Obama & Earmarks

President Obama has messed up - BIG TIME!

Our new President had the chance to establish his Administration as a true agent of change. He could have easily embarrassed scores of Republican Senators and Congressmen and chastised errant members of his own Democratic Party.

The President let stand over $8,000,000,000 ($8 billion) worth of earmarks in the recently signed Omnibus Spending Bill. It would have taken courage on his part to stand up to the new Democratic Congress, and an admiring public who, at last, saw a politician who did what he said he would do, would have applauded that courage.

But no - he had to prove that he was a politician and not a leader. As a matter of fact, that figure actually included earmarks that both the President and Vice President had added to the bill while still senators.

I have two important questions. What is an Omnibus Spending Bill? Why does it need earmarks?

When I heard Congress was trying to pass Omnibus Spending, I thought they were trying to fund some type of multi-level, new-fangled, inter-city transportation vehicle. When I heard the total cost of the bill was $410 billion I thought, AWow - that=s a BIG BUS!@ Then I remembered the government once spent $40,000 for a toilet seat, so I figured why not spend almost half a trillion dollars on a bus!

Actually, the word omnibus means Aone thing having many parts.@ An Omnibus Bill is legislation that has many bills combined into one bill. An Omnibus Spending Bill combines spending on several different agencies into one bill. Omnibus bills are common and are not a bad thing. In fact, they are a good way to package legislation.

But what are Aearmarks@? I checked three different sources: the Congressional Budget Office; Wikipedia; and Sen. Saxby Chambliss= office. It seems that they can=t agree on a definitive answer, which explains, in part, why our economy is going down the tubes.

Since there seems to be no clear-cut definition, let me offer a Northeast Georgia boy’s paraphrased definition. (Be prepared; the following sentence seems like it will never end - just like earmarks.) AA Congressional >Earmark= is a spending project or item that a congressmen anonymously attaches to a BIG bill that must pass, because no one would ever vote for it because it only helps a few people, who really should be paying for it themselves, but why should they, because the federal government is giving away free money, and your wonderful congressman has just gotten it for you so you will vote for him next time.@

Our US Congress recently passed an Omnibus Spending Bill that had over 9000 of the darn things and we will have to borrow $8 billion to pay for them and our new President, who in a September 2008 debate with John McCain promised to reform the system and do away with earmarks, signed it.


In that debate he promised to go through every bill Aline by line@ so he could cut wasteful spending. By signing the earmark laden Omnibus Spending Bill, President Obama missed a golden opportunity to make a principled stand based on his own campaign promises. It is starting to look as if Obama is President in name only. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed are running the country!

President Obama must start reigning in Congress because they are bumbling around like a bunch of rank amateurs. First they pass a monstrous “Stimulus Bill” - which no one had time to read in its final version. When Democratic Senator Dodd adds language that allows for executive compensation, no one notices, until AIG and other beneficiaries pay out the big bucks. Then all heck breaks loose. Rather than admitting the mistake and resolving to be more careful in future legislation, the US House promptly passes an unconstitutional law in an attempt to correct the blunder.

Article One – Section 9 of the US Constitution clearly prohibits punitive laws after the fact. I am starting to wonder if most congressmen have even read the Constitution. If they have, they sure have a weird way of interpreting it.

The Obama Administration and Congress would do well to slow down and take a deep breath. We must identify the problem and carefully proceed with measured steps that are carefully researched and thought out.

In 1799, George Washington suffered from laryngitis and pneumonia after riding through a snowstorm. His trusted friend and doctor, James Craik, suggested curing the great Founding Father by administering calomel (a type of mercury) and later “blood-letting.” A younger physician in attendance strongly suggested a “tracheotomy”, (which would have helped the President) but was overruled. Dr. Craik proceeded to slowly bleed our first President to death.

Mr. President, be careful. If you listen to Congress their incompetence will do for your leadership what Dr. Craik’s “cure” did for President Washington’s life.

Bobby Watson
277 Charlie Batson Rd
Demorest, GA 30535
706-968-2804 cell
discoverytours@windstream.net