President Obama promised to ban earmarks and pork in this legislation, and then folded like a lame duck when Congressional Democrats demanded their earmarks. Not only can Obama not pass his top priority legislation on his own terms with a major Democratic majority, the Congressional Democrats aren't even listening to him.Huh? I didn't know that earmarks were going to be included in the bill. Well, it turns out they're still not going to be included in the bill; nothing has changed. But the post's author, Jon Henke, got the idea from this ABC News report:
Obama – who had said in the past that his economic stimulus bill would be free of earmarks – downplayed the importance of an earmark free bill.“When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one,” he said.But the truth is that the opposite interpretation applies: Obama was bragging that his huge bill didn't have any earmarks in response to Republican criticisms that it is full of special projects. Here's the full context of his remarks. Here's the lesson: When an MSM outlet messes up by mis-analyzing information -- in this case, interpreting Obama pride that the bill didn't have earmarks as downplaying his own earmark reform priorities -- the bad analysis is taken by partisans, amplified -- 'Obama folded when his party demanded earmarks' -- and used an attack. That's your Friday media bummer.
-- Tim FernholzUPDATE: Jon visits in the comments, debating the semantic vs. substantive nature of the earmarks in the bill. I think semantically, there is no argument: In the traditional pre-2008 way of putting earmarks in a bill secretly during mark-up to make specific, district-level appropriations, there are none.Substantively, I have to concede there is a much more space to argue, as this ProPublica piece points out. But I only count three actual pet projects in the article -- the yacht insurance exemption (ugh), the three hospitals, and Filipino vetarns. In other areas, the writers go too far when they say additional funding for transportation issues or ethanol count as earmarks or pork, since those provisions are not targeted to a specific place but instead distributed by the executive. Similarly, they point to appropriations langauge that offers vague guidance for the administration but isn't legally binding; I have no problem with members of congress suggesting where funds get spent. The definition of "pork" from Wikipedia that commenter Swift Loris deploys seems too broad: nearly everything a politician votes for is ultimately intended to benefit their constituents in such a way that he or she can be reelected. Similarly, all interests are special interests to somebody. The real key is transparency and process: This funding should be directed by the executive on the basis of merit, not from congress, and it should be done in the light of day, not behind closed doors. So, there are three pet projects in this bill; I hope they come out in the conference report. But even if they don't, the bill represents a major improvement on this front over, well, any past legislation you could name.
