The Department of Defense didn't ask for money to update the old officers club in San Francisco's Presidio into a visitors information center and exhibition space. Neither did any other member of Congress - except House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

er $5 million earmark request for the Presidio Heritage Center was approved by the Senate on Saturday as part of the $626 billion defense appropriations bill, the largest of the end-of-year government spending measures.

The bill, which includes $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be signed by President Obama.

Pelosi's request was one of 1,720 earmarks - including several from Bay Area legislators - worth $4.2 billion in the measure.

That comes on the heels of Congress passing a $447 billion spending bill Dec. 13 that included 5,224 earmarks totaling $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group. The earmarks include $54 million for a flood-control project that will raise two trestles used by the Napa Valley Wine Train.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/21/MN931B6F8A.DTL&type=politics#ixzz0aZt3uQOw


I thought Obama was against earmarks. It appears the same trend are continuing in Washington. Hopefully Americans wake up and direct the anger where it belongs: Congress.

eersandbeers wrote: The bill, which includes $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be signed by President Obama.

I thought Obama was against earmarks. It appears the same trend are continuing in Washington. Hopefully Americans wake up and direct the anger where it belongs: Congress.

even though congress put the earmarks in it, he is still approving it. maybe if he was held accountable, he would start standing up to congress.

I'm shocked. Really. :rolleyes:

Glory Days wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: The bill, which includes $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be signed by President Obama.

I thought Obama was against earmarks. It appears the same trend are continuing in Washington. Hopefully Americans wake up and direct the anger where it belongs: Congress.

even though congress put the earmarks in it, he is still approving it. maybe if he was held accountable, he would start standing up to congress.

I agree 100%. But everybody gets their goodies attached to war spending/defense.

To raise a stink...will get you labeled undesirable things. I would love for Obama to tell Pelosi to knock the shit off. But it ain't happenin.

Nobody really cares about deficits. Nobody.

Obama is alot like Bush, just to a different degree. So there is little surprise that he isn't against earmarks. He was just lying to get elected, like Bush did.

All politicians lie to get elected.

Just some of the things that make a lot of people want to call BHO out on it however include:

1. The media's love affair with the man. Although the mainstream media are slowly, grudgingly beginning to scrutinize the Anointed One more, they still go out of their way to avoid making him look bad. Why? Because they know that to expose BHO's weaknesses would be an admission of their own contribution to his failings.

2. BHO promised to run the most transparent administration in history. While everyone on earth knows it's impossible to run the White House from a fish bowl, BHO nevertheless opened himself up to a big time fail on this one.

3. BHO promised to eliminate earmarks. Again an impossible task but a promise nonetheless. I'm with Eersandbeers on this one...while Congress is to blame, BHO set himself up to be the lightening rod.

4. A naive American electorate is also to blame for buying into one of the slickest presidential campaigns in recent memory. This politically inexperienced Chicago Political Machine "community organizer" turned Teleprompter POTUS was handed a Wonka Golden Ticket by his pals in the media and Hollyweird. And then the American public bought off on the glitzy "Yes We Can - Change We Can Believe In" mantra. His phony Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, the man who would be our first black president with charisma alleged to be akin to JFK's is rapidly exposing himself as the fraud he is.

His world-wide American Apology Tour, failed Chicago Olympic lobby done on taxpayer time, willingness to bow to foreign kings, association with the Copenhagen Climate Change Kooks, Gotta-Get-It-Done-NOW-to-Save-American-Jobs Porkulus Spending Spree, and the government-run health care "reform" bill combine to make this presidency an on-going disaster....and we have 3 more years to go.

Only a major shift in the Congressional political landscape in November 2010 can slow the damage. The New Year can't get here fast enough.

BHO is about to take a family vacation in Hawaii in the midst of an economy he claims is "the worst since the Great Depression." Any chance he can take an extended one? Taxpayer treat.

I thought that the Presidio already had a visitor center?

HOPE AND CHANGE!!!

Yeah, while I applauded getting the bill passed, the fact that it had some much pork is very annoying. Some of the parts were end of the year continuations for follow up in Jan/ Feb. But, there were annoying items not needed.

More broadly, the President's lack of emphasis on earmarks, standing up for Congress and trying to change the dynamic of the relationship between special interest and Congress has been a huge disappointment. Obama has pretty much allowed Congress to run over him, and while he does have some wins (F22, cuts to some programs) he has laid down on reform and has let the radicals run wild.

I'm not sure why the government went after the Mafia and "organized crime" so aggressively. Congress and majority of the federal government makes the Mob look like alter boys. They are the biggest thieves in this country (Congress and the Fed gov.)

CenterBHSFan wrote: I thought that the Presidio already had a visitor center?

I was there for a small conference earlier this fall, i don't think it needed any money.

BAH PELOSI!!

And shame on Obama for not having the guts to call her out.

Just a little more of that ..................... change we can believe in.

Perhaps I should explain that what happens every four years is very rarely in the best interests of the American people. It is a battle to see which political party gets the most "stuff" for the next four years. Don't you folks know that what the candidates promise and what Congress does are two very different and occasionally diametrically opposed things? Being a long time government and history teacher, the first election that I taught first hand was the 1968 battle between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. basically, it has been 40+ years of uninterrupted earmarks. I don't really see it stopping now. The only thing we, the voters can do, is carefully study the candidates' positions on the issues and make our vote as intelligently as we can. We won't ever be getting all of what we want. Congress will do much better than the American people in that regard.

Swamp Fox wrote: Perhaps I should explain that what happens every four years is very rarely in the best interests of the American people. It is a battle to see which political party gets the most "stuff" for the next four years. Don't you folks know that what the candidates promise and what Congress does are two very different and occasionally diametrically opposed things? Being a long time government and history teacher, the first election that I taught first hand was the 1968 battle between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. basically, it has been 40+ years of uninterrupted earmarks. I don't really see it stopping now. The only thing we, the voters can do, is carefully study the candidates' positions on the issues and make our vote as intelligently as we can. We won't ever be getting all of what we want. Congress will do much better than the American people in that regard.

Good post. But it's a shame that earmarks are attached to the defense budget.

That to me is lower than whale shit.

ccrunner609 wrote: ^^^^What we have had is 40 years worth of presidents that are to chicken shit to send this crap back down hill and tell tehm to start all over.

You are correct no president in this time period has had the balls break out the veto pen everytime a bill is laden with pork. It will take some kind of revolutionary change to stop this practice. If federal dollars are to be used to build a bridge in West Virginia, then let congress vote on the individual budget item.

Defense bills are notorious for earmarks. Every congressman jumps on this gravy train. Attach pork to a defense bill and who will have the balls to vote against it. Especially when troops are in the field of battle. Its a double edged sword. I find it reprehensible.

Shakedown taxpayers for cash. Use the money to grease doners palms, bribe fellow congressman, and coerce their constituants. They got a great racket going. Congress will not give it up voluntarily.

^^^That was by design. The Dems knew the Repubs would not like the pork (with the exception of their own of course) and would find themselves in a the awkward position of appearing like they are against defense spending during war time, not the Dems.

Typical DC political scheming by the Pelosi Bunch.

Adding amendments to increase the debt ceiling was another one that was often attached to defense bills.

In order to artificially keep the budget deficit down Bush never used to budget any money for the 2 wars (even though we knew they were going to cost money), and instead used emergency supplemental funding bills because they are not reflected in the yearly budget deficit given the way the accounting is done (this is actually Karl Rove's brilliant brainchild).

The supplemental bills had to be passed to fund the war effort, so the unpopular increases to the debt ceiling were always attached to ensure that it was passed so we didn't default on our govt spending obligations. The minority party always revels in demagoging the increase in the debt ceiling threatening not to pass it, so by attaching it to defense appropriations bills or emergency bills at least it always gets done.

Attaching terribly unpopular amendments and unrelated pork to defense spending bills is a right of passage to become a full fledged member of Congress.

You are correct no president in this time period has had the balls break out the veto pen everytime a bill is laden with pork.

Reagan actually tried...he pounded hard for a line item veto for such things.

^^^"We're going to ban all earmarks."

Change we can believe in.

ccrunner609 wrote:
THis assclown is going to be so easy to beat in 2012.

Unlikely for a couple reasons:

1. The independent/third party vote could be huge and pull votes from Republicans

2. The Republicans will nominate someone like Palin

eersandbeers wrote:Unlikely for a couple reasons:

1. The independent/third party vote could be huge and pull votes from Republicans

2. The Republicans will nominate someone like Palin

1. Perhaps but it amazes me that third party/"independents" would want 4 more years of the BHO Disaster by wasting their votes in an exercise of political futility.

2. Not likely to be Palin...mark it down.

believer wrote:

1. Perhaps but it amazes me that third party/"independents" would want 4 more years of the BHO Disaster by wasting their votes in an exercise of political futility.

2. Not likely to be Palin...mark it down.

1. It's about voting on principle. People always complain about Democrats and Republicans but aren't willing to make the necessary change. The goal isn't to just vote for someone who wins. I'm not contributing to the further downfall and corruption of our current system by voting for a Republicrat.

2. She isn't liked in Republican circles, but who has more star power than her right now? I guess she might even run as an independent which would severely screw the Republicans.

eersandbeers wrote:1. It's about voting on principle. People always complain about Democrats and Republicans but aren't willing to make the necessary change. The goal isn't to just vote for someone who wins. I'm not contributing to the further downfall and corruption of our current system by voting for a Republicrat.

2. She isn't liked in Republican circles, but who has more star power than her right now? I guess she might even run as an independent which would severely screw the Republicans.

1. So rather than cutting our "common" losses by backing the VIABLE candidate most likely to be closest to, but admittedly not quite your political beliefs, you'll opt to insure 4 more years of what we have at present by voting "on principle." I understand your values but ironically and unfortunately your values and those like you IMHO are helping to insure continued downfall and corruption. Interesting position to take. Plus I have a hunch that the "independents" will have had enough of BHO to vote Republican provided, of course, the Republicans offer a reasonably attractive candidate.

2. Again not likely to happen. Political realities will set-in long before the 2012 campaign and Palin's "star power" will likely be her eventual demise.

I think the election of 2012 is a question mark for a lot of reasons. So many intangibles involved and quite a long time before it actually occurs. Those of us who switched and voted for Obama are somewhat disenchanted right now because we feel that he didn't take the initiative when he had it to get something meaningful accomplished in the area of health care, but the fear of a reactionary right-wing person is so scary that the vote will be determined by what happens between now and election time. I'm honestly absolutely up in the air concerning what my vote will be in 2012. I think right now that President Obama still has the appropriate coalition lined up to win re-election. If health care doesn't get done, I don't think a Republican can get elected running on the health care issue. Too many people out there blame the Republicans for failing to do anything about it for the previous 8 yrears prior to Obama's election.

believer wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:1. It's about voting on principle. People always complain about Democrats and Republicans but aren't willing to make the necessary change. The goal isn't to just vote for someone who wins. I'm not contributing to the further downfall and corruption of our current system by voting for a Republicrat.

2. She isn't liked in Republican circles, but who has more star power than her right now? I guess she might even run as an independent which would severely screw the Republicans.

1. So rather than cutting our "common" losses by backing the VIABLE candidate most likely to be closest to, but admittedly not quite your political beliefs, you'll opt to insure 4 more years of what we have at present by voting "on principle." I understand your values but ironically and unfortunately your values and those like you IMHO are helping to insure continued downfall and corruption. Interesting position to take. Plus I have a hunch that the "independents" will have had enough of BHO to vote Republican provided, of course, the Republicans offer a reasonably attractive candidate.

2. Again not likely to happen. Political realities will set-in long before the 2012 campaign and Palin's "star power" will likely be her eventual demise.

1. I don't see how "cutting our losses" is a beneficial way for me to cast my vote.

You are also assuming there is a difference between the two parties. There isn't. We have a one party country who is divided amongst minor wedge issues to keep the people believing they aren't the same.

Read this good article about the Myth of a Wasted Vote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/hooper1.html


2. It will be interesting, but I can't see Palin dropping from the public light. One way or another, she will matter in the upcoming election.

I don't know who is going to emerge from the Republicans, but there aren't any strong contenders. Other than the "he isn't Obama" effect.