Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Palin slaps Obama on earmarks

  1. #1

    Palin slaps Obama on earmarks

    [QUOTE=Obama]
    Well, how about Gov. Palin? She's you know, an up and comer from Alaska. She - they're starting to run an ad now saying she opposed the bridge to nowhere. Well now, let's get the facts clear here. When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks - pork barrel spending - all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the bridge to nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!

    You remember that? For it before you were against it? I mean you can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid.

    [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE=Palin]
    Today our opponent brought up earmarks and frankly I was surprised that he raised the subject. I didn’t think he’d want to go there,” Palin said. “Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in just three years…about a million dollars for every working day. Just wait until President John McCain puts a stop to that
    [/QUOTE]



    But, but, but her per diem expenses. LMAO.

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,970
    Ha, that's great coming from the woman who earmarked 1 million dollars [B]PER PERSON PER YEAR[/B] while mayor, earmarks that[B] JOHN MCCAIN HIMSELF [/B] criticized, never mind the 200M in earmarks she asked for while governor. Lets see, that means that per capita, Palin is by far the bigger user and supporter of earmarks.

    But, you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your rush to drink the kool aid my friend :eek:

  3. #3
    Palin as governor has been the most aggressive seeker of earmarks, per capita, in the U.S. She lobbied for and celebrated the bridge to nowhere, which everyone agrees is the most outrageous earmark of all.

    The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have both called her a liar on this subject within the last 48 hours.

  4. #4
    John McCain, what a shame, what happen to the Maverick? Oh, that's right he doesn't have a chance to win without the great Rightwing Christians!

    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2740168]But, but, but her per diem expenses. LMAO.[/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,917
    Sarah Palin is a walking earmark. 27 million for a podunk town in the middle of nowhere for sh*t like a "transportation hub"?

    Palin railing against earmarks would be like Obama railing against socialism....

  6. #6
    Politicians are so full of ****, all of them.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2740232]Palin as governor has been the most aggressive seeker of earmarks, per capita, in the U.S. She lobbied for and celebrated the bridge to nowhere, which everyone agrees is the most outrageous earmark of all.

    The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have both called her a liar on this subject within the last 48 hours.[/QUOTE]

    I know she has never said she was anti-earmark while mayor. And I don't believe she has really said anything about her position on earmarks when first elected governor. If I was her, I would probably say something like this:

    While Mayor of Wasilla it was my job to serve the people who elected me, and I did my best under the rules of the "political game" as they existed to help my constituents. This entailed competeing with other communities around the U.S. for federal dollars. I don't mind saying I was quite effective. As I progressed in my political career and through the halls of higher offices, as chairman of an ethics commission and governor, I came face to face with the institutionalized corruption that has become part and parcel of the politicians running our government. I began to realize that the federal funds I had been competing for were a symptom of the corruption rampant in Washington. As Governor, I eventually arrrived at the inescapable conclusion that these federal funds, or "earmarks", was nothing more than the corrupt back room dealmakers of washington "buying off" our local communites. They were making us complicit in their corruption by our readiness to accept wasteful earmarks just because it benefits "us", and not the other guy. Once reaching this conclusion, I began to wean my state off of earmarks because Alaksa and it's citizens, just like any other state in this great country, is strong enough to stand on its own. I truly believe that the first step to federal fiscal responsibility is the elimination of these earmarks which will help put an end to the business as usual corruption of washington politics.
    Last edited by SONNY WERBLIN; 09-10-2008 at 01:13 AM.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    I guess since she can't defend herself against what he said, the only thing she can do is attack him on it.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,798
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;2741461]I know she has never said she was anti-earmark while mayor. And I don't believe she has really said anything about her position on earmarks when first elected governor. If I was her, I would probably say something like this:

    While Mayor of Wasilla it was my job to serve the people who elected me, and I did my best under the rules of the "political game" as they existed to help my constituents. This entailed competeing with other communities around the U.S. for federal dollars. I don't mind saying I was quite effective. As I progressed in my political career and through the halls of higher offices, as chairman of an ethics commission and governor, I came face to face with the institutionalized corruption that has become part and parcel of the politicians running our government. I began to realize that the federal funds I had been competing for were a symptom of the corruption rampant in Washington. As Governor, I eventually arrrived at the inescapable conclusion that these federal funds, or "earmarks", was nothing more than the corrupt back room dealmakers of washington "buying off" our local communites. They were making us complicit in their corruption by our readiness to accept wasteful earmarks just because it benefits "us", and not the other guy. Once reaching this conclusion, I began to wean my state off of earmarks because Alaksa and it's citizens, just like any other state in this great country, is strong enough to stand on its own. I truly believe that the first step to federal fiscal responsibility is the elimination of these earmarks which will help put an end to the business as usual corruption of washington politics.[/QUOTE]

    So you'd lie

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,798

    Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2740232]Palin as governor has been the most aggressive seeker of earmarks, per capita, in the U.S. She lobbied for and celebrated the bridge to nowhere, which everyone agrees is the most outrageous earmark of all.

    The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have both called her a liar on this subject within the last 48 hours.[/QUOTE]

    [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB122090791901411709.html"]Wallstreet Journal[/URL]

    Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims

    By ELIZABETH HOLMES and LAURA MECKLER

    September 9, 2008

    The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere.

    Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.

    The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."

    Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.

    But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

    "We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

    A year ago, the governor issued a press release3 that the money for the project was being "redirected."

    "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

    On Monday in Missouri, Gov. Palin put it this way: "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. If the state wanted to build a bridge we would built it ourselves."

    Senior adviser Mark Salter pointed to her role in killing the project while in office and allocating the money elsewhere. When pressed further that it was actually Congress that stopped the earmark, Mr. Salter said: "She stopped it, too. She did her part." Mr. Salter added that he welcomed a fight over earmarks with the Obama campaign.

    Democratic candidate Barack Obama used a town-hall style event in Flint, Mich., to attack Gov. Palin over the "Bridge to Nowhere" debate. He accused the vice presidential nominee of lobbying for the bridge and then hiding her initial position when she ran for governor and the project became unpopular.

    "You can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. The American people aren't stupid," he said. It's like "being for it before you were against it," Sen. Obama said, a reference to a damaging statement John Kerry made in 2004.

    Why is this one issue such a big deal? Sen. McCain's anti-earmarks stance has been paramount to his campaign. The Arizona senator has blamed everything from the Minneapolis bridge collapse to Hurricane Katrina on Congress's willingness to stuff bills full of pork barrel spending.

    As such, Gov. Palin's image as a "reformer" is part of the storyline the McCain campaign needs to complement the top of its ticket. Her quip about passing on the bridge and "building it ourselves" has been a staple of her stump.

    But she's drawn considerable fire as result. Sen. Obama's campaign released an advertisement4 pointing out her original support of the bridge. And on Monday, an Obama staffer emailed a photo of Gov. Palin holding up a T-shirt that was made shortly after the bridge caught national attention. It reads "NOWHERE ALASKA" and "99901," the zip code of Ketchikan.

    The McCain campaign jumped back with spokesman Brian Rogers calling the attacks "hysterical."

    "The only people 'lying' about spending are the Obama campaign. The only explanation for their hysterical attacks is that they're afraid that when John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the White House, Barack Obama's nearly $1 billion in earmark spending will stop dead in its tracks," Mr. Rogers said.

    At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;2741461]I know she has never said she was anti-earmark while mayor. And I don't believe she has really said anything about her position on earmarks when first elected governor. If I was her, I would probably say something like this:

    While Mayor of Wasilla it was my job to serve the people who elected me, and I did my best under the rules of the "political game" as they existed to help my constituents. This entailed competeing with other communities around the U.S. for federal dollars. I don't mind saying I was quite effective. As I progressed in my political career and through the halls of higher offices, as chairman of an ethics commission and governor, I came face to face with the institutionalized corruption that has become part and parcel of the politicians running our government. I began to realize that the federal funds I had been competing for were a symptom of the corruption rampant in Washington. As Governor, I eventually arrrived at the inescapable conclusion that these federal funds, or "earmarks", was nothing more than the corrupt back room dealmakers of washington "buying off" our local communites. They were making us complicit in their corruption by our readiness to accept wasteful earmarks just because it benefits "us", and not the other guy. Once reaching this conclusion, I began to wean my state off of earmarks because Alaksa and it's citizens, just like any other state in this great country, is strong enough to stand on its own. I truly believe that the first step to federal fiscal responsibility is the elimination of these earmarks which will help put an end to the business as usual corruption of washington politics.[/QUOTE]

    If she arrived at the conclusion that earmarks like the bridge to nowhere were "nothing more than corrupt back room dealings," how come she kept every cent of the Bridge to Nowhere earmark she so aggressively sought, and then used it for other purposes?

    If she, as you put it, "weaned" her state from earmarks, how come it continues to receive more earmarks per capita than any state in the union by a wide margin?

    How come Alaska under Palin --as well as under her predecessors who she allegedly cleaned up after-- has the largest gap between earmarks received and state taxes collected? Why is her entire state economic policy built on funding tax rebates and cuts to Alaska residents with money that is "nothing more than corrupt back room dealings" from Washington.

    Now, I should say that I have no problem with governors seeking earmarks in general. It's legal for them to do so and they are supposed to serve their constituents by any means necessary.

    That said, I do have a problem when someone like Sarah Palin tells blatant lies that cannot possibly spun as accurate about being anti-earmark. She is as big a porker --with lipstick or otherwise-- as there is in the ranks of American governors.

    And, yes, pun intended.

  12. #12
    Because she is a fraud. She only had 20 months as Governor, she would of F'd the state up just like her town, she just didn't have enough time. The GOP should be thankful for that.


    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2741779]If she arrived at the conclusion that earmarks like the bridge to nowhere were "nothing more than corrupt back room dealings," how come she kept every cent of the Bridge to Nowhere earmark she so aggressively sought, and then used it for other purposes?

    If she, as you put it, "weaned" her state from earmarks, how come it continues to receive more earmarks per capita than any state in the union by a wide margin?

    How come Alaska under Palin --as well as under her predecessors who she allegedly cleaned up after-- has the largest gap between earmarks received and state taxes collected? Why is her entire state economic policy built on funding tax rebates and cuts to Alaska residents with money that is "nothing more than corrupt back room dealings" from Washington.

    Now, I should say that I have no problem with governors seeking earmarks in general. It's legal for them to do so and they are supposed to serve their constituents by any means necessary.

    That said, I do have a problem when someone like Sarah Palin tells blatant lies that cannot possibly spun as accurate about being anti-earmark. She is as big a porker --with lipstick or otherwise-- as there is in the ranks of American governors.

    And, yes, pun intended.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=cr726;2741819]Because she is a fraud. She only had 20 months as Governor, she would of F'd the state up just like her town, she just didn't have enough time. The GOP should be thankful for that.[/QUOTE]

    How is the same sentiment not applicable to BO? He has spent his entire career in the senate running for POTUS and has never written or sponsored a meaningful piece of federal legilsation. Nor has he ever made any attempt to reach across party lines to end the gridlock in DC. And while in the state legislature he was nothing more than a tool of chicago business as usual party politics.

    Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If Palin is a fraud, her crime is a misdemeanor, while Mr. Obama has committed a first degree felony.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2741779]If she arrived at the conclusion that earmarks like the bridge to nowhere were "nothing more than corrupt back room dealings," how come she kept every cent of the Bridge to Nowhere earmark she so aggressively sought, and then used it for other purposes?

    If she, as you put it, "weaned" her state from earmarks, how come it continues to receive more earmarks per capita than any state in the union by a wide margin?

    How come Alaska under Palin --as well as under her predecessors who she allegedly cleaned up after-- has the largest gap between earmarks received and state taxes collected? Why is her entire state economic policy built on funding tax rebates and cuts to Alaska residents with money that is "nothing more than corrupt back room dealings" from Washington.

    Now, I should say that I have no problem with governors seeking earmarks in general. It's legal for them to do so and they are supposed to serve their constituents by any means necessary.

    That said, I do have a problem when someone like Sarah Palin tells blatant lies that cannot possibly spun as accurate about being anti-earmark. She is as big a porker --with lipstick or otherwise-- as there is in the ranks of American governors.

    And, yes, pun intended.[/QUOTE]

    I see you've recieved the talking points memo. Any actual documented citeable proof?

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;2742390]I see you've recieved the talking points memo. Any actual documented citeable proof?[/QUOTE]

    Kinda like how you had no citeable proof when you wrote that absurd parable about her acknowledging the evil of earmarks and weaning her state off them?

    Well, first of all, her soliciting the bridge to nowhere earmark and then keeping the money from it after it was killed is universally acknowledged fact. No one disputes it. The WSJ and Washington Post have written stories about this in recent days.

    As far as tAlaska's massive and frivolous reliance on earmarks, which Palin has not curbed at all, Michael Kinsley on Time.com explains it pretty well here:

    [QUOTE]
    Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

    As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by nuu faaola; 09-10-2008 at 04:00 PM.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=cr726;2740243]John McCain, what a shame, what happen to the Maverick? Oh, that's right he doesn't have a chance to win without the great Rightwing Christians![/QUOTE]

    What chance does Obama have without the leftwing moveon.orgers and rest of his policy makers!

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    36,378
    The independent, non-partisan, non-profit government watchdog group, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is pretty clear on the actual record...

    [QUOTE]John McCain is a “hero” to U.S. taxpayers for his lifetime record of resisting earmarks, while Barack Obama and Joe Biden are “hostile” and “unfriendly,” a government spending watchdog group has concluded.

    In its new report, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave the Republican presidential nominee a 100 percent rating for his votes in the Senate last year, and a lifetime score of 88 percent.

    By comparison, the nonpartisan, nonprofit group, which is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, assigned Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, 10 percent last year and a lifetime score of 18 percent. Biden, Obama’s running mate, scored 0 percent last year and an overall score of 22 percent.

    Higher scores mean stronger resistance to federal earmarks. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, was not included because the ratings evaluate only members of Congress.

    “In spite of a growing recognition that earmarks are a problem, Congress still spends more than is necessary,” CCAGW President Tom Schatz said in a written statement. “Taxpayers would be wise to hang onto their wallets and demand that Congress refocus its priorities and cut wasteful spending.”

    The group has analyzed roll call votes since 1991 to distinguish members of Congress whom it describes as taxpayer advocates from those it says favor wasteful programs and pork-barrel spending. In the last year, the group rated 100 House votes and 35 Senate votes.

    McCain scored 100 percent, but he failed to earn the Taxpayer Super Hero Award because he was present for only 11 of the 35 Senate votes.

    Members of Congress are considered “superheroes” if they score a 100 percent rating; “heroes” earn between 80 and 99 percent; “friendly” members score between 60 and 79 percent; “lukewarm” lawmakers get between 40 and 59 percent; “unfriendly” members score between 20 and 39 percent, and “hostile” representatives and senators are measured between 0 and 19 percent.

    Three GOP congressman — Reps. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin all earned superhero status.

    The rankings were based on several tax-related and spending bills. Obama and Biden scored low for voting against banning the use of earmarks for a spending bill on bicycle paths or trails (McCain did not vote); and against extending Bush’s tax cuts while McCain voted in favor of it.

    Obama voted against prohibiting Congress from borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund to finance other government programs (Biden and McCain did not vote). Obama and Biden voted against barring non-defense earmarks in spending bills for ongoing combat operations while McCain voted in favor of it.[/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,943
    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2742624]The independent, non-partisan, non-profit government watchdog group, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is pretty clear on the actual record...[/QUOTE]

    LMAO, non-partisan. I just looked at their report. Almost every democrat scored under 10% approval. Meanwhile, most republicans scored 60-100% approval. The democrat with the highest approval rating (Feingold 35%) scored lower than the lowest rated republican (Stevens 37%). That should tell you something right there. Stevens was the biggest porker in the senate until he was convicted.

    BTW, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is a political lobbying firm that worked with lobbyist Jack Abramoff on the indian gaming fraud deals that eventually put him in jail.
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 09-10-2008 at 05:35 PM.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2742440]Kinda like how you had no citeable proof when you wrote that absurd parable about her acknowledging the evil of earmarks and weaning her state off them?

    Well, first of all, her soliciting the bridge to nowhere earmark and then keeping the money from it after it was killed is universally acknowledged fact. No one disputes it. The WSJ and Washington Post have written stories about this in recent days.

    As far as tAlaska's massive and frivolous reliance on earmarks, which Palin has not curbed at all, Michael Kinsley on Time.com explains it pretty well here:[/QUOTE]
    [QUOTE]Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

    As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of [B]federal spending [/B]received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1[/QUOTE].

    Initially, I would note that Kinsley is peaking of Federal Spending, which is not the same as earmarks. A small fraction of all federal spending is by way of earmarks, which are, in essence federal spending/grants atttached to bills which may have little or nothing to do with the earmark spending.

    I like Michael Kisnley, but he's got this one wrong. The amount of Federal money that goes to Alaska has little to do with Sarah Palin and earmarks. It has more to do with military activities, the vast amount of Federal Land, the indigenous population of Alaska, and its deloping infrastrucure then anything else.

    [QUOTE][B]Military activities also boost federal spending in
    Alaska[/B], which General Billy Mitchell once called “the most
    important strategic place in the world” because of its proximity
    to Europe and Asia. But only about half as many military
    personnel are stationed here now as in the 1960s.
    Land and resource management are also big expenses.
    [B]The federal government owns 240 million acres in Alaska[/B],
    most of it in parks and other protected areas.
    [B]Federal obligations to indigenous people also add to
    spending in Alaska, where close to 20 percent of the people
    are Alaska Natives eligible for special health care and
    other programs.[/B] Nationwide, about 1 percent of Americans
    are indigenous people.
    Another thing that increases federal spending here is
    that [B]Alaska joined the union only in 1959; it is still building
    roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other
    infrastructure. Federal money pays a lot of the costs of
    building that infrastructure[/B].[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.alaskaneconomy.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/FedSpendSum.pdf[/url]
    Last edited by SONNY WERBLIN; 09-10-2008 at 05:07 PM.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;2742663].

    Initially, I would note that Kinsley is peaking of Federal Spending, which is not the same as earmarks. A small fraction of all federal spending is by way of earmarks, which are, in essence federal spending/grants atttached to bills which may have little or nothing to do with the earmark spending.

    I like Michael Kisnley, but he's got this one wrong. The amount of Federal money that goes to Alaska has little to do with Sarah Palin and earmarks. It has more to do with military activities, the vast amount of Federal Land, the indigenous population of Alaska, and its deloping infrastrucure then anything else.



    [url]http://www.alaskaneconomy.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/FedSpendSum.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]

    Alaska has always gotten an enormous amount of earmarks relative to its size. Ted Stevens was arguably the biggest porker of all, and he and Palin had worked together some on continuing to bring more in. There's even load sof video of the joint press conferences they held to discuss the status of various requests, including the bridge to nowhere.

    Also, in the document you posted (which is a bit outdated), it talks about certain things that have nothing to do with the state budget. Kinsley's figures do not include things like national parks and military installations. Alaska's state budget does not support those, the federal gov't does.

    Kinsley's basic point: That the rest of us have been subsidizing Alaska's tax cuts/rebates, is correct.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us