Obama signals support of Janesville idea
JANESVILLE — Will the road to reforming the free-spending ways of Congress lead through Janesville?
In his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama called for action on congressional earmarking.
The two members of Congress who are Janesville natives have been proposing for many months a way to rein in wasteful earmark spending.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., call their idea the Janesville Line-Item Veto.
Ryan was among a group of Republican leaders that met with Obama on Friday, and Ryan took the opportunity to broach the idea.
Earmarking is when a member of Congress inserts a spending item into a bill, often unrelated to the purpose of the main bill. Earmarks typically are attached without debate or review.
Earmarks often are cited as the source of wasteful spending on Congress members’ pet projects.
According to a transcript of their remarks Friday, Ryan and Obama disagreed on Obama’s approach to freezing government spending, with Ryan wanting more action sooner and Obama saying the economy will be too fragile to handle a freeze until next year.
As for the line-item veto, “you’ve also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel,” Ryan said, referring to the line-item veto.
“The problem is, we can’t even get a vote on the proposal,” Ryan said.
Ryan did not say who was responsible for holding up a vote in the Democratic-controlled House.
“I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation,” Obama responded. “I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold.
“I don’t like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I’ve got to sign because it’s a defense authorization bill and I’ve got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need,” Obama continued.
“I’d like to walk you through it, because we have a version we think is constitutional,” Ryan said, alluding to the previous line-item veto that President Bill Clinton used before the Supreme Court struck it down.
“Let me take a look at it,” Obama responded.
With a Janesville Line-Item Veto, a president could pull earmarks from a bill and send them back to Congress for a vote.
If either chamber voted against an earmark by a simple majority, it would not be enacted. The bill limits the number of rescission requests a president could make.
Feingold issued a statement afterward, calling the proposal “a perfect example of Democrats and Republicans working together in the best interests of the taxpayers. Support from President Obama for this proposal would be an important step toward ending earmark abuses.”
Earmarking, by the way, has brought millions of dollars to support local programs and institutions. Recent examples include earmarks by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., which have brought several million dollars to Blackhawk Technical College to retrain displaced workers.
Feb 4, 2010 at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Feb 4, 2010 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is what the Republicans have been up to recently...Including hypocricy by the man who could be our president.
.
http://www.librarygrape.com/2010/01/why-......
HOW DO YOU DEFEND THIS?
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con......
I will leave it to the Military...until, well, the military disagrees with me.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03......
My favorite example of the crap politics Republicans are playing.
Last week, for example, you put up for a vote a bill I supported -- Conrad-Gregg fiscal commission. We were sure this was going to be bipartisan, only to see seven Republicans who co-sponsored the idea in the first place suddenly decide to vote against it.
.
Seriously, how can people support this? I know both sides have screwed up and President Obama has made more than his fair share of mistakes but this, to me, is unexcusable and does nothing but hurt Americans...the people they are suppose to be fighting for.
Feb 4, 2010 at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom: It would be very helpful if you would state who it is you are quoting (you quoted JozeMozes). Then you said "some of the most obvious conflicts were in the financial sector, but considering how much the economy deteriorated between the campaign and the inauguration, I can understand the need to hire experienced people who were part of the financial sector. Of course, for people who hated Obama before he was even elected, one former lobbyist would have been too many."
Huh? No lobbyists means no lobbyists. Transparency means transparency. No earmarks means no earmarks.
Words mean things.
Feb 3, 2010 at 11:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
"As an ardent President Obama supporter scared shirtless of another 4 years of President Bush he lost my respect when he backtracked on lobbying."
Obama did grant waivers to a handful of appointees, but look closer at their records. Some of them either lobbied in fields not related to their appointed position, or their lobbying was complementary with their new position. Yes, some of the most obvious conflicts were in the financial sector, but considering how much the economy deteriorated between the campaign and the inauguration, I can understand the need to hire experienced people who were part of the financial sector. Of course, for people who hated Obama before he was even elected, one former lobbyist would have been too many.
Feb 2, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustAskMe: What? I don't understand your point.
Feb 2, 2010 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
I realize that earmarking has brought millions of dollars to support local programs and institutions - much the same as saying cheating on you taxes has saved you money.
Feb 2, 2010 at 1:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Ryan did a good job at the Republican retreat Obama attended. If you haven't watched the video, you should. Ryan was respectful, didn't spew the typical political talking points before his question, like most of the other politicians did, and proposed a bipartisan idea that might actually work. I think Ryan is a prime example why blanket voting against incumbents is a silly idea."
Ryan was very sharp, as was Obama. While Obama was VERY smart to cut off the debate and say something to the effect "we'll have to discuss that further, another time" when Ryan started getting into the raw numbers of the budget in his challenge to Obama.
Say what you will of Ryan, but he KNOWS the budget, and the inside baseball of all the numbers. Obama made the smart "Art Of War" move of "avoid what is strong, attack what is weak", by bowing away from the topic of Ryan's strength!
.
The whole "vote against all incumbents" is of course ridiculous. Especially is you have a bozo as the opponent. It comes down to analyzing all candidates, and making what your beliefs feel is the best vote. Blanket voting is NEVER good, and dangerous, in my mind.
Feb 1, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Prevention, according to globalsecurity.org the United States spends more on "Defense" than the rest of the industrialized world.....
C O M B I N E D !!
-
I see absolutely nothing wrong with Big girls opinion rather you chastising her when you are admittedly completely ignorant on the subject.
-
Earmarks, Pacs Blah Blah Blah. As an ardent President Obama supporter scared shirtless of another 4 years of President Bush he lost my respect when he backtracked on lobbying.
-
All I see are more ivy league arses manipulating and calculating.
-
Join the tea party.
Feb 1, 2010 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ryan did a good job at the Republican retreat Obama attended. If you haven't watched the video, you should. Ryan was respectful, didn't spew the typical political talking points before his question, like most of the other politicians did, and proposed a bipartisan idea that might actually work. I think Ryan is a prime example why blanket voting against incumbents is a silly idea.
Feb 1, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Okay, biggirl, go live somewhere that is not a strong democracy with a military that is worth anything. THEN, you can talk about how all this military money is wasteful. I'm not familiar with the details of the military budget, so I can't say whether or not it's wasteful. Regardless, get down off your high horse and be just a little grateful that you have this military full of people that are so selfless to fight for someone that is stating what you are stating-- that they aren't worth any of it. JMO and interpretation.
POINT: Show a little gratitude!
Feb 1, 2010 at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama already promised "no more earmarks". What, he hasn't delivered?!?
Jan 31, 2010 at 10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
The WHOLE story....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuG2TdgMn0&feature=player_embedded
"....we've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes, because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together, because our constituents start believing us." - Obama
Jan 30, 2010 at 7:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
We all don't want to talk about the elephant in the room, do we? Military spending. Without reducing it, we will never be able to get our deficit under control.
Jan 30, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ummmm, dalegribble, how do you know they didn't talk about those issues? And anyway, the issues you mention are hardly the only issues worth talking about.
Jan 30, 2010 at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Anytime politicians talk of ways to reduce spending its a good thing.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.