Obama should fulfull his promises and threaten to veto the earmark-bloated spending bill

By  | 



Thanks to the powerful stand taken by two Democrats, Evan Bayh, a centrist after my own heart, and Russ Feingold, a staunch, principled liberal, both of whom will vote against the $410-billion spending bill as long as it contains 9,000 earmarks, the Senate leadership came up one vote short on moving the bill forward.


Congress is now giving itself another five days to pry the needed vote, probably from the Republicans, many of whom want their own earmarks to pass although they are stalling for the moment to embarass the Democrats.  But some other Republicans, led by John McCain, are leading the charge against this unconscionable waste at a time when federal dollars are needed for more important things.


Throughout his campaign last year, President Obama promised repeatedly to change the tired ways of Washington, reform the “old politics,” and specifically go “line by line” through the federal budget to restrain wasteful spending. In his inauguration address and other speeches since January 20, he has again and again struck the same rhetorical notes of change, reform and fiscal responsibility.


Now, he has the perfect opportunity to make good on his words.  Reform-minded Democrats and Republicans have exposed this especially smelly bit of old-style Washington politics and slowed down its enactment.  By announcing that he would veto the bill unless it is stripped of earmarks, the President could guarantee that the House and Senate leadership would do just that and present him with a clean bill.  They would have no choice, since they would not be able to muster the two thirds majorities of both Houses to override his veto.  In any case, the Democratic leadership would not have the stomach to engage in battle with their own party’s new, very popular President. 


President Obama would not only fulfill the spirit and letter of his campaign promises. He would gain enormous respect among voters and opinion makers throughout the country and across the political spectrum, opening up new opportunities for genuine post-partisan cooperation on other, pressing issues.  And not incidentally, it would also be good policy — good for the nation and good for all Americans.


So why is he calling this “old business” and doing his best to duck the issue?  Why won’t he take a stand?  Alas, the answer is that the old politics of Washington against which he campaigned to eloquently is alive and well.  Key Congressional committee chairs and ranking members, along with many of their colleagues, regard pork projects as theirs by right and will never part with them without a fight.  No doubt, Obama fears that these powerful people on Capitol Hill will retaliate against him in many less-than-public ways if he screws them out of their earmarks.


No doubt some will try to do that. But did we not expect that Obama would at least try to rise above these political considerations and show some courage in bringing “change we can believe in” to Washington?  

If he does, he will be able to count on even stronger popular support to offset any fallout among Congressional grandees.  If he doesn’t, he will fully deserve to face the consequences of further public disappointment and gathering opposition.  It’s up to him.


What are your thoughts?  Post a comment.


(Visit me at The Purple Center)