McCain's Earmark Lie

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
McCain's Earmark Lie
175
Mon, 09-15-2008 - 9:19pm
The full story:


Daily Kos

McCain's Earmark Lie: Palin actually grubs $1 mil/day as Gov. by Kagro X

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM PDT

The Wall Street Journal:




Last week, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, hadn't sought earmarks or special-interest spending from Congress, presenting her as a fiscal conservative. But state records show Gov. Palin has asked U.S. taxpayers to fund $453 million in specific Alaska projects over the past two years.



It's been 652 days since Earmark Queen Sarah Palin took office as Governor of Alaska.



In that time, she's hustled for $453,000,000 in federal lipstick pork.



That's $694,785.28 a day. Six hundred ninetey-four thousand, seven hundred and eight five dollars and twenty-eight cents. Every day. Even Sundays!



Palin was grubbing six hundred ninetey-four thousand, seven hundred and eight five dollars and twenty-eight cents out of the federal trough on the very day when John McCain looked America in the eye and said she was taking zero.



And she took it again today, too.



And she took it on every one of the 312 nights she spent at home and billed the Alaskan taxpayers for it.



So why say it's a million dollars a day? Well, first, let me show you what Slick Sarah Palin is telling people:




On the campaign trail, Gov. Palin has repeatedly attacked Sen. Obama on earmarks. "Our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks in three years. That's about a million for every working day," she said at a rally in Albuquerque, N.M.



Ohhhh, this feels like it's going to get embarrassing in a second....



And, behold! Look what "The Math" says!



It is difficult to compare Sen. Obama's earmark record with Gov. Palin's -- their states differ in size, for instance, and the two candidates play different roles in the process. But using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama.



Not only is Palin taking much more, but oh my word if the million dollar figure doesn't actually fit her sooooo much better than the person she's trying to use it against! What a surprise!



So that's almost a million dollars a day, whether she showed up at the office or not. A million bucks, plus $60 in her pocket for defrosting one of her own mooseburgers for lunch.



And really, Palin must be asking herself, why not chisel the Alaska state government a little bit? After all:




The state's earmark requests stand out in part because its state government is among the wealthiest in the U.S. Flush with oil and gas royalties, it doesn't impose income or sales taxes. In fact, money flows the other way: Every man, woman and child this year got a check for $3,200.



Gosh, but they're such rugged individualists up there! They're gonna launch themselves into orbit with those bootstraps, don'tcha know?



A million dollars a day. From you and me. Plus $3,200 in the bank for each one of 'em. And $60 in Sarah's pocket for every lunch at home. (Like every working mom, of course!)



It's the new fiscal responsibility, in John McCain's seven house-owning, $5 million middle class living world!





But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 5:48pm
Interesting articles, but I don't see how they relate the Obama/Lehmans article that I was inquiring about.

Sopal


Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 5:53pm

*** Well I don't know how black people feel about it since I am not black and that is actually beside the point since the question I asked referred to Palin and women. I don't understand why you want to throw Obama into this particular question as he is not a female.

Because the race and gender components of this election are social parallels.

*** Surprisingly for some women, it boils down to McCain's choosing Palin. I don't expect you to understand that if you are a male - but your throwing Obama into this particular question just muddies the water so to speak.

Why is it an issue that McCain chose a woman as a running mate? Are these people so ridiculously entrenched in their skewed ideology that they’d cut their own throats? How utterly stupid.

<<< "Why wouldn’t they support Palin? She shares their values and despite the propaganda, not everyone in the “moral majority” things “women belong in the home.” The hypocrisy lies with the feminists who intentionally set back the “cause” of women because Palin doesn’t share their liberal ideology."

*** I still don't understand why a woman, feminist or otherwise, should/would be expected to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket just because she is a female.

Remove the “expected” and you’ll have a more reasonable query…and the answer is the same as it would be having a black man on the ticket…it’s being able to say to yourself, or your children…”I/you can do that too.” It’s social progress.

*** I don't see it as setting the 'cause' back if I choose not to vote for a CANDIDATE who does not share my 'liberal ideology' regardless of their race or gender. Your statement seems to imply, whether it was your intention or not, I would be a hypocrite for not voting for her because I don't share her values. That line of reasoning implies I am to vote for her because she is a woman.

Then you misunderstood…my apologies. My contention is that it would be just as reasonable for a woman to vote for her because she’s a woman as it would be to vote for her because of her position on the issues…both carry social ramifications, but your vote against the former means that you are personally putting the kibosh on the historical event of a woman achieving that level of government office…and that the opportunity might not come again for another 50 years. Something, in my opinion, that’s worth considering.

<<< "But as far as Palin is concerned, what kind of “dues” is she supposed to pay? She’s accomplished the American dream…small town hockey-mom joins the PTA…then City Council…then becomes Mayor…then is elected Governor…all with a record of working for the people and with a HUGE approval rating…and then she’s tapped to run for the VP of the US. I don’t know what other “dues” you need."

*** Well I don't care that she was a hockey mom, I don't care that she was on her PTA,

A lot of people do. They want their politicians to have some kind of appreciation for the lives and struggles they experience on a day to day basis.

*** and as Mayor of a very small town she didn't have as many responsibilities since the town was apparently forced to hire an administrator while she was mayor to help with running the town - so I do actually discount that experience.

You know, I’ve heard this story too, but I haven’t been able to find it reported on any credible source. You’d think it would be easy to find���can you give me some links? Thanks.

But even if it were true, considering the terminations that took place when she became Mayor, it doesn’t seem surprising that she would hire a deputy Mayor to help fill the gap. What is pertinent is that the residents of Wasilla were apparently very happy with her performance and elected her again…and then again as governor. I think it’s ridiculously partisan to dismiss her experience as mayor and then find Obama’s experience as a community organizer to have any relevance whatsoever.

*** As for Governor I keep reading about the 'hands off' approach that lead to employees wearing 'where's Sarah' pins so I don't know about the value of that experience either.

Again, it’s hard to take that level of partisanship seriously…especially when you’re supporting the King of “present” votes with no legislative record to speak of compared to the governor of a state with an annual budget of $11.2 billion and an 80% approval rating.

*** Either way whether I choose to validate her experience or not she is not someone who I would choose regardless of her gender. I don't agree with many of the things I have read about her and I am less impressed with McCain every day.

Then you should stop reading lib propaganda.

*** I do however resent the constant implication I keep hearing that I am supposed to support her because she is a woman. I may be a liberal but I long ago gave up the grand idea that women can in fact have it all - that comes at a price and often at the expense of a family and the children. I am liberal but I made the decision to stay home with my children and while I understand that some women want to work or must work I don't think the idea that we can have it all or do it all is good for anyone. Call me sexist if you want but I don't think you will change my mind.

I’m sure working women everywhere will thank you for telling them they belong at home with the kids.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 5:54pm
Of course s/he doesn't; that's because it was never there. But that typically won't stop someone from smearing away. However, it WAS featured prominently on several wingnut blogs.

To be fair, the OpenSecrets stuff they're talking about actually does exist...it just doesn't seem quite as incriminating when you look at the whole thing. What it shows is that Dodd, Obama and Kerry are indeed the three top recipients of money from Fannie and Freddie. But they're followed closely by three Republicans, Robert Bennett, Spencer Bauchus and good ol' Roy Blunt. John Boehner and "Kit" Bond are also close behind, and a bit further down, there's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed. Pretty much a free-for-all, instead of the Democratic scandal that this 'Washington Post" item makes it sound like.


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 5:56pm
I’m sure working women everywhere will thank you for telling them they belong at home with the kids.


If only that was what she'd actually said....


But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 5:57pm
Sorry, no, it was a laughing fit brought on by the inane notion that any intelligent person could find the Daily Krap...er...Kos to be a credible source of anything but liberal hackery. LOL!
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 6:02pm
Thanks for posting the facts. That's why Barry and his crew are running around scoffing at McCain's proposal of a commission to examine the facts of the situation...because they know that the trail is going to lead right back to the Democrats with their poor management, poor oversight and their hands in the cookie jar.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2004
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 6:03pm
The Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2006.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-16-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 6:10pm

Ok this is what I said "I am liberal but I made the decision to stay home with my children and while I understand that some women want to work or must work I don't think the idea that we can have it all or do it all is good for anyone. Call me sexist if you want but I don't think you will change my mind."

I don't understand why you would respond as you did with "I’m sure working women everywhere will thank you for telling them they belong at home with the kids."

Please tell me where exactly I have told women that they belong home with the kids. What I said was that I made the decision to stay home but that I understood that some women want to work or have to work - I didn't say they shouldn't work. What I disagree with is the notion that we can have it all or do it all - there are only so many hours in a day and the more you have on your plate the more stressed you are something somewhere suffers. It is a myth to think every woman has to be or should be or can be Super Woman. No where did I say they BELONG home with the kids.

I think that this statement is a bit simplistic "both carry social ramifications, but your vote against the former means that you are personally putting the kibosh on the historical event of a woman achieving that level of government office…and that the opportunity might not come again for another 50 years. Something, in my opinion, that’s worth considering."

So you are implying that I should vote for McCain so that we have the historic event of a woman being vice president???? Personally I think there is more at stake here and again the message I am getting for you is that I should vote for them because Palin is a woman which is a rather sexist thing to say cloaked in somehow giving me advice on how to advance my gender. It just doesn't wash. Kind of along the line Disney tried to sell for years that if I didn't purchase a Beauty and the Beast video now it would go 'into the vault' for years and my poor children would miss out. I didn't buy that line then and I don't subscribe to it now. I am simply not willing to vote for a candidate just because of gender. When it gets down to it that seems to be the argument people keep making and I suspect that was exactly what McCain wanted me to think.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 6:12pm
Um...thanks for that little sampling, but if you want to see character assassinations by people without character you only have to look at the offerings from Obama and his campaign. I was referring to the kind of personal attacks that Palin has suffered from the left on her appearance, her family and her parenting. Glenn Beck came close with the voice thing...but the others? Not so much.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2008
Wed, 09-17-2008 - 6:15pm
and yet it was.

Pages