Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion


SHERMAN FREDERICK: Earmarks, schmearmarks

Brains without honesty get you nowhere

Can't tell you how many times I've yelled that at the TV lately as Barack Obama, who sermonized every Sunday about the evils of earmarks, now can't muster the backbone to practice what he preached.

In fewer than 90 days, Obama's signed off on not one, but two monster spending bills with billions of dollars in earmarks in each. And here's the creepy kicker: He's not going to stop. You can bet the good dog that while Obama's in office, he will not enact one spending bill -- not a single one -- that is earmark-free.


Most Popular Stories
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: Sacrificing free speech won't appease fanatics
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • Smart meters not all they're cracked up to be
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Some things are worth fighting for
  • EDITORIAL: Going to extremes
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Here's a scary thought
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen




  • Of course, pork is like pornography -- hard to define. And the Washington elite love to argue the finer points of what is, or is not, pork like Pontius Pilate loved to wash his hands. But I'm with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said while he may not be able to define hard-core pornography, he knew it when he saw it.

    Most Americans know hard-core earmarks when they see them, too -- and they are obscene. Earmarks come from Republicans and Democrats. Earmarks sometimes sound quaint, like a Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C., or queer, like a study of bear poop in the Rockies.

    Obama's no virgin to earmarks. Before he ran for president, he submitted 112 earmarks totaling more that $330 million. After he became a candidate, he submitted zero saying: "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project."

    Empty rhetoric, it turns out, because when Obama became president, he signed the $787 billion so-called "stimulus" bill filled with earmarks. And now he's promised to sign a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion.

    And to further insult the people who believed his words, some of those earmarks are residual from his staff: Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Even George Stephanopoulos, not exactly unsympathetic to the Obama cause, expressed incredulity with Budget Director Peter Orszag.

    Stephanopoulos: "We thought the administration believed in cutting back on congressional earmarks."

    Orszag: "This is last year's business. We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done. ... We're going to be working with Congress ... to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent."

    Stephanopoulos: "But he signs this bill this year?"

    Orszag: "This is -- this is last year's business. We just need to move on."

    We've seen this kind of bobbing and weaving before. It's the talk and actions of business as usual in Washington. Not anything like "The One" who took the last election by storm, promising change and hope.

    I suppose some may try to excuse this hypocrisy by hearkening to our "extraordinary" economic circumstances, or rationalizing his disconnect as a tip of the hat to the enormity of the job, like the proverbial elephant that must be eaten one bite at a time.

    Fine. You're entitled to your little fantasies. But be warned, this elephant's not on the menu. Ever.

    Obama's earmark hypocrisy is disappointing in the extreme. The president's lost his groove from a campaign that promised something new. He embarrasses himself when his spokesmen blithely say he'll sign off on 9,000 new earmarks because it is "last year's business."

    I don't care what side of the political boat you row, that's just intellectually dishonest.

     

    Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 89 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    TEV wrote on March 09, 2009 05:50 PM: Oprah knighted O'bama "The One"


    Oprah Winfrey introduced one of her favorite things people at what the NY Times called "the largest spectacle of the campaign cycle" - the Oprah for Barack Obama rally in Des Moines, Iowa. Winfrey said, "For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America," and told the audience of 15,000 said, "I am here to tell you, Iowa, he is the one. He is the one!"



    Report abuse

    Gene Lewis wrote on March 09, 2009 04:29 PM: Mr. Frederick, by this time next year what you say in your column about President Obama will be against the law so enjoy it while you can.


    Report abuse

    Petro wrote on March 09, 2009 06:53 AM: The use of 'intellectually" dishonest is curious. Is it better to be emotionally dishonest, or remedially dishonest, or how about technically dishonest? What happened to just plain old "dishonest" or he is a liar?


    Report abuse

    Henry wrote on March 09, 2009 06:49 AM: Sherm wrote: "Not anything like 'The One' who took the last election by storm, promising change and hope."

    You do recall that "The One" is a label that republicans tag Obama with, right? So using it to illustrate how Obama has fallen short, is kinda stupid.

    Talk about hypocrisy, you throw in this pathetic line about earmarks coming from both republicans and democrats to deflect from your own hypocrisy in not calling out all of the republican senators, governors, etc, who gobble up stimulus money and earmark related funds while at the same time going on Fox News to declare their opposition to both.


    Report abuse

    Mr. Cash wrote on March 09, 2009 04:58 AM: Anyone who believed anything 0bama said when he was campaigning is a sucker.Anyone who thinks this guy is presidential material has a screw loose.In the realm of reality you cannot find 0bama.His spokesman calling this last years business apparently does not realize 0bama was in DC last year.The Democrats controlled Congress for the last two years and the last two budgets passed by the Democrats were chock full of earmarks and wasteful spending.
    If you like lies and broken promises you are on cloud 9


    Report abuse

    Jim Nance wrote on March 09, 2009 01:09 AM: Frank,

    Sherm is talking about the Ominbus Budget bill that has over 9,000 earmarks listed in it.

    They are mainly state projects that should be funded by the states if they think they are necessary.

    We should not be charging these projects to our children's charge cards via deficit spending.

    It is shameful.


    Report abuse

    frank wrote on March 09, 2009 12:54 AM: what's intellectually dishonest, is:

    "...$787 billion so-called "stimulus" bill filled with earmarks"

    Name one earmark in the bill. Just one.

    The bill's available online, at whitehouse.gov, recovery.gov, or the library of congress' THOMAS archive.

    Find ONE earmark, and then you can write these little rants about intellectual dishonesty, with a modicum or credibility. Right now, you just look silly.


    Report abuse

    S. Summerlin wrote on March 08, 2009 11:56 PM: Jonathan -

    Don't disagree that the problem needs fixing with regards to the tattoo... but law enforcement is a local issue and should be handled by the residents of California... not the Federal Government...

    Sherm -

    Someday I would hope to see a column on how to convince people that assigning blame NEVER solves problems...

    Kathryn,

    Okay... fine... you have beaten us into submission with your one track mind... it's Bush's fault... now... are we fixing the problem the right way now? Your answer please?


    Report abuse

    Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on March 08, 2009 11:39 PM: The 200K you're whining about for "tatoo removal" is targeted at helping law enforcement protect former gang leaders who have helped the police bring down gang crime - and the program needs the funding so these confidential informants can start a new life crime-free!

    And you're totally wrong Sherman - THE ELEPHANT HAS BEEN ON THE MENU FOR SOME TIME - it's just taking longer than we thought to get it fully eaten!


    Report abuse

    Kathryn Pratt wrote on March 08, 2009 08:47 PM: This was a left-over bill from one of the worst Presidents in US history, George W. Bush.


    Read All Comments