Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, sounding weary of criticism over federal earmarks, defended Congress' pet projects Wednesday as he signed an "imperfect" $410 billion measure with thousands of examples. But he said the spending does need tighter restraint and listed guidelines to do it. Obama, accused of hypocrisy by Republicans for embracing billions of dollars of earmarks in the legislation, said they can be useful and noted that he has promised to curb, not eliminate them.On another potentially controversial matter, the president also issued a "signing statement" with the bill, saying several of its provisions raised constitutional concerns and would be taken merely as suggestions. He has criticized President George W. Bush for often using such statements to claim the right to ignore portions of new laws, and on Monday he said his administration wouldn't follow those issued by Bush unless authorized by the new attorney general.
White House officials have accused Bush of using the statements to get around Congress in pursuing anti-terror tactics.
Obama signed the bill in private, unlike a number of recent signings that took place with fanfare, but he raised the issue of earmarks in public remarks playing down their scope and possible harm in the measure. They comprise about 1 percent of the spending package, which will keep the government running through September, he told reporters.
"Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts. And that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said.
Still, the president acknowledged the storm of criticism from watchdog groups, talk show hosts and many Republican lawmakers — including some who have obtained earmarks — who call them wasteful and politically motivated. They are special provisions earmarking money in spending bills for specific projects.
Obama, too, has criticized them as overused and subject to abuse.
Proposing new safeguards, he asked Congress to require that any earmark for a for-profit company be subject to competitive bids. He also said he would work with Congress to eliminate earmarks or other specific items in spending bills that he believes serve no legitimate purpose. But he did not specify how.
Critics were unmoved. Obama "naively asked earmark addicts to police themselves," said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. Lawmakers "trumpet their pork on their Web sites," he said, "and nobody believes we will have public hearings on pet projects."
Presidents can ask Congress to rescind various spending items. But the authority has little bite because lawmakers tend to ignore requests to undo their work.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP opponent in last year's election, wants to require Congress to vote on a president's rescission requests. Obama is open to such a change, spokesman Robert Gibbs said, but has not proposed it.
"It doesn't do anybody any good to send up a rescissions package," Gibbs said, if it "becomes a piece of paper in somebody's file drawer."
Congress has wrestled for years with how to regulate earmarks, the targeted spending items for construction projects, weapons systems, research grants and thousands of other programs sought by Senate and House members. Voters tend to disdain earmarks in the abstract, but they often embrace the money and jobs that earmarks produce close to home. Many lawmakers base their re-election bids on the goodies they steer to constituents, and efforts to eliminate earmarks have repeatedly met strong resistance in both parties.
Nearly all earmarks serve some public purpose, even the so-called "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. But abuses have included tying earmarks to kickbacks, including those that sent former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., to prison in 2006.
Congress tightened regulations after that, including requirements that requests for earmark be made public and subject to scrutiny. The number has decreased since then, but they still totaled 7,991, costing $5.5 billion, in the "omnibus" spending bill Obama signed Wednesday.
The president called the bill imperfect and recommended further earmark changes "to ensure that the budget process inspires trust and confidence instead of cynicism."
For a time, President Bill Clinton enjoyed line-item veto power, which allowed him to strike specific projects, including earmarks, from massive spending bills. But the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1998. Since then, presidents have had to accept or veto entire spending bills, often packed with thousands of items, some of them earmarks.
Congress' Democratic leaders issued statements Wednesday praising Obama's remarks and defending earmarks in general. The House Appropriations Committee announced said it would submit every future earmark to the appropriate executive branch agency for a review.
But a statement issued by the committee's chairman, David Obey, D-Wis., hinted at irritation with the public's focus. "With all of the hyperventilating over the 1 percent of the omnibus appropriations bill that is made up of earmarks," he said, "Washington has mostly glossed over the important results it has achieved with the other 99 percent of the bill."
But a statement issued by the committee's chairman, David Obey, D-Wis., hinted at irritation with the public's focus. "With all of the hyperventilating over the 1 percent of the omnibus appropriations bill that is made up of earmarks," he said, "Washington has mostly glossed over the important results it has achieved with the other 99 percent of the bill."
It was unclear how Congress might prevent earmarks from being directed to specific for-profit companies. House Appropriations staffers said the process will be changed to prevent "sole-sourcing" of contracts through earmarks and to require an open bidding process instead.
Obama's signing statement said he wouldn't be bound by provisions of the bill in five areas. They involved negotiations with foreign governments, limits on using U.S. troops in U.N. missions, protections for government whistleblowers, a congressional claim of authority over the spending of money already approved by Congress and congressional demands that the administration submit budget requests in certain forms.
Source: Yahoo Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor and Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.
President Obama ain’t f*kin around ya'll:In one area — Iraq — President Barack Obama has found the bipartisanship that has eluded him so far with his economic plan and domestic agenda. Obama muted his critics and found support among congressional Democrats and Republicans over the timetable for troop withdrawal that he announced last week.
The president committed to pull out nearly all combat troops by August 2010. He listened to the recommendations of the military and then roughly split the difference between what the generals requested and what he promised during the campaign.
Obama not only wants to get the troops out of Iraq, he needs to in order to meet two other commitments: lowering the federal deficit and transferring 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. In six years at war, America has spent more than $700 billion in Iraq. It costs nearly $400,000 per year to keep each soldier there. But the president doesn’t want to be accused of blowing the gains made since the surge in troops that President George W. Bush ordered and, more significantly, the successful counter-insurgency strategy of Gen. David Petraeus.
Most of the 142,000 troops there now will leave between December and August 2010. Up to 50,000 personnel will remain, as trainers, advisers and combat troops doing anti-terrorist work — an unclear mission.
Finally with an end in sight, Washington can work on diverting the gajillions of tax payers dollars to serve the actual tax payers for a change.
PNCR leader Robert Corbin is denying holding talks with party executive Dr Aubrey Armstrong to facilitate a transfer of leadership.Corbin has also left open the possibility about his candidacy to continue in the post, saying that the question of his “electability” is for the judgement of members and supporters, who will decide the direction of the party at its upcoming Biennial Congress.
He made the statements following questions raised about the outcome of a leadership retreat held by the party last weekend. The retreat was coordinated by Lance Carberry, Alan Munroe and PNCR General Secretary Oscar Clarke, while the main facilitators were Dr Armstrong and Dr. Ivor Mitchell.
Online news site demerarawaves.com reported that Corbin, Barbados-based executive Armstrong and Mitchell had held talks on the sidelines of the retreat to explore the possibility of Armstrong becoming the next party leader. It also said party insiders indicated that an agreement had been reached that Corbin would not contest the position of leader at the congress and Armstrong would emerge as the favourite and eventually leader, likely paving the way for Winston Murray to return as chairman of the party. Sources have told Stabroek News that Corbin was likely to resist any calls to contest for leadership and would likely endorse Armstrong’s candidacy. Armstrong, sources said, is being favoured to helm the party because he is without the weight of political baggage that is believed to have stymied Corbin’s attempts to steer the party forward. However, there is also some scepticism over Armstrong as he has not been resident here for some time and does not command strong grassroots support. There has been similar reservation about former health minister Dr Richard Van West Charles, who has also expressed a desire to contest for the party leadership.
However, Corbin said on Friday that the reports were inaccurate and that no such conversation took place at the retreat. For its part, demerarawaves is sticking to its story.
Corbin argued that the party leader is just “a cog in the wheel” and declared that no one is indispensable. Further, he reminded that the PNCR has shown that it has been able to survive with or without any one individual, pointing to its resilience following the passing of two successive leaders in office, late President Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte. “I have no doubt the PNC will survive whether I am leader or anyone else is leader,” Corbin emphasised, saying that it is the collective responsibility of the party membership to ensure the successful implementation of its policies.
Over the last two years, the PNCR has experienced internal turmoil following the aborted challenge by former vice-chairman Vincent Alexander to Corbin’s leadership. Subsequently, several Alexander supporters were disciplined and James McAllister was recalled from Parliament. In the wake of the departure of several leading party members it was also recently announced that Murray had given up the post of chairman on a matter of principle though he remained a Member of Parliament and the party’s shadow finance minister.
The party has also faced piercing questions about its stance toward the government and whether it was providing effective leadership of the opposition. Corbin has been accused of taking a soft line on the government and this at one point led to President Bharrat Jagdeo rising to his defence. Corbin has recently reiterated the party’s long-held view that shared governance is a must if Guyana is to progress.
