Earmarks, schmearmarks

Can't tell you how many times I've yelled that at the TV lately as Barack Obama, who sermonized every Sunday about the evils of earmarks, now can't muster the backbone to practice what he preached.

In fewer than 90 days, Obama's signed off on not one, but two monster spending bills with billions of dollars in earmarks in each. And here's the creepy kicker: He's not going to stop. You can bet the good dog that while Obama's in office, he will not enact one spending bill -- not a single one -- that is earmark-free.

Of course, pork is like pornography -- hard to define. And the Washington elite love to argue the finer points of what is, or is not, pork like Pontius Pilate loved to wash his hands. But I'm with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who said while he may not be able to define hard-core pornography, he knew it when he saw it.

Most Americans know hard-core earmarks when they see them, too -- and they are obscene. Earmarks come from Republicans and Democrats. Earmarks sometimes sound quaint, like a Teapot Museum in Sparta, N.C., or queer, like a study of bear poop in the Rockies.

Obama's no virgin to earmarks. Before he ran for president, he submitted 112 earmarks totaling more that $330 million. After he became a candidate, he submitted zero saying: "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project."

Empty rhetoric, it turns out, because when Obama became president, he signed the $787 billion so-called "stimulus" bill filled with earmarks. And now he's promised to sign a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with 9,000 earmarks totaling $5 billion.

And to further insult the people who believed his words, some of those earmarks are residual from his staff: Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Even George Stephanopoulos, not exactly unsympathetic to the Obama cause, expressed incredulity with Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Stephanopoulos: "We thought the administration believed in cutting back on congressional earmarks."

Orszag: "This is last year's business. We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done. ... We're going to be working with Congress ... to make sure that earmarks are reduced and they're also transparent."

Stephanopoulos: "But he signs this bill this year?"

Orszag: "This is -- this is last year's business. We just need to move on."

We've seen this kind of bobbing and weaving before. It's the talk and actions of business as usual in Washington. Not anything like "The One" who took the last election by storm, promising change and hope.

I suppose some may try to excuse this hypocrisy by hearkening to our "extraordinary" economic circumstances, or rationalizing his disconnect as a tip of the hat to the enormity of the job, like the proverbial elephant that must be eaten one bite at a time.

Fine. You're entitled to your little fantasies. But be warned, this elephant's not on the menu. Ever.

Obama's earmark hypocrisy is disappointing in the extreme. The president's lost his groove from a campaign that promised something new. He embarrasses himself when his spokesmen blithely say he'll sign off on 9,000 new earmarks because it is "last year's business."

I don't care what side of the political boat you row, that's just intellectually dishonest.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.