Posted on 09/12/2008 3:50:25 PM PDT by EveningStar
John McCain continued to laud his running mate, Sarah Palin, as a budget cutter on Friday, this time erroneously asserting that as governor of Alaska she had not sought congressional earmarks for her state.
In fact, while Palin has significantly reduced the state's earmark requests, she asked for nearly $200 million in targeted spending for the 2009 fiscal year. And in an interview with ABC News aired Friday, she defended her earmark requests, emphasizing that she opposed "earmark abuse."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
These are different earmarks.
I think he mispoke on the TV show.
We’ll have to wait and see how it is handled...
While that is what they HAVE been saying, sometimes McCain leaves out some words. Apparently this time he said she asked for NO earmarks, which is incorrect.
They are really quick to correct him, though.
But are they earmarks that benefited only the state of Alaska
This whole issue has been discussed and the left just keeps on digging and asking about yet another ear mark. The fact is she cut the number of earmarks, asked for by the state of Alaska by a dramatic amount and Obama cut nothing.
If Obama is the Messiah, he needs to go out into the desert and call on God to save him, because God is the only one who can at this point.
Every state asks for federal dollars forinfrastructure. The weather conditions in Alaska make infrastructure an expensive proposition. Any federal help is very much appreciated. When the bridge cost estimates went out of sight, it became apparent that the money could be better spent elsewhere; especially if it was a bridge to nowhere. Is that too hard for people to understand?
Oh! I forgot. They are called Dummycrats.
This was not the bridge to nowhere:
Palin, in an interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, drew a distinction between “earmark abuse” and the spending requests that she has authorized for the state of Alaska. Gibson, noting that the state had asked for money to study the genetics of harbor seals and mating habits of crabs, asked: “Isn’t that exactly the kind of thing that John McCain is objecting to?”
Palin replied that those requests have been submitted through state fish and game and wildlife agencies and by state universities.
“Those research requests did come through that system, but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar,” she said. “That’s the abuse that we’re going to stop.”
“but wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors, with lobbyists making deals with Congress to stick things in there under the public radar,”
Until the media equated all requests for federal funds, this was the definition of earmarks. My understanding is that an “earmark” is generally some unrelated funding slipped into an unrelated bill hoping that it will pass and be signed without anyone noticing. I suppose any state’s request for federal funding can become an “earmark”, but it is not an earmark until congress members make it so.
That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year.
This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help it land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million.
In December 2007, Palin's budget director put out a memo urging state officials who were assembling their department spending plans to reserve earmarks for compelling needs only, in an effort to "enhance the state's credibility."
"When she took office, we talked about the state's reliance on federal earmarks and she made it clear for several reasons she wanted to significantly cut back on that reliance," Katz said.
“Senator McCain said Governor Palin ‘learned that earmarks are bad’, but in 2008 alone Gov. Palin requested $256 million in earmarks for Alaska, and her state received more earmarks per person that any other state,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor. “The fact is that Governor Palin isn’t just good at getting pork projects, she’s one of the most successful pork barrel politicians in history.”
But if you look at the document you quickly get feel for the fact that many of the earmarks are requests for funding that are completely legitimate, and many relate to unfunded mandates imposed upon Alaska by federal legislation like the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Several examples are set forth after the jump.
“Meets the increased needs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for developing regional fishery coordinated databases.”
“This is an ongoing effort to collect data on the recreational hailbut fishery that is conducted by federal agencies though relying on the state for data.”
“Provides state funding for management of federal fisheries, including Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king crab and tanner crab, weathervane scallops and groundfish.”
“To meet federal obligation to enhance Sockeye salmon production, the state operates an enhancement unit at an existing hatercy and conducts fish monitoring. The work is completed cooperatively with the Canadian government.”
“Provides ongoing funding for programs that mitigate that impacts of harvest reductions imposed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty on Alaskan fisheries and coastal communities.”
“Funds Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Northwest Treaty Indian Tribes in meeting federal obligations under Pacific Salmon Treaty.”
“Funds monitoring of ice seal populations in Native Villages, research on species delineation and genetics of harbor seals to understand the declines in population and provide for population restoration, and continues research into Stellar Sea Lion population decline.”
“Allows State of Alaska to monitor Yukon River salmon and provide information necessary to support negotiations between US and Canada under Yukon River Salmon Agreement.”
“To continue necessary airport upgrading after transfer of the Naval Air Station (Adak) to the State.”
“Continued funding to address the challenges of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) as it relates to teacher quality and student achievement. It provides trained, full-release mentors for beginning teachers and principals.”
“Funds State of Alaska for implementation of federal obligations under Yukon River Treaty.”
“To complete a communication facility to support the 168th Air Refueling Wing’s 8 PAA KC 135 aircraft.”
Nowhere in this list do we see anything like an earmark for the employer of Palin’s spouse. Compare this sequence of events:
Nov. 2004 — Obama elected to Senate.
Michelle Obama’s salary for the Univ. of Chicago Hospital — $121,910.
Michelle Obama’s salary in Spring of 2005 — increased to $316,962.
B. Obama’s earmark request for Univ. of Chicago Hospital Pavilion for 2006 — $1 million.
That’s a 5-1 return on the raise they gave Michelle.
BUT TAKE A LOOK at the list of earmarks released by Obama under prodding during the Democratic primaries.
http://patterico.com/2008/09/10/politico-hit-piece-claims-palin-addicted-to-pork-earmarks-contrary-to-her-campaign-position/
Good. That needs to be pressed. We have nearly two months to get our message across. That should be more than enough time if we use that time wisely.
The safety of the country is at stake and we have two good people who understand what it takes to preserve that.
Unfortunately your post is a bit irrelevant. The question is not who asked for the most earmarks. The question is, was John telling the truth when he said Palin never asked for earmarks as governor?
First, one should always question a statement with the words “never” or “always” and a good politicion should avoid them.
This interview is a good example of why, before he chose Palin, I was not going to vote in this election. His selection of Palin brought him up a couple of notches for me, but this is still an example of what annoyed me.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Obama and Biden are worse. Much worse. But McCain shot himself in the foot.
So she said, "No thanks" to the bridge, but "Yes please" to the money. Either way the tax payers were out a quarter billion and Alaska was ahead by the same amount.
So, the “bridge to nowhere” was proposed. It was estimated to cost $398 million. It was not long before Gov. Sarah Palin discovered the $398 million bridge would actually cost $329 million more than originally estimated. It had grown to a costly money pit. This tells me that Governor Palin was wise to put a brake on the project before work had began on it.
Governor Palin was wise to see that Alaska infrastructure had higher priorities and Alaska could get more bang for the buck in other projects. So, federal money that was to go for the bridge, went to the other projects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.