Obama's cap & trade policy--est. $2000 more per year per household in electric costs!

[Meister]

I hate the negative connotation with which earmark and pork are currently being used!!!! In most cases these are tools used to throw Obama under the bus!!! Truth is, most people don't understand the meaning of these words and arbitrarily view this spending in a negative light because people call it "pork". What's "pork" to some people is a very important issue to others!!! NASA has and still is called "pork" by many and look what we've achieved there!!!

Call it what you want to call it. Call it a potato if you want. Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have. The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks. This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that". This is no way to run our government. If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed. Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent. They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.

Don't blame me. I was awake in 2000 to it and voted Gore.

You didn't have to tell me who you voted for, I already knew.

 

[Iriemon]

Call it what you want to call it. Call it a potato if you want. Fact is, that it's our tax dollars that are being spent...dollars that we don't have. The reason for earmarks is to buy votes that wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the earmarks. This in itself is what's known as "quip pro'quo", or "this for that". This is no way to run our government. If these bills can't stand alone on it's own merits, maybe they shouldn't be passed. Yet, our politicians get away with it, because people like you don't challenge them on the way our money is being spent. They aren't being held responsible for their actions. Damn, I wish you people would wake up before it's too late.

Don't blame me. I was awake in 2000 to it and voted Gore.

You didn't have to tell me who you voted for, I already knew.

Thanks. Some of us were awake.

 

[Newby]

What is the source of the definition you are using?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous, but it is a definitional thing. If any money directed to a specific problem is an "earmark" then defense spending, SS, medicare, etc etc are all earmarks because they are all money directed to specific things. It can't mean something that broad.

No one disputes that the $400 billion omnibus bill had thousands of earmarks. The Obama admin didn't deny it. But the Obama adminsitration did assert the stimulus bill did not have earmarks, and articles that say it really did like the ones cited earlier say things like "while theoretically it didn't have earmarks..." there was pork in it.

When someone initially said there were earmarks in the stimulus bill, I asked for a cite b/c I had recalled differently.

After 4 persons interjected their opinions and finally someone cited something, the article talked about it being how you defined earmarks.

As I understand if, an earmark is technically where there is spending in a bill that is specifically identified to be spent as directed by a certain congress person in a certain place for a certain thing, ie it is earmarked for that particular appropriation.

The stimulus bill does not allocate the money to be spent by congress, I believe, and therefore is not an "earmark" in the sense these what that term is usually applied to in spending bills. That's my understanding.

Technicall definitions? I agree. That is why after reading the cited material I wrote that I agreed that if you use a broader interpretation of "earmark" then there were earmarks in the bill.

Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?

I don't believe he did.

Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
By Bill Adair
Published on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.



Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!ShareThis(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks . So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. To find the details of why we rated this one a Compromise, click here.

PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely

 

[Iriemon]

Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?

I don't believe he did.

Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
By Bill Adair
Published on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.

Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!ShareThis(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks . So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. To find the details of why we rated this one a Compromise, click here.

PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely

Thanks. I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.

 

[Newby]

I don't believe he did.

Obama's promise to go after earmarks 'line by line'
By Bill Adair
Published on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.

Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!ShareThis(We didn't notice this promise when we created the Obameter database. But we had several reader requests to include it and got a fresh reminder this week while fact-checking a claim about Obama's position on earmarks . So we are adding it as Promise No. 512.)

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes. To find the details of why we rated this one a Compromise, click here.

PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely

Thanks. I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.

Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.

Amazing.

 

[Iriemon]

PolitiFact | No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely

Thanks. I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.

Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.

Amazing.

My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.

 

[Newby]

And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh?? How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too. Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end. Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end. What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection. There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.

 

[Newby]

Thanks. I didn't think Obama promised to have none of them during his campaign.

Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.

Amazing.

My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.

I made no false statements, you however are a different story. I bolded his own words, yet you want to play games. You're a blind partisan hack.

 

[Iriemon]

Yeah, and with over 9,000 of them, I guess he addressed the situation as promised.

Amazing.

My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.

I made no false statements, you however are a different story. I bolded his own words, yet you want to play games. You're a blind partisan hack.

Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?

False statement. Obama promised no such thing.

The record is clear. Folks can decide for themselves who the blind partisan hack is.

 

[Iriemon]

And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh?? How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too. Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end. Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end. What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection. There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.

Who is this rant directed to, me?

I don't have endless devotion to Obama. Clinton was my first choice in the election. I've critcized Obama on a few things.

I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.

Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.

 

[Newby]

My point was to correct the false statement you made about what Obama promised.

I made no false statements, you however are a different story. I bolded his own words, yet you want to play games. You're a blind partisan hack.

Why did your president promise to have none of them during his campaign?

False statement. Obama promised no such thing.

The record is clear. Folks can decide for themselves who the blind partisan hack is.

I showed exactly what he said, and as I said, if you want to play semantic word games to make your point, be my guest. If that's how you consider an argument won, more power to you. I've seen you do it time and time again on this board with pretty much everyone you 'debate' with, as a matter of fact, that's pretty much all you ever do.

The point is that he promised to go line by line through every bill and agreed with McCain about earmarks and curbing wasteful spending and the very first bill he signed had over 9,000 of them in it doesn't say anything at all, right? Campaign promise broken, period. Keep defending his spending until the cows come home after you and your ilk bashed Bush for it for eight years for that administration's spending, along with the deficit it created. Keep your blinders securely in place and support his spending under the guise of 'stimulus'. You're either a partisan hack or extremely uninformed and uneducated.

 

[Newby]

And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh?? How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too. Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end. Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end. What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection. There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.

Who is this rant directed to, me?

I don't have endless devotion to Obama. Clinton was my first choice in the election. I've critcized Obama on a few things.

I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.

Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.


McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."


Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.

 

[Iriemon]

And I guess you can now contend that this was all 'wise spending' as well, eh?? How about we define that, so now you can play semantic games with that all day long too. Keep defending the spending, partisan to the end. Who the hell cares if it's good for the country or your own children and grandchildren, as long as Obama did it, hell, everything will be just peachy and you have to march right along to whatever he does, and defend it to the end. What I wonder about people like you is what this man has ever done for you to deserve such devotion and protection. There would never be anyone that I would dessert my intellectual honesty for in such a way, or that would deserve such blind admiration.

Who is this rant directed to, me?

I don't have endless devotion to Obama. Clinton was my first choice in the election. I've critcized Obama on a few things.

I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.

Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.

Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?

Like I said. Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.

 

[Newby]

Who is this rant directed to, me?

I don't have endless devotion to Obama. Clinton was my first choice in the election. I've critcized Obama on a few things.

I do however defend the truth against blatantly false statements by partisan hacks, such as: "Why did Obama promise to have no earmarks during his campaign?" when he promised no such thing.

Defending the truth is not blind admiration, except I suppose to a partisan hack.

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.

Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?

Like I said. Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.

Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending? I think not. Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few? I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.

Keep defending the Obama spending spree.

 

[Iriemon]

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Sure sounds like it should be 'none' to me.

Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?

Like I said. Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.

Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending? I think not. Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few? I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.

Keep defending the Obama spending spree.

1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and

2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.

I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill. Keep bashing at straw men.

 

[Newby]

Obama agreeing we need earmark reform is the same as promising he'd have none of them to you, eh?

Like I said. Folks can decide for themselves who the partisan hack is.

Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending? I think not. Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few? I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.

Keep defending the Obama spending spree.

1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and

2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.

I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill. Keep bashing at straw men.

Are you denying that you've defended it? Seriously?

And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean???? You're an absolute howl.

 

[Iriemon]

Did he say 'some' elimination of wasteful spending? I think not. Did he say he would go thru 'line by line', or did he say he'd skip over a few? I think, if you read (and comprehend) it, from his own lips, he said 'line by line'.

Keep defending the Obama spending spree.

1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and

2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.

I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill. Keep bashing at straw men.

Are you denying that you've defended it? Seriously?

And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean???? You're an absolute howl.

I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation. I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.

Glad you're enjoying yourself. I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.

 

[Maple]

You are probably going to pay closer to $ 4,000 per year for every American household in utility costs. Isn't that wonderful!!!! Guess what, it ain't gonna work to freeze the north pole again, because the only country stupid enough to do it will be the USA. For those of you who have not figured this out yet, air moves freely, it knows no boundries.

I think that it would be more effective to erect a wall all around our country that goes to the stratophere to block off all of the air from all other countries. Of course, we would not be able to fly airplanes again or go sailing on a ship because we would not be able to get out. Maybe we could make some air- tight doors or something in this wall.

 

[Newby]

1) Wasteful spending is not the same as "earmarks" and

2) even if it was the same, Obama didn't promise he'd have no wasteful spending, only that he shared in the desire to eliminate it.

I have't said one thing about my views as to Obama's spending the in stimulus bill. Keep bashing at straw men.

Are you denying that you've defended it? Seriously?

And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean???? You're an absolute howl.

I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation. I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.

Glad you're enjoying yourself. I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.

I posted this for you on another thread. And as I said there, I'm sure that Fox News isn't a 'legitimate' souce in your estimation, so just continue to completely disregard what the rest of the intellectually honest people are talking about, and it appears that the topic now bores you as well.

First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns

President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration.

By Stephen Clark

Thursday, April 23, 2009

In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.

But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.

"You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.

"The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."

Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.

And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."

"There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. "Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."

The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.

There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).

On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.

Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.

"Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."

He said Obama is doing too much too fast.

"It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.

But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.

"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.

Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.

"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.

"It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"

 

[Iriemon]

Are you denying that you've defended it? Seriously?

And isn't it ironic how now we're back to what 'earmarks' mean???? You're an absolute howl.

I've defending the need for stimulus spending in the economic situation. I've never commented on particular aspects of the stimulus bill and defended the specified spending items and tax cuts.

Glad you're enjoying yourself. I find you amusing as well, though this thread is starting to get old.

I posted this for you on another thread. And as I said there, I'm sure that Fox News isn't a 'legitimate' souce in your estimation, so just continue to completely disregard what the rest of the intellectually honest people are talking about, and it appears that the topic now bores you as well.

First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns

President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration.

By Stephen Clark

Thursday, April 23, 2009

In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.

But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.

"You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.

"The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."

Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.

And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."

"There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. "Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."

The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.

There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).

On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.

Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.

"Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."

He said Obama is doing too much too fast.

"It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.

But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.

"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.

Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.

"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.

"It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"

Thank you. It's always interesting to hear the Murdoch perspective. Is there a point to this?