Second Presidential Debate - Discussion

[fireside]

The issue is earmark spending.

In this case, I'd rather earmark spending that'll actually go to a worthwhile cause than 'straightforward legislation' that turns into AIG executives' spa treatments.

 

[Spensed]

^ Plus, as Obama keeps trying to say, none too clearly, earmarks make up less than 1% of the federal budget.

So, while they do needs transparency, accountability and reform, they hardly warrant all the self-serving political wind that McCain gives them.

The amount of time and effort he spends on that 1% hides the fact that he's bankrupt of ideas on the remaining 99%. Maybe he should set up a commission?

 

[NickCole]

In this case, I'd rather earmark spending that'll actually go to a worthwhile cause than 'straightforward legislation' that turns into AIG executives' spa treatments.

That's not the point.

The point is that earmarks are a bad way for Congress to apportion spending, not whether this or that spending is to your liking.

Earmarks are done in secret and the principle behind getting rid of them is to have a more transparent and responsible and accountable government. Of course there is spending you'll agree with and spending you'll disapprove of -- the point is to have it all above board so taxpayers can make that determination.

 

[Spensed]

^ Everyone pays lip service to that. It doesn't stop McCain's running mate from taking earmarks or McCain for voting for them (as he's just done in the bail out bill).

The fact remains that earmarks are just 1% of the federal budget. You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ Everyone pays lip service to that. It doesn't stop McCain's running mate from taking earmarks or McCain for voting for them (as he's just done in the bail out bill).

The fact remains that earmarks are just 1% of the federal budget. You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything.

yeah, earmarks are nothing compared to trillion dollar fuckups like Iraq. We need a president that will not make more mistakes like that, not continue them for 100 years.

 

[gewhite3]

Earmarks are an extremely small percentage of all funds appropriated by Congress and spent by the US anyway (I think the overall percentage is like 3% or something). Is it worth an entire election? I think not..... and that's all McCain has to go on?

 

[NickCole]

Earmarks are an extremely small percentage of all funds appropriated by Congress and spent by the US anyway (I think the overall percentage is like 3% or something). Is it worth an entire election? I think not..... and that's all McCain has to go on?

All spending has to be addressed.

But that's not the main reason earmarks need to be stopped. They're a bad way for Congress to apportion spending. It's too easy to be wasteful and unaccountable, and unaccountability is bad news in a representative Democracy.

This defense from Obama supporters is tragically revealing, though.

Obama's primary campaign theme is changing the way Washington does business, and that's exactly what McCain is talking about in dealing with earmarks -- and here you all shrug it off. Sad, really. Obama's not even elected yet and his supporters are already defending his broken promise.

 

[Spensed]

^ No one's shrugging it off. They're saying that, sure earmarks need to be dealt with, but that that's only 1% of the problem.

Like all the lipstick on a pig and Ayres stuff, earmarks are just another media diversion for McCain and his cronies to distract from their own responsibility for the current economic mess and their lack of any different plan to get out of it.

Lest we forget, by his own account, McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time and campaigned aggressively for him.

 

[gewhite3]

All spending has to be addressed.

But that's not the main reason earmarks need to be stopped. They're a bad way for Congress to apportion spending. It's too easy to be wasteful and unaccountable, and unaccountability is bad news in a representative Democracy.

This defense from Obama supporters is tragically revealing, though.

Obama's primary campaign theme is changing the way Washington does business, and that's exactly what McCain is talking about in dealing with earmarks -- and here you all shrug it off. Sad, really. Obama's not even elected yet and his supporters are already defending his broken promise.

That's OK, Nick. I wasn't really posting that for your benefit inasmuch for the other Jubbers who contribute to this thread. Somehow I knew you would have something to say about it though.

 

[NickCole]

^ No one's shrugging it off. They're saying that, sure earmarks need to be dealt with, but that that's only 1% of the problem.

That's just flatly disingenuous.

You just wrote, not more than a few posts above, "The fact remains that earmarks are just 1% of the federal budget. You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything."

"You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything" is shrugging it off.

 

[NickCole]

Somehow I knew you would have something to say about it though.

You betcha.

 

[Spensed]

That's just flatly disingenuous.

You just wrote, not more than a few posts above, "The fact remains that earmarks are just 1% of the federal budget. You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything."

"You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything" is shrugging it off.

Not at all.

It's called putting the problem in its true context.

You might try it some time. LOL.

 

[NickCole]

Not at all.

It's called putting the problem in its true context.

You might try it some time. LOL.

No, saying "You could eliminate [earmarks] completely and not solve anything" is not putting earmarks or the elimination of them in their true context.

In fact it's not true at all.

Eliminating earmarks completely WOULD solve a big element of Congressional spending without accountability, it would solve a big element of cronyism, and it would contribute to solving overspending.

And it would go a long way to changing the way Washington does business. Not that Obama supporters are concerned about that.

 

[Spensed]

^ Obama supports transparency in earmarks and with McCain helped to pass a bill creating an earmark registry to show who was responible for which earmark.

The point remains that, even if you got rid of all earmarks, you would have dealt with just 1% of the budget. If you diverted all the focus and hot wind spent to earmarks to dealing with the other government spending, you'd should be able to cut back on more than just 1%.

To repeat, no one's defending inappropriate earmarks or the current earmark procedure or saying they should not be dealt with. But the overfocus on them by John McCain is not only a political talking talk for him but dishonestly applied in that he didn't even know that Palin is still pulling down millions of Dollars of earmarks and he's never once criticized her for doing so.

 

[opinterph]

Eliminating earmarks completely WOULD solve …

Is there ANY redeeming characteristic associated with earmarks? Should they be eliminated entirely, or has their proper function been distorted from an otherwise reasonable “original intent?”

 

[arito10]

I scanned through this thread quickly wondering if anyone else noticed the "speech" that really raised my eyebrow...

Johnny went off on a tangent saying he knows how to find Bin Laden. He knows where he is and he will get him. I googled some and found that he also said this months ago. This coming from the "country first" candidate troubled me.

I admit an Obama bias but I am trying to find the redeeming quality of the GOP candidate.

 

[Spensed]

Is there ANY redeeming characteristic associated with earmarks? Should they be eliminated entirely, or has their proper function been distorted from an otherwise reasonable “original intent?”

I think the issue is one of transparency and accountability:

As for earmarks, eliminating all earmarks is unlikely as it would involve cutbacks to veterans benefits and housing programs (which McCain has said he would not cut) as well as to major construction projects that are already under way by the Army Corps of Engineers. Realistically, McCain could probably eliminate half of all earmarks, or about $9 billion. Compared to the scope of his additional pro-wealthy tax cut, Obama was correct to point to the much greater fiscal stakes involved with tax policy. Incidentally, I wish Obama had replied to McCain's criticism of his own earmark requests by pointing out that by extension of opposing his earmarks, McCain was opposing after school programs for at risk youth, research into soybean disease and livestock genes, teacher training, fixing broken water mains, nanomedical technology research, etc. You can see a long list of his requested (not necessarily received) earmarks here:

http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/13/obama-releases-his-long-list-of-earmarks/

The bottom line is that while not all earmarks are equally "good," there is no doubt that any person can find some earmarks that are potentially worthy of public support. Obama's position has been that transparency is key, and along with McCain he helped pass a bill creating a federal earmark registry where you can search who sponsored which earmarks. This also appeared to be VP candidate Sarah Palin's position until recently.

http://invisiblecollege.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2008/09/27/some-thoughts-on-the-first-us-presidenti

 

[Kulindahr]

McCain didn't lie.

Did you read your own link?

Obama did try to get an earmark for $3 million for a projector for the planitarium.

The fact that yet again Obama failed does not change the fact that he tried to get that earmark.

Huh?

McCain said "a $3 million overhead projector".
That's a lie, because "overhead projector" is not the correct term for what's used in a planetarium. He was deliberately making people believe something false about Obama.

Kind of like the ads that tell how Gordon Smith bought some $2 million golf clubs -- they fail to say that those were bought and the money went to charity... or that Smith "wants to privatize your Social Security", when what he supports is allowing people, if they wish, to put a small portion of their Social Security account into the stock market.

Lies, lies, lies, on both sides.

But McCain is exceptional at it!

 

[Kulindahr]

McCain's point is that earmarks are the wrong way to do business with our Federal taxpayer money.

If Obama wanted public funds for that projector, according to McCain's point, he should have been forthright about it and not try to slip it into some unrelated spending legislation. Let the people of Illinois or the American people know what you want money for and give us the chance to vote you back in or out of office when we approve or disapprove. The secret nature of earmark spending, and it getting totally out of hand, is what's at issue.

And McCain's further point is that Obama stopped asking for earmarks when he decided to run for President and then started talking about ending earmark spending. It's another example of Obama's deceitfulness.

Well, then McCain is a hypocrite, because he's the one who claimed to have a "Straight Talk Express" -- so he should have been forthright and explained what the earmark was for, instead of lying about it.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's just flatly disingenuous.

You just wrote, not more than a few posts above, "The fact remains that earmarks are just 1% of the federal budget. You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything."

"You could eliminate them completely and not solve anything" is shrugging it off.

So, the federal budget is what -- $2.9 trillion?

And 1% of that is what... $29 billion?

Sounds like real money to me!