The Truth About Earmarks

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2008
The Truth About Earmarks
52
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:
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.

Now in darkness, world stops turning
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
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 6:44pm
A few billion here, a few billion there. . .pretty soon we're talking real money!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 7:10pm

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.


Nice try at distraction, but this isn't about Obama or Biden.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 7:37pm

*** Nice try at distraction, but this isn't about Obama or Biden. This is about Palin, her fallacious claims and her penchant for earmarks, to the point of her hiring a lobbyist who's job was to get earmarks.

I'm afraid that it is about Obama and Biden and their hypocrisy. BTW, Palin was the "mayor of a small town" when she hired a lobbyist, not the governor, and it was her job to work for the interests of her constituents. And in neither case can she vote on earmarks...unlike Obama who's got nearly a billion dollars in earmarks. Nice try though.

*** AFTER she had campaigned on a platform which included supporting building the bridge, AFTER many in the US had a fit about such wasteful spending, and AFTER congress had already stripped the specific funding for it.

Right...mostly...if you're an Alaskan, what's not to like about building Alaska's infrastructure. But once she became governor and was able to examine the project thoroughly, and also saw how Alaska was being maligned in the press, her opinion changed. And as for the illusion that Congress had somehow killed the "bridge" and that Palin's shutdown of the project was "lip service"...I'd suggest that you actually read the history...it's getting tedious proving you wrong on this point time and time again.

<<< Alaska already had the money when Palin took office. Her "sin," if you will, was not returning it...to which I say...DUH!

*** Hey, it's only her credibility as being against earmarks which is harmed by her keeping it. That speaks much louder than anything she or McCain can say on the subject.

When Alaska was given the money it wasn't "earmarked." Nice try though.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Thu, 09-11-2008 - 8:16pm

I'll take on Obama and Biden later.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 12:36am

*** I'll take on Obama and Biden later. Right now my focus is on helping expose Palin for the fraud she is.

No, I'm afraid not. If you want to make earmarks a political issue, and clearly Obama and Biden do, then their records are extremely relevant. As for Palin being a fraud...I'm afraid that the absurdity is mind-boggling. What Palin has railed against isn't legitimate spending, it's WASTEFUL spending. I don't think anyone can reasonably call a youth center, a transportation hub, sewer repair and a rail system "wasteful spending," I mean it's not like getting millions for your wife's company and campaign donors.

*** Her record on earmarks speaks for itself, as her interest in getting them being important enough to hire a lobbyist to acquire them.

Right...when she was a mayor of a small town. It's odd for the mayor of a small town to be looking for funds to help the small town. I simply don't understand it.

*** As for proving me wrong time after time, you've proven nothing. Nothing you've provided has contradicted a single point I've made in regards to Palin and her pet bridge.

And yet it has. You're certainly free to deny it...I'd be surprised if you didn't...but I've debunked your propaganda surrounding the "bridge to nowhere" time and time again.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 1:04am

((And, as that OP demonstrates, we've got WAAAAY bigger fish to fry; way bigger things to get right.))

Well, we don't need the foxes watching the hen house for 4/8 more years! McCain and Bush43 are practically joined at the brain. No way can McCain and Sarah, with her lack of how washington works will fix anything. They can't manage their own lives and campaign let alone a country. Both are accused of impropriety.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 1:49am

(((and it was her job to work for the interests of her constituents.))

That's fine, but Sarah's lying when she says that she was so fiscal in her spending when she actually created debt where there wasn't any. She's reinventing herself as a reformer......she reformed the balance of Wasilla's budget by leaving them in the red for 22 MILLION dollars. Wasn't the Wasilla budget balanced when she took office? lol. And how much is she stealing from the taxpayers by staying home and claiming travel expenses? Living in Alaska is lucrative. No one checks up on you and you can peal off free money from the govt. That her husband, and probably she too, hate so much.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 2:43am

*** That's fine, but Sarah's lying when she says that she was so fiscal in her spending when she actually created debt where there wasn't any.

I disagree, you can obviously be very responsible in your spending and still find a legitimate need to spend yourself into debt. As to the specific situation you're referring to, if you'll elaborate we could speak more to the particular issue.

*** She's reinventing herself as a reformer......

There's no need for her to reinvent herself, that was her reputation in Alaska before the nomination. I suspect that was one of the many reasons that McCain chose her.

*** she reformed the balance of Wasilla's budget by leaving them in the red for 22 MILLION dollars. Wasn't the Wasilla budget balanced when she took office? lol.

The only source I could find regarding this claim is from Anne Kilkenny, and she's a very dubious source, so this might not be true at all. But giving her, and you, the benefit of the doubt...it's what that money was spent on that is the issue...$1M on a park, $15M+ on a multi-use sports complex, and $5.5 for roads projects. Hardly wasteful spending and no problem for Wasilla to handle over the long term. Tell me, did the citizens rise up against this spending at the time?

You'll have more credibility if you'd present the facts instead of incendiary propaganda. All of Sarah's expenses were perfectly legal and she cost the people of Alaska much, much less than her predecessor.

*** And how much is she stealing from the taxpayers by staying home and claiming travel expenses? Living in Alaska is lucrative. No one checks up on you and you can peal off free money from the govt. That her husband, and probably she too, hate so much.

"All of her travel-related activities have been appropriately documented, are completely transparent and entirely legal," said Ben Porritt, spokesman for Palin's vice presidential campaign.

"Like other state officials, she's entitled to $60 a day "per diem" for food and incidentals, such as tips, while traveling on state business. State rules say that if your job stations you in Juneau or Anchorage, but you live in another part of the state, you can still get the meal money when visiting your hometown, said Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor."

The state considers Juneau to be the governor's home base. That creates a scenario where Palin is considered to be "traveling" while living in her own house.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/521329.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 3:13am

((I disagree, you can obviously be very responsible in your spending and still find a legitimate need to spend yourself into debt.))

Sarah is not talking about the debt that she accrued. She's leaving it out completely. That is lying by omission. It's still lying about her record. Everything that I typed was found on CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, etc. I don't have to present anything. Type in her name and any of the words that you think are "propaganda". lol. The media is doing a much better job of vetting her than McCain ever tried to. lol. Happy googling.lol.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 09-12-2008 - 7:23am

I never said Obama and/or Biden were clean where earmarks are concerned, I just said I'd address them later.