Originally posted by Connector
The reality is congress had already made their decision in 2005, a year before she was even in office. No one had to be told anything.
I want to make clear that what really happened was Congress changed the earmark language freeing Alaska to spend the money on anything they wanted--
not just the bridge. ( Link.)
Palin used that blank check authority, abandoned the project and spent the money elsewhere.
I agree the "told congress" language is a ridiculous embellishment.
|
Originally posted by CO Vet
I'd like to see some evidence of Governor Palin going to Washington in search of earmarks.
I'd like to see some evidence of Governer Palin going to Washington not in search of earmarks?
Oh ya, thats what this thread is about.
|
Those earmarks your referring to for the State of Alaska came via Senator Ted Stevens and not by Gov. Sarah Palin.
You all seem to forget who Ted Stevens was when he held the purse strings
in Congress the first years President Bush held office.
|
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?
|
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.
|
This thread is miles beyond the rest of the media, pity CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS
and PBS don't take the time to research the facts like we do.
Of course it helps to have a few of us who know.
Yes, Alaska is the largest state in the union, it has more coast lines, more rivers and more lakes, it has more fish, it has more wild life, it has
more volcanos, it has more glaciers and more earthquakes then all the other 49 states.
It also has the least population per density of size and the highest mountain peak in North America.
[edit on 8-9-2008 by Skydancer]
[edit on 8-9-2008 by Skydancer]
|
|
Thank you for proving how savvy and well educated we are.
Oh I forgot to mention that Alaska has more oil than the 49 other states.
|
