E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Kelly O'Donnell
Dismissing President Barack Obama's opposition to earmarks as "an applause line," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told NBC News on Wednesday that the president should "back off" and let lawmakers continue to direct spending to their home districts.
Asked during a one-on-one interview with NBC whether Obama was wrong to promise a veto on any bill that contains earmarks, Reid quickly replied, "of course."
"This is an applause line," Reid said. "It's an effort by the White House to get more power. They've got enough power as it is."
Reid, along with other lawmakers who support earmarking, argues that eliminating the practice simply puts more discretion in the hands of executive branch officials who have authority to fund projects. "I have a Constitutional obligation to do congressionally directed spending," he said. "I know much more about what should be done in Elko [or] Las Vegas, Nevada, than some bureaucrat does back here."
Reid said voters should recognize that eliminating congressional earmarks does not, in itself, reduce spending but changes how the same money is spent.
"I think it's absolutely wrong and the public should understand that the president has enough power; he should back off and let us do what we do."
Suggesting almost dismissively that the president is playing to the crowd, he added that Obama may win "in the short term" with conservatives and those in the public who think that the practice should be nixed.
"The president thinks this will help him a little bit. You know, more power to him," he said. "But it's just wrong."
Despite this strong disagreement, Reid says the fight over earmarks will not cause a long-term rift with Obama.
"He's been around awhile. I've been around a while," he noted. "Just because he's wrong on this, [it] doesn't mean he's not right on almost everything else."
Leave a Comment:
Reid sounds pretty arrogant to me. Earmarks are good for getting him re-elected, but I'm not sure they're good for the country right now. Congressional spending is out of control. Everything should be subject to change, including the "way they do what they do."
Earmarks are never good for the country. If a project is worth spending money on it should be debated and passed or defeated on its own merits as a free standing bill.
Makes sense to me Mac
Earmarks are just another GOP red herring intended to distract thw public from the real issues.
That's about $21 billion per year. Not miniscule, but compared to the $1.5 *trillion* dollar deficit (that's $1,500 Billion), it is chump-change - about 1.5%. It's like charging $2,000 a month on credit cards and cutting out a single mocha a month to help fix your budget. Not going to make any difference.
You would then propose you continue to buy the mocha, correct? Then you would also add a pastry to the mix because you had a desire for it. These scenarios seem analagous to your theory.
Just like Obama's proposal to cut the spending by about $400 million - compared to the $4 Trillion he's already spent. I'm sure that's just pocket change to the cuts he should be making.
Dems don't want to quit spending. It was very apparently last night.
That's the WRONG way to think about it. If you find 1.5% here, and 1.5% there... before you know it, you've found 30% (from 20 different places)... and the little 1.5% increments can be cut without really causing anyone serious hardship.
Then why didn't the Dems include Tort Reform in the HCR?? They obviously didn't feel it was worth including, which would save us millions/billions. Now Obama says to include Tort Reform.
The Dems said the same thing last week with regards to the cuts the Republicans proposed.
Go frickin' figure...
Tort reform is a GOP red herring. It wouldn't reduce the debt in any way. But it is also morally incorrect. If a person has been wronged and files a lawsuit with the court, they have the right to receive the award to which they are entitled.
In real life, we rarely see the enormous punitive damages from the TV shows. Those are the rare occasions when the court seeks to punish the wrongdoer. When punies are awarded, it is usually because somebody has been really, really naughty.
You are OK then, Clotho, with tort reform and a limit on punative damages, right? There would be no limit on recovery for the losses caused by negligence. There would only be a limit on the amount someone can collect by "sticking it to the man".
I have no issue with cutting the 1.5%, but you don't *start* there. Like the Mocha analogy, start by cutting out cable TV, going out to eat, etc. You cut the bigger items first and then see where you can squeeze out the last few percent.
These proposals are just feel good items that do not structurally change anything.
Stop Corporate welfare. We give corporations BILLIONS and they send jobs overseas.
Pull back on the anti-terrisim "wars". We could make ourselves a lot safer for a lot less if we focused on our direct national security - securing ports of entry, inspecting cargo, and spending a fractional amount of what we spend now on essentially propaganda - education at home and abroad.
Fix the tax code. Those who reap the most pay the most, plain and simple. Our Military is being used to secure the wealth of the corporations and wealthiest indivuals. Yet they aren't paying for it with increased taxes to offset all that spending. Tax the crap out of Wall Street. Can ANYONE explain how the excessive earnings of Wall Street the past two years (and record bonuses) have help the U.S. at-large? And yet when they went broke, the *taxpayers* bailed them out. They only exist anymore due to the taxpayers, so now they should play by our rules and to our benefit. They tried it their way and lost!
And for those who want small government, ala the 1800's, the push to get rid of a standing army. People forget we had NO standing army before WWII. Aslo, kill the damned War on Drugs already! How can ANYONE say that is NOT a prime example of Big Government?
And those who say taxes are the government taking *their* money - that is crap. Whether you like it or not the government provided numerous services and funds the military. This is something we ALL pay for and taxes pay that. Don't like it, then get the policies changed. Until then, WE ALL foot the bill. You cannot go to a restaurant, buy everything on the menu, only eat half and decide when you get your credit card bill to only pay for what you ate.
Mike, the argument that the government is taking their money is not crap. Based on your view point, all money is first the governments and any remainder is then the peoples.
Yes, there are government functions that need funding. It does not mean the government is the owner of your labor (slavery) and allows you to keep a pittance.
so Bookem', you believe you can have a government, services, and military and yet have no obligation to pay for it? That does sound like a conservative's argument...
The only people that agree with your ENTITLEMENT mentality are the trial lawyers. The Trial lawyers are also the only ones that actually get rich from the suits. You can't watch tv at night without some lawyers ad claiming you may be entitled to compensation if you took med XYZ. 10 people die of heart failure that would have died of whatever XYZ cured but screw the 50,000 who's lives were saved. The 1500 suckers in the class action suit get $10,000 each and the law firm gets $13,000,000. The Drug company quits doing risky research for life saving meds and focuses on their billion $ erection enhancer, or is forced to spend millions more on liability insurance. Ask any MD what their largest expense besides their payroll and office space is and malpractice insurance is at the top of the list. Same for Hospitals and Pharma companies. Medical costs won't come down to where they should be without Tort Reform.
Mike.............You start whever you can if you have to start with the nickle and dime stuff then thats where you start just make sure it does not stop there. Besides as someone else said enough nickle and dime stuff adds up to something significant.
Mike-591056, I stated there are government services that need funding. Where did I say we do not need to pay for these services?
What I further stated is that the money is not first the governts and then the peoples as you seem to imply.
This is why this phony little twerp needed to be kicked to the curb in Nevada. Oh, well. Nevada has 15% unemployment...going up. The highest foreclosure rate in the country...going up. So, Nevadans, enjoy the next several years with Harry Reid "helping" you out.
Ever wonder why you are so concerned with getting your tax return "just right". Making absolutely sure that you are paying your taxes and not leaving anything out??
And then....contrast that with what happens to that money you worked for and then sent to Washington. Anyone think "they" take the same care when spending that money???
No, they throw it away with both hands...by the billions...by the trillions. Just as long as they can buy their next election. what a farce.
Earmarks are needed by both Democraps and Republikans. They are a legal tool of bribery for both sides of the agreement. Earmarks = Campaign Money and Power!
If these United States want to avoid an economic collapse then fastest and most effective way for Congress to deal with the national annual deficit problem is for them to comply with the powers enumerated to them in the Constitution of the United States of America and legislation they penned and passed.
Article 1: Section 8: Clauses 12, 13, 15 & 16 specifically limits the powers of Congress to raise and fund a standing Army for a term not to exceed two years and permits Congress only the power to raise and maintain both the Navy and Marine Corps. Consequently, the U.S. Defense Budget should be cut from the $1.31 trillion in 2010 down to $179 billion, the cost of maintaining the Navy and Marine Corps.(1)
The Militia referred to in Clauses 15 & 16 is to be raised from both the organized and unorganized Militia's defined in US Code: Title 10: Subtitle A: Part I: Chapter 13 : § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are:
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Clause 15, of Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution clearly defines the causes for which the Militias are to be called into duty: They are:
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
So, Tea Party Republicans, Corporate puppet Republicans, Democrats and Independents, if you really support and defend the Constitution of the United States, you will advocate and lobby for ending all wars the U.S. is engaged in, because they were not declared as Article 1: Section 8, mandates, close all foreign bases, bring home all troops from overseas, shut down any and all domestic military bases save for those of the Navy and Marine Corps, disband those forces, shut down the Defense Department and Pentagon and covert all land into a national park after the buildings are torn down.
Additionally, all pensions for citizens who served in the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard since World War II should be cancelled as those forces funding were in direct defiance of the Constitution, and the military actions they were involved in were also illegal as war was not declared by Congress.
Advocating for any deviation of the specific meaning of the Constitution, you are not real patriots but ant constitutional radicals who want to destroy the nation our founding fathers rebelled against British empire, to establish. You have assisted in turning these United States into a mirror image of the England we revolted from.
Absent compliance with the specific powers enumerated to Congress regarding the military, you are all not just advocates of violating the Constitution but are contribution to bankrupting the U.S.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson In an 1823 letter to William Johnson
(1). Military Budget of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
You are frankly incorrect regarding a standing army as being unconstitutional. The full language you cite is actually:
There is nothing in this language that states a standing army is not allowed. What it does state is that any budget cannot exceed two years.
There was much debate around the issue of standing armies around the signing of the constitution. Hamilton, as an example, saw the danger of a standing army but ultimately supported one.
earmarks = com'on folks this money is part of the budget. plain and simple the only question is, do we want congress locking in the monies for specific projects in there home towns ( $$$ for a bridge, road, etc...) or do we want the ex. branch douling out the same monies as they deem fit? the money going to be spent one way or another and the money were talking about is about 1% of total budget. I can see it now presidents will spend the money in the areas they need to win a election. so if your not part of a area that will help win a pres election. TO BAD no money for U. you see your rep in congress will have NO say if they get the ex branch to give them the money your town needs for a project. How is that good for anyone????? It's not going to offer any savings or reductions to the budget or deficts just changes whom is dooling out the cash for a project. This
Where do you get that earmarks are part of the budget? They are not part of any budget unless specifically included.
Nevadians are stuuuupid.
This little news item just came in....
http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/26/obamas-plan-would-cost-another-20-billion
Maybe a nuclear waste enema up old Harry's Yucca will shut him up and end his career of senatorial privilege and larceny.
Sure Harry, YOU guys KNOW where the money should be spent back home.....just like the crook from Alaska with his proverbial bridge to NOWHERE.
Harry, you should have been gone the last time. How you survived I will never know.
I agree with Obama that earmarks should be GONE unless it is matter of grave importance to the survival of the state itself or the betterment of the state and country. Everything else is election fodder and you know it.
Harry, don't go away mad.....just go away. You're an absolute ASS.....and I don't mean the democratic symbol either.
Earmarks are OK if your state is getting them, but some of us get very little. It's a deceptive way to conduct business. Some of those earmarks go completely unnoticed when attached to some seminal bill, yet tip the boat. How do they expect to discourage us peons from cheating on our taxes, unemployment benefits, and welfare, when they (congress in general, et al) cheat this way with earmarks. The dems seem to believe that businesses of all size should pay more tax, and cry about tax loop holes. Physician, heal they self. J
One tires of Reid so quickly that there is a quote from Shakespeare (or perhaps Mary Sidney), which comes to mind: What wouldst thou do, old man?
Reid may know better what is needed in Elko or Las Vegas, but that doesn't mean the money should be spent there... maybe there is more of a need in Florida or Mississippi. Is he serious, when he stated that lawmakers should be allowed to continue to direct spending to their home districts? You may be elected by your "DISTRICT", but your job is to do what is right for your "COUNTRY"... idiot!
Reid is a complete a**! Who are the idiots in Nevada that keep electing this clueless creature? He is one of the main reason this country is broke!
no call
No - this is Reid's End. Obama already hates him. Reid's a wart on the party and will fall next time.
=================================================================
This unfortunately won't happen if the unions can get enough members bussed to the polls again like last time. Given time off work to vote as long as they voted the correct (how they were instructed) way. It will be very difficult to overcome that no matter who the candidate is running against "dirty Harry".
Now they're trying to convert the TSA to unions. Pretty soon, every Obama corporation will be unionized so they will be raking in the dough and benefits while we continue to suffer.
Unions = the new upper class elitists.
Union = upper class elitists? Wow that's a stretch
You all realize that Harry has this job for Six more years??
Want to hurt him?? take away his power and influence?? Vote out enough of the Democrat senators in 2012 that Harry won't be the Senate Majority Leader anymore. Then he will become a non-entity.
Jon G to Harry Reid: YOU back off. As for others who try to cite the Pres for "lying" about ermarks, I suggest some research on past Presidents, of ANY party.
JonG,
So, by your reasoning, if any past president lied to us, then Obama is exonerated from lying?? He is in office now. He needs to at least act presidential.
F U Reid
We need fewer people like Mr. Reid in government.
Can Nevada recall elected officials?
Nevada does have statutes that allow for recall of their elected officials. It will all depend on a ruling from the Supreme Court, though. It woud be interesting to see it tried.
Recall,?? No, but Harry is getting old. If he should pass away or become incapacitated during his term, then, I think, the Governor of Nevada gets to appoint his replacement. If that's true, then we can expect a republican replacement, since the Govenor is Republican.
I love the throwaway line at the end: "He's been around a while, I've been around a while." Ummm...actually, no, Obama has NOT "been around a while." Politically speaking, and with respect to any meaningful experience of any kind, Obama is a total neophyte in every respect of the word. But...that's what we elected, and people get what they deserve...
I'm about as liberal as it gets, but I gotta stand with the conservatives on this one. It's not that I mind spending the money, but be upfront about it. Don't attach 10 million for the Senator Butthead Library to a bill providing health care for uninsured orphans! Make it stand on it's own.
Mr. Reid's exit from government would also be an applause line.
I just drove through Elko, NV. I can assure you, it needs no supplemental government support than any other city in America gets.
Although I don't think earmarks are the end of the world, I do think it dilutes the merits of bills to which they're attached.
So hopefully with one less thing to argue about, they might be slightly more on topic.
Earmarks/pork are not just a scam used by the Democrats. All of our political parties suck, which is why our country is turning to CRA*! We cannot address the hard issues immigration, social security, medicare or the military without pissing of some entitled class, and that's the problem. We're doomed because of special interests working their own agenda. If people really acted like "Americans" maybe something would happen, but I doubt it....
Yeah, Harry Reid's a pretty cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything.
Harry, Harry, Harry! calm down. we all know you need the earmarks to pay back the casinos that helped vote you in. Just slip in an earmark now an then for your' buddies at the casinos and your' buddy Obama will just sign it claiming 'what earmarks?' .
Thats what buddies are for, isnt it..................... barf.............