March 1, 2009 1:40 PM

Emanuel: Obama Doesn't Like Spending Bill

By
Michelle Levi
Topics
In The News
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel admitted to CBS News Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer that President Obama does not like the omnibus spending bill, but that he will sign it.

"It sounds to me like what [President Obama is] about to do here is say, 'Well, I don't like this but I'm going to go ahead and sign it, but I'm going to warn you, don't ever do it again.' Is that what's about to happen here?" asked the host of Face The Nation.

Emanuel replied, "In not so many words, yes."

He also said that the White House expects to have congressional approval for their budget by April.

"There's a lot to compliment what this Congress has just pulled off," Emanuel said. "The president laid out his budget, and this Congress is already beginning to work. The activity will go forward in both the House and the Senate, and we are confident, because this Congress is here understanding the extraordinary time we find ourselves in, to meet that challenge and meet the president's objective of sending through an economic program."

Schieffer pointed out that the stimulus bill contains 9,000 earmarks, which appears to go against Mr. Obama's wishes for earmark-free legislation, but Emanuel said that the spending package also contains measures to remove obscurity from public spending.

"That policy has now been adopted because the most important thing is to be transparent and accountable for what you ask," he said, "because what the American people want to know is, do these individual congressional earmarks meet a worthy public objective, or are they just an individual desire of a member of Congress? And that's why transparency and accountability are so important."


More from Face The Nation (3.01.09):
  • Emanuel: Rush Limbaugh Prays For Obama's Failure
  • Read the full transcript> (pdf file)


    To watch video of Rahm Emanuel on Face The Nation click below.


    • Add a Comment See all 19 Comments
    by Correct247 March 2, 2009 6:08 PM EST
    How can the America people have trust in someone that would just sign one of the most important bills in this century and state that he don't like it, but, will sign it.

    Well, hecht , I could have been President! Whoops! No, I just could not afford it --- 170M was out of my reach. I am still waiting for those jobs Obama promised to materialize.

    Whoops again! I forgot he don't keep promises, what am I thinking. I must wake-up out of this dream -- before someone comes along with some Kool-Aid.
    Reply to this comment
    by Correct247 March 2, 2009 5:58 PM EST
    Pres. Obama is signing a bill that he dosen't like or have read --- so why would he sign it. Send it back, and back until they get it right. I thought he had a law degree.

    Well, I hope he dosen't show up on Judge Judy. She will be "SHOCKED" that Obama would sign such an important document without reading it. I can just hear Judge Judy now --- saying, you what! --- signed a legal doucment without reading it! --- are you stupid! lol.
    Reply to this comment
    by msmabuse March 2, 2009 2:34 PM EST
    What not enough pork for Obama?
    Reply to this comment
    by Heinea March 2, 2009 1:09 PM EST
    The spending package that nobody read. He calls that tranparent. The stock market keeps dropping and worker keep getting laid -off. This is not the change I voted for.
    Reply to this comment
    by Leland_Stone March 2, 2009 11:47 AM EST
    Although pledging transparency from the new Administration, Emanuel has delivered instead mere porosity. His responses to Schieffers questions could readily be seen through -- not because they were clear, but because they were full of holes.

    While campaigning, Obama did not promise to return tax levels and deductions to those of either the Clinton or Reagan eras, but instead explicitly promised to cut taxes and maintain deductions. Obama's promise of "the way forward" has morphed through Emanuel into "the way back."

    Emanuel's representation of the Obama administration on Face The Nation looked a lot like a card game I've seen played on street corners. Only in this game, it wasn't a red card for which I was looking, but evidence of change.
    Reply to this comment
    by RealAmerican1 March 1, 2009 11:58 PM EST
    <<"It sounds to me like what [President Obama is] about to do here is say, 'Well, I don't like this but I'm going to go ahead and sign it, but I'm going to warn you, don't ever do it again.' Is that what's about to happen here?? asked the host of Face The Nation. >>

    This puts me in mind of Uncle Remus's tale about Br'er Rabbit pleading with the old fox, "Please don't throw me in the briar patch," ....

    A libtard has never seen a spending package they don't like, unless it's not big enough.
    Reply to this comment
    by tennartex March 1, 2009 11:48 PM EST
    The budget has a long way to go. It is filled with pork barrel items that contitute a wish list of the democratic party.

    If his own party sent this spending bill to him, then he needs to send it back and demand a better one. I think Emmanuel misstates Obama's distaste. Emmanuel is apt to "misstate" on any subject and at any time. Just look at his past. You never know when he is telling the truth or lying.
    Reply to this comment
    by pensacola8-2009 March 1, 2009 8:39 PM EST
    Spending bills may sound like debates over semantics if the banks are nationalized. All nations with failing banks have a common crisis on their hands and nationalization is an option, but has to be done unilaterally, because nations deciding against bank nationalization will find themselves without capital by the end of the week.

    Under the scenario of bank nationalization, we can take 15 jobs and examine the numbers who lose employment. Without a spending bill 5 of those may be unemployed within 12 months under nationalization. With a spending bill, only 3 of those 15 may be unemployed. The difference of 2 jobs for every 15 is significant and rounds to about 1 out of 7 may have one additional year of employment with stimulus and the spending bill.

    It all is about helping every bank in the world have a healthy balance sheet. Without restrictions and regulations, the derregulation of banks under Ronald Reagan has led to a country which borrowed and spent itself rich.

    The best idea going is for every working person to repay their personal debt on an accelerated payment plan and begin to invest larger percentages of their pay.

    The level of defaulted homes that became toxic on banksheets can be absorbed over the next 40 months.

    If the government throws money in your direction, work like H-E-L-L to earn it and throw it B-A-C-K by repaying debt and investing.
    Reply to this comment
    by ad133 March 1, 2009 8:16 PM EST
    I like you Bob. But one think I find that you have a problem addressing the president as President Obama that was never true with President Bush
    Reply to this comment
    by karenbe111 March 1, 2009 4:51 PM EST
    Shieffer has obviously drunk the Republican koolaid. What a biased interview!
    Reply to this comment
    See all 19 Comments
    .

    Follow Political Hotsheet

    Scroll Left
    Scroll Right More »
    CBS News on Facebook
    • Building You a Better Morning

    • CBS This Morning

      "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
      Learn more...