Alaska 1st in Earmarks Per Capita- McCain Earmark Hipocracy

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
This first article dated 03/22/08 shows that Alaska gets the highest per capita earmark rate of any state. Its very interesting that McCain prides himself on not accepting earmarks(Which as far as I can tell is true) and Palin claims to do the same but the numbers show a different story. If McCain, is claiming to change washington by putting an end to pork barrel spending, why did he choose the governor of a state that receives the most earmarks per capita and three times the real dollar amount that Arizona receives.

Alaska Earmarks

Here is a link where McCain states he is going to cut 65 billion from earmark spending but gets the real numbers show to him by George Stephanopoulos. Actually only 18-20 billion go to state earmarks.

McCain Confused By Earmark Numbers

This next article shows how McCain claims he has never asked for a single earmark and then is proven otherwise. It also has an interesting remark from McCain criticizing the bridge to nowhere

I cant hear you I have money stuck in my earmark




posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


Well one thing I can think of is Palin has only been gov for 2 years now. Any statistics on earmarks that she has signed?



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


McCain Criticized Palin's Earmarks



Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.
...
In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge.
...
This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."


Neither one of them is being honest about it. Or much of their past positions. This blatant dishonesty is something that I really don't understand. Especially when it's all information that's available to the public. I guess they're banking on the hope that people won't look too far into it or that they'll be so enamored with Palin that they won't believe anything negative about her.

Reality Check: Gov. Palin's Earmarks

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


I believe it is more up to the senators to decide earmarks for a state. But Governors have influence on theses types of decisions and can request that the senators push for certain earmarks. Here is an NPR article talking about how she ran her Governor campaign applauding the bridge to nowhere and once it was publically ridiculed, she changed her tune and said she rejected the bridge to nowhere.

NPR

NPR 2



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


hmm, this seems t be a topic that should be debated. much more important than her family issues or mccain's wife and her dress



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


I started a thread on this subject here: www.abovetopsecret.com... recently.
I don't mind, I'm just pointing it out cause there's useful information there.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I'd like to see some evidence of Governor Palin going to Washington in search of earmarks.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by CO Vet
 


Not really how the system works but whatever. Senators are responsible for requesting earmarks and securing funds for their respective states. Governors make requests to their senators.

Alaska State Earmark Request

More Requests



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CO Vet
 


We Did Well!

Palin's Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds



Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.


I don't think she actually WENT to Washington DC, but she hired lobbyists to go there.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Nice job SD! Sorry for the repeat. Mods can close my thread if necessary. Nobody likes a one line response.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
This story doesn't have much traction because other actions have more impact on where Palins motivations lie.

Selling the jet, firing the chef and cutting her own salary...


If a candidate was completely against earmarks they would never be elected into office, do you not want your represenatives to push for all the $ they can to improve your community? The problem is earmarks that reflect pork-barrell spending, Palins' earmarks seem to be reasonable funding to improve a community.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 




Originally posted by iamcamouflage
I cant hear you I have money stuck in my earmark

Very funny. Yuk yuk.

It is true that Palin hired lobbyists to secure approx. $24 million in earmarks for AK. But that was not against the law; she did nothing wrong. Every state does it. It is more a sad testimony to the political world in D.C. that governor's need to do that to secure funds for their states. It is actually equivalent to getting a tax refund, imo.

If Washington were not so bloated and hungry, and would stop squeezing the states with unfunded mandates and excessive taxes, maybe the states wouldn't have to go hat in hand to DC to beg for funds.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mhc_70
 


Oh dont get me wrong I understand the reasons behind earmarks and why they are used. My only concern with earmarks is they allow for a senator to vote for a bill they may not agree with in order to secure funds for their state. Sometimes its a bad idea, sometimes not.

But McCain and Palin are running on a change/no more earmarks ticket now and they have to answer these questions.

Reasonable to someone in Alaska, maybe not to someone in Ohio. Sometimes the earmark is reasonable sometimes it is not. But when you are now running your campaign as anti-earmark and your record does not show that you are, you have some policy questions to answer.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I always thought it was the job of mayors to secure funding for their towns? Is there something wrong with her trying to grow the infrastructure of her town or look after the best interests of her constituents? What mayor doesn't?

If she requested funds to build herself a new Olympic sized swimming pool, or a hunting lodge for her and her buddies, then you might actually have something to criticize her for..



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



I cant hear you I have money stuck in my earmark

I thought it was quite clever.


I never said that securing earmarks was illegal but again if you are now running as the change/anit-earmark candidates and your record does not show that you are. You have some serious policy questions to answer.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by LLoyd45
 


Yes you are correct securing funds is part of being a mayor or gov. But earmarks are put into bills seperate from what they bills main focus may be. It may be a military funding bill and then someone quietly puts in a clause that would give a state money for some other project. But again if you are going to run a campaign, claiming that earmarks are bad, your record better not show that your requesting earmarks. This issue is on point with questioning McCain/Palins policies on earmarks and their credibility for running on this type of reform/change/anti-earmark ticket.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
.

[edit on 9/6/2008 by DarkStormCrow]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
How about we take a look at the difference between Earmarks and Pork-Barrel spending?
Earmarks


congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.


Pork Barrel


government spending for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents or campaign contributors.


Not all Earmarks are Pork Barrel projects. There is a difference between the two.

Edit: Fix links.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by spec_ops_wannabe]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkStormCrow
 


Yes lets change the subject of this thread. This is about McCain/Palin running on a change washington, no more pork, moral ticket. Their records do not show that they are against earmarks. You cant make the request, take the money and then claim to be against earmarks.



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by jsobecky
 



I cant hear you I have money stuck in my earmark

I thought it was quite clever.


I never said that securing earmarks was illegal but again if you are now running as the change/anit-earmark candidates and your record does not show that you are. You have some serious policy questions to answer.


I agree, i. But Sarah getting the earmarks happened prior to her accepting the VP candidacy. She and McCain will need to work out any differences they have regarding policy.

Biden does not agree with Obama on every single point, either.

Earmarks should not be considered a failing of a governor. They are merely playing the game by the rules set up by the Congress.

McCain's opposition is not with the governors, it is with the Senators and reps that tack these earmarks onto otherwise unrelated bills. It is an indictment of the way Washington does business, not the states.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join