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:
Obama (and the rest of us) to Reid on earmarks: F#@k off!
Harry just skimped by on the last election. He must have some people to pay back. LOL
Now Harry, is that any way to act around "the man you wanted in the White House"? May be the chickens are coming home to roost? or maybe turnabout is fair play? so many things could be said but the only one of value: you might be getting just what you deserve.
While earmarks may be chump change in the federal budget, they set a bad example by being administered improperly, unfairly, and ineffectively. It is a way for congressmen to get re-elected, sell power, and pay back favors done.
I have no problem with each congressman having an appropriately sized discretionary budget. However, expenditures should be proper, fair, and effective and transparently (to the public) administrated.
(c) 2011
oh, you mean a slush fund? they shouldn't have anything except when it is directly voted on. earmarks are not voted on, they are just attached. the proposed slush fund would be free money, then when they would run out of it, do they just go back and pass 'GO' and collect another slush fund?
Earmarks using more borrowed money? Mr. Reid, what don't you get about spending money you don't have? If you (and the rest of Congress) can't man up to matching spending to revenue, move aside. And thanks to your (and the rest of Congress') support for earmarks we've got to generate revenue to pay down the deficit you've incurred at our expense so you can keep your influence nest feathered. It now isn't about cutting spending (with borrowed dollars), it is about paying the interest on the loans you've taken out and signed our names to. Shame on you and all of Congress for not having the cohones to do what needs to be done. It just isn't politically expedient to say "I'm for raising taxes so we can pay our debt."
Earmarks should be approached with some common sense. The houses need to change the rules on how earmarks are included. Whoever attaches an earmark to a bill should be required to go before the house and explain it. I think last year a couple million were spent on teaching men in Africa how to use condoms. Whoever put that in should have been required to stand up and explain how that is worth the price tag.
Chances are whoever put that in isn't equipped to demonstrate proper condom use.
The Revolutionary War was based on Taxation without Representation. No representation is what we have today, the Congress is bought and paid for by Special Interest.
Ever since Reid WON in Nevada.....by providing bus trips, free meals, and Starbucks gift cards.......I see a NEW confidence in his attitude. He is acting like a semi-male Pelosi!
"Earmarks" are nothing more than BRIBES!
If they want one of their robots to vote for something......they add an earmark that will give them new tennis courts or azaleas for their State (that has NOTHING to do with the main Bill).
Totally corrupt!
Republican OR Democrat........DO AWAY with "earmarks".
If Virginia gets $100 ......so should the other 49 states!!!!! (but it should be a SEPARATE Bill)
Earmarking!did that used to be pork barreling at one time ?
Yes!
Reid is sickening.
I don't think the president said he would eliminate earmarks if I heard him correctly. I think he said that if a bill came across his desk that contained earmarks (which some congressman try to piggyback along with the legislation) then he would veto the entire bill.
Now, what and where is the change the republicans promised?? They are still the same republicans!! Where are the tea-parties now! The voters were fooled!!
What does the Tea Party have to do with this story? This story is about punk ass, Harry Reid wanting business as usual in Washington.
What does your comment have to do with the story?
You back off, Harry. No more bridges to islands in Alaska, no more roads to nowhere, etc. Earmarks have got to go if we are every to get our economy back on track.
doesn't Harry look like a wax statue?
"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."
Apparently, Harry doesn't count himself as one of the Washington bureaucrats that make decisions for the rest of the country. Either, Harry is suffering from a God complex or he has Alzheimer's and doesn't realize it.
The other possibility is that he is an arrogant, egomaniac, career politician that believes he has the right to do what ever he wants.
Man did you hit that nail on the head or better yet harry the IDIOT!!!!
Well in his speech he made a promise, now lets see if things change, if there was a good candidate running against Harry, he would be history...looks like were stuck for six more years......Still support the president as an independent but the democrats have there crooks also,,,,right harry...
Reid's defense of earmarks is typical of senators of both parties, but disappointing for anyone in a leadership position. Reid claims earmarks preserve legislative powers against the prerogatives of the executive branch. But congress’ constitutional check on executive power is that branch’s ability to override a president’s veto with a two-thirds vote.
I hope Obama really stands by his pledge to veto bills with earmarks in them. Presidential vetoes and congressional over-rides might expose much of the pork contained in earmarks. Should we get our hopes up! Sadly, presidents of both parties have rarely truly challenged earmarks. Fortunately, earmarks represent only a tiny fraction of government spending.
Ried telling the "Pied Piper" to back off. Something is amist.
If any congressional "leader" of either party wants money for their constitutes/and or pet project, let them write a SINGLE Bill, and put it before Congress to be voted on. Oh, AND TERM LIMITS.
If politicians want "earmarks" for their districts, let them introduce a bill requesting the funds. If Americans operated their household budgets by allowing earmarks, just imagine the grocery bill.
Politicians MUST rein in spending on "pie in the sky" projects, used as reelection material. Focusing on improving, removing existing programs or transferring programs to the private sector, would increase finances for "pet" projects.
When will we ever learn.
Staggering. Senator Reid STILL has not gotten the message -- we no longer will accept "business as usual" from the socialists/progressives/Democrats who had power in Congress for the past four years.
These clowns have been in government so long they have an enormous sense of entitlement that they can and will do anything they want. Its not there money they just want to buy themselves another term in office and thats dems and repubs both. Lets just see if obama can walk the walk but my moneys on him tellin another lie, not even sure he knows the difference. Nobody better at doublespeak than him right now. Does anyone have any idea how this moron (Reid) got elected anyway or are people in Nevada just plain stupid? Really defies imagination.
Go BO put harry in his place. Old fool only got reelected cause of who he was against. The guy is a POS.
Dear Harry,
I agree that our lawmakers should reserve the right to direct spending to their constituent states. Under no circumstance should the administration have anything to do with state driven earmarks. I further believe that the recent "big stink" regarding earmarks is rediculous and will not have any affect on the over-all debt. The "big stink" is nothing more than theater, directed at the uninformed. However!!!! "Back off, and let us do what we do?????????? Is what got us where we are, in the first place. To be perfectly Barney Frank with you senator, letting you do what you do........scares the livin @!$%# out of me.
In other words, "screw you, Mr. President." Obama is absolutely right - veto any spending bill loaded down by earmarks. They won't give the president the line-item veto, so he has no cholice but to veto the entire bill until it is either overridden or the offending earmark removed. The President understands at last that we have to stop the insane spending of our drunken sailor legislators, and get our house in order. No counutry can hope for prosperity if its tax revenues are completely eaten up by entitlement programs and interest on the national debt.