The Truth About Earmarks
Find a Conversation
The Truth About Earmarks
| Wed, 09-10-2008 - 4:37pm |
(this may also satisfy ciara's curiosity from an earlier thread):
John Cole (a conservative, former GOP voter) reminds us what's at stake, and why "earmarks" are a pretty small piece of the puzzle:
Exactly right.
John Cole (a conservative, former GOP voter) reminds us what's at stake, and why "earmarks" are a pretty small piece of the puzzle:
The total national debt, as I write this, is $9,679,000,000,000.00 (nine and a half trillion).The Budget for 2008 is close to $3,000,000,000,000.00 (three trillion).
Our budget deficit for this year is going to range in between $400-500,000,000,000.00 (four hundred to five hundred billion, give or take a few billion).
The total value of wasteful earmarks in 2008 (according to CAGW) will be approximately $18,000,000,000.00 (eighteen billion).
In other words, when McCain talks about earmarks, he is talking about 3% of our annual budget deficit, .6% of our annual budget, and a number too small to even report when discussing our national debt. Or, put another way, he is talking about two months in Iraq, something he wants to keep going indefinitely.
Not only are they lying about Palin’s involvements with earmarks, they are just not being serious about the horrible economic problems we face. These are not serious people.
Exactly right.

Pages
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
<<The total value of wasteful earmarks in 2008 (according to CAGW) will be approximately $18,000,000,000.00 (eighteen billion).
In other words, when McCain talks about earmarks, he is talking about 3% of our annual budget deficit, .6% of our annual budget, >>
This is a great post.
((Not only are they lying about Palin’s involvement with earmarks, they are just not being serious about the horrible economic problems we face. These are not serious people.))
I have notice that. The debates should reveal these discrepancies.
Edited 9/11/2008 2:40 am ET by dr.livingston
What, really? That's less than two weeks in Iraq? ;o)
And it's only 0.3% of the budged that's wasteful stuff like the bridge to nowhere. The rest of it is things which need to be done, but aren't allocated for in the budget. That's why I tend not to be overly concerned, on the whole, when people bloviate about earmarks. Certainly, I'd prefer if things like infrastructure maintenance and repair were allocated in the budget more completely, but just because they're not doesn't make every dollar of earmarks a waste or fraud. And, as that OP demonstrates, we've got WAAAAY bigger fish to fry; way bigger things to get right.
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
*** What, really? That's less than two weeks in Iraq? ;o)
Britney spends more than that on a weekend jaunt to Vegas...but it's still significant.
*** And it's only 0.3% of the budged that's wasteful stuff like the bridge to nowhere.
It's took a lot of integrity for Palin put a stop to a "wasteful" project that Obama and Biden voted for...even over sending money to Katrina victims in New Orleans.
*** The rest of it is things which need to be done, but aren't allocated for in the budget. That's why I tend not to be overly concerned, on the whole, when people bloviate about earmarks. Certainly, I'd prefer if things like infrastructure maintenance and repair were allocated in the budget more completely, but just because they're not doesn't make every dollar of earmarks a waste or fraud. And, as that OP demonstrates, we've got WAAAAY bigger fish to fry; way bigger things to get right.
But 41% of the budget could go a long way towards healing the infrastructure needs of the country.
If only that were what had actually HAPPENED. Sadly, it's not. In reality, CONGRESS put the kibosh on the bridge in November 2005, THEN Palin ran on SUPPORTING it in 2006 (for Governor), and didn't bother returning the money to the federal treasury, but instead parceled it out to various OTHER projects throughout the state, including - get this - a road out to where the Bridge To Nowhere WOULD have been....if congress hadn't killed it. Literally, a road to nowhere.
Oh, and that Biden/Obama vote? Only four Democrats and eleven Republicans voted for Coburn's amendment to send the Bridge To Nowhere money to Katrina relief. Why did so few Senators (even Coburn's own colleagues in the GOP) vote for this amendment which was (on its face) so seemingly-worthy? Because when they voted against it, they thought they were voting to kill the funding altogether (i.e. not "earmark" it for ANYTHING). Then AFTER that vote, old "Tubular" Ted Stevens managed to use his position as appropriations committee chair to force the money which WOULD have gone to the Bridge To Nowhere to be given to Alaska (Palin) to spend....with no strings attached. Nice. Palin, of course, had she truly been an anti-earmark crusader, could have refused and returned the money. But, of course, she didn't. She kept it.
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
*** If only that were what had actually HAPPENED. Sadly, it's not.
Please share…I love revisionist history…you never know how it’s going to turn out. ; )
*** In reality, CONGRESS put the kibosh on the bridge in November 2005, THEN Palin ran on SUPPORTING it in 2006 (for Governor), and didn't bother returning the money to the federal treasury, but instead parceled it out to various OTHER projects throughout the state, including - get this - a road out to where the Bridge To Nowhere WOULD have been....if congress hadn't killed it. Literally, a road to nowhere.
What actually happened, was…
”on Nov 16, 2005, Congress stripped the “specific earmark allocation of federal funds for the two bridges in the bill, without changing the amount of money allocated for use by Alaska.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
Alaska was still free to use the funds for the bridges if they chose to do so. Seeing the need to improve Alaska’s infrastructure and access to the airport on Gravina island, Palin supported the bridge and road project. When she became Governor she cancelled the bridge project because public opinion had turned against it and because it was still unfunded by $329 million.
"Asked why she initially supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAllister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead … there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design... She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving ..."
The city of Ketchikan has already begun to develop roads and a small amount of infrastructure for the Gravina Island's 50 inhabitants. However, residents continue to seek funding for the Ketchikan-Gravina span.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
*** Oh, and that Biden/Obama vote? Only four Democrats and eleven Republicans voted for Coburn's amendment to send the Bridge To Nowhere money to Katrina relief.
Coburn’s proposal was the SECOND time that Obama and Biden voted for the “bridge to nowhere.”
Obama and Biden’s moaning about all of this would be far easier to stomach if they, too, opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Not so.
Obama and Biden had an excellent opportunity to do the right thing. Just seven weeks after Hurricane Katrina, Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) proposed to transfer $125 million from the notorious Bridge’s budget and instead devote it to rebuilding the Interstate 10 Twin Spans Bridge between New Orleans and St. Tammany’s Parish. The storm chopped up the bridge.
“We have the largest natural catastrophe we have ever seen in our history,” Coburn said on the Senate floor on October 20, 2005. “It is time we reassess the priorities we utilize in this body as we think about our obligations at home.”
Coburn’s amendment failed 15-82. Obama and Biden were among the “nays.” They and 80 other senators preferred to protect the earmarking tradition than to assist Katrina’s tempest-tossed citizens.
Obama and Biden put pork first and people second. While the residents of New Orleans and southern Louisiana endured perhaps their greatest challenge since the Civil War, Obama and Biden both turned their backs on these embattled Americans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/opinion/main4435937.shtml
*** Palin, of course, had she truly been an anti-earmark crusader, could have refused and returned the money. But, of course, she didn't. She kept it.
The earmarks had been removed in 2005, prior to Palin becoming Governor. Why should Alaska return non-earmarked funds that could be used to improve the state’s infrastructure? Besides, it’s a pittance compared to the nearly $1 BILLION in earmarks that Obama has requested and along with his own millions in earmarks, Biden voted against a moratorium on earmarks.
Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show. Obama succeeded in getting $192,000 for one of the clients, St. Xavier University in suburban Chicago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603894_pf.html
Ah, I see we have mascara being added to the lipstick on that earmark monger.
*** Ah, I see we have mascara being added to the lipstick on that earmark monger.
She can't even vote on earmarks so she can hardly be considered an "earmark monger"...especially when compared to the true "earmark mongers," Obama and Biden.
*** She wanted the money for the bridge right up until she no longer felt it was a bright idea, and then said no to the funding after Congress had already stripped that specific allocation.
Kind of. Congress had "stripped away" the earmark before she ever took office but was still allocating the money for Alaska to be used as they saw fit...which could still include the "Bridge to Nowhere." She rejected the idea after she became governor and reviewed the underfunded project in the light of national scrutiny and decided that it was too expensive.
*** And of course then went right on and accepted all the funding anyway.
Alaska already had the money when Palin took office. Her "sin," if you will, was not returning it...to which I say...DUH!
*** Yeah, that's a BIG difference.... talk about political expediency and convenient omissions.
Yes, but I enjoyed your post nonetheless.
Pages