An examination of “administrative earmarks” around the time of congressional votes on key pieces of President Obama’s agenda suggests the White House used its power to fund local projects as a means to “buy” votes for major legislative efforts...
...an analysis of grants from agencies during the early years of the Obama administration shows that the districts of moderate Democrats, whose support was so crucial for Obama during the 111th Congress, received large sums right around the passage of three key pieces of legislation: Obamacare, Dodd-Frank financial regulations, and the cap-and-trade bill... During the run-up to votes in the House of Representatives for each of those pieces of legislation, the rate of administrative earmarking spiked.
...The number of grants given by those agencies spiked precisely when the House was considering each of the three pieces of legislation.
Even more troubling: during the same time periods, significant grant money went to the districts of numerous Democratic representatives who looked to face tough battles for re-election. The legislation Obama was attempting to get through Congress was generally unpopular, and vulnerable members needed other ways to appeal to constituents. Federal grants made for a perfect opportunity.
Then-Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA), for instance, kept his support for Dodd-Frank quiet. His website never posted a press release announcing his “yes” vote on the bill. It did, however, tout two federal grants totaling $3.6 million for businesses in his district two days before the Dodd-Frank vote.
Then-Rep. Zach Space (D-OH) hailed from a district reliant on the coal industry, which would have been hit particularly hard by cap and trade. He voted for the measure, but neglected to publicize the vote on his website. He did, however, announce eight federal grants totaling roughly $1.8 million all made during the month before the House passed cap and trade.
At least 32 vulnerable House Democrats received significant federal grant money in the periods leading up to or directly after their votes on at least one of these three pieces of legislation, raising concerns that those grants may have been used either to encourage or reward votes in favor of the administration’s position...
When the complete story of this administration's misuse of taxpayer dollars is written, it will -- in my estimation -- make Tammany Hall look like a ragtag group of pickpockets. Literally trillions of dollars will have been
Obama is simply the most disgusting man that ever walked a beat in DC. Bar none.
I'm with Brian.
So does this mean the GOP will move to eliminate such tactics? I do not believe it will. The corruption is too large, too ingrained, too much part of the way Washington works.
To remedy this we need term limits, strict limits on the government's trampling on the Constitution by a new enforcement mechanism, perhaps forcing all bills to demonstrate exactly where in the Constitution such action is granted.
Until some measures are made we see more corruption, more growth in government and the replacement of honest men with men the caliber of Obama and Dodd.
He's a piker so far compared to the biggest election buyer of all time-FDR. Read "New Deal or Raw Deal" and see that the new deal was the stimulus of its time. Money paid out to cronies, donors, and congressmen who faced tough elections. Obozo is following in the footsteps of the master.
I agree that Obama is horribly corrupt. However, I wonder what past Presidents have done. Was W as guilty? I'll assume Clinton was. I guess I'm just wondering if this is something all Presidents have done. Or is it just this one?
Did you ever wonder why broadcast stations fail to inform?
Here's a piece:
Post a Comment