|
What does this have to do
with Obama's misfeasance? Nothing. I wanted an offset to this tale of
woe. Something pleasant, but with proper gravitas. I think
the glove works to that end.
A presidential
earmark
is specified amount of taxpayer cash attached, by the president, to his
proffered legislation, and designated for a particular congressman's
district. If the legislation doesn't pass, the congressman
doesn't get
the cash. In other words, it's a bribe. And it's legal. The
Heritage
Foundation just completed a study
of Obama's earmarks, and guess what?
| “
|
When
you examine the recipients of those grants, there were at least 32
vulnerable house Democrats who received significant federal grant money
during the run-up or directly after the votes on those pieces of
legislation," says Lachlan Markay, one of the authors of the report.
The amount of earmarks spiked around the time of difficult votes such
as cap and trade, then dropped, only to spike again around
controversial financial regulations known as Dodd/Frank, and spiked the
most just before the vote on the health care bill.
Cap and trade was tough for many Democrats, especially in the Midwest,
because even the president acknowledged it would, as he put it, cause
energy prices to "skyrocket."
The health care law remains controversial even today, with many polls
showing majority of Americans oppose to it.
On their websites, lawmakers didn't advertise their votes, but
did tout
at length the money they'd gotten for various local projects.
|
” |
We knew this was gong on at the time. Sen. Mary Landrieu's $300,000,000
(9 zeros) was just for starters
in the Obamacare vote. Now we learn what Pelosi wrangled for
House
Democrats. What will become of the Heritage report?
Nothing. What
will become of Obamacare, passed against the nation's wishes?
Nothing. Will Obama lose his presidency because voters are tired
of
his malfeasance, misfeasance, and in-you-face-feasances?
You'd think,
wouldn't you? . |
|
|
