BO doesn't need no stinkin' earmarks.
Posted on 03/03/2009 12:16:31 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has a blunt message for the White House on the issue of earmarks: Back off.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs hinted that the White House would be pushing for earmark reform, telling reporters: "I think that you'll see that the president is going to draw some very clear lines about what's going to happen going forward.
But Hoyer made clear Tuesday that he would have none of it.
While the White House can “suggest ways for us to reform,” Hoyer said, “I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to.”
And the majority leader was quick to point out that before he hit the campaign trail, Obama was serving the people of Illinois in the Senate — and obtaining federally-funded projects himself.
“The president, of course, had earmarks, as you’ll recall, not last year but the year before,” Hoyer said.
Hoyer said that members of Congress have a responsibility to provide funding for their districts.
“’Earmarks’ are a pejorative term,” he argued.
Hoyer signaled that congressional leaders were receptive to the idea of some kind of earmark reform and were in discussions with the White House about the matter. But he declined to detail those discussions.
Where is John ‘I’ll name names, my friends’ McCain today?
Oh...sorry, I thought he meant he’d name EVERYBODY, not just Republicans....(chuckle)
The President has earmarks - two big ones.
Latter Day Politician’s entitlement = Earmarks aka Porkulus
That's right Mr. President. Just sit down with your pen in hand and start signing our bills...lots and lots of bills.
LOL Like OholyO is going to veto anything that comes across his desk! LOL What a laugh.
BO doesn't need no stinkin' earmarks.
“I think that you’ll see that the president is going to draw some very clear lines about what’s going to happen going forward.”
Hahahahaha...he thinks Congress is filled with idiots like those in that shthole he crawled out of in Chicago...
I didn’t think all those big egos would start to clash this early. But I figured at some point even the Dems would start showing cracks in their unity.
Geeeeez...”how would you like one of THOSE full of nickels?” - WC Fields, NOT referring to someones ears...
“I didn’t think all those big egos would start to clash this early. But I figured at some point even the Dems would start showing cracks in their unity.”
Please, no mention of Dems, egos and showing cracks in the same sentence...I’m on my luch break...
Go get him Obama, you can win one issue for the country if you clean up this earmark mess in Washington.
“Go get him Obama, you can win one issue for the country if you clean up this earmark mess in Washington.”
I still think this is a perfect storm for US...the Dims are not going along with this mutt...
Don’t make me laugh out loud here at the office!
I think it is a big arguement over not very much. Earmarks are really a tiny part of the whole spending problem. I wouldn’t care if they gave every Conress person a million dollars to spend in their district and every Senator two million. Give them a checkbook for all I care and get the projects out of the budget process all together. This would let them fund worthy projects at home while putting limits on them. This would all add up to such a small percentage of the budget it wouldn’t even be enough to piss off McCain. They could then brag that they are setting the example in fiscal responsibility.
Steny Hoyer used to proudly campaign as a “Tax and Spend Democrat”.
Actually, it was a woman to her little girl, talking about Field’s nose. In “The Bank Dick”, I think.
As far as RATS, their only goals are buying votes and staying in office to spread more socialism.
Rule #1 - If a DemocRat proposes an earmark it’s not really an earmark, it’s enhancement for his constituents.
Rule #2 - If a Republican proposes an earmark, it’s ineligible to be included in the bill UNLESS the Republican agrees to co-sponsor the bill so that it can be called a bi-partisan effort.
Rule #3 - If a Lobbyist suggests an earmark, it’s not really an earmark if that Lobbyist has donated money to the DemocRats. If he’s donated some to Republicans, the ratio has to be 75% to DemocRats and 25% to Republicans or else the earmark is ineligible to be included in the bill. See Rule #2.
Rule #4 - No one living or dead is allowed to contradict the current sitting President about earmarks unless he/she wishes to have his/her genderhood attacked by the MSM and 30 lawyers parachute into his/her home town to unearth any and all potential scandals against said person.
I have never felt such negativity toward any person as I do the sitting President. I’m divorced twice and he makes my two ex’s look like thoughtful caring men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.