- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
Obama vows earmark reform
Question of the Day
President Obama on Wednesday joined House Democrats in promising to reel in pork-barrel spending, then defied his party’s Capitol Hill leaders by saying he’d ignore parts of the $410 billion catchall spending bill in his first signing statement, a technique that he criticized the Bush administration for using to sidestep congressional authority.
Mr. Obama signed the spending bill in private, calling it last year’s business, but publicly declared that from now on, he will hold Congress to a higher standard on spending and will insist on reducing pet projects known as earmarks, which came to define the massive spending bill in public opinion.
“This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,” Mr. Obama said, calling the spending bill “imperfect.”
His coordinated his anti-pork efforts with House Democrats, who announced their own rules to cut back on earmarks, but their joint efforts exposed a rift with senators, who stopped short of endorsing the proposed measures.
In a written statement, the top four Senate Democrats responded to the president’s call for more earmark reform by highlighting past reforms and making vague promises to do more in the future, while the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee said they will adopt their own rules to weed out bad projects.
“We appreciate the president’s leadership in ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and with accountability. We have implemented reforms that go a long way toward achieving the accountability and transparency we all agree is necessary, and we look forward to working with President Obama and our colleagues in Congress to explore additional reforms,” the statement from Democratic leaders said.
The president, who earlier this week criticized President Bush for abusing signing statements, issued the first one of his administration Wednesday as he signed the $410 billion bill. In the statement, Mr. Obama carved out five areas in which he said the bill restricted the president’s authority under the Constitution to negotiate on international affairs, interfered with his ability to control his staff and required him to get pre-approval from Congress.
Mr. Obama defended his first signing statement, saying, “It is a legitimate constitutional function” to raise objections based on the Constitution. He said Mr. Bush erred by issuing statements objecting to matters simply on the basis of policy.
Still, Mr. Obama issued his first signing statement earlier in his term than his predecessor. Mr. Bush’s first statement, on March 20, 2001, was an innocuous thanks to Congress, while his first one questioning constitutionality was issued on May 24, 2001, more than four months into his term.
Together with the $787 billion stimulus spending bill that Mr. Obama signed last month, he has now signed nearly $1.2 trillion in spending and tax cuts into law in his little more than 50 days in office. In addition, he has proposed a $3.6 trillion budget for next year.
The president didn’t answer a reporter’s shouted question early in the day about why he was signing the bill in private.
“Some things are signed in public, and some aren’t,” his spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters later.
Republicans are determined to revive their image as the party of fiscal restraint, and they hammered the bill’s nearly 9,000 earmarks costing $12.8 billion. About 40 percent of the earmarks, however, were requested by Republicans.
House Republican leaders scoffed at the earmark reform proposal, saying a veto of the pork-laden omnibus would have sent a stronger message.
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- Rush Limbaugh: Obama trying to make Mandela death about himself
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
- MILLER: Obamacare enrollees include 101 members of the House of Representatives
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
The Constitution: Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses. And how to get from here to there.
Why can’t humans just be free to be humans?
Get in the middle of all the action inside and outside the boxing ring.
Find the latest news and happening that effect those in the Washington D.C., Northern Virginia and Maryland Metro region.
White House pets gone wild!