Alaska 1st in Earmarks Per Capita- McCain Earmark Hipocracy, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 02:31 AM by truthquest
reply to post by iamcamouflage



Shouldn't Alaska in all fairness be getting one of the highest per-capita earmarks given they have the highest per-capita costs of living?


reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 04:14 PM by poet1b
The more clear picture is that Palin has in fact reduced Earmark funds in Alaska since she took office, and that is highly admirable. The Obama attacks on this issue are out of line and completely dishonest. Here is a far more accurate picture of her position on Earmarks since taking over as the Gov of Alaska. By the way, cutting federal funds to ones own state takes courage.

community.adn.com...

For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin’s staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin’s first year. This year, the governor’s office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million.

Why the gradual move away from earmarks? Palin recognized that Alaska’s coffers were overflowing with revenue from oil profits and it was almost unseemly for the state to press so aggressively for federal money, said John Katz, who heads Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s Washington, D.C., office. In December of 2007, Palin’s budget director put out a memo urging state officials who were assembling their department spending plans to reserve earmarks for compelling needs only, in an effort to “enhance the state’s credibility.”

“When she took office, we talked about the state’s reliance on federal earmarks and she made it clear for several reasons she wanted to significantly cut back on that reliance,” Katz said.


Palin has cut Alaska's federal funds by over 40%. That is quite an accomplishment and certainly gives her bragging rights as a reformer.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^