficit. The situation had worsened substantially since last summer, the European Commission said, as it gave Britain a new target of 2013-14 for cutting its deficit back to below 3 per cent of GDP, replacing the previous target of 2009-10. This leaves Britain with the longest planned period of “excessive deficit” in the EU, after a target of 2010 was given to Greece, 2012 to France and Spain, and 2013 for the Irish Republic.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5971296.ece
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

The stimulus backlash seems to be spreading outside our borders. Maybe we can start "tea parties" overseas. After all, England is more into tea than America is.

Obama's Deficit Spending Looks Like Bush Squared

Senate's Conrad sees $1.6 trillion in extra deficit
Thu, Mar 19 20:39 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said on Thursday he expects federal deficit spending will be about $1.6 trillion greater over the next ten years than President Barack Obama's budget plan forecasts.

Obama submitted his budget outline to Congress last month which forecast almost $7 trillion in deficits through 2019, however a worsening economic picture is expected to make the budget outlook darker.

Conrad told reporters that the additional $1.6 trillion over the next decade was based on projections of the Democratic majority's budget committee staff.

The Congressional Budget Office is due to issue its revised forecasts for the deficit and economic outlook on Friday, taking into account Obama's budget proposal which included health care reform and other domestic programs such as curbing greenhouse gas emissions and expanding education.

The expectation of much higher deficit spending comes as much of Washington was already worried about exploding deficits and government borrowing to finance it. China last week raised concerns that massive deficit spending and near zero interest rates would erode the value of its huge U.S. bond holdings.

Conrad also said he did not plan to include any instructions in the budget plan he is crafting for health care or the greenhouse gas initiatives. Such instructions written into the budget would give it a privileged status and make it easier to become law, but likely spark a nasty fight with minority Republicans.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://us.mobile.reuters.com/m/FullArticle/p.rdt/CPOL/npoliticsNews_uUSTRE52I81G20090320
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is typical liberal hypocrisy on steroids. Obama campaigned relentlessly throughout last year about how Bush let the national debt double within his 8 years and turned a surplus into a deficit. Assuming Obama gets re-elected, he will be lucky if he doesn't at least triple the Bush's deficit spending over his next 8 years.

So Much For No More Earmarks, 9,000 of Them Found In Next Spending Bill

Earmark reform? 2009 spending bill contains 9,000 of them
By WILLIAM DOUGLAS AND DAVID LIGHTMAN McClatchy Newspapers
February 22, 2009 01:00:04 PM

WASHINGTON — During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain fought vigorously over who would be toughest on congressional earmarks.

"We need earmark reform," Obama said in September during a presidential debate in Oxford, Miss. "And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

President Obama should prepare to carve out a lot of free time and keep the coffee hot next week as Congress prepares to unveil a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that's riddled with thousands of earmarks, despite his calls for restraint and efforts on Capitol Hill to curtail the practice.

The bill will contain about 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion, congressional officials say. Many of the earmarks - loosely defined as local projects inserted by members of Congress - were inserted last year as the spending bills worked their way through various committees.

So while Obama and McCain were slamming earmarks on the campaign trail, House and Senate members - Democrats and Republicans - were slapping them into spending bills.

"It will be a little embarrassing for the president if he signs a bill with that many earmarks on it," said Stan Collender, a veteran Washington budget analyst. "He'll say they're left over from the Bush years, and he as to say that next year the bill will be clean."

Experts agree most earmarks are legitimate. Cary Leahey, senior economist with Decision Economics in New York, said the nation's economic crisis is a contributing factor to the plethora of earmarks. Lawmakers can argue that for a relatively small price they've helped boost the economy.

"One congressman's earmark is another legislative way to fix a serious problem in his district," Leahey said.

Kenneth Thomas, a lecturer in finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of business, agrees.

"I generally believe that the priority is getting money into the system sooner rather than later, especially if it's for projects that will use local contractors and create jobs," he said.

Still, it wasn't supposed to be this way. Earmarks have come under fire because of those that seem to provide what Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, calls "laugh lines," such as Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" or North Dakota's Lawrence Welk Museum.

Obama pledged to take a hard hand on earmarks and warned lawmakers in a Feb. 3 letter from Budget Director Peter Orszag not to decorate the recently signed $787.2 billion stimulus bill with them.

Democrats declared the bill earmark-free. Republicans disagreed.

"While this bill does not include traditional earmarks, we should all understand that there are earmarks in this bill," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. "There is $850 million ... to bail out Amtrak, a $75 million earmark for the Smithsonian, a $1 billion earmark for the 2010 census."

Democrats have been trying to revamp the earmark process for about two years. In 2007, they instituted a system that required members to explain the contents of each earmark, as well as a justification for why it was included in the legislation that way. They claimed this led to a reduction in earmarks by as much as 43 percent.

But critics contended the system still had problems. Simply making information more available, they said, didn't address the major criticism: That such projects should go through the regular legislative process, subject to detailed hearings and bipartisan votes.

But critics contended the system still had problems. Simply making information more available, they said, didn't address the major criticism: That such projects should go through the regular legislative process, subject to detailed hearings and bipartisan votes.

Not only does this mean the public has no chance to challenge questionable spending, but too often powerful interests who know how to work the system get favorite measures inserted.

For instance, Congressional Quarterly reported recently that more than 100 House members got earmarks for clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm with close ties to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who heads the powerful defense spending subcommittee. The CQ Politics analysis said in the 2009 defense spending bill, which Congress approved last year, PMA clients got about $300 million.

The CQ study came after reports the FBI is investigating the possibility of illegal campaign contributions by PMA to Murtha and other lawmakers. A Murtha spokesman said earlier this month the FBI probe has nothing to do with Murtha. A PMA spokesman declined to comment on the probe.

Appropriations committee chairmen say they are on track to reform the earmark process beginning in fiscal 2010 by requiring members to make public their requests early, so the public can scrutinize them and presumably contact lawmakers.

The change, though, doesn't apply to the 2009 funding Congress will consider next week.

Several experts believe that dramatically reducing the number of earmarks, while a laudable goal, is almost impossible. But others contend earmarks aren't that big of a problem.

"Earmarks get more attention than they deserve," said MacGuineas. "The problem is that they cause a loss of confidence in the whole budget process."

© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.modbee.com/breakingnews/story/608074.html
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Obama's going to need an army to help him to go "line-by-line" taking the earmarks out this next spending bill.