Presidents face tough decisions and have to live with the consequences. No one is particularly proud of the fact that Congress loaded up this bill with 9,000 pet projects (earmarks) at the request of individual members of Congress.
Obama campaigned against earmarks. He is making an exception by signing this bill. Should he have stuck to his principles and vetoed the bill or would that have made his overall fight to fix the economy more difficult?
Obama Signs Spending Bill as He Criticizes Earmarks - NYTimes.com
One of our Senators also had some misgivings about the bill: Earmarks: Cantwell sends mixed signals
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can see why Obama might be criticized for signing this bill with so many earmarks attached. But, one main point I’d make is that while he was campaigning to be president, he didn’t know that the country was going to fall into an economic downfall. In signing this bill he was working towards repairing the economy. Also, when he first submitted the bill to congress to be approved, he didn’t have many earmarks attached; many of them were added to make all the members of congress agree.
If Obama did veto this bill, I believe that it would have put the country in a worse place than it is now. Also, at least action is being taken to try and eliminate adding so many earmarks to future bills.
-A.K.
Period 2--Current Event 2
Post a Comment