Guess Who the Queen of Earmarks Is

Sarah Palin: More Earmark Hypocrisy
Alaska's governor campaigned as an anti-earmark crusader, but the just-passed omnibus spending bill contains several she sought.
—By Jonathan Stein and David Corn
Thu March 12, 2009 9:48 AM PST

On the campaign trail last year, Alaska's Republican governor, Sarah Palin, sold herself as a crusading reformer who despised earmarks--those federal spending projects that Capitol Hill legislators of both parties slip into appropriations bills. Though her claim to have turned down an earmark for the now-infamous Bridge to Nowhere was debunked by assorted media outlets, she kept on insisting that if she were elected vice president, she would lead a charge in Washington against earmarks.

That was then. The omnibus spending bill that President Barack Obama signed on Wednesday includes earmarks that Palin sought.

The $410 billion bill has been lambasted by Republicans and a few Democrats for being loaded with nearly 9,000 earmarks covering $7.7 billion in projects. Senator John McCain, Palin's former ticket-mate, has blasted Obama for supporting the earmark-laden legislation. ("So much for the promise of change," an angry McCain howled from the Senate floor.) But earmarks in the bill are quite generous to Palin's state. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group, Alaska will receive more money, per capita, from the bill's earmarks than any other state. (Alaska will pocket $209.71 for each state resident.) One hundred earmarks in the bill, worth a total of $143.9 million, are tagged for Palin's state.

The earmarks that Palin apparently will accept could also be ridiculed in a McCain-ish fashion. They include $475,000 to construct a "heritage center" in the Chilkat Indian Village; $150,000 to support private industry participation in two international fishery groups; $200,000 for investigating and prosecuting bootlegging; $200,000 for researching the king crab; and $855,000 for building fairgrounds. The Alaska earmarks also include $1.2 million for construction work on an airport on Akutan, a tiny island that relies on seaplane for contact with the Alaskan mainland. (The Coast Guard handles medical emergencies.) The island has roughly 800 residents. Could this be dubbed the Airport to Nowhere?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/sarah-palin-earmark-hypocrisy#comments

Dude she LOST- you need to get over that fact and move on! LOL

Sheesh....

I think this is a perfect example of the Republican's hypocrisy. They are really only opposed to earmarks that they don't support.

sparks wrote:

I think this is a perfect example of the Republican's hypocrisy. They are really only opposed to earmarks that they don't support.

This is NOT hypocrisy. I've been to many parts of the Great State of Alaska. It is truly America's final frontier. That said, that state, no matter who is the sitting governor, deserves any money it can legally receive. The state (physically) is 1/3 the size of the entire lower 48, and has very few miles of paved highway. The population is just over half a million people, and has only ONE state owned and operated railroad. Many natural resources come from Alaska, including oil, and wood. It would be very difficult for half a million taxpayers to sustain a state that large. That's why I support any money sent their way. Unless you've been there and spoken to the residents, then I doubt you have any educated opinion on the subject.

Quote :

The earmarks that Palin apparently will accept could also be ridiculed in a McCain-ish fashion. They include $475,000 to construct a "heritage center" in the Chilkat Indian Village; $150,000 to support private industry participation in two international fishery groups; $200,000 for investigating and prosecuting bootlegging; $200,000 for researching the king crab; and $855,000 for building fairgrounds. The Alaska earmarks also include $1.2 million for construction work on an airport on Akutan, a tiny island that relies on seaplane for contact with the Alaskan mainland. (The Coast Guard handles medical emergencies.) The island has roughly 800 residents. Could this be dubbed the Airport to Nowhere?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/sarah-palin-earmark-hypocrisy#comments

I would think the Democrats would be in favor and supportive of projects like the above- huh, go figure.

Artie60438 wrote:

The earmarks that Palin apparently will accept could also be ridiculed in a McCain-ish fashion. They include $475,000 to construct a "heritage center" in the Chilkat Indian Village; $150,000 to support private industry participation in two international fishery groups; $200,000 for investigating and prosecuting bootlegging; $200,000 for researching the king crab; and $855,000 for building fairgrounds. The Alaska earmarks also include $1.2 million for construction work on an airport on Akutan, a tiny island that relies on seaplane for contact with the Alaskan mainland. (The Coast Guard handles medical emergencies.) The island has roughly 800 residents. Could this be dubbed the Airport to Nowhere?

Why on earth would you scoff at the idea of building an airport for seaplanes? Something you probably do not realize is there are more privately owned airplanes in the state of Alaska than all of the other 49 states. Additionally, because air travel is the primary source of transportation, aircraft actually have the right-of-way on the paved highways in the state. Also, just because they are seaplanes, they still require established air rights, control towers, radio and radar communications, and fueling stations. So why not establish an airport?

P.S. Two years ago, I went salmon fishing with Mr. and Mrs. BigWhiteGuy in Ketchikan at the EXACT location that the "Bridge To Nowhere" was to be built. You know what? It actually made sense to me. It was to be a bridge that linked the airport at Ketchikan (commercial jets and private planes) to the city. The biggest cost of the project was not because of the length of the bridge, but the fact that piling had to go down almost a mile to reach the bottom of the fjord there, and the deck had to be high enough so that cruise ships could clear them at high tide.

Ohhmama wrote:

Dude she LOST- you need to get over that fact and move on! LOL

Sheesh....

Does that make her immune to criticism? I don't agree with messing with Bristol and Levi (which is why I don't even bother to comment on that), but she is still the governor of Alaska.

sparks wrote:

They are really only opposed to earmarks that they don't support.

LoisLane wrote:

That's why I support any money sent their way.

That statement really echos what sparks said.

LoisLane wrote:

Unless you've been there and spoken to the residents, then I doubt you have any educated opinion on the subject.

So just so we are on the same page. Earmarks are immune to criticism unless you've been to said place and spoken to said residents because otherwise you don't have an educated opinion on the subject? Or is this exclusive to the earmarks that Alaska requests?



So to sum up everything I've read in this thread I've learned the following...
It is discouraged to mention Sarah Palin.
Both Republicans and Democrats are supportive of earmarks and for one party to say they are opposed to them is a lie.
You really can't be opposed to any earmarks unless you've been to the specific place and talked to residents. Otherwise your opinion isn't an educated one.

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Dude she LOST- you need to get over that fact and move on! LOL

Sheesh....

Does that make her immune to criticism? I don't agree with messing with Bristol and Levi (which is why I don't even bother to comment on that), but she is still the governor of Alaska.

no, of course not it was a joke- hence the LOL.

But on the other hand I find it amusing that any criticism against the ONE is immediately subject to flogging and reprimand even though he is the POTUS. I think it's funny that Palin is still an issue. It shows how nervous her popularity and potential future run makes the Democrats.

LoisLane wrote:

sparks wrote:

I think this is a perfect example of the Republican's hypocrisy. They are really only opposed to earmarks that they don't support.

This is NOT hypocrisy.

In 2008 Alaska was the largest per capita recipient of federal earmarks.

Ohhmama wrote:

paul87920 wrote:

Ohhmama wrote:

Dude she LOST- you need to get over that fact and move on! LOL

Sheesh....

Does that make her immune to criticism? I don't agree with messing with Bristol and Levi (which is why I don't even bother to comment on that), but she is still the governor of Alaska.

no, of course not it was a joke- hence the LOL.

But on the other hand I find it amusing that any criticism against the ONE is immediately subject to flogging and reprimand even though he is the POTUS. I think it's funny that Palin is still an issue. It shows how nervous her popularity and potential future run makes the Democrats.

I'm pretty wary of Obama myself, hence I'm really not out there voicing praise. Palin is still an issue because she's the up and coming star of the GOP. Why? Honestly I don't know. I don't think she's very deserving of the role she's received and I think there are many other Republicans that are more deserving of the popularity she has received.

I agree, which is why it's so amusing. Don't get me wrong, the Repubs have a ton of overhauling they need to do, but to focus on Palin just makes me laugh.

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

The earmarks that Palin apparently will accept could also be ridiculed in a McCain-ish fashion. They include $475,000 to construct a "heritage center" in the Chilkat Indian Village; $150,000 to support private industry participation in two international fishery groups; $200,000 for investigating and prosecuting bootlegging; $200,000 for researching the king crab; and $855,000 for building fairgrounds. The Alaska earmarks also include $1.2 million for construction work on an airport on Akutan, a tiny island that relies on seaplane for contact with the Alaskan mainland. (The Coast Guard handles medical emergencies.) The island has roughly 800 residents. Could this be dubbed the Airport to Nowhere?

Why on earth would you scoff at the idea of building an airport for seaplanes?

Because there are only 800 residents there and I doubt they all have sea planes,especially with a median income of about $34,000. They already have a sea plane base and daily air service.

I mean why isn't the focus on someone like Republican Gov. Daniels? How can Republicans and Democrats alike ignore the fact that he still won by landslide in a state that went blue for the first time since LBJ? Why isn't he the rising star of the GOP?

Compared to Daley wanting 15B for O'hare, 1.2M is a drop in the bucket.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chicago-mayor-seeking-bailout-money-for-15-billion-airport-albatross/

Don't get me wrong- I'm not arguing one way or the other....

paul87920 wrote:

Palin is still an issue because she's the up and coming star of the GOP.

I sure hope so!

Quote :

Why? Honestly I don't know. I don't think she's very deserving of the role she's received and I think there are many other Republicans that are more deserving of the popularity she has received.

That should tell you all you need to know about the state of the GOP. She's great for their base but that's never going to be enough to elect her.

Ohhmama wrote:

Compared to Daley wanting 15B for O'hare, 1.2M is a drop in the bucket.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chicago-mayor-seeking-bailout-money-for-15-billion-airport-albatross/

Don't get me wrong- I'm not arguing one way or the other....

It simply doesn't make sense. People aren't flying right now.

Ohhmama wrote:

Compared to Daley wanting 15B for O'hare, 1.2M is a drop in the bucket.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chicago-mayor-seeking-bailout-money-for-15-billion-airport-albatross/

Don't get me wrong- I'm not arguing one way or the other....

Apples to Oranges. O'Hare is a huge economic engine for the entire midwest.

Ah you betcha boys & girls, we have yet another Republican liar & hypocrite when it come to those evil earmarks:

Quote :

Rep. Bachmann Claims To Have Taken No-Pork Pledge, But Actually Requested $3 Million In Earmarks In 2008
On Fox Business yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) joined the long parade of members of Congress who rail against earmarks while requesting their own. But Bachmann took her hypocrisy a step further, claiming that she has signed an anti-pork pledge:

CLAMAN: How about a no-pork bill? Will that ever be a reality?

BACHMANN: I think it is possible. I took a pledge in my own district. I have not taken earmarks in the last three years that I have been in Congress because the system is so corrupt. It’s possible to make that pledge.

Watch it:

In fact, according to Legistorm, Bachmann has requested 7 earmarks in Fiscal Year 2008 costing tax payers a total of $3,767,600. Some examples:

- $94,000 for Sheriffs Youth Program of MN
- $335,000 for Equipment Acquisition for Northland Medical Center
- $803,000 for Replacement Small Buses, St. Cloud Metro Bus

As MSNBC’s David Shuster noted, Bachmann indeed signed the Club for Growth’s ‘No Earmark’ pledge back in 2008. While she clearly broke this pledge, Bachmann’s name is curiously absent from the list of lawmakers making the same pledge for 2009.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/12/bachmann-earmark-lies/

Any earmarks by either party should be looked at very closely during these times- wait too late- the bill's been signed by the One previously promising reform and who said he would spend time going line by line to weed out unnecessary earmarks.

Ohhmama wrote:

Any earmarks by either party should be looked at very closely during these times- wait too late- the bill's been signed by the One previously promising reform and who said he would spend time going line by line to weed out unnecessary earmarks.

No, I don't think that's correct. IIRC, Obama said "I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work." He did say that he was for earmark reform, and it's noteworthy that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act had no earmarks at all.

This earmark nonsense is another right-wing myth. Here are Obama's quotes from the campaign....

Here's a transcript of the quotes in this video from then-candidate Obama:

Second debate:

Quote :

Senator McCain likes to talk about earmarks a lot. And that's important. I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.

First debate:

Quote :

And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely. But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we're going to get the middle class back on track.

Second debate:

Quote :

I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.

Third debate:

Quote :

Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.

First debate:

Quote :

But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion. Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.

You can read more and watch the video @ http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/14/12153/4735/97/707729