Even though this is old news, CNN is finally reporting that Senator Obama won’t be submitting earmarks for the 2009 budget.
This year, as the Senate funding request deadline approaches and the final primaries of the Democratic nomination process draw near, Obama’s staff told CNN the junior senator from Illinois will request no earmarks for fiscal year 2009.
The dramatic change is in line with a statement Obama issued last month in connection with an amendment calling for a one-year moratorium on earmarks in the Senate.
The amendment, sponsored by federal earmark foe Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was shot down by a vote of 79-21.
“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,” Obama’s statement said.
“The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,” the statement added.
Of course, Hillary Clinton’s name was also on this amendment, however I think it’s quite clear that she only signed on for purposes other than having a real concern with how earmarking is done.
Clinton will still make requests for the coming year, but will limit those earmarks to “the most critical needs for New York and America,” according to a statement from her staff.
Clinton previously has not made her earmark requests public. But she added about $2.2 billion into spending bills between 2002 and 2006, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
In the 2008 budget year, Clinton — by herself or with other lawmakers — obtained scores of earmarks, according to the group. Those requests amounted to $342 million.
The sad reality is that even with all of the presidential nominees on board with this moratorium, both Republicans and Democrats voted against what I believe was one of the most important amendments presented on the Senate floor this year.
It’s quite clear that Hillary Clinton is just using this issue to gain some ground with concerned Democrats, but I must give credit to Senator Obama for his leadership on this issue. I don’t agree with him on much, but the Coburn-Obama amendment, which created an easy-to-use, online database to track government spending was a key step in making the government more transparent as possible.
Of course, amongst all of the candidates, both past and present, Senator McCain has what is by far the best record on earmarks. His position is quite simple: he doesn’t request them.
This is one issue that I hope Senator McCain really drives home as the election draws near.
Sure, Obama has a good record on voting against earmarks, but the reality is that he still has requested millions of dollars for projects that were by no means essential for his constituents. Even though he can talk the talk, his record clearly shows that he hasn’t been able to walk the walk.
I’m guessing all the talk of the Clinton/Obama “dream ticket” will probably start to slow down after Wednesday’s Democratic Debate in Pennsylvania.
Amongst a series of questions that attempted to demand answers from the candidates was whether or not their Democratic opponent was electable.
Of course, in addition was the question of the season, would the winning opponent consider taking the loser as the candidate for VP.
From CNN.com:
“Yes. Yes. Yes,” Clinton said when pressed to answer whether Obama, the senator from Illinois, could win. Media reports have said Clinton and her campaign have been quietly courting support, chiefly from Democratic superdelegates who could decide a close race at the party’s convention, by arguing that Obama is not electable.
“Now, I think I can do a better job — obviously that’s why I’m here,” said Clinton, who promised she will “do everything I possibly can to make sure that one of us takes the oath of office next January.”
Obama said Clinton could win, too. He also said he would support the New York senator and former first lady if she is the Democratic nominee, although both candidates declined to say whether they would consider naming the other as a running mate.
Does anyone think that Obama would really want Hillary Clinton running with him? I honestly think that these “dream ticket” people are just old-establishment Democrats who get some sick sense of euphoria from seeing a Clinton on the ballot.
While there is no chance in hell that I’ll be voting for a Democrat, I think that it is going to be refreshing to finally see a ballot that doesn’t contain a Bush or a Clinton on it. I’m sure many other voters, from both sides, feel the same way.