Free Markets, Free People

When “Waste” Isn’t Waste

When it comes to military procurement, President Obama says:

“I reject the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars,” Obama said on a day when he signed a presidential memorandum reforming the contracting system across the entire government.

But when it comes to a spending bill with 9,000 earmarks?

*crickets chirping*

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh calls it what it is – wasteful spending.

Where’s the presidential leadership on this?  If there’s waste in the procurement system and that’s a target, why isn’t waste in the spending bill also a target?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

9 Responses to When “Waste” Isn’t Waste

  • CNN did a good story on earmarks.  They are down, but to try to undo the massive increase in earmarks over the last decade, especially thanks to the GOP, is going to take time.   There is progress, but it’ll be slow.   Hopefully Obama and top Republicans and Democrats who see this as a problem will keep up the heat.  Obviously, Obama can’t do it alone (unless he veto’d everything, but that would be irresponsible).

    • Boy, you make me laugh

    • especially thanks to the GOP


    • First: The problem with CNNs report was it compared apples to oranges.  9,000 earmarks in this bill versus how many in 2007 and other years?  The comparison is crap – this bill only represents a fraction of this years budget.  So the 9,000 earmarks, when compared to other years, is but a fraction of the total for the year.  But CNN reported it as if the 9,000 was for the entire year.

      Second: “Especially thanks to the GOP.”  Where does that come from and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.  What the GOP did in previous years has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama’s lying about earmark reform.  And all of this handwaving about this bill being “last year’s business” is bung.  If Obama is going to sign it then it is his – PERIOD.
      Third: “unless he vetoed everything, that would be irresponsible.”  So much for any criticism of Bush 2001-2006.  His non vetoes of those years must be, by your account, the responsible act.  CRAP.  We are not talking about Obama vetoeing “everything” – we are talking about Obama standing up to his words.  But then again, Muslims believe that any agreement with an infidel has no weight and is not enforceable.  Oops – did I say Muslim?  I suppose in this case, Barack Hussein Obama’s word just carries no weight.

  • Obama can’t do it alone???

    Hey dummy, he’s not bothering to do it AT ALL

  • Ah, the troll from the Maine woods reappears.

    I guess those ‘top republicans’ must be Specter, Snowe, and Collins.

    It seems as if that solidly Democratic congress doesn’t even exist. It is all Obama(good), the GOP(bad), Bush(bad), and some unknown ‘top’ congress critters.  And of course the ‘top’ Republicans, even though powerless in both houses, share the responsibility.

  • President Strawman.  Who has ever said that in order to secure the country we must waste billions of dollars?

    I wonder if the new rules include prohibiting contracts that provide bonus incentives to contractors for meeting or surpassing minimum billing amounts? In other words, incentives that encourage contractors to spend money even if there is nothing to do.  I know this has happened on federal IT projects.

    • No kidding!  The choice is secure the nation OR waste billions of dollars?

      Taken out of context, it sounds like Obama is talking down his budget.

  • “the false choice between securing this nation and wasting billions of taxpayer dollars”

    Can’t we do both??

    (just kidding)