One of my neighbors, a college grad, asked me an interesting question today. What’s an earmark? Excellent question. It sort of reminded me of a commercial for directv in which the dog intones, “I don’t know what HDTV is, but……

Why would a governor need to go through the earmark process.
Palin would ask for funding as parof the normal proces.

“He was asked about nearly $200 million in congressional pet projects Palin requested for 2009 for her state, despite her boasts that she opposes such projects and his claim that she didn’t ask for any. McCain responded by criticizing Obama for seeking more than $900 million in these earmarks, by one count.”

I’m glad you listened!

McCain/Palin claims on earmarks should be tested properly by the media.

Operative word: “should”

I guess, that would happen in a parallel universe…Or, in your dreams.

So in the light of these massive subsidies that the rest of the United States sends to Alaska, even as the residents of Alaska refuse to pay for their own government, Gov. Palin had better have a very good explanation for every earmark/funding request she sends to Washington.

factoid on September 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Here is a little factoid that you conveniently forgot.
Federal government-owned land

Alaska 69.1%
Illinois 1.8%

I am sure the good folks in Alaska would gladly give back the .83 percent in tax receipts if they can have close to 70% of their state back.

Are you really saying that the state should fund the infrastructure on land that they do not own or control?

I was woken up before dawn this morning to the the sound of my crying 9 month old son, and after getting him back to sleep, I thought I’d check……

The real crime here is that states have to go to the federal govt hat-in-hand to get their money back. That’s the corrupt situation we need to rid ourselves of.

Kenrod on September 15, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Thanks Kenrod. This is so obvious I am stupefied as to why it needs to be brought to anyone’s attention who has any ounce of sense about them. But there lies the truth-there are many who have no sense.

This argument forgets one key point: The differences in the job of a GOVERNOR versus that of a State’s SENATOR or CONGRESSPERSON.

It is an entirely expected and proper part of ANY governor’s JOB to ATTRACT AS MUCH INVESTMENT AS POSSIBLE to his or her state, in order to benefit that state, be it private investment capital or federally funded capital. Of course, it’s also the governor’s job to hold down the tax burden or other social burdens to his/her state constituents during the process.

However, for a LEGISLATOR…it is an expected and proper part of the job to carefully study these attempts to attract investment by the states, deem whether they are worthy of federal funding and thus inclusion in an earmark, or whether it’s either a fairly low priority when evaluated against competing projects/initiatives, or even a waste of their state taxpayers’ tax money.

Obama was barely there in the Illinois state legislature, and also barely there for the U.S. Senate…notice the multiple “present” votes not taking a stand on many bills (indicating likely lack of time put into studying the issues to sufficient depth to take that stand, or the cowardice to be held accountable for having taken one at all) in both legislatures in which he served.

So…the media is attempting to slam Palin for ACTUALLY DOING the job she was elected to, while leaving Obama alone for NEGLIGENCE in doing his?

HYPOCRISY. SHEER, TOTAL, UTTER LIBERAL MEDIA HYPOCRISY.

One of the main reasons why I have always supported Sarah Palin is her tough stance when it comes to earmark spending.  It is irrefutable that she has drastically cut such spending while Governor of Alaska.  McCain has never requested a single earmar…

Governors do not earmark — and given her relationship with Ted Stevens, I highly doubt there’s anything nefarious here (just like the other smears against her).

That’s refreshing!

This was an obviously ambigious article. Is the WSJ slipping, or do they have an agenda here?

Chakra Hammer on September 15, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Dude, you have authored 9 of the past 54 comments, all in the space of 44 minutes. Is there anything else you have been meaning to say?

The correct response to a story like this is not to ask for details on a distinction without a difference. It sounds like parsing and semantics.

GulfCoastBamaFan on September 15, 2008 at 10:41 AM

But there is a difference, and a big one. Legislation designed to appropriate money sees the light of day. It requires a vote directly tied to the issue at hand. Earmarks do not. They are a like a parasite, just along for the ride.

Update II

And yet another lesson in not believing the media’s first report.

or as some of O!s Chicago constituents might say…

“Break me off a lil’ sumpin’-sumpin’…”