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
<<< 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 broke down your words and explained how I arrived at the understanding above. If I was mistaken, then repost your comments, break them down and explain precisely what you meant.
*** 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 wasn’t making an argument, I was explaining a premise held by many people.
*** 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.
And yet you did make those statements, by meaning if not exactly those words. And no one said that you had the right to make decisions for others, but you certainly were passing judgment. But as I said before…do your own breakdown and explain how I got it wrong.
*** 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.
I don’t care if a woman with kids works or not, I was just looking at what you said and examining the bias.
*** 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.
I think the war is often with the individual women herself, wanting both a family and a profession. But you’re right, there was a tendency in years past for women to be “SuperWoman” but it seems to have toned down quite a bit with society finding value in stay at home moms as well as women who want careers.
<<< *** 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.
Hmmm…I don’t think that “movies” and historical social events are quite equitable. And I didn’t say that YOU should vote for Palin because she’s a woman, only that I understand the reasoning behind someone who would…and I consider it a valid reason. It promotes the “cause” of women and opens the door for others. Pretty important when you think about it…IF you think about it. ; )
*** 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.
I think “making history” is pretty significant, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
*** 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?
As I explained…in his single election, there are two important social “firsts” in play. I wonder why you can’t understand that? It seems pretty simple to me.
Actually, I did search the Washington Post website (which the poster suggested contained the article)
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Oh I understand that there are two important 'firsts' here and which ever way the election goes one of them will be made. But once all the votes, and hanging chads, are counted and that historic first accomplished you have 4 years of dealing with the result. For that reason I think we need to put aside the 'historical event' and focus on which candidate best matches our views aside from race and gender.
I can't help that you interpret my post the way you do and I am not going to endlessly explain my position to you as you seem hell bent on putting your own interpretation on it. I have read a few of your posts and that does seem to be your modus operandi so I will save myself the key strokes. At least one other person agreed you misinterpreted my post and I will be satisfied by that. If you chose to be obtuse about it well that is certainly your right. You certainly have a penchant for making the simple seem complicated and the complicated seem simple minded. To each his own.
You want to talk about lobbyists?
"Exposed: McCain team includes 83 Wall Street lobbyists"
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_team_includes_83_Wall_Street_0917.html
Yes...I read that David Corn article at Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9753_mccain_campaign_lobbyists_wall_street_aig.html
<<
(snip)
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
((("Exposed: McCain team includes 83 Wall Street lobbyists"))
- WOW. That's a lot of interests. They will all want a piece of him.
See, that's' WHY I'm ASKING YOU - because I DO read the news....and I haven't yet found a single instance of "Obama or his campaign" doing the things you suggest. Sure, there are random Internet people who might be, but that's a far cry from "Obama and his campaign."
So, I'll ask a fourth time (even though by now I'm 100% sure that you can't): provide me with ANY link where "Obama and/or his campaign" were engaging in what you suggest. I'll wait....
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