Barry As President: TWO YEARS AGO-"Putting renewed Focus On Jobs"

Even before Barack Obama took the oath of office, his economic advisers projected that without hundreds of billions of dollars in government spending, the U.S. economy could lose another 3 million to 4 million jobs on top of the 3.1 million lost in 2008.
It turns out they were optimistic. Even with the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama signed in February, more than 4 million jobs have been lost in 2009, the worst year for job losses since World War II. The jobless rate that advisers projected would peak at 8% has topped 10%.

So in the midst of major decisions on Afghanistan, health care and climate change, the president today turns his attention back to a problem he tried to solve already — and one that's sure to dominate next year's elections, when his Democratic majorities in Congress will be at stake.

Obama convenes a summit here on jobs, then flies Friday to Allentown, Pa., for the first in what will be periodic listening tours on the economy. The goal is to develop new spending and tax proposals to help many of the nation's nearly 16 million unemployed people find work in 2010.

"Though the job losses we were experiencing earlier this year have slowed dramatically, we're still not creating enough new jobs each month to make up for the ones we're losing," Obama said last week. "For families and communities across the country, this recession will not end until we completely turn that tide."

The new focus on jobs comes as the first stimulus plan's impact remains unclear. The Obama administration says more than 640,000 jobs have been saved or created by employers who received funds. The Congressional Budget Office this week put the figure at 600,000 to 1.6 million after considering other factors, such as the impact on consumer demand from tax cuts, unemployment insurance extensions and spending by the newly employed. It said unemployment would have been up to 0.9 percentage points higher without the stimulus.


NOV. UNEMPLOYMENT DROP: Unexpected dip brings rate down to 10%
UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS DROP: In latest week
JOBS FORECAST: Updates for 50 states, 384 metro areas
ECONOMY: Fed finds recovery gaining momentum

The White House says more than 3.5 million jobs will be saved or created through 2010 as a result of the stimulus. Republicans such as House GOP leader John Boehner dispute the figures.

Also in dispute: whether new spending or tax cuts should add to the record $1.4 trillion budget deficit and $12 trillion debt. Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi favor more spending now. Obama has voiced caution about the deficit.

"The American people recognize that we have two twin challenges," White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer says. "They're concerned about deficits, and they're concerned about jobs."

The immediate concern is economic. About 5 million people have been out of work six months or longer, government data show. Unemployment worsened or stayed the same in most metro areas in October, the Labor Department said Wednesday.

"We need something done right away," says Philadelphia Unemployment Project director John Dodds. "That doesn't always get through to the Ph.D.s and CEOs who will probably be in the front row at the summit."

A secondary concern is political. When James Carville coined the phrase "It's the economy, stupid" to define the 1992 presidential election won by Bill Clinton, times weren't as tough as they are now. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last week showed 55% of Americans don't like how Obama is handling the jobs issue, tied with Afghanistan for his poorest showing. Only 35% say things will improve during the next year.

"You can say whatever you want, but if it's 10.2% unemployment, people have an unwavering opinion of that," says Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, which backs Republican candidates. "That's what I think we're seeing at tea parties and town hall meetings."

'Doing nothing not an option'

It wasn't supposed to happen.

The nearly $800 billion in spending and tax cuts approved last February would reverse the economic tailspin, Obama and his Democratic allies said. The jobless rate would lag behind, as it always does — but not this much.

"It's getting increasingly unusual that we're not seeing a hiring kick set in," says Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. Employers are holding back due to a lack of credit, of confidence in the economy and of certainty about government actions, he says.

To create more jobs, 18% of those surveyed in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll last month said, steps should be taken to stop employers from sending jobs overseas. Other top choices: cutting taxes, helping small businesses and creating infrastructure jobs.

Among the ideas under consideration, according to National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers and others:

• Extending unemployment insurance benefits beyond this year. Earlier extensions already have made some people eligible for a record 99 weeks. Giving money to jobless Americans spurs consumer spending, which saves or creates jobs.

• Sending more aid to cash-strapped state and local governments. States are writing their 2010-11 budgets, and federal aid included in February's stimulus package runs out in 2010. Without another bailout, they might be forced to cut spending or raise taxes, hindering the recovery.

• Creating tax incentives, such as for small businesses or manufacturers. During last year's campaign, Obama proposed a tax credit for each new job created.

• Financing more infrastructure and energy efficiency projects. Obama favors an "infrastructure bank" with public and private money, which he promoted in last year's campaign and this year's budget.

"The premise of our policy is that while there is a public sector responsibility for employment, long-term economic recovery depends on private sector growth," Summers says.

Labor leaders such as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka want the government to create jobs. "Doing nothing is not an option," Trumka says. "If we don't put people back to work, the deficit will get higher."

Republicans are promoting their own agenda: slashing payroll taxes, limiting regulations and reducing the deficit through spending cuts. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor outlined that agenda in a speech Wednesday; Boehner meets with conservative economists today.

'Still in the hope stage'

When Billy Joel wrote his 1982 anthem about Allentown's steel factories closing down, times weren't nearly as bad nationally as they are today. About 2.1 million jobs were lost that year, according to government data — about half the number lost in the first 10 months of this year.

When Obama comes to the Lehigh Valley on Friday, he'll be entering a region of 600,000 people fraught with economic fear — and hope. State figures show unemployment is about 9.5%, slightly below the national average, but the rate has risen in 18 of 22 months since the recession started. Mack Trucks moved its world headquarters to Greensboro, N.C., this year.

The region also is the scene of economic innovation, ranging from regional health care networks to bank and insurance call centers. The Lehigh Valley Health Network is moving about 1,000 employees into the former Mack Trucks headquarters.

"It represents that classic Northeast city that's trying to make the transition," says Tony Iannelli, president of the Greater Lehigh Valley Chamber of Commerce. How is it doing? "We're still in the hope stage," he says.

Joe Alfonso lost his information technology job at Merrill Lynch in January when Bank of America took it over. He applied for about 50 jobs but got no offers. Now he's taking classes at Northampton Community College in Bethlehem to upgrade his skills.

"I'm beginning to think this is a good time to even change careers," Alfonso says.

That's becoming more typical, says Maryann Haytmanek, whose job helping displaced homemakers return to the workforce has evolved to include people who have been laid off. More men are going into nursing these days, she says. More women are becoming solar panel installers.

"I'm not seeing a lot of people get jobs at this point," she says. "For every job, there's six people. Five people aren't getting a job."

'Congress is worried'

Advocates for the unemployed hope today's summit of corporate CEOs, small-business owners, labor leaders and others is a start toward reversing that trend. Some, such as Philadelphia's Dodds, planned to bus jobless people to Washington to walk picket lines outside.

The White House's decision to hold a summit and put the president on the road reflects the need to build public support for whatever plan Democrats push.

"Congress is worried. They're the ones who are up for election next November," says Dean Baker of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Lawmakers in Democratic strongholds may be particularly worried. Jobless rates are highest in states Obama won last year, including Michigan at 15.1%, Nevada, Rhode Island and California.

Democrats hold an 81-vote edge in the House and a 10-vote edge in the Senate. Since World War II, the party of a first-term president has lost an average of 16 House seats in midterm elections, says Charles Cook of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. In the Senate, Cook rates six Democratic seats and four Republican seats as tossups.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and top domestic policy adviser to Sen. John McCain in last year's presidential race, says Obama's tax, trade, health care and environmental policies are holding companies back from hiring workers.

Holding a summit "is what they know how to do," Holtz-Eakin says. "But there's no follow-through."

Still, polls show voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the economy — by a 50% to 39% margin in a Gallup Poll in early September. That, Pfeiffer says, will determine who does best in next November's elections. (source)

Sign Of Our Times: Using The Best Propogandists Money Can Buy To Re-Brand The Left

Midway through Philip Rucker and Paul Kane's story about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's transition to minority leader comes an interesting bit of news. The California Democrat, vilified by Republicans in the last election, has turned to director Steven Spielberg for help rebranding House Democrats.

Lawmakers say she is consulting marketing experts about building a stronger brand. The most prominent of her new whisperers is Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood director whose films have been works of branding genius. Lawmakers said Spielberg has not reported to Pelosi with a recommendation.

Spielberg has been a power player in Democratic politics for years, working on everything from President Bill Clinton's millennial celebrations to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in the last presidential race, but since then he's helped fundraise for President Obama.

But, the news that he is advising the leading Democrat in the House on building a strong party brand would seem to be a different -- and more expansive -- role than Spielberg has played in the past. (source)

After Years Of Proclaiming Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich As Evil, Barry Signs A Bill To Extend Them

U.S. President Barack Obama signs into law a bill at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, December 17, 2010. Obama on Friday signed into law a bill extending Bush-era tax cuts and other benefits based on a deal he brokered with Republicans that angered liberals.

President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law a bill extending Bush-era tax cuts and said he hoped the bipartisan spirit that had made it possible would help restore Americans' faith in Washington.

"The final product proves when we can put aside the partisanship and the political games, when we can put aside what's good for some of us in favor of what's good for all of us, we can get a lot done," he said at a White House ceremony.

Obama brokered the tax deal with Republicans over the objections of many of his fellow Democrats who said it was too generous to the rich, and U.S. lawmakers passed the $858 billion package of renewed tax cuts and more unemployment benefits near midnight on Thursday.

"This is real money that's going to make a real difference in people's lives," Obama said. "That's how we're going to spark demand, spur hiring, and strengthen our economy in the new year."

The bill was expected to provide at least a short-term boost to the U.S. economy and reduce unemployment, which remains near 10 percent. But it will also add to a $14 trillion national debt that some fear is nearing dangerous levels.

Most Democrats, including Obama, had opposed extending the lowered tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, but Obama agreed to a temporary extension to get a deal with Republicans.

Many Democrats also resisted a provision raising the exemption threshold for the estate tax to $5 million from $3.5 million in 2009 and cutting the estate tax rate to 35 percent from 45 percent.

Obama defended the bill as the right thing to do for the country despite its flaws, and signaled it could be a blueprint for future cooperation that would make ordinary Americans feel better about their government.

"If we can keep doing it, if we can keep that spirit, I'm hopeful that we won't just reinvigorate this economy ... I'm also hopeful that we might refresh the American people's faith in the capability of their leaders to govern," Obama told an audience that included Republican and Democratic leaders.

DEBT DEBATE

Obama's compromise reflects the new political reality that many see pushing him to lead more from the center as he gears up for the 2012 presidential election, after Republicans in November congressional elections won control of the House of Representatives and increased their weight in the Senate.

Among Obama's most pressing challenges when the next Congress begins in January is to fashion a bipartisan consensus on spending cuts and to overhaul the U.S. tax code to tackle the U.S. budget deficit and rising debt.

"We've got to make some difficult choices ahead when it comes to tackling the deficit," Obama said, noting that this could prove a tougher task than agreeing to extend tax cuts.

"But the fact is, I don't believe that either party has cornered the market on good ideas. And I want to draw on the best thinking from both sides," he said.

The president has in hand the recommendations of his bipartisan debt panel that he has said includes some good ideas on closing tax loopholes and lowering rates. But he has not actually endorsed the report's findings.(source)

Obama's Mystery Proposal To Regulate The Internet

If President Obama wants his executive branch to resemble the opaque, power-hungry political machinations in Chicago, he seems to be succeeding in the area of Internet regulation. Last April, a federal court told the Federal Communications Commission that it has no business regulating the Internet. Unfortunately, judicial rejection of the commission's first swing at the "net neutrality" ball -- the idea the FCC must regulate the Internet to insure everybody has equal access -- didn't deter Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, from taking another whack.

He's bringing a new set of proposed net neutrality regulations to the five-member panel Tuesday. Unfortunately, nobody knows any details of the new proposal because Genachowski has kept them secret until the last possible minute even as he rushed them forward for a vote. How ironic that the Internet, the great and empowering liberator of information that "wants to be free," is being chopped up behind closed doors by an unelected panel. Note, too, that this is being considered by the FCC on the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year.

In their net neutrality quest, Genachowski and two of his fellow Democratic appointees are working to expand government power into an area where the commission has no jurisdiction, under the guise of solving a problem that does not exist. Meredith Baker, a Republican FCC appointee, summarized the situation well: "We have two branches of government -- Congress and the courts -- expressing grave concerns with our agency becoming increasingly unmoored from our statutory authority. By seeking to regulate the Internet now, we exceed the authority Congress has given us and justify those concerns." Incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., has called on the FCC to "cease and desist."

This exercise in government opacity and overreach is already damaging the economy. As major telecommunications and Internet service companies prepare to roll out new fourth generation (4G) wireless service for millions of customers, these unelected bureaucratic commissars are recklessly creating doubt about the future value and profitability of those companies' investments. They are also discouraging future investments that need to be made for the Internet to continue its phenomenal growth.

Federal courts will almost certainly strike down anything the FCC adopts Tuesday, just as they did earlier this year. Congress will also have its chance to undo Genachowski's handiwork through the Congressional Review Act. But why should we have to go this far to rein in a government agency supposedly run by people who took an oath to "support and defend" our Constitution? Is Obama unable to make his own appointees obey the law? Either way, the new Congress should hold Obama accountable for what the FCC is now doing in his name. (source)

DeMint Vows To Reverse FCC's Internet Takeover

Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, says Federal Communications Commission should be renamed the "Fabricating a Crisis Commission," following a vote by the panel's three Democrats to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally.

The proposal - misleadingly described by proponents as an attempt to insure "net neutrality" by guaranteeing equal access to the Internet - was introduced a year ago by Julius Genachowski, President Obama's appointee as FCC chairman.

A federal court has ruled that the commission has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of senators and representives warned Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year.

The move's legality was even questioned by FCC Commissioner Michael Copp, one of the Democrats who voted today with Genachowski, saying he considered voting against the proposal because it lacks a sufficiently defensible legal basis to survive a court challenge promised by major Internet Service Providers like Verizon, Microsoft, and AT & T.

But legal challenges by industry are likely to be much less of a problem for the Genachowski-led takeover than efforts in Congress to stop the FCC in its tracks.

That's clearly what DeMint has in mind, as he said in his statement released today following the FCC action:

“The Obama Administration has ignored evidence that this federal takeover will hang a millstone of regulatory and legal uncertainty around the neck of a vibrant sector of our economy.

"Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways.

“Americans loudly demanded a more limited federal government this November, but the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to expanding centralized government planning. Today, unelected bureaucrats rammed through an internet takeover, even after Congress and courts warned them not to.

“To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation.

"In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.”

If the FCC plan somehow manages to survive, it will almost certainly do for First Amendment liberties and the Internet what it did for them in regulating broadcast television and radio. Former CBS News president Fred Friendly's landmark book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment," describes in great detail how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations used the FCC to silence conservative critics.(source)

Sign Of The Times: Apologizing For Having To Say, "Christmas"

DOOMSDAY FOR BARRY: A Decision May Be Necessary (The Bush Tax Breaks Nightmare And How To Deal With It)

A massive bipartisan tax package preventing a big New Year's Day tax hike for millions of Americans is on its way to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The measure would extend tax cuts for families at every income level, renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and enact a new one-year cut in Social Security taxes that would benefit nearly every worker who earns a wage.

The president is expected to sign the bill this afternoon.

In a remarkable show of bipartisanship, the House gave final approval to the measure just before midnight Thursday, overcoming an attempt by rebellious Democrats who wanted to impose a higher estate tax than the one Obama agreed to. The vote was 277-148, with each party contributing an almost identical number of votes in favor (the Democrats, 139 and the Republicans, 138).

In a rare reach across party lines, Obama negotiated the $858 billion package with Senate Republicans. The White House then spent the past 10 days persuading congressional Democrats to go along, providing a possible blueprint for the next two years, when Republicans will control the House and hold more seats in the Senate.

"There probably is nobody on this floor who likes this bill," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "The judgment is, is it better than doing nothing? Some of the business groups believe it will help. I hope they're right."

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said that with unemployment hovering just under 10 percent and the deadline for avoiding a big tax hike fast approaching, lawmakers had little choice but to support the bill.

"This is just no time to be playing games with our economy," said Camp, who will become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee in January. "The failure to block these tax increases would be a direct hit to families and small businesses."

Sweeping tax cuts enacted when George W. Bush was president are scheduled to expire Jan. 1 - a little more than two weeks away. The bill extends them for two years, placing the issue squarely in the middle of the next presidential election, in 2012.

The extended tax cuts include lower rates for the rich, the middle class and the working poor, a $1,000-per-child tax credit, tax breaks for college students and lower taxes on capital gains and dividends. The bill also extends through 2011, a series of business tax breaks designed to encourage investment that expired at the end of 2009.

Workers' Social Security taxes would be cut by nearly a third, going from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, for 2011. A worker making $50,000 in wages would save $1,000; one making $100,000 would save $2,000.

"This legislation is good for growth, good for jobs, good for working and middle class families, and good for businesses looking to invest and expand their work force," said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Some Democrats complained that the package is too generous to the wealthy; Republicans complained that it doesn't make all the tax cuts permanent.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., called it "a bipartisan moment of clarity."

The bill's cost, $858 billion, would be added to the deficit, a sore spot among budget hawks in both parties.

"I know that we are going to borrow every nickel in this bill," Hoyer lamented.

At the insistence of Republicans, the plan includes an estate tax that would allow the first $10 million of a couple's estate to pass to heirs without taxation. The balance would be subject to a 35 percent tax rate.

Many House Democrats wanted a higher estate tax, one that would allow couples to pass only $7 million tax-free, taxing anything above that amount at a 45 percent rate. They argued that the higher estate tax would affect only 6,600 of the wealthiest estates in 2011 and would save $23 billion over two years.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the estate tax the "most egregious provision" in the bill and held a vote that would have imposed the higher estate tax. It failed, 194-233.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he thought the White House could have gotten a better deal.

"When I talk to the Republicans they are giddy about this bill," he said. (source)

Last-Ditch Effort To Ram Through Omnibus Bill By Barry, Pelosi Et Al Fails

After wrestling with - and finally abandoning - a 1,900-page catch-all spending bill stuffed with more than $8 billion in home-state projects known as earmarks in Washington and pork in the rest of the country, Senate leaders need to come up with a measure to keep the federal government running into early next year.

Nearly $1.3 trillion in unfinished budget work was packed into the spending measure, including $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave up on the bill Thursday after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had thrown his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

"Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don't want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this," McConnell said. "This is no way to legislate."

The turn of events was a major victory for earmark opponents like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who for years have been steamrolled by the old-school members of the powerful Appropriations Committee.

The spending barons saw their power ebb in the wake of midterm elections that delivered major gains for Republicans - with considerable help from anti-spending tea party activists.

"We just saw something extraordinary on the floor of the United States Senate," a grinning McCain said.

The $1.27 trillion catchall bill wrapped together 12 bills - blending $1.1 trillion for the operating budgets of every federal agency with an infusion of funding to carry the war in Afghanistan into its 10th year - into a single foot-tall piece of legislation that Democrats had hoped to pass with just a couple of days' worth of debate.

It was designed to bankroll the day-to-day operations of the government for the budget year that started Oct. 1, funding the almost one-third of the federal budget that Congress has to pass each year.

The House and Senate typically spend months on the 12 annual spending bills, but Democrats didn't bring even a single one to the Senate floor this year, an unprecedented collapse of an appropriations process. The House only passed two of the 12 bills and didn't make any of the other 10 public.

The sinking of the bill was a setback for President Barack Obama, who supported it despite provisions to block the Pentagon from transferring Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the United States and fund a program to develop a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the administration says is a waste of money. Obama came under fire from Republicans for supporting the bill after promising after the election to take a harder line on earmarks.

Just Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a public push for the omnibus measure at an appearance at the White House, saying that operating under a stopgap measure frozen at current levels would be a major hardship for the Pentagon.

McConnell had earlier quietly backed the effort to produce the legislation, which had significant input from Republicans on the Appropriations panel.

But release of the bill on Tuesday sparked an outcry among the GOP's conservative political base. Senate Republicans held two combative closed-door meetings in which the rank-and-file turned up the heat on those few Republicans who were considering voting for the bill.

Republicans were also irate that the measure contained money to begin implementation of Obama's controversial health care law and a financial overhaul measure that all but a handful of Republicans opposed.

On the merits, most of the rest of the bill had bipartisan support. It stuck to a spending cap sought by Republicans while boosting spending for Head Start, veterans programs and Pell Grants for disadvantaged college students. But that message didn't get out amid the firestorm over earmarks and the measure's remarkable size.

McConnell proposed Thursday to keep the government running at current funding levels through Feb. 18. By then, Republicans will have taken over the House and bolstered their strength in the Senate, giving them greater leverage to force spending cuts.

The House last week passed a yearlong funding bill that's mostly frozen at current levels. (source)

What The ObamaNation Has Brought Us: Taking From The Rich

President Obama’s $8 Billion Earmark Rerun: Lesson Not Learned?

The Obama administration today told Congress to pass an omnibus spending bill containing $8 billion in earmark projects, even though just a few days ago the president said one of the lessons he learned from the 2010 midterm elections was to take more seriously the public’s disapproval of – and his pledge to oppose -- earmarks.

“We wish there were no earmarks and are troubled with their presence” in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, an administration source told ABC News. “But Secretary Gates has told the President that the alternative bill” – a continuing resolution that for one year funds the government, which is due to run out of cash at the end of the week – “doesn't have the funding critical for several national security priorities.”

Gates issued a statement this evening saying that without the omnibus spending bill, the Pentagon would be left “without the resources and flexibility needed to meet vital military requirements” – specifically “the military pay raise, increases in military health care costs, higher fuel prices, and other ‘fact of life’ bills.” The shorter funding bill would “slow our efforts to meet unanticipated wartime needs,” he added, while the bigger funding bill would provide funding for “critical national security initiatives” including the new Cyber Command and increasing special operations forces.

The president’s acquiescence with a bill that contains $8 billion in earmarks stands in contrast with what he said was a lesson learned from the 2010 midterm “shellacking,” when he indicated that he regretted not taking more of a stand against a different $8 billion in earmarks in a 2009 omnibus spending bill.

At his press conference after the shellacking, the president said that upon taking office, “we were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done. And I think that frustrated people.”

The president said he’s “a strong believer that the earmarking process in Congress isn’t what the American people really want to see when it comes to making tough decisions about how taxpayer dollars are spent. And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about. And I think folks look at that and they said, ‘Gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before.’ And so one of the things that I’ve got to take responsibility for is not having moved enough on those fronts.”

The president said the midterms provided him with “an opportunity to move forward on some of those issues,” and he specifically cited incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., as wanting “to see a moratorium on earmarks continuing. That’s something I think we can work on together.”

Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring said Wednesday evening that President Obama and Cantor have not spoken about earmarks since the president mentioned his name at that press conference.

“So right after his election rebuke, President Obama claimed that he to work together to reform earmarks and today he supports a bill that contains billions of dollars of wasteful pork,” Dayspring said. “If that’s the kind of reform the President had in mind, Eric Cantor isn’t interested. People are furious and rightly so with the runaway spending and the joke process that they are watching Democrats are engage in. Even after the election shellacking, the President and his party still don’t get it. If he is serious about working together, he needs to take it seriously and pledge to veto this pork laden spending bill.”

The president told 60 Minutes last month that while he had “campaigned saying we should stop doing earmarks….I had to make a decision, ‘Do I sign this omnibus bill to finish last year's business? And, you know, make sure that I can keep on working with Congress to get all these things done? Or do I veto that bill and have a big fight right away in the middle of an economic crisis?’ Well, I decided to sign the bill. Now, that's an example of where I was so concerned about getting things done that, you know, I lost track of part of the reason I got elected. Which was we were gonna change how business was done here.”

After a number of decisions like that, the president said, “I think what people started feeling was, "Gosh, this is sort of business-as-usual in Washington,’ And that's part of what I ran against. And so, I reflect a lot about over the next two years, making sure that I remind myself, my job is not legislator in chief. It's not just a matter of how many bills I'm passing, no matter how worthy they are. Part of it's also setting a tone in Washington and for the rest of the country that says, "We're responsible’…” (source)