The original post was about several different problems, if not specifically stated as such.

Did Obama go back on his word to stop "earmarks" by pushing one billion dollars towards his home state, towards the coal industry, towards "old" technology, in a direction pressured by lobbyists instead of what is best for the nation?

I'll make up the following numbers as "examples" so they are not subject to debate.

One of the primary problems the US is facing now is that about 700 billion dollars a year is going overseas to buy oil and gas which is unsustainable and is throwing our country into bankruptcy. Obama, during the election claimed to understand the problem and promised to push the US towards energy self sufficiency by developing wind, solar, and nuclear power. The "one billion earmark", if you want to call it that, does the exact opposite.

Over many years the pollution from coal plants has damaged the air we breathe, caused acid rain, and pumped billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere whether you believe in global warming or not.

The electric industry has been switching to natural gas because it is cleaner, but because some of our natural gas is imported, the price is unstable, the gas is in short supply, and the electricity produced is expensive.

Coal is an abundant resource (but the dirtiest possible way to make electricity) and nuclear is an infinite resource. Nuclear is also the cleanest possible way to make electricity. No matter what, oil is a limited and finite resource of which we now have little, compared to what we use.

Most of the oil we use is to make fuels for vehicles. Ninety percent of the actual transportation needs of the public could be met by electric based cars like the proposed chevy Volt. A modest expansion of our ability to produce electricity by nuclear, wind, and solar would cover the energy needs of converting our 'oil based' economy to electric. A modest conversion of gasoline powered vehicles to electric, would take the pressure off of the world oil market and stabilize prices. Further conversion from oil to electric based vehicles would stop the bleeding of hundreds of billions of dollars out of our country and help stabilize the economy.

The technology to run vehicles on compressed natural gas (CNG) has been around for awhile. You can buy a Honda Civic set up for CNG now. Honda is a little confused why we aren't buying them since they make so much sense! The use of a clean burning fuel like natural gas to make electricity, instead of powering vehicles, only works if it is in infinite supply (which it is not) and greenhouse gas production is not an issue (which it is).

During World War II, the Germans developed "synfuels" which allows them to make gasoline and diesel from coal, to power their war effort. If we only converted a percentage of our abundant coal resources to synfuel, the money sent overseas would stay home, provide jobs, provide additional stabilization to the US economy, and help (by a large margin) provide energy self sufficiency to the US.

It's all about money. No matter the damage to our future, if coal is a little cheaper to make electricity, we use it and to hell with the future. If an electric car is a little more expensive and inconvenient, we use one that runs on Middle Eastern oil and to hell with the future. If Obama gets pressure from the coal industry to build another crappy coal fired power plant with a billion dollar subsidy for "clean" technology, to hell with the future. In all these cases, lobbyists with money are pushing the US towards whoever can make the fast buck and America's future is sacrificed. We, the ones allowing it to happen by putting these clowns in office and buying our big suvs, and not educating ourselves of the problems and issues which all interact in a complicated way, are the problem.

Looks to me like America's future is 'earmarked' for disaster.