Would you vote against a member of Congress if he or she failed to deliver earmarks to your state?

Change we can believe in....what a joke !!!

He lied about earmarks and hired lobbyists. Now there's change we can believe in :(

Sure it would be great if the money dropped out of the sky...get real! States want and need funding for projects that are necessary for all kinds of public needs. I am not sure how he thought any of the state representatives would give up demanding these funds. Hey, our taxes would have been raised for this billion dollar a MONTH war anyway. I guess some people are going to complain about anything. Most of you didn't complain about the stimulus money you got last year (which will also have to be paid back) and complaining about $13 a week more than you had 2 months ago with Obamas plan...not sure what you really have to complain about here unless you are one (like me) whos taxes are actually going up???? We have had a progressive tax since I can remember, so the more you make, the more in taxes you pay to bridge the gap for others. Don't like it, but I am not going to complain. I count myself blessed to make and have enough to be pushed in this tax bracket.

Too bad I can't keep my portion of those complaining about their extra money. Would like to give it to someone who actually appreciates it.

I don't claim to have the answers, and I am not a Bush or Obama basher. I am a proud American. I HATE the Bush war, but equally wish the congress would get it together before sending Obama these bills!

Both major parties are guilty here. Very close to being split down the middle at about 40%/60% Republican/Democrat earmarks thrown into this bill! State representatives...they are the ones throwing these earmarks in, some at the last minute. I guess some will blame the president regardless. I guess he could just not pass anything and let the world economy go down, and the unemployment rate go up, up, up. Some would say that won't happen, but no one has he crystal ball. If you do, let me borrow it...I want to play the lottery!

Not only is he a politician... He is as crooked as they come. eg. Ayers, ACORN, NOW, "NO EARMARKS (read PORK) etc.... Polosi, Reid and Obama are going to put us all in the poor house. Can you say "Soviet Union"?

DUH!!!!!! Unfortunately you and so many other people drank the kool-aid, which is easy to do when you vote for someone with no record. The Obama managers were very careful in having him vote 'Present' as opposed to Yea or Nay just to fool the masses into thinking he had substance.

Well guess what? You are going to drown in his socialism very soon!

Get over it and go run off to listen to your lastest edition of the Porker himself....Limbough

Hee Hee! Turns out voting for Obama was kinda like making out with the prettiest girl in the bar, taking her home, and then realizing she charges for her services. Ouch!

Actually, if we privatized at least 50% of federal and state services, we wouldn't be paying so much in taxes, we'd get to decide where and how to spend our money, and crooked politicians and lobbyists would be out of a job. It would be a victory for America! And it can all be yours in 4 years when you VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

Banks and mortgage companies have been 'privatized' for years, yep, they're doing a great job!

It makes no sense for the Federal Gov.t to increase taxes / borrow money (same thing) so that some of these taxes go back to the original taxpayers. What a waste!!

Not to mention that the money going back is for pet (often valueless) projects meant to boost the elected official popularity.

The job of the Feds should be national defense, external affairs and little else.

The jpb pf the Government is and ONLY is the security of its nation! Not Councils for Women(how much is that going to cost us)or earmarking or HEALTHCARE!

You're under the mistaken impression that your representatives actually represent you! At the very least, representatives should have gone back to their home states, presented the bill to citizens via local media, and held town meetings to discern the voters' approval/ disapproval of the contents. But we don't really live in a representative democracy- that's just what they like to tell you in school.

And yes- the President should have line-item veto authority. It's too easy for him to blame this on Congress- make him put his money where his mouth is. (Quite literally)

Do you really believe that the Feds. (government bureaucrats) should and can fund education, healthcare, childcare in New York or Alaska or anywhere else in an efficient manner?

Shouldn't the local governments deal with these issues? Do we need 2, 3 layers of bureaucrats to handle our money?

This is the same mentality which holds teachers, not parents responsible for the behaviour of the children.

You've got to be really,really gullible to believe that. Earmarks and pork are all of the same kind of garbage legislation, it's a payoff, some business asks for favors in return for favors from congress. The sooner the governmnet starts adhering to the STRICT guidlines of the constitution the better.

Liz, that is one of the best comments on this board. A new children's cancer center in an underserved area is something that I would vote hearilty for. A new statue downtown commemorating our state's founder, or a couple million to study the mating habits of local butterflys is pork that needs to be eliminated.

If we have so many earmarks now when the money is scarse, just wait until we are told the 'economy is improving ' !!

Not only that, but 'universal health care' will also benefit the rich who will not have to pay like they are paying now and they will still be at the top of the line.

I don't see anything for california? where is our cash?...

figtback: Arnold took it... to pay for all the illegal aliens coming here to mooch off us. Their free health care alone costs the State of California billions in taxpayer money.

Diane 905045

Next time you must in fairness list all the democrats and how much they are being appropriated. If you can't handle both sides, you shouldn't list just one side. Yes, the Republicans will take money for their states, however, Obama called for no earmarks in his election bid and doesn't have a back bone to veto this. He is just a liar and won't stand up for the people.

So all the earmarks should go to democrats!!

Smart!!

Yeah ......Rigghhhtttt !

Rots o' ruck! Clinton left office with a surplus because the Republican Congress forced it. Remember the "Contract With America"? We need it again!!!!!

Obama cares nothing about fiscal responsibility, he care only about POWER and BIG GOV'T.!!!

will this before or after he adds $3,000,000,000,000 (trillion) to the national debt?

Gerald, Diane is actually right.

thanks to 6 years of republican control in house and senate....Billy Boy could do nothing but degrade the office of the president with his oval office trists....

I'm sorry, what is Diane right about? That democrat politicians are just as corrupt as republican politicians? Okay, I agree.

Obama would have done the budget a huge favor by sending the bill back until the pork was gone. But I guess it's just too big of a temptation to blame Congress for everything.

He wouldn't have a pork bill to sign if they didn't submit it. Bottom line. Meanwhile millions are losing their jobs and could be on the street when they had perfectly good jobs. Something has to be done...this is not perfect, but sitting on our butts while the Congress plays games and blames the president for what they submitted is not an option.

Read the commerce clause.

Notunderage, have YOU read the commerce clause? It gives Congress the authority to REGULATE trade internationally, between states and between Native American tribes. It was designed to level the playing field, making trade between states fair and equitable for everyone.

Much later, socialist-leaning politicians turned the commerce clause into a way to allow the government have a piece of private business, sticking their noses into every little thing that went on. But that's not what it was designed to do. Reading the constitution and understanding are 2 different things.

What about the federal reserve ? Congress has the power to coin money and regulate its value the constitution says nothing about turning over our monetary system to a bunch of super-rich world bankers in fact the framers of the constitution warned agaist it explicitly, then comes the income tax so very un-constitutional that congress had to pass an amendment to make it seem legal which it still isn't for it violates the original constitutional ammendments.

If it were over Diane then he would not have signed this, he would have vetod this!!! Get real, he won't do what he said he would do and people who voted for him just won't admit it.

Hypocrite. He is always supportive, than throws that person or item under the bus when the public outcry becomes too much......Typical politician.

Yeah. If only his actions matched his words. Another political hypocrite!

Talk is cheap. As long as you belong to a political party, you're bound to the lobbyists, pacs, supporters of that political party on both sides of the aisle.

Diane: As for Obama's promises: Bringing the troops home too early may have disastrous consequences. We will get $13.00/month extra in our paychecks (I will have double cheeseburgers with my family at MacDonald's), he is picking incompetents and tax cheats (a la Geithner who fits into both categories) for high level positions as well as left-over Clintonistas to serve in his administration. Obama does not necessarily think God wanted him to be president; he think he is God (or at least the Messiah). Maybe he will wake up to reality one of these days. I am hoping......

Disastrous consequences we wouldn't be dealing with had Bush not lied about the war. He should have sent our troops after Osama Bin Laden after 9/11. This war had nothing to do with a fight on terror...he then said we were "liberating" Iraq. Sorry, but that could have waited. We are left with sparse troops for the real war on terror and made some extra enemies because of this.

Not a good argument Sonia.

Sonia you don't do your research do you ? The stimulus package that just passed included the largest tax cut in the history of this nation. Thing is unless you make over $150,000 a year you won't see it as most of it went to hold off the Alternative Minimum Tax. This is what your rich 3 supporting Republicans got out of the bill, stripping infrastructure spending to benefit the wealthy.

Hey Diane! BO picked HIS buddies and Clinton's left overs!

Yeah, he's taking the troops from Iraq and sending them into the abyss of Afghanistan.......and his Cabinet posts are a disaster. Geithner is a mess.

Of course you weren't trying to be fair. You were trying to be 1-sided and incite a response, which you got. If you are going to use the logic that "they should have given up the earmarks for their states" since they voted against it, then that same logic should apply when a candidate says he won't accept earmarks and turns around and signs a bill with earmarks when he comes into power. It's the same logic.

This is nothing more than a song & dance by both parties. You go this way, I'll go that way but when I go that way, you go this way and we'll make beautiful music together...deceiving the American people for decades to come....as long as we get the earmarks in our lifetime.

Here's a question for you Diane. If you didn't like or support Bush, did you send your stimulus check back?

So let me see.

You are paying taxes to Washington so that they can send some of them back to your state to build a bridge! Very smart.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to pay for the bridge without first sending the money to Washington?

Sure Don, but it doesn't work that way.

actually Don is correct, the amount on the dollar that the bridge will see coming from Washington is less than 50%

Since when do they do things that make sense? The money would then be taxed to the people of that state...which they would, oh yeah, complain about. People are going to complain about taxes regardless. It is the way of the land. Unfortunate, but we have to deal.

Okay Diane. Let's give it time to work. That's what we will tell our children, grandchildren & great-grandchildren when they have to pay for this in their lifetimes.

Sunny, you make that statement as if this is the first time in history that those that follow have to pay for something people did that preceded them. This is the way of the world...it is reality. We are paying for the historical irresponsibility of the social security system per our benefits that won't be there when we retire. Is that Obamas fault too? You need to come back to reality. It is life.