Forbes.com claimed Palin "oppos[es]" earmarks -- but her administration said it requested them this year
SUMMARY: Forbes.com's Brian Wingfield asserted that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "shares [Sen. John] McCain's opposition to earmarks." However, in a Juneau Empire op-ed, John Katz -- Alaska's director of state-federal relations and special counsel to Palin -- wrote that in 2008, the Palin administration "request[ed] 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year."
In an August 29 article, Forbes.com Washington bureau chief Brian Wingfield asserted that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "shares [Sen. John] McCain's opposition to earmarks." However, in a March 18 Juneau Empire op-ed, John Katz -- Alaska's director of state-federal relations and special counsel to Palin -- wrote that in 2008, the Palin administration "request[ed] 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year."
From Katz's op-ed, which was highlighted by Bradford Plumer in an August 29 blog post on The New Republic's The Plank:
In my opinion, earmarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress' constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.
Recognizing there have been instances of earmark abuse, Congress has instituted reforms to bring greater transparency and accountability to the process. These include the identification of each earmark's sponsor and a prohibition against earmarks inserted into the budget without public discussion.
Recently, members of the Alaska congressional delegation announced they would post on their Web sites the earmark requests it receives. Gov. Sarah Palin has applauded this decision.
Earlier this year, President Bush and the congressional leadership announced that the total number and dollar amount of earmarks must be reduced significantly.
The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.
Further, the governor has insisted that each Alaska request must demonstrate an important federal purpose and strong public support.
We also have heard that, wherever possible, a state or local match should be provided. The state's budget requests incorporate this principle.
So, it is important to note there is no longer a "free lunch" at the federal level. Most federal requests have state or local budget consequences as well.
[...]
The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan. In responding to the new realities, we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here.
Wingfield also wrote that Palin "oppos[ed] the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere.' " However, Media Matters for America has noted that while Palin canceled the project for a proposed bridge between Ketchikan, Alaska, and Gravina Island in September 2007, Palin reportedly supported it during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding -- which was authorized by the federal government in 2005, but never appropriated -- for the project.
From Wingfield's August 29 Forbes.com article:
Palin also shares McCain's opposition to earmarks, opposing the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a pet project of two titans of Alaska politics, Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens.
"I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to nowhere," said Palin, who describes herself as a foe of the "good-old-boy network."
Didn't McCain also ask for earmarks he allegedly opposed?
But instead, the main issue seems to be "PALIN'S A WOMAN, AND SHE'S RUNNING FOR VICE PRESIDENT!!!"
Why must America ignore the issues?
WITH ????
'... in 2008, the Palin administration "request[ed] 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year."'
She obviously opposes earmarks, as she's clearly "ramping down". It's tough to go cold turkey. If she was Pro-earmarks, she would be increasing the number yearly.
I believe the chirpy and peppy gov. of Alaska would like earmarks to be safe, legal and rare.
One problem...look who's doing the counting. According to *her counsel*, Palin only requested 31 earmarks totaling $200 million for FY2008. However, according to CAGW, Alaska still walked away with 147 earmarks totaling more than $379 million. That's $180 million more than FY2007. Looks like a shell game to me.
By the way, Alaska once again took top honors for per capita earmarks, a distinction it's held for almost every year of the Bush adminstration. The achievment...$555 per capita. The national average...$33!
Of course, Alaska may yet face some belt tightening now that their chief porker - Sen. Ted Steven (R) - has been indicted.
There are two bridges to nowhere.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/8269725p-8166465c.html
-- Palin did eventually kill the Ketchikan bridge project.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/story/9510734p-9421474c.html
-- What of the Knik Arm bridge? As of June 9, 2008:
http://www.adn.com/anchorage/v-printer/story/430751.html
The word "opposes" may not be 100% appropriate. but a little common sense might be helpful here.
Her words, "the governor has insisted that each Alaska request must demonstrate an important federal purpose and strong public support."
and actions, reducing earmark expenditure from $550 million in the previous year to less than $200 million in the current,
paints a clear picture of her position on earmarks.
So go at it, pick a word other than "opposes" that fits her words and actions.
Actually, the ear-mark situation has been more twisted than usual in the last 18 months (particularly with respect to FY'08 funding). That's because of the shift in power to the Dems in the House in Jan '07, which upset the way the goopers had been pumping their ear-marks into completely unrelated bills, e.g. defense spending bills. When the Dems took the majority, they tried to keep their promise to stop that practice, resulting in bringing a lot of federally funded programs to a quick stop followed by an agonizing waiting period before starting back up. I believe it has been quite a tangled budgetary web the Dem majority has been trying to unweave, and they haven't been particularly successful. Perhaps it will go better starting in Jan '09 if enough more Dems are voted in to house seats.
Bush, and Clinton too, btw pleaded for the budgetary line-item veto from the spend-thrift gooper congresses, to no avail, though the problem has grown worse exponentially during the Bushco years. No matter what McCain promises about cutting out pork, he won't get anywhere without the line-item veto. If we dems are able to put a majority into congress, we must insist that our reclaimed majority enact a line-item veto power. Otherwise, there will be no real change, nor the possiblity of it, no matter who is elected POTUS.
Ear-marks are complicated. Reps seem to believe it is their duty to bring home as many as they can, and help each other to do the same. This is one of many fed govt problems ... another is the insatiable hunger of our ponderous federal bureaucracies. They will continue to grow without bound until the American populace is either assimilated or suffocated by them. This is because it is not common for legislators to insert termination criteria for programs when the programs are started up. No one involved knows when programs have completed their missions and can be dismantled, and the people employed by the programs tend to write proposals to extend their missions in any case.
These are non-partisan problems, and no change of administration will be able to remedy them without a) line-item veto power to the president and b) establishing termination criteria for all governmental programs.
I guess you didn't read my post above, but the "actions" as claimed by Katz simply don't match the result. Conveniently, Palin can claim she requested whatever she wants, because it's not her name that gets attached to federal legislation, but those of the Senators and Representative from Alaska. However, the reality is that earmarks for Alaska, both in number and amount, rose significantly from FY2007 to FY2008.
As anology, it's like saying I'm opposed to credit cards because I never requested them. I may have a dozen or so, but that's only because lenders kept offering them to me.