I think he said there would be review of all earmarks, and he indicted there would be no pork-barrel spending in the bill. The spending bill by definition is one big earmark.
He also provided wiggle room technically on the five-day waiting period for bills, as there was an exception provided for emergency bills. Arguably the spending bill was an emergency bill but the SCHIP bill was not. But, the SCHIP bill had been around for years, and been reviewed and available for public review and comment for years before it was signed.
So, you could validly say he broke a campaign promise, but you could also argue that the SCHIP bill was not new legislation so arguably not in need of the public review and comment that new legislation would require. Nor was it the type of legislation he was targeting with his statements.
Nevertheless, if you are looking at absolutes, yes, he broke his promise on the five-day period for non-emergency bills.
Updated On: 3/26/09 at 02:00 AM