Obama Releases His Earmark Requests; Calls on Clinton to do the Same

[RunInRed 16,492]

Transparency in Government - I like it. Has McCain released his earmark request?

Chicago, IL – Senator Barack Obama’s campaign today released his earmark requests for 2005 and 2006 and called on Senator Hillary Clinton to do the same. Last year, Obama’s Senate office released his 2007 earmark requests.

The ’05 and ’06 requests can be seen by clicking HERE. The ’07 requests are available on the official Senate website. To date, Senator Clinton has refused repeated requests to disclose her earmark requests.

“Bringing real change requires changing the way we do business in Washington,” said Obama for America Communications Director Robert Gibbs. “If Senator Clinton will not agree to join Senator Obama in releasing her earmark requests, voters should ask why she doesn’t believe they have the right to know she wants to spend their tax dollars.”

Obama believes that there has been too little transparency in Washington, and he has been a leader in reforming the earmark process so that every American can know how the government spends their tax dollars. Barack Obama teamed up with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to pass a law that lifted the veil of secrecy in Washington by creating a Google-like search engine that allows ordinary Americans to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans online. The database – known as “Google for Government” – was launched by the Office of Management and Budget in early December and is available at www.USAspending.gov. As president, Obama will give voters the tools they need to track spending so we can stop letting the special interests set the agenda in Washington.

http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bi...vZHM9JnBfY2F0cz

[Tigermike 3,055]

“Bringing real change requires changing the way we do business in Washington,”

Why doesn't he stop the earmarks? That would be a big change.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Dumb comment. Obviously you do not understand what an earmark is. There is quite a difference between "pork barrell projects" and earmarks. In fact, many many earmarks are very good. How do you think reasearch is funded? How do you think federal funding is provided for infrastructure? How many people, companies, etc. benefit from these investments? Get a clue.

[channonc 466]

seriously, don't even get me started on the earmark debate.

The same people screaming about how we shouldn't have earmarks are the same people asking "what has he done for me lately" about their representatives.

All I am saying is, be very careful what you wish for. Those of you not living on the East Coast may just end up SOL.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Dumb comment. Obviously you do not understand what an earmark is. There is quite a difference between "pork barrell projects" and earmarks. In fact, many many earmarks are very good. How do you think reasearch is funded? How do you think federal funding is provided for infrastructure? How many people, companies, etc. benefit from these investments? Get a clue.

If it doesn't come from the Weekly Standard or the Washingon Times,it's a struggle

[autiger4life 3]

Why doesn't he stop the earmarks? That would be a big change.

Yea, or lets end the presidency, that would be a change. Or we could end taxes completely, that would be a change.

Earmarks do A LOT of good for the country. They are usually not this evil thing that some people try to make them out to be.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Dumb comment. Obviously you do not understand what an earmark is. There is quite a difference between "pork barrell projects" and earmarks. In fact, many many earmarks are very good. How do you think reasearch is funded? How do you think federal funding is provided for infrastructure? How many people, companies, etc. benefit from these investments? Get a clue.

First of, you condescending little dweeb I know damn well what an earmark is. Not only did I not say anything about pork barrel spending I was not talking about pork. Only a brain dead liberal shill like you would respond the way you just did.

Why doesn't he stop the earmarks? Too many pay offs.

Why doesn't he stop the earmarks? That would be a big change.

Yea, or lets end the presidency, that would be a change. Or we could end taxes completely, that would be a change.

Earmarks do A LOT of good for the country. They are usually not this evil thing that some people try to make them out to be.

A couple of the more stupid comments you have made.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Thursday, March 13, 2008

BARACK OBAMA

One of Obama's Earmarks Went to Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 Million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She's vice president of community affairs.

As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office."

Looks like that raise was worth it.

Glad we're not talking about pork barrel.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Dumb comment. Obviously you do not understand what an earmark is. There is quite a difference between "pork barrell projects" and earmarks. In fact, many many earmarks are very good. How do you think reasearch is funded? How do you think federal funding is provided for infrastructure? How many people, companies, etc. benefit from these investments? Get a clue.

In fact, many many earmarks are very good.

Obviously those earmarks are very good! Good for the Obama household!

Hey Obama send me some of those earmarks!

[AURaptor 1,126]

Tigermike..... I'm wondering why there aren't any obama supporters who are commenting on his 'earmarks' per his wife's employer.

Hmmmm

[Tigermike 3,055]

Tigermike..... I'm wondering why there aren't any obama supporters who are commenting on his 'earmarks' per his wife's employer.

Hmmmm

They are hoping that if they ignore it, it will just go away.

They are also hoping that Rezko doesn't try to cut a deal. That is why an aide to his campaign was taking notes at the Rezko trial.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27149

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/w...764.html?page=2

The Chicago Sun-Times says that “Obama's name again surfaced in the [Rezko] trial as Obama was mentioned in a memo about legislation that downsized the planning board in 2003. Rezko's lawyers sought to show that others besides Rezko were recommending candidates for the planning board, but the memo's reference to Obama focused solely on Obama's role in crafting the legislation.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../11/753651.aspx

[arnaldoabru 11]

"Mr. McCain promised never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix to avoid the impression of self-interest.He sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago.But like other lawmakers,he often flew on corporate jets of business exeutives seeking his support,including Rupurt Murdoch,Michael Bloomberg and Lowell W Paxson." WSJ

[OldNewby 27]

Why doesn't he stop the earmarks? That would be a big change.

Yea, or lets end the presidency, that would be a change. Or we could end taxes completely, that would be a change.

Earmarks do A LOT of good for the country. They are usually not this evil thing that some people try to make them out to be.

Earmarks: How Your Money Is Disappearing

Most Americans don’t like it when a third of their income gets taken away by Washington only to be spent according to the wishes of a flawed few. But as is inherent in human nature, these taxpayers try hard to come up with a justification for sending other Americans an arbitrary amount of their own hard-earned money. And unsurprisingly, the one rationale they can pass for a quasi-consolation is that hey, at least the money is going to something good.

Is it really?

In recent years, you have paid $325,000 for a swimming pool that you will never swim in, $1.4 million for curriculum development at a Mississippi school your children will never hear of and $13.5 million for an organization that finances events no one you know will ever attend (such as the World Toilet Summit).

You have labored every day in order to contribute $500,000 for the Sparta Teapot Museum in North Carolina; $400,000 for the Kam Wah Chung & Company Museum in Oregon (what? yeah, precisely); $550,000 for the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington; $950,000 for a parking facility at an art museum in Omaha; and $50,000 for a Mule Museum in California.

More at http://www.northstarwriters.com/pi098.htm

[RunInRed 16,492]

I find it more than amusing how selective some want to be with their storylines and "facts"...

Are you really suggesting that funding for a state hospital coincided with a raise an executive got? That is a very very big stretch. The hospital has made this statement in regards to her pay raise:

Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is "worth her weight in gold." The Chicago Tribune has the story.

"She's terrific," added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

Hospitals spokesman John Easton told the Tribune that Michelle Obama's salary is in line with those of the 16 other vice presidents at the not-for-profit medical center.

Riordan told the Tribune that the promotion and salary increase had nothing to do with Obama's husband becoming a U.S. senator. "She was hired before Barack was Barack," Riordan said.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/...tal_offici.html

Further, I find it even more amusing that the only reason you even know about this earmark is because Obama has made a valiant effort to bring transparency to government and has made public his earmark requests. He also championed the legislation for creation of a website (www.usaspending.gov) that lets you track all public spending. Hardly sounds like a guy who is trying to hide something IYAM.

Now back to your selectiveness....I have never heard you gripe one time on this board about no bid Halliburton contracts under this administration. I also have never heard you gripe one time when Bush's buddy Ken Lays salary was shooting through the roof. I never here you say one thing when oil executive salaries have been quadrupling under this administration. HELLO?

Again, I know I am wasting my time answering your nonsense, especially because you get your daily talking points from the far right websites and blogs - as your post on this board constantly demonstrate.

[warjosh 0]

Transparency in Government - I like it. Has McCain released his earmark request?

mccain has stated he has never asked for or received an earmark.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I find it more than amusing how selective some want to be with their storylines and "facts"...

Are you really suggesting that funding for a state hospital coincided with a raise an executive got? That is a very very big stretch. The hospital has made this statement in regards to her pay raise:

Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is "worth her weight in gold." The Chicago Tribune has the story.

"She's terrific," added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

Hospitals spokesman John Easton told the Tribune that Michelle Obama's salary is in line with those of the 16 other vice presidents at the not-for-profit medical center.

Riordan told the Tribune that the promotion and salary increase had nothing to do with Obama's husband becoming a U.S. senator. "She was hired before Barack was Barack," Riordan said.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/...tal_offici.html

Further, I find it even more amusing that the only reason you even know about this earmark is because Obama has made a valiant effort to bring transparency to government and has made public his earmark requests. He also championed the legislation for creation of a website (www.usaspending.gov) that lets you track all public spending. Hardly sounds like a guy who is trying to hide something IYAM.

Now back to your selectiveness....I have never heard you gripe one time on this board about no bid Halliburton contracts under this administration. I also have never heard you gripe one time when Bush's buddy Ken Lays salary was shooting through the roof. I never here you say one thing when oil executive salaries have been quadrupling under this administration. HELLO?

Again, I know I am wasting my time answering your nonsense, especially because you get your daily talking points from the far right websites and blogs - as your post on this board constantly demonstrate.

Not just any executive, but Obama's wife.

Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress were well-deserved boosts for an executive who is "worth her weight in gold." The Chicago Tribune has the story.

They weren't joking were they? Two earmarks in consecutive years for over $1 MILLION each. Yep she's worth her weight in gold!

I find it extremely answering to watch you dance like a pegged legged Bourbon Street whore trying to deflect any honest look at Obama.

[autiger4life 3]

Why is it that Michelle Obama, a Harvard law graduate is given a promotion(a thus a higher pay grade as we all would expect) and you cry foul. Now, if her salary was way above the national average, or she graduated from Jeff State and got this job I might understand it.

He got an earmark for a public hospital that his wife worked at. Should the hospital receive no funding so that no idiot republicans try to find something that isn't there. Or maybe someone who does genuine good and is extremely smart should quit so that a "pegged leg whore" doesn't go shouting of bad play.

No, quit being stupid. A public hospital got a some funding. An executive got promoted, as happens in the world of business(I understand if you don't have much experience with it) and with the promotion the executive got more money. That is it. It isn't some underhanded conspiracy or some way to get his already rich family another $100,000 bucks. I'm sure if he was worried about money he would have become a huge lawyer, not run for President. If he was trying to get some cash slipped her way, he probably wouldn't have released his earmarks and then yelled, "HEY LOOK AT ALL MY EARMARKS, THEY ARE ALL LEGIT" He might try hiding them a little more like Hillary. But no, that couldn't possibly be it. Something fishy had to be going on here. Right, keep dreaming.

[Tigermike 3,055]

[autiger4life 3]

First, that is a good looking picture. I really do like it.

As far as what you meant for it to mean; the logic is on my side. You are the one looking for something that is most likely not there. Is there a slight possibility that something is there, sure, but it is less than 1% IMO. Just like there is a possiblity that McCain had inappropriate relations, yet I know it much more likely the NYTimes just wanted people to read. Just keep searching, keep trying, keep dreaming, and maybe you can keep American politics the same.

[RunInRed 16,492]

autiger4life - your last two posts are your best yet - nice work.

Unfortunately, TM and a few others on this board are the living breathing examples of what is wrong with politics in this country. Keep up the good fight.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Transparency in Government - I like it. Has McCain released his earmark request?

mccain has stated he has never asked for or received an earmark.

Good point. To be more clear...has he put forth a complete listing of all projects, legislation and bills he sponsored/had a part in that required federal funding? Do you know what this amount is and how it compares to his peers?

Again, earmarks are not necessarily bad despite the labels they are often given (aka, the bridge to nowhere). I'm fine with earmarking as long as it is an open and transparent process. As I've said before, it is one way that congress has funded many essential projects.

[Tigermike 3,055]

First, that is a good looking picture. I really do like it.

As far as what you meant for it to mean; the logic is on my side. You are the one looking for something that is most likely not there. Is there a slight possibility that something is there, sure, but it is less than 1% IMO. Just like there is a possiblity that McCain had inappropriate relations, yet I know it much more likely the NYTimes just wanted people to read. Just keep searching, keep trying, keep dreaming, and maybe you can keep American politics the same.

I find your attempts at deflection somewhat hypocritical. If you are absolutely positive that if it were, say John McCain's wife who got a huge raise after her employer received a $1 million gift of largess via an earmark, your opinion would be the same. Then I wouldn't think you were being just a little hypocritical. But there are too many IF's in that scenario for that to float. In fact the only thing floating is the big pile of BS you and RR are blowing out to try and cover up for Obama.

autiger4life - your last two posts are your best yet - nice work.

Unfortunately, TM and a few others on this board are the living breathing examples of what is wrong with politics in this country. Keep up the good fight.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds does it? When you want to be anything other than a hypocrite then spout your BS. It doesn't float here!

Neither of you can say you wouldn't be screaming to high heaven if it were McCain or Clinton.

[autiger4life 3]

I absolutely would not be screaming if this was the same situation with McCain. I would read the article, just as I did with Obama, and then I would look at the facts. McCain's wife is independently weathly and wouldn't have needed the money so why would it make sense for them to risk all of that for almost nothing. Similar, Obama does not need the money, his wife is a highly educated women who is highly respected and so for her to get a promotion that comes with a raise, and then a senator to get funding for a hospital just doesn't make me scream conspiracy. And if that was the case I don't think he would continue to bring up his earmarks and how he released them, fight for a system for people to check them, and encourage people to look at them. It just doesn't make sense. Do people do things that don't make sense sometimes, sure. But in that case I will side with what makes sense, especially when it overwhelmingly makes sense unless I see something strong to prove otherwise.

As far as me being biased if it were McCain. I like McCain. If Obama doesn't get the nomination then I would vote for McCain. I have defended McCain to my peers and on this board when some of the other liberals were going against him, so don't say I am doing this just because it is Obama. I came out against Obama on his preacher, said I thought he did wrong with it, and wished he hadn't, so don't try to turn a logical thought into a biased opinion, it just doesn't hold water.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Point. Set. Match. Run along now TM, back to your far right blogs where your nonsense can go unchallenged.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Point. Set. Match. Run along now TM, back to your far right blogs where your nonsense can go unchallenged.

I'll stay here thank you and point out your hypocrisy on a daily basis.

As as been noted before, for you anything that is not honking Obama's bobo is a far right blog.

Go on and put on your Obama cheerleader outfit, put Brokeback Mountain in the DVD player and touch yourself while thinking of Obama.

You want to know what is wrong with politics? It's hypocritical little ideologues like you.