Did Obama vote for a $3m projector for a Chicago planetarium?
McCain just said he did.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 1:24 am and is filed under Lie Leads.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 8th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Yes. Verbatim description from Sen. Obama’s request:
“Adler Planetarium, to support replacement of its projector and related equipment, $3,000,000.”
Even though it’s true, it rang really cynical to me. Should we not be funding our museums?
October 8th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Well, that’s the real question about the role earmarks play in American politics. In theory the Congress only exists to make laws, and the executive branch is tasked entirely with executing that legislation. In that context, is Congress overreaching when they specify how the executive branch allocates those funds. Or is that just the natural by-product of the healthy tension that exists between our balanced branches?
I think the context of why people would vote for a bill, I understand why they want specificity. Obama may think $3m for scientific equipment is good because he’s thinking of that projector, but without the earmark those funds could instead go toward something as innocent as another city’s projector, or most troubling like equipment supporting junk science.
In either case, not all earmarks are pork-barrel and you’re point about the cynicism involved in much of this is well taken. Given the challenges of proving cynicism, we’re stuck proving what we can and thus will note this is not a lie.
Thanks for the tip!
October 8th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Making bills encompasses making appropriations bills though. The system can obviously be abused for reciprocal back-scratching, and there are a lot of late night, behind-closed-doors deals that need to be exposed, but the solution is honesty and transparency. I would much rather have elected senators fulfill their constitutional obligation for budgeting and be held accountable to their constituents than presidential appointees doing whatever they want.
October 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
TPM posted an explanation of it:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/10/3-million-overhead-projector-m.php
“The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater - a full dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of equipment.”
Not a lie, but misleading and ignorant to call it an “overhead projector.” Technically it does project overhead, but that term clearly means to the average listener the antiquated piece of technology we used in middle school.
Nevertheless, I move to change this to a non-lie.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Gizmodo also discusses the “projector”
http://gizmodo.com/5060946/barack-obamas-3-million-overhead-projector-actually-pretty-cool