President Obama shatters another campaign promise
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 3/6/09 @ 8:54 pm - Filed Under National Politics
President Obama should enjoy his current popularity because it is not going to last if he keeps shattering campaign promises that he made over and over.
Congress is currently considering a huge pork filled omnibus spending bill. This bill contains approximately 9000 earmarks.
President Obama repeatedly promised to “eliminate all earmarks” when elected President.
Well, it looks like he either changed his mind or that he lied. Or maybe he is not the President and this is all a bad dream?
I am not sure what other conclusion one could come to. I am sure Kevin Knuth will think of some ridiculous defense of President Obama.
I think that President Obama’s capitulation on earmarks illustrates two things clearly:
- He is afraid to confront the Democratic leadership in Congress on this issue.
- He is willing to break his campaign promises as he sees fit.
I wonder what other campaign promises he will break. So far it looks like he will certainly break his promises on Iraq and he has absolutely shattered his promise of fiscal discipline.
Mike Sylvester
Comments
38 Responses to “President Obama shatters another campaign promise”
Leave a Reply
Mike:
I’m pretty sure he didn’t promise to “eliminate all earmarks”, he promised to reform it.
HOWEVER, he did set a limit of 1994 levels. I’m not sure if he’s broken that, but 9000 earmarks sounds like it wouldn’t be tough.
BUT, in the grand scheme of things - pork spending isn’t going to make one bit of a difference if we don’t get our entitlements in line. And I’m starting to worry that’s going to be left until my generation steps up to the plate, but that will be FAR to late.
Every day we wait on reforming those programs closes out more and more options available to fix them.
Mike,
The world is not black and white.
We are getting out of Iraq- you say he broke a promise because of what?
Fiscal discipline- You think we should NOT be doing something to stimulate the economy? You think he had a real choice? I disagree.
And don’t try giving me that “free market will solve all problems” crap. It clearly DID NOT WORK.
Mr. Knuth, You cannot deny that we have now transitioned into the Obama Bear Market.
Bush took us down low but Obama is taking the economy to new depths with his policies.
I cant believe after 233 years, you are so quick to give up on Capitalism.
Green Jeans- No, I am not giving up on capitalism- just tired of folks who think “the market will correct itself”- EVERY major economy around the world is in trouble right now- not just US. It is going to take intervention to get this fixed.
I would also point out the following: During the 8 years of Clinton the economy was good. But you right wingers all said “that is the because he is benefitting from Reagan”.
But give a Democrat 6 weeks in office and the current problems are “his”?
I find it odd that Reagan’s economy can last for 8 years after he is out of office, but Bush’s STOPS the day he leaves……
The Democrats’ favorite fairy tale, Clinton’s economy.
Clinton had the Dot.com boom and a vastly overvalued stock market to thump his chest over.
A 1998 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance showed more than 10% of households earning less than $50,000 were more than 60 days late on some kind of debt payment in 1998 (Clinton years). That hasn’t changed much, has it?
Clinton passed a budget and was signed into law August 1993. In February 1994, just six months later, Alan Greenspan raised rates to address new inflation worries. This was the first in a series of seven increases during the next year. By April 1994, long-term rates were 7.4 percent, higher than when Clinton took office, and the 10-year rate peaked around the time Republicans captured Congress in November 1994.
As for economic growth, the fact is that the economy was already growing before any Clinton policies took effect. In 1992, growth was 3 percent. From 1993 to 1995 it was 3.1 percent annually. In other words, steady as she goes.
Now, later in the decade, the economy did indeed take off in a marvelous boom. This was a result of the corporate restructuring and downsizing of the 1980s and early 1990s, and the fantastic rise of new technology. You cannot attribute all this to the Clinton administration, unless you really do think that Al Gore invented the Internet.
Where Clinton should get credit is basically for getting out of the way of the free market: He was generally free trade; he let Alan Greenspan keep inflation in check; he signed a “tax cut for the rich” in 1997; he signed various deregulatory bills; and his administration adopted a hands-off policy for the Internet (crafted by, of all people, former health-care guru Ira Magaziner).
So, to the extent that Clinton made it possible for people to live like Republicans, it was by accommodating Republican policies. If Gephardt wants to tout this Clinton legacy, great: Let’s get the memo out to all Democratic leaders as soon as possible, and get them all to endorse Alan Greenspan, deregulation, and capital gains tax cuts. Hurrah!
Of course, Gephardt has no interest in doing this, thus his potted account of the 1993 plan and of the 1990s economy in general. But if you’re going to make the crude argument — as Gephardt basically does — that the president is automatically responsible for everything that happens economically during his time in office, well, then Clinton is responsible for the NASDAQ crash in the spring of 2000, the decline of manufacturing and industrial productivity in 2000, and the loss of some 200,000 manufacturing jobs before Bush took office.
Wow, Abe, I thought you were smart. Then I find out you just googled someone else’s work from the 2003 National Review….at least there is no bias there…….
If I remember my theology correctly, I’m pretty sure Knuth accusing someone of bias is the fourth sign of the Apocalypse (or perhaps just very, very ironic).
What Knuth & the meddlers will never admit to (whether it’s pride or stupidity or both) is, Government has really never done anything correctly. Every single catastrophe monetarily or economically you can attribute to political meddling of some sort
The only thig that ever rebounds this economy is entreprenuers and ideas. A better mousetrap if you will. And invariably, everytime someone invents something, streamlines something or produces something, the frickin meddlers (read Democrats) regulate it, tax it, control it and kill it (see manufacturing).
The market will fix itself and this economy in spite of all the ridiculous zillion dollar machinations being foisted upon by us Barry & his minions. The frightening thing about BHO is the fact that he really doesn’t care if he’s tanking the economy, his agenda is a socialized society, no matter what the cost.
Kevin,
I agree the world is not black and white.
President Obama repeatedly promised to get us out of Iraq entirely within 16 or 18 months. Now he has changed his mind and he is actually advocating the basic timetable that President Bush and John McCain supported (Though of course President Bush stubbornly refused to call it a timetable). He has changed nothing so far in Iraq. NOTHING.
President Obama supposedly advocates fiscal discipline however he is presiding over the gratest increase to the deficit in history. He seems to support any program he can find and thinks that we can spend our way out of our problems. That is wrong and it is not fiscal discipline. It is insanity.
We do not have a free market Kevin, even you should realize that. If we had a free market the Democrats would not have forced banks to loan money to people they should have never loaned money to.
If we had a free market we would not have bailed out banks, AIG, the big automakers, and homeowners who bought more house than they can afford.
The problem is that we do not have a free market economy in the first place.
No Kevin I do not think we need to “stimulate” the economy. President Bush “stimulated the economy” while he was President and this caused the Democrats to gain a large number of seats in Congress and the Presidency.
President Obama is basically doubling down of the economic policies of President Bush. It is absurd.
Mike
Neil,
Actually he promised on multiple occasions to completey eliminate earmarks.
Now, apparently, he has changed his mind.
Mike
Kevin,
I tend to agree that President Clinton inherited a good economy and that he realistically did nothing to screw it up until the end of his Administration.
Mike
Mike Sylvester: This will make you go ballistic!!
In further support of my claim that our government really does frick up everything it touchs when it comes to meddling:
http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/03/08/news/state/178713.txt
Read the article and just ask yourself, what could possibly go wrong?
The State of Minnesota buys the house and sells it for an “inflated” price to the 1st time Muslim buyer. The “inflated price” is to satisfy the buyers RELIGIOUS convictions of Sharia Law, which does not allow Muslims to pay or charge interest….Just Minnesota’s way of “stabilizing” the housing market AND helping poor people buy homes. What could possibly go wrong?? heh heh heh
It’s deja vu all over again!
The party label doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to economic policies. Both parties are beholden to large investment bankers whose policies and lobbying efforts have crippled the economic backbone of this country.
From “free trade” to “market deregulation” both parties have consistently been on the losing side of history.
Obama was supposed to change that, bring in fresh people with new ideas, but what we got were a bunch of Clinton retreads who helped usher in many of the problems we currently face.
I will say that the one extremely positive thing Clinton did was pay down the debt. It was one of the sane things Alan Greenspan advised him to do and it was working. But then Bush took over and he and Cheney, being the financial wizards they are, decided “deficits don’t matter”.
The sad part right now is that economists from across the political spectrum now agree on what needs to be done to the major banks - kill them. Unfortunately the yahoos calling the shots have decided that everyone else is wrong and they are right. Sounds about like Harrison Square to me…
I’m headed to an idea where “we surround them”…
everyone engage… stop this big gov.
Classic Cafe
Meet -up at “we surround them”…it will be a nation telling our Congress/Senate/President we are the “People of the United States” and we surround each other and vote for Free
enterprise. We read the Constitution & the best interests of this Nation called the U.S.
We are the People’s voice. Listen…we have a voice across the United States of America. City by City, State by State…we are United!!!!
Friday, March 13th live across the United States..
Be here by 4:00 p.m.
Classic Cafe
4832 Hillegas Rd
Fort Wayne, IN 46818
So let’s meet up Friday
March 13th!! Live across the U.S.!!!!
http://www.wowo.com/Promotions/WOWOOnlineContest/tabid/129/Default.aspx
What ass hats that it has to be a promotion to get the United States engaged. Pitfull on WoWO’s part.
Let’s not wait, we need to come together.
Mike:
I simply CANNOT find one of those “several” occasions he said he would completely eliminate earmarks.
Show me an example and I’ll rest my case.
If the President passes this bill, he lied and he is not bringing any party united.
This is such bull-shit ACCROSS the board.
Neil Kelty, show us as a professional your shit does not stink too?
We are done with all the the lies, the media, & the crap game. It’s done. We are moving forward.
We are postive. We are not looking back. Tell your people to get on board!
Knuth,
Why the hell do you think I italicized it? I suppose you just have every fact you quote on the tip of your tongue?
Kiss my @$$.
Bobett,
What exactly are you talking about?
I’m not a fan of pork projects, but I’m not going to say Obama lied if you guys can’t present an example of when he said he’d eliminate them.
Neil Kelty,
While I can appreciate your “Knuth-like” need to have a verbatim filmed quote of BHO stating he’d “eliminate” all earmarks, one would think you’d have to agree his over-arching theme in r/e earmarks during the campaign and debates was one of disdain toward the earmark process, thus leading the populace to believe the “HOPE-N-CHANGE” platform woud certainly address the issue after election, not IGNORE it and even add to it..
Spin it anyway you like it, misleading, mis-stating, mis-interpreted, it’s all semantics. He has NO intention of doing away with ANY kind of pork, or “earmarks”, and he’s proven himself to be just another lying politician.
Yeah Knuth, he italicized it.
You should have known he was lifting it from somebody else.
He didnt lift if from a Tim Goeglein column did he?
One fact- One man’s pork is another man’s stimulus. There is a difference though.
And we cannot be naive here- for ANY President to get anything done, he will need the help of Congress- that is where “politics” comes into play.
Our systme of government is the best in the world, but it is not perfect.
Jughead said on numerous occasions that this bill contained no EARMARKS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0Grra3QHs
Pelosi (Miss Frozrn Face) and company promised that this bill would would contain NO EARMARKS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaDtkG6afBc
Wasn’t this bill negotiated in 2008? I can see blasting congress, but I just don’t see how this has anything to do with Obama. What exactly does anyone think that he should do/have done that would make them happy. It seems pretty impractical for him to veto this bill, while still making sure that the legitimate programs still get funded. Lets assume that 1/2 of the earmarks are for worthy projects and that the rest need to be cut. That means that Obama should veto this bill at the 11th hour for less than 1% of what is actually being spent in the bill?
I too am fed up with Mr. Obama. I was one of the many “duped” Americans who voted him into office on a tide of “hope” and “change”. President Obama has had over six weeks, or less than two months, to turn things around. This is plenty of time to get the stock market back above 14,000, and replace the jobs that went to Mexico.
Sara Palin and John McCain would have fixed our economy and put Americans back to work by now. I wish I could be transported back into time and pulled the lever for McCain/Palin. Or better yet, I wish George W. Bush was still our President. He would have keep our country on track and out of the hands of the communists.
Americas only hope is Mike Huckabee in the next election. If there is anything left by that time.
Well Fed Up, He may have only had 6 weeks, but in 6 short weeks he’s spent more money than anyone else in the history of the World to no avail, only failure. The stock market will continue to slide on his watch until investors can figure out what the frick his plan (if any) really is. Nobody (in stocks or real estate) will start buying in sizeable numbers until they know it is the bottom, and every time Urkel tosses out another trillion, it creates another “false” bottiom. I swear to God, this guy never had a math class.
As for the the tired tired lament about jobs to Mexico, you can thank the Greenies, Dems and Libs for all the regulation that strangled manufacturing in this country. You can track ANY manufacturing facilty/company back to when and why they left this country and the reason will always be the same “IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO MAKE THE PRODUCT IN THE USA”. Thank the Progressives for that! Sky high labor, benefits and regulations killed the manufacturing sector of this society.
And try to work on your sarcasm, you need to inject some humor into it.
No Jughead hasn’t got a clue when it comes to economics and taxes. During the Democratic debates Charlie Gibson tried to explain how raising capital gains taxes leads to a decrease in revenues but Jughead just couldn’t comprehend this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8
By the way I’m providing utube links to help Neal and Kevin who get confused if they don’t hear from the messiah himself.
Neil Kelty,
You have got to be joking, President Obama made countless promises to eliminate earmarks when he was running for President.
From the the official Barack Obama for President website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/#earmarks
Here are two of his ethics pledges he has shattered:
1. Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
2. Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama’s Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.
Neither of the above were done on the recent spending bills or on the Stimulus project.
This is an ethical promise from Barack Obmama’s campaign website he posted during his campaign.
What do you think Neil?
Tim,
Fed Up isn’t sarcastic. He really is a Huckabee supporter.
Mike-
How did President Obama “shatter” number one in your list? I think the economy deserved “EMERGENCY” action.
Your second point is invalid as well- the act has not passed. Obama cannot force Congress to list all earmarks and defend them- it is not in his power.
He needs to get the “Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act” through Congress. Obama introduced the bill in 2006 (along with Evan Bayh)when he as a Senator. The GOP controlled Senate sent it to the rules committee- a nice way to kill a bill you do not want to deal with.
Kevin: (in support of Mike’s #1) Technically, the stimulus bill is a moot point. Obama broke this promise with the Lilly Pay Act.
Mike:
While he’s broken those promises, that’s not what you said in the original post in that Obama promised “eliminate all earmarks.”
I have no doubt he’s broken those campaign promises (certainly not the first politican to do so), but he didn’t promise to eliminate earmarks.
HOWEVER, we have seen none of the promised “reforming” of the process.
Tim: While I agree with your general statement, that’s not the problem I had with Mike’s statement.
Justin said
Wasn’t this bill negotiated in 2008? I can see blasting congress, but I just don’t see how this has anything to do with Obama. What exactly does anyone think that he should do/have done that would make them happy.
He’s the President. It’s his job to sign or veto bill sent to him by Congress.
Jughead said that he would .- “go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely”
Now he says..nobody told me this President thing would be so hard. I should have stayed in the Illinois State Legislature where I could vote present (like I did 160 times before) when I couldn’t make a decision. Now they want me go line for line through this bill. They also want me to post it on the Internet and post all my friends names there. This is so unfair!!! I need to buy a dog and they want me to make a decisions on things that I have no clue about.
I’ve started listening to Rush Limbaugh a little bit. I used to think he was too brash for me, but I think he is right on the money. He said he hoped America would fail with Barack Obama leading the way. He will be able to say “See I told you so !” And then he will bounce up and down while laughing at this whole mess.
Wait until there are empty store fronts and big banks collapse soon. People will be begging for George Bush to came back to office. They never know they had it so good. We were all duped into believing in “hope” and “change”. HA ! The only change I’ll have left is ten cents. Sara Palin and John McCain have to be sick about all this. Like I said in my previous email I wish I could be transported back into time and never have pulled the lever for Barack Obama. If all this keeps up I’m moving to Alaska.
Mike Huckabee and Chuck Norris in 2013 !
You can keep the change, I’ll keep my hand gun.
What Frick said.
Ditto.
According to the latest “numbers”, Barry’s about 27 for 450+
And in ANY league…that simply SUCKS!
(if you’re keeping score)
(also, ditto to Rob Frick)
;)
“As for the the tired tired lament about jobs to Mexico,…….”
And… look what de-regulation has done for us. Your grand-kids can suck on lead painted toys, you can feed plastic crap to your pets and the FDA is right on top of the Spoiled peanut problem.
I wish I could remember back far enough to recall the president that kept telling us that ‘big business is controlled by honorable people that have the best interest of the consumer at heart. They will regulate themselves far better than any one else could.’
Yep.. the banks were looking out for everyone. Not themselves.
The corporate CEOs were really interested in building better mouse-traps. Not just a big bonus.
And… Madoff doesn’t really have a 7 MILLION dollar apartment. Sure…they really did a great job of regulating themselves. Didn’t they.
The international word for crook is…Congress!
Here’s another funny example of campaign promises not fulfilled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&feature=player_embedded
From WSJ:
President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill Wednesday that includes thousands of pet projects inserted by lawmakers, even as he unveiled new rules to restrict such so-called earmarks.
At the same time, after Democrats criticized former President George W. Bush’s signing statements, Mr. Obama issued one of his own, declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.