McCain's Earmark Lie
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-15-2008 - 9:19pm |

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
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!

Pages
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!
This is has been a public service message from the "Wipe out liberal lies and buffoonery" Council of North America.
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
Please (PLEASE!!) post links to the ones "by Obama and his campaign."
LOVE to see those.
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
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
Thanks for that link.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
*** 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.
Well, let’s take a look and see how this terrible error could have been made. You said…”I don't think the idea that we can have it all or do it all is good for anyone”…
you also said…” 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.”
So you’re either stating that working women shouldn’t have kids or that women with kids shouldn’t work because it hurts the “family and the children”…i.e. that women 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.
True, you didn’t use the word “shouldn’t”…you just said if they did it would hurt the “family and the children.” Now, unless you advocate hurting the “family and the children,” it sure sounds like you’re telling women with kids that 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’m sorry, when you said when a woman with kids works her “family and children” will “suffer,” I misunderstood that you thought “suffering” was a bad thing and therefore she “belonged” at home with the kids. My bad.
*** 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????
Hey, if that helps…sure! Vote McCain/Palin!
*** 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.
Of course it’s sexist…just as voting for Obama because he’s black is racist. No argument there. In this historic instance, I think they’re both very valid social arguments.
*** 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.
Good marketing…betcha lots of people bought the video. But I feel I should point out that breaking social barriers is of slightly greater import than viewing a Disney video…not much, but a little bit more.
*** 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.
This is America, you’re allowed to vote for whomever you choose. McCain chose a bright, capable, experienced woman while Obama, the agent of change, chose an old, entrenched, Washington insider. Shame on McCain.
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!
This is has been a public service message from the "Wipe out liberal lies and buffoonery" Council of North America.
So you’re either stating that working women shouldn’t have kids or that women with kids shouldn’t work because it hurts the “family and the children”…i.e. that women belong home with the kids.
That is your interpretation, not my words. I was responding to your comment of "The actual circumstances may be a “balancing act,” but the societal premise was that “women should be able to do it all.”" It is a fallacious argument. I never said working women shouldn't have kids or that women with kids shouldn't work - I had made that choice but it is not my right to make it for others.
There was a time, many years ago when my children were younger. that I ran a daycare in my home for a few years. So I had the wonderful experience of staying home with my children but also of working a bit. During that time I had a glimpse into the lives of some working women - as in working outside the home. What I saw was sometimes heart breaking. Many of the women were very stressed with trying to do it all - and quite a few wished they didn't have to work. Some were very happy to work as they did not like staying home with children, but still working and raising children, especially very young children, is very stressful. In the end no one can 'do it all' all the time. I recognize that my decision to stay at home worked for me but it is not my right to make that decision for other women, nor would I want to. I just think it is never a good idea to think that one person should be able to do it all. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not choose. Perhaps showing a prejudice of your own? I don't know.
Are you familiar with the term opportunity cost? For every choice we make in life there is a cost - sometimes in money, sometimes in personal sacrifice, sometimes we don't know the cost until years later. In the end I doubt most women will wish they had worked harder, but many will wish they could have had more time with their families. Personally I would like to see less stress put on 'doing it all' and more emphasis on recognizing that both working mothers and stay at home mothers have value. Too often it seems to be war between the two.
"*** 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.
Of course it’s sexist…just as voting for Obama because he’s black is racist. No argument there. In this historic instance, I think they’re both very valid social arguments."
Again it seems that you are using that as a reason to vote - I wouldn't vote for Obama just because of his color any more that I would have voted for Reagan just because I liked his movies (although I actually DIDN'T vote for him because I thought it was ridiculous to vote for a movie star in one of my first elections) just as I wouldn't vote for McCain just because he has a female vp. At the end of the day there is more at stake than 'making history' with a presidential first I would prefer to wait for a female candidate whose views I agreed with.
Interesting how you over simplify some parts of my post and keep interjecting race when the reason for the post was gender - I wonder why?
Pages