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
*** 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.
That's a ridiculous perception of the reality of the situation. She's not "leaving the town in debt"...the town, like most towns, cities or countries, is probably always in some state of debt or in the process of paying it off. If you can find some kind of impropriety, then lay it out, but if all you've got is "business as usual" then you should take your complaints to the liberal choir, they'll be more inclined to agree with you.
*** I never said Obama and/or Biden were clean where earmarks are concerned, I just said I'd address them later.
All things in their proper context.
*** Palin is the newcomer trying to stress how she was against earmarks, and her governing history doesn't back her up on that.
Can you provide a link of Palin saying that she's against earmarks? thanks.
<<< 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.
*** What Palin has railed against are earmarks, ever since joining the McCain team. Yet as I said above she had actually hired someone to get earmarks for her, making her a glaring hypocrite on the issue.
I'll wait for your links before responding.
*** As I noted to Chilly, if earmarks are a bad thing now, earmarks were a bad thing then. The only difference is that they benefited her before and won't do so now, along with being politically incorrect given the platform McCain is running on.
No, earmarks aren't bad...wasteful spending is bad.
Recently, members of the Alaska congressional delegation announced they would post on their Web sites the earmark requests it receives. Gov. Sarah Palin has applauded this decision.
Earlier this year, President Bush and the congressional leadership announced that the total number and dollar amount of earmarks must be reduced significantly.
The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.
Further, the governor has insisted that each Alaska request must demonstrate an important federal purpose and strong public support.
We also have heard that, wherever possible, a state or local match should be provided. The state's budget requests incorporate this principle.
So, it is important to note there is no longer a "free lunch" at the federal level. Most federal requests have state or local budget consequences as well.
The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan. In responding to the new realities, we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808290024
<<< 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.
*** Why bother denying something that never happened? What I've stated about the bridge was accurate, and will remain so no matter how often her supporters attempt to spin it into something it isn't.
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.
Here you go...
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/mccain-says-palin-hasnt-reques.html
"Ms. Palin said she was ready to join Mr. McCain in Washington "so we can end the corrupt practice of abusive earmarks after all."
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.
You've tried to couch it in terms not quite as outrageous as it was, but that doesn't work either.
But still kept every cent of the money. Just wanted to avoid the APPEARANCE of "taking but not giving back." Sort of like the opposite of when she took per-diem for staying IN HER OWN HOUSE - there, she gave the APPEARANCE of taking but not giving back....and that's exactly what she WAS doing! But with the Bridge To Nowhere - let's review: she CAMPAIGNED ON IT, after Congress had already pulled the plug on it, and THEN, after becoming governor, took every cent of the money and spent it elsewhere....but made a public show of "opposing" the bridge to nowhere, after it had become a political albatross....which is the exact same motivation her Republican colleagues in the US Senate operated under when they killed the bill - not because they were "anti-earmark crusaders" - either Palin OR the Grand Old Porkers like Tubular Ted Stevens and others in Congress.
The sad reality of it is that our country is one of the few first-world nations which does not have a comprehensive, "untouchable" set of items in the regular budget for things like infrastructure repair, maintenance, etc. Some of those things are in it, most are not. So earmarks are the way that not only wasteful fraudulent programs get funded, but also plenty of necessary (and otherwise un-fundable, under the current system) projects. In fact, MOST of the funds appropriated by the "earmark" method are things which most certainly should be subject to the rigors and schedules of the regular, line-item budget. In today's system, to claim one is "against all earmarks" is a ludicrous statement; one would be proclaiming de facto opposition to a whole host of eminently reasonable, worthy, necessary projects, as well as the wasteful, inefficient, graft-riddled ones. What's needed is for congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - to have the courage to put the necessary ones under the regular budget, instead of keeping on with the late-night, Frankensteining-together of add-ons and earmarks to OTHER bills. It's transparency and oversight and planning that's needed, not a meat-cleaver. It's nice to scream "pork!!! pork!!!" whenever one sees spending for something one personally opposes -- but it's also disingenuous, if one doesn't oppose the concept of funding necessary items through the earmark process in general.
And that's the difference between Joe Biden and Barack Obama....and Sarah Palin/John McCain: while I'd have preferred if Biden and Obama were more forcefully standing up and saying the system of earmarks has to be reformed, they don't attempt to portray their own opposition to this or that spending bill as some sort of noble, "anti-earmark crusading." But Palin DOES claim to be that....and she has sought out earmarks as the mayor of Wasilla, a town of 6,000 when she ran it. And just LAST YEAR, she sought earmarks on the order of $250 million for her state - and received almost 100 million MORE than that (and kept it all, of course). (figures for that are here - but keep in mind, on a per-capita basis, that's TEN TIMES the national average for earmarks....in a state whose coffers are "overflowing" with oil revenue.
Now THAT'S Maverick-y, Baby!
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
Mmmm....nevertheless she CAMPAIGNED on the Bridge To Nowhere idea....AFTER Congress had pulled the plug on it.
And her "decision to kill the project because it had become too expensive" doesn't explain why, for the next two years, she requested $256million and $172million in earmarks for her state, respectively. That's ten times the national average, per-capita. Far more than Obama OR Biden (and everyone else, LOL).
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
I still don't quite understand the whole earmark mentality. It's been my understanding that while some may be wasteful, others may be a
*** "Ms. Palin said she was ready to join Mr. McCain in Washington "so we can end the corrupt practice of abusive earmarks after all."
I'm sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. I was asking for a quote by Palin where she says she's opposed to earmarks. In the quote you provided she very clearly was referring to "the CORRUPT practice of ABUSIVE earmarks." I don't think you can really call "fixing roads in Alaska" either corrupt or an abusive use of earmarks.
<<< 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.
*** You've tried to couch it in terms not quite as outrageous as it was, but that doesn't work either. She didn't tell Congress "No Thanks", she did get the money anyway,
You were expecting for her to actually call Congress and say, "No thanks?" I think you're under the mistaken impression that when Congress removed the earmarks they told her "here's the cash, but don't spend it on the bridge." Sorry, never happened. Certain members of Congress probably removed the earmarks so that the funds could be more easily cut and redirected to Katrina victims...but that never happened. When the funds were sent to Alaska the intent, on the part of Alaska and it's representatives in Congress, was funding for the bridge projects. Palin re-evaluated and said "no thanks" to the bridge and spend the money elsewhere.
*** she has hired someone to get earmarks for her, and continues to work to acquire them for Alaska even now.
As long as they're spend judiciously, good for her. That's her job...until January.
*** I suppose she and McCain will have to get together and see what kind of creative definition of "abusive earmark" they can come up with.
I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
*** Next thing you know they'll be working on new definitions of sexual relations.
Think the left is still having trouble with that one?
As Governor, did Sarah Palin, or did she NOT, request $256 million in earmarks in one year, and $172 million the next? Yes or no?
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
Oh, and? Palin is the first mayor of Wasilla in HISTORY to seek earmarks.
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
"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 ..."
*** But still kept every cent of the money.
Of course. The money was allocated for Alaska’s infrastructure with no earmarks. Why would she give it back? If you want to attack Palin, you’ll have to do it with more than propaganda.
*** Just wanted to avoid the APPEARANCE of "taking but not giving back." Sort of like the opposite of when she took per-diem for staying IN HER OWN HOUSE - there, she gave the APPEARANCE of taking but not giving back....and that's exactly what she WAS doing!
She was entitled to the per diem. Everything was transparent, above board and by the book. If you want to attack Palin, you’ll have to do it with more than propaganda.
*** But with the Bridge To Nowhere - let's review: she CAMPAIGNED ON IT, after Congress had already pulled the plug on it, and THEN, after becoming governor, took every cent of the money and spent it elsewhere....but made a public show of "opposing" the bridge to nowhere, after it had become a political albatross....which is the exact same motivation her Republican colleagues in the US Senate operated under when they killed the bill - not because they were "anti-earmark crusaders" - either Palin OR the Grand Old Porkers like Tubular Ted Stevens and others in Congress.
If you want to attack Palin, you’ll have to do it with more than propaganda.
*** But Palin DOES claim to be that....and she has sought out earmarks as the mayor of Wasilla, a town of 6,000 when she ran it. And just LAST YEAR, she sought earmarks on the order of $250 million for her state - and received almost 100 million MORE than that (and kept it all, of course). (figures for that are here - but keep in mind, on a per-capita basis, that's TEN TIMES the national average for earmarks....in a state whose coffers are "overflowing" with oil revenue.
Actually, not…Palin is not against earmarks, she’s against wasteful spending and pork. If you want to attack Palin, you’ll have to do it with more than propaganda.
*** Now THAT'S Maverick-y, Baby!
Yes she is.
Pages