President Obama has yet to use a veto in his time in office and it seems he will continue to do so for a bit longer. An opportune moment for his first veto presented itself today as the senate passed its $410 billion spending bill, which had been postponed last Friday, March 6, in order to "consider Republican amendments" to the bill. Well, the Republican amendments were considered, and it looks like the Republican amendments were rejected. But no matter! Senator Feingold estimated he had 59... and a half... votes for the spending bill on Friday, and after "consider[ing] Republican amendments," he would have enough to pass the bill. I suppose all he really had to do was consider the amendments, as the bill passed today with a 62-35 vote.
Last week, President Obama pledged to "end pork." Change, he has proposed to the citizens of American. He's the bringer of change! But this bill looks like a whole lot of pork to me. Opponents to the bill have complained about the estimated $8 billion dedicated to pork-barrel projects in the form of over 8000 congressional earmarks. It could be argued that these projects could be "beneficial," but it's pork nonetheless designed to direct money at specific projects to satisfy senators and their constituents, something Obama pledged to end. Well President Obama, you missed your chance to "end pork." This bill should have been sent back with an order to clear the earmarks from the bill. The spending bill is on the right track, but it needs refining. In Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's words, ""In the midst of a serious economic downturn, the Senate had a chance to show it can impose the same kind of restraint on itself that millions of Americans are being forced to impose on themselves at the moment. ... If the president is looking for a first bill to veto, this is it."
Obama's excuse for not vetoing the bill: The bill fell under last year's jurisdiction, thus he won't be vetoing it. He will however, prevent future earmarks and pork. Weak excuse? Hmm... keep an eye on his actions, or lack thereof, against pork barrel projects in the future.
2 comments:
The pork that is "loaded" into the bill accounts for less than 1% of the spending total. This bill is a carryover from the Bush administration and has been working its way through congress for quite some time. Obama cannot bash heads with lawmakers over this bill that was started prior to him even being elected and then garner their support when the real heavy lifting such as healthcare reform comes along. I wish that people could understand this. Obama is willing to lose this battle to eventually win the war.
~Kimiya Bahmanyar
So is that $8 billion is ok because it's only 1% of the spending bill? In that case, what would you say if it were $8 billion alone that was passed (unlikely as it is, merely a hypothetical example), and was not grouped with the $410 billion spending bill? Would you still find that to be ok? I honestly don't care how much of a percentage it is. $8 billion is quite a sum of money that's being wasted here.
Furthermore, I do believe we talked about this tendency in class. People tend to not care about smaller spendings when it's grouped together with a larger amount. $8 billion is $8 billion no matter how it's grouped. Arguing that it's only 1% is weak.
It's also not required that Obama "bash heads." The bill could easily be revised with a bit more time to exclude the earmarks. My issue is that Obama outrightly pledged to stop pork barrel projects that come his way, yet merely a few days after that statement, he allows this through. I've reserved my judgments on plans and policies he's made throughout the campaign process that I don't see him carrying through, but this policy was stated just last week and he has already failed to capitalize on this opportunity to make a statement on his earmark and pork position.
Post a Comment