Rep. Jim Clyburn told Politico the following,
"I trust Obama to make the right investments in education, access to health care, energy independence and American ingenuity to lead the country on the path toward recovery. But I believe that lawmakers who were elected by the people they live among, and who see firsthand the day-to-day challenges their neighbors face, should play a role in directing some of those federal investments.
In the past decade, earmarks quadrupled and the word "earmark" became a bad word because of a few bad actors. But we have dramatically reformed the process, reducing earmarks to less than 1 percent of discretionary spending and instituting openness, transparency and accountability so we can discourage, expose and properly punish the bad guys. Those with a political agenda will demonize congressionally directed spending, but to me, it's an appropriate answer to Ty'Sheoma's letter and a proper response to schools such as J.V. Martin and communities along the corridor of shame."
Now this is a guy who is truly out of touch with America and the Constitution. First it is not your job as an elected official to just trust the President to spend money(and wrongly like the current President's plan). The only people with the power to Appropriate money is the Congress. If you spend your time doing your real job of being stewards of the peoples money you would not feel the need to actually "do something" like you say and insert earmarks. No one is demonizing good Congressional spending what has been done is the calling out of specific projects that should not be just inserted in the budget. There is also two levels of government below you to spend money at a local level Representative or maybe you have not heard of local or state government and their role. If you actually understood the role of the Federal Government maybe there would be some money left to fix some of those local issues.


Comments: 13
My point is that we have no choice about trusting the President.
If you would prefer that the President not be anywhere near as important as that please visit
www.nopom.info
or read Invisible Hand here on Gather (where there are ads).
Erik, in case you haven't notice his ratings are dropping.
The man doesn't even have a full cabinet in place yet, and he's only been in office for less than 50 days.
He's accomplished more in a short period of time than his predecessor did in four years.
He definitely has more time from me.
I don't approve of everything that he's done, but I didn't expect that Jesus suddenly became president either.
Obviously, not all people will agree with me. But anyone who says that they "have given him the benefit of the doubt" but now they are condemning are trying to be disingenuous as they had no intention of giving him a chance to correct things. It should come as a shock to no reasonable person that in sixty days the man could not accomplish a total transformation.
He has not spent more money than any president in American history. That honor would belong to George Bush 43.
Reaganomics set the economic agenda for the one term presidency of Bush 41, since as a direct result of his policies, and the S&L bailout, the winning slogan for the 1992 election was "it's the economy, stupid". The economic boom of the Clinton years came during a time of higher taxes.
Charles, don't you mean you miss Andrew Jackson?
as with your dying party , some things never change.
Only him gobbling up the money drowned out his whine. Do these idiots know how stupid they really look like?