As a vice presidential candidate, Gov. Sarah Palin has railed against federal earmarks, or congressional funding for pork-barrel projects. "In our state, we reformed the abuses of earmarks," Palin recently boasted to a rally in Lancaster, Pa. "We championed earmark reform up there," she said, "to stop Congress from wasting public money on things that didn't serve the public interest."
But musty records culled from the archives of the Wasilla, Alaska, city government reveal that Palin was directly involved in soliciting millions of dollars in earmarks for Wasilla when she was mayor. And she got help from a well-connected Washington lobbyist.
In a monthly status report to the city on March 7, 2000, newly hired "City Lobbyist" Steve Silver describes how the Palin administration had requested $6.6 million in federal earmarks for water and sewer improvements for Wasilla, and another $1 million for police equipment. Mayor Palin reviewed and signed the lobbyist's report, dated April 5, 2000.
Those earmark requests have not previously been disclosed, said Keith Ashdown, chief investigator for the non-profit Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. Ashdown said the lobbyist's report offers a rare window into a normally closed-door process. "The document you've found is a peek behind the curtain of how earmarks get approved in Washington," he said.
Records reveal Palin's push for earmarks - Deep Background - msnbc.com
What about $3 mil to study the DNA of bears?
I'm waiting. Did you have a point?
My mistake. It was harbor seals.
According to a “summary of requests for federal appropriations” posted to her budget office’s website earlier this year, Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.
Another blog.
Owned. :lol:
I see...so Palin and McCain cannot campaign against earmarks and earmark reform because as a local Mayor Palin requested federal funding assistance for infrastructure improvements?
Do you epople really think that requesting federal monies already appropriated to assist locals with water and sewer projects is the equivalent of requesting federal dollars for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, corn museums in Iowa, etc.?
Ok, I guess....:doh
If Palin were a true anti-earmark candidate she would have not accepted earmarks for her city.
Earmarks are requested. I don't know if you really know how earmarks are given to cities, but it is done through local and state requests to federal delegates. No other way.
Earmarks for home state initiatives are very specific and don't just happen. They are deliberate acts in response to state and local requests.
I don't see the conflict.
You can't build a political career which showcases, as a central support, your ability to score earmarks for your constituents and then turn around and honestly decry the process of earmarking.
It's really very simple.
BTW, it seems to me that once again the Democrats are revealing that the greatest moral failing, the worst sort of behavior is...hypocrisy. That's why they condemned Bennett, Limbaugh, Packwood, Foley and yet do not condemn their own (Gerry Studds) for similar moral failings. Studds and others weren't being hypocritical so their behavior went uncriticized.
You'd think they'd be with Palin about reforming earmarks given how many earmarks benefit private firms. But nope, they condemn her because as Mayor she accepted earmark dollars.
The same with the Bridge to Nowhere. She got no credit for making what was ultimately the right decision. Instead, she was condemned for her hypocrisy in being for it before being against it.
Notice how Democrats didn't run that criticism when Kerry used it to defend his Iraq funding votes...perhaps Democrats just expect their politicians to lie.
Because requesting and accepting earmarks proliferate the practice. Get it? That's why, if she was truly anti-earmark, she would have never requested nor accepted earmark money...period. Or at least stopped at some point in her career as an actual functioning elected representative of her people. Like Tom Coburn. Not as a rhetoric flinging nominee on the Presidential ticket. She didn't care about earmark reform as a governor. She kept the money earmarked for the bridge, it was used elsewhere in the state. She is no anti-earmark maverick. So yes, it makes her a hypocrite right now.She was a Mayor. Why would she turn them down as a local representative. I don't see how not caring about federal earmark reform while as a local Mayor makes her a hypocrite now.
Because it's utter bull****. She is no more earmark reform minded than McCain claims to be. She is making promises so grandiose that there is no way she could possibly deliver on them. She knows this. Bush tried the same crap. Guess what, he signed the bills. Why? Congress controls the money, not the President or...lol...the Vice President. They forced his hand...just as they will McLame and Wilderness Barbie. She and McCain will go along, like Bush did, and when challenged will blame Congress.As well, why are you not applauding the fact that she's on the right side of this issue?
No I'm not. But I am a realist. I don't know what you do for a living, but I actually work in the world of earmarks and governmental policy on appropriating money for state and local governments. I work directly with the delegates staff that do this. Your comments give me no reason to believe you work in this area or have much in the way of realistic experience in how this process works or what motivates it.Unless you're for continued earmark abuse...
You needed it.Thanks for the civics lesson. :roll:
Yes I do.Ya think?
You're stealing an intellectual base.
You're gonna have to establish as fact that Palin attempted to build her political career on the back of earmarks.
Sorry, but conjecture just doesn't cut it.
You truly have no understanding of the role of appropriating in politics.
Because requesting and accepting earmarks proliferate the practice. Get it?
That's why, if she was truly anti-earmark, she would have never requested nor accepted earmark money...period.
Because it's utter bull****. She is no more earmark reform minded than McCain claims to be.
No I'm not. But I am a realist. I don't know what you do for a living, but I actually work in the world of earmarks and governmental policy on appropriating money for state and local governments.
I work directly with the delegates staff that do this. Your comments give me no reason to believe you work in this area or have much in the way of realistic experience in how this process works or what motivates it.
You're stealing an intellectual base.
You're gonna have to establish as fact that Palin attempted to build her political career on the back of earmarks.
Sorry, but conjecture just doesn't cut it.
Huh?
I note that before someone can assert that Palin centered her political career on successfully getting earmarks that it must first be demonstrated that this, in fact, was the case...and that demonstrates that I don't understand appropriations?
Okay, it's clear that you don't understand the appropriations process. I say that because you posted, "appropriating in politics".
You see, unlike you I understand that there two budgeting processes - authorizations and appropriations. Authorizations are simply the legislature authorizing the expenditure of dollars for something. Appropriations are the legislative bills actually expending a set amount of dollars.
Appropriating in politics? LOL!!! Appropriating is a legislative function.
All this talk about Palin pushing for earmarks when the only ones that can submit them in a bill are Senators so it really does not matter.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?