• Home
  • Blogs
  • Political Hotsheet
Political Hotsheet
March 1, 2009 1:40 PM

Emanuel: Obama Doesn't Like Spending Bill

Posted by Michelle Levi
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.

    • Tags:
    face the nation ,
    spending bill ,
    obama ,
    rahm emanuel ,
    congress ,
    budget
    Topics:
    Face The Nation
    Share:
    • Share
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • Mixx

    More from Political Hotsheet and Politics on CBSNews.com

    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
    by homespunlady March 1, 2009 4:49 PM EST
    Dang, I NEED a bit of that "carbon" to warm things up around here.

    I keep losing my dogs under the snow.

    (;-)
    Reply to this comment
    by amskeptic March 1, 2009 4:40 PM EST
    *"It is facile for Democrats to blame Republicans (who have not been in control of Congress since 2006, when unemployment was 4.4%). While this argument is facile, it is also flaccid. If you'll notice, the Democrats never quite say exactly what Bush did to make this happen.*

    Ah yes, facile indeed. . . Bush made this happen by conducting a ruinous war while reducing taxes. Insane! Bush made this happen by cozying up to mega-corporations and deregulating financial controls. The Community Reinvestment Act was a fine piece of legislation that did what it set out to do, but it was the incestuous banker/legislature/lobbying cabal that changed the rules so that interest rates went UP in compounding ways on unsophisticated buyers. The original act actually reduced interest rates after a year of successful payments. We all have credit card rules that are equally screwy.

    Flaccid arguments include throwing the unemployment rate of 2006 into this. Those tax cuts did NOT create jobs. The jobs went overseas. The structural flaws of Republican selfishness are evident in our history. Time for a change, folks. Obama is shifting the wealth towards the middle class. Finally. The rich did NOT earn the doubling of their wealth in the past decade. Duh.
    Colin
    Reply to this comment
    by homespunlady March 1, 2009 4:35 PM EST
    Posted by vincan-2009 at 1:17 PM : Mar 1, 2009

    I prefer to look further back to root causes that led up to the Bush/Cheney greed, profiteering and anti-ethics explosion that was the "straw that broke" the economy's back.

    I know it's heresy to some but Reagan with his FAILED "Star Wars", military open checkbook, "Trickle-Down", Tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. was the beginning of the NEOCON takeover of government.

    Eisenhower WARNED the people in his final address against the growing threat of the "Military-Industrial Complex".

    Too bad the nation DIDN'T listen until (maybe) now.
    Reply to this comment
    by homespunlady March 1, 2009 4:22 PM EST
    Posted by GlobalPatriot at 1:12 PM : Mar 1, 2009

    LMAO good joke.

    Can someone do a cartoon of that CONvoluted logic - PLEASE!

    Nothing like selling a lot of Hot Air using Monopoly Money then converting it all into that REAL asset - a private island with all the trimmings.
    Reply to this comment
    by vincan-2009 March 1, 2009 4:17 PM EST
    I do blame Bush and Cheney for what has happened to America. When you have someone like Cheney saying from the beginning that he was not going to be at all concerned with fiscal responsiblity. This comes from Paul O'Neill, who came in as Bush's top economic adviser and was sent packing because he thought that his job was to work for America. From then until Bush and Cheney left they did just as they pleased with the total rubber stamping republican majority. A lot of harmful things were done that we know about and there are many harmful things they did that we do not know about. That is because these two men and their administration were dishonest and betrayed the country.
    Reply to this comment
    by homespunlady March 1, 2009 4:14 PM EST
    As for the "Pork earmarks" in the upcoming spending bill - maybe the time has come for the much mentioned "LINE ITEM VETO"... granted it'll be a much maligned by GOP Democrat wielding the pick and choose pen this time but MAYBE someday it might be theirs as well...

    Now there's a double-edged sword, er pen to think about.
    Reply to this comment
    by GlobalPatriot March 1, 2009 4:12 PM EST
    I going to create a new derivatives product that packages Cap and Trade CO2 credits 'assets' with commercial bank equities. I'm plan to package these across risk levels and industries so that I 'spread the risk evenly'. Then I think I'll market these as equity products, (I'll establish a hedge fund to handle that part of my business), and I also think I'll re-package another product of the same fundamental instruments but offer them as futures, (there's bound to be an options market for CO2 credits arise, that's the fundamental logic behind the cap and trade proposal), there should be some really interesting ways to price this, configure margins, should be an interesting options product.
    Now my hedge fund in these Cap and Trade CO2/commercial equity derivative product will draw in all kinds of investment dollars to my hedge fund, (the Gaussian Copula Function makes it easy for me to convince investors - "look here, one number measures all your exposure, sign here please everybody's doing it - don't miss out!"); the hedge fund will provide my steady income stream while I play the futures market. Now that I think about it, I have a hedge fund with basically the same products, (just repackaged), as my commodity product, I might be able to play both to their benefit with some creative marketing and press releases from time to time. This is going to be great. Just in case, think I'll cover the futures with a short position here and there - in the same product of course.
    Anybody want to invest?

    This is the basic scheme that allowed $billions of dollars to disappear from wall street. This represents the type of scheme that functioned as our investment banking and financial sector since the late 90's. Don't be too concerned though, lot's of people made vast amounts of personal income while they kept the house of cards afloat for a couple of decades - vast sum's of money, so it wasn't all lost. It just accrued to fewer people.

    I will guarantee that today an out-of-work financial investment analysts that used to work for one of the big, probably no longer existing, financial investment firms is thinking about how package a product very similar to the one I describe. Cap and Trade CO2 credits markets - be afraid, be very, very afraid....
    Reply to this comment
    by homespunlady March 1, 2009 4:06 PM EST
    I found it amazing when the Con-men that thought up those "derivative" bets on bets worthless gambling were hailed as economic saviors and were given praise and awards for their "ideas" a few years back.

    Earlier someone wrote that NOBODY knows what exactly CAUSED this economic "perfect storm" and alluded to the fact that America isn't the ONLY country suffering from it's fallout. for the most part he may be right. Those that DO know the truth are NOT TALKING. Either they can't be heard over the rhetoric or they can't explain it in simple enough terms to make the underlying reasons understandable.

    I don't claim to know all of the reasons but I know enough to try nudging understanding and research in the most likely direction.

    Put simply, the FLOW of the means of trade (credit) slowed and nearly stopped.
    This was a growing problem that finally reached a tipping point and those with "inside" knowledge despite their protests to the contrary knew full well that eventually this would happen.

    Currencies have been based on TRUST for centuries. When that trust dissolves people run to what they believe are more secure alternatives.

    We no longer have the luxury of "new worlds" to exploit and are flirting with facing limitations on expansion as well as "freedom" which came with those places that allowed hiding past mistakes and "new beginnings". Without a unifying goal humans turn on each other for their enrichment and the more "civilized" the world becomes the more humans will chafe at the boundaries.

    Ultimately we will need to find a NEW place to "expand" into or we will destroy each other to create such a place. The Americas WERE populated BEFORE Europeans arrived but estimates are that around 95 PERCENT of the Native Americans DIED of diseases brought over by those first contacts - It's a sad fact that it could happen again if we're not careful.

    Aside from the increasing crowding and limitations, there is a lack of stability in the trading systems of the world. Historically, that instability allowed for the accumulation of great wealth and the expansion of great poverty which periodically erupted into chaos of one form or another through the "4 horsemen of the Apocalypse". ( war, famine, pestilence and death)

    It's a CYCLE on a much greater scale than the Elliot Wave Theory or any other shorter term economic or Demographic cycle.

    So far, mankind has either NOT recognized that cycle or has tried to delay and control it without much real success.

    Someone noted in a different post that the TOP tax rate during the REPUBLICAN EISENHOWER years was at 91 PERCENT of income... and yet those years are hailed as some of the US "GREATEST GENERATION" times. Yet current day GOP rant about a possible top rate of 39 percent effective 2 YEARS FROM NOW.

    Why then did a 91 percent tax rate "work" in Eisenhower's time and is "bad" now?
    Maybe because this nation had "expansion" working for it..Post WWII industrial boom for one of the ONLY nations with an "expanded industrial base and a female population willing to "go back to the kitchen" until the returning men were fully employed. That created demand for workers and rising wages while tamping down the CONCENTRATION of wealth problem that historically caused so much unrest.

    Rebuilding the world provided that unifying goal for that generation and the next - then we started to face real competition for resources again in the 60's and 70's. More diversion with Vietnam but the War Bills came due in the early 80's.

    The "war solution" was NOT working as well as in the past although the "cold war" did provide a rallying point until that too disappeared and we had NO "common enemy".

    With no common enemy, as Billionaire Bin Laden should have understood, this nation tends to turn on each other. I found it odd that he temporarily became that "enemy" despite being part of the "ruling elite" albeit one of it's "bad boys".
    Reply to this comment
    by boosterprez1 March 1, 2009 3:11 PM EST
    Best post I've read in a long time, FreedomUSA! Very unbiased, to the point, and non-partisan. YOu must copy it and use it on other comment boards. The reality of things is not at all understood by the average Joe in the U.S....

    I think our problems today are part of a "perfect storm" of many forces, issues, problems. I've read a timeline of the financial crisis, and much of the problem lie with, not too much regulation, not too little regulation, but the WRONG regulation. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 contributed to the problem; mark-to-market accounting, reinstituted in 2007, added a layer of complexity to the valuation of assets did too. Add to that rising energy prices, which stretched the wallets of many, a glut in the housing market, and an election filled with doom-and-gloom scenarios that drained the nation of confidence...the result is not pretty.

    Seems like we're throwing ideas at a blank wall to see what sticks, with no regard for what this will cost us down the road if all the spaghetti falls to the floor.
    Reply to this comment
    See all 19 Comments

    About Political Hotsheet

    Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

    E-Mail Political Hotsheet
    Follow On Twitter

    Add to your favorite news reader
    google
    yahoo
    msn
    HOTSHEET ON TWITTER