Originally posted by jsobecky
Earmarks should not be considered a failing of a governor.
PALIN: "And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes. I suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
FACT: While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin hired Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Sen. Ted Stevens, to lobby Congress for earmarks. Wasilla received around $27 million in federal money, about as much as Boise, Idaho. Boise has a population of 200,000 people, compared with Wasilla's 10,000. Earmarked funds went to sewage improvements and improving roads connecting the town to a local ski resort.
As for the Bridge to Nowhere, Palin initially supported using federal funds to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island, which has 50 residents and a small airport. It was not until the plan was ridiculed that she withdrew her support. Critics contend she still supports using federal money to build a 3.4 mile Road to Nowhere on the island for $26 million -- from the funds for the bridge.
Originally posted by jsobecky
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.
Washington Republicans know he's their best shot at retaining the White House. Yet many remain ambivalent about him -- not because they question his conservatism, but out of resentment that he may get in the way of their earmarks.
This has resulted in a behind-the-scenes brawl, as spend-happy Republicans resist efforts by wiser heads to fall in behind Mr. McCain's anti-earmark message. At best, the spenders risk an embarrassing pummeling by their own nominee that could hurt them in their own re-election campaigns. At worst, they could undercut one of Mr. McCain's more persuasive messages.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The state never gave back the money.
Originally posted by skyshow
Then after doing the dirty work, high tails it back to Alaska refusing to speak with reporters, answer questions, or go any talk shows...yeah, she goes and hides. What is that all about? Anyway, I just simply am amazed at this...I don't think I have ever seen someone running for high office behave this way.
Originally posted by skyshow
It's also wierd that in the face of so much evidence in fact that refutes much of her claims that so many of the party faithful continue to stand by her. If she was a Democrat and pulled these things, the party would have run her out on the plank with a sharp stick.
Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by jsobecky
Maybe you should review these link before claiming that the Democrats are the party of spending. Can you point to a time in the recent past when Repulicans were fically conservative? The numbers do not support that claim.
Biggest Losers Under Obama's Plan to Remove the Current $102k Wage Ceiling for Social Security Taxes
Lahd: Obama wants to raise death tax
Sen. Barack Obama suggests that people who have worked hard during their lifetime, like successful farmers, and expect to pass on those gains to deserving relatives, will be disappointed if he becomes president.
Potential president Obama has promised to raise the "death tax" to 55 percent. That would insure illegal immigrants aren't shortchanged on the benefits he has promised them.
An argument against Obama's tax plan
What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).
Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.
What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.
Barron's: 'It's Almost as if Obama Wants to Repeat the Mistakes of Herbert Hoover
An economic plan floated out by Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, Ill., would raise taxes on incomes above $250,000 - with the highest rate at 39.6 percent - and redistribute the wealth to the poor and middle-class. But that would be a big mistake, according to an article by Jim McTague in the August 25 issue of Barron's.
"It's almost as if Obama wants to repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover," McTague wrote. "During the Great Depression, Hoover raised the top marginal rate to 63% from 25% and hiked corporate taxes, too, says Michael Aronstein, chief investment strategist at Oscar Gruss & Son in New York. The moves siphoned needed investment capital out of the markets and into the hands of bureaucrats, delaying the turnaround."
McCain...refuse[s] to ask for any federal money for local projects.
The state has requested 31 earmarks in fiscal year 2009. Of those, 22 represent continuing appropriations from previous years, four have been funded intermittently in the past and only five requests are new.
The state’s funding requests are in line with the governor’s call in December to reduce the number of earmarks to no more than 10 or 12, excluding ongoing appropriations and earmarks for the Alaska National Guard, said John Katz, the governor’s Washington spokesman.
“We have reduced the total number of earmark requests from 54 last year to 31,” Katz said. “The total amount of money requested has gone down from $550 million to less than $200 million.”
In 1996, when Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 8,000 some 40 miles north of Anchorage, she did not take part in the earmark process.
But by 2000, into her second term, the city had hired a Washington, D.C., lobbyist, Steven Silver, a former aide to Stevens, then the ultimate rainmaker as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
"She was hungry for earmarks just like everybody else," said Larry Persily, who worked at the Alaska state office in Washington, D.C., until earlier this year. "Everyone was feeding at the trough."
Last year Sen. Barack Obama, submitted a laundry list of federal funding requests, known as earmarks, to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 112 earmarks totaling more than $330 million in taxpayer funds.
But that was last year.
This year, as the Senate funding request deadline approaches and the final primaries of the Democratic nomination process draw near, Obama's staff told CNN the junior senator from Illinois will request no earmarks for fiscal year 2009.