8 Comments

• 1. jmicale21  |  June 10th, 2008 at 6:48 am

  You left off this part of that incredibly short article:

  It was not known whether Johnson and Holder were seeking Reid’s advice about Obama’s search for a running mate, whether he was considered a potential ticket-mate himself, or whether the meeting was for a different purpose.

  Since Obama will be leaving the Senate for his new position in November. And Harry Reid is the leader of the Senate. And some of those mentioned as possible VP candidates are also Senators. I would assume it was to get advice from Reid as to if taking away two Dem Senators would damage the majority or not.

  As for your “knocks” on Reid…

  In the first article, they quote Reid as saying…

  “As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks,” Reid said, noting that the Founders dictated in the Constitution that all spending should originate in Congress, not the executive branch.

  That isn’t supporting the earmarks. That would be supporting the fact that CONGRESS dictates spending, not the PRESIDENT. That would be part of the Constitution. Are you against that???

  As for earmarking in general….

  Source
  …according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) told FactCheck.org that “earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies.” That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting.

  Do read the whole article as it talks about McCain’s beliefs and actual information on the Economy and on Earmarks.

  As for Reid’s land deal… I don’t know a lot about it, but this issue came up 2 years ago. Nothing came out of it back then either.

• 2. Joe  |  June 10th, 2008 at 6:49 am

  You left off this part of that incredibly short article:

  It was not known whether Johnson and Holder were seeking Reid’s advice about Obama’s search for a running mate, whether he was considered a potential ticket-mate himself, or whether the meeting was for a different purpose.

  Since Obama will be leaving the Senate for his new position in November. And Harry Reid is the leader of the Senate. And some of those mentioned as possible VP candidates are also Senators. I would assume it was to get advice from Reid as to if taking away two Dem Senators would damage the majority or not.

  As for your “knocks” on Reid…

  In the first article, they quote Reid as saying…

  “As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks,” Reid said, noting that the Founders dictated in the Constitution that all spending should originate in Congress, not the executive branch.

  That isn’t supporting the earmarks. That would be supporting the fact that CONGRESS dictates spending, not the PRESIDENT. That would be part of the Constitution. Are you against that???

  As for earmarking in general….

  Source
  …according to independent budget experts from across the political spectrum. Jeff Patch, a budget fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute (and also a former McCain volunteer) told FactCheck.org that “earmarks just direct funds from executive agencies to specific projects or companies.” That is, while there are still a few pet projects slipped into legislation in the dark of night that do increase the federal budget, earmarks often simply tell agencies how to spend money that they are already getting.

  Do read the whole article as it talks about McCain’s beliefs and actual information on the Economy and on Earmarks.

  As for Reid’s land deal… I don’t know a lot about it, but this issue came up 2 years ago. Nothing came out of it back then either.

• 3. Blogs For Victory »&hellip  |  June 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am

  [...] June 10th, 2008 at 11:02am Matt Margolis So says our sister blog, Blogs For John McCain’s Victory… [...]

• 4. KMorrison  |  June 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am

  I’ll be joining Matt in his pleading for Senator Reid to be the VP pick. What a gift that would be.

  Joe - You make an interesting point about why the spending decisions should be solely in the hands of congress. However, if done properly it seems that a line-item veto is dictating where funds don’t go, not where they do. It’s unfortunate it has gotten to the point where a line-item veto is needed, but with all the rediculous government spending that occurs it is becoming a necessity.

• 5. Joe  |  June 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  The line-item veto is an interesting, but dangerous thing.
  If there is a President Obama, do you want him picking and chosing which earmarks get thru and which don’t? Then, if he scratches off a few Republican earmarks, people start to scream foul.

  I think the answer to earmarks is complete transparency as well as stricter rules.
  No throwing earmarks in at the last minute. Anything added to the bill needs, say 48 hours to allow others to dispute the spending.
  Complete transparency as well. A website that lists what exactly is getting in there for example would allow individuals as well as organizations to analyze what is getting put in and by who.

  Claiming to eliminate all earmarks just isn’t going to happen. These things are directing so many different things it would be impossible to have a full floor vote for every little thing. That is why I say they should have a 48 hour window for things to get disputed.
  Not sure if there is really any way to completely stop earmarking.

  As for the point of the post….
  I would believe there is absolutely no chance at all that Reid is considered for VP. I am pretty sure that was simply looking for advice and giving the leader of the Senate a heads-up of who is being considered… since there is a good chance it would be another Senator (Clinton, Biden, Webb, etc…).

• 6. KMorrison  |  June 10th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

  That’s a good point, but I do wonder if their is a way to create it so that it only applies to spending that is clearly superfulace to the bill. I’d certainly support transparency rules, and not allowing last minute add-ons. I think you’re right that completely illimating earmarks is highly unlikely, but a significant reduction should be attainable.

  I have to admit one of the things that drives me crazy about President Bush is that he signs legislation with caveats, but I’d still like to a carefully constructed line item veto to pull off some of the most wasteful spending of these bills.

• 7. Joe  |  June 10th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  More on the “Reid meeting”.

  Source
  WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is considering former top military leaders among his possible running mates, according to a senator who met Tuesday with the Democratic presidential candidate’s vice presidential vetting team.
  North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad told The Associated Press said the team asked him about potential candidates from three broad categories — current top elected officials, former top elected officials and former top military leaders.
  Obama has a three-person team managing the vetting process that includes one-time first daughter Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and Jim Johnson, the former CEO of mortgage lender Fannie Mae.

  The vetters have been holding meetings with several Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill to get their input. Conrad met with Holder and Johnson.

  So no… don’t read too much (if anything) into the vetters meeting with Reid.

• 8. congressive  |  June 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

  McCain eyeing Giuliani for VP? I’m gonna look awful smart when that happens.

  Reid for VP? Nope. No way.