La Gobernadora Palin vuelve a las noticias nacionales en cuatro frentes. El primero de ellos es por los famosos “earmarks” o proyectos especiales “dirigidos” a una necesidad concreta que se financian con presupuesto federal. Los otros tres son …

CrazyFool on March 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM

No because under existing law, the citizens of Alaska have to pay federal income taxes regardless of the amount of earmarks requested by that state’s officials.

Please note from my post above that “Not all earmarks are pork – some earmarks are needed to maintain major infrastructure like highways/bridges/pipelines or to fund federally mandated programs like No Child Left Behind and SCHIP.” The way the system exists now earmarks are necessary for states to meet the needs of their citizens and to comply with federally mandated programs (No Child Left Behind is a federal program that all states have to follow but it costs money to do so. The states are not able to fulfill NCLB requirements without the required federal funding.)

…. silence….

technopeasant on March 15, 2009 at 12:28 AM

That’s how we got Obama. If we don’t want more of the same, we have to work on educating the electorate and reforming the system.

Sarah Palin is very good at expressing her views and explaining her ideology. She has overcome religious stigma and misconceptions about pro-life Americans. I say giver her a chance in the next primary.

This is a very rational argument which I totally agree with but let’s face it more people are concerned that Sarah apparently only believes in abstinence as a form of birth control and that she is a religious wacko.

I’m sorry to say that but it’s true.

technopeasant on March 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM

It certainly didn’t help John McCain who claimed to have never requested one (although he certainly voted for legislation containing lots of earmarks – talk about hypocrisy)! Barack Obama acknowledged he requested earmarks and still won.

I think the average voter doesn’t know what an earmark is. Not all earmarks are pork – some earmarks are needed to maintain major infrastructure like highways/bridges/pipelines or to fund federally mandated programs like No Child Left Behind and SCHIP.

Sarah is serving the needs of the constituents of her state who pay their share of federal taxes. Also, Alaska’s Senators, Congresspersons and numerous other parties (universities, state agencies, etc.) are the ones asking for most of the earmarks. It’s not fair or logical to blame Sarah for all of Alaska’s earmark requests. Sarah has actually worked to reduce the number of earmarks each year (she has achieved that goal).

I bet the majority of taxpayers appreciate it when federal money is returned to their state (remember, the feds got that money from us taxpayers in the first place!). If the feds would agree to abolish federal income taxes then the states and their constituents would probably not need as many earmarks.

200+ comments isn’t impressive when one considers that over 30 of them are either ddrintn or joey! :)

benny shakar on March 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM

I haven’t commented on Palin much in this thread. A lot of my comments are asking for rational arguments from O-bots. Want to be the first to offer one? I doubt it.

There is no big mystery here, we have plenty of cheap gas right now with an efficient pipeline distribution system in place in the lower 48, we don’t need Alaskan gas now.

lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM

There is nothing cheap about natural gas prices. You are confusing gasoline (vehicle fuel) with natural gas. I live in Michigan and my heating costs for the past two months averaged $450/month. But, then it seems like you’re always confused.

Poptech on March 14, 2009 at 3:19 AM

You need serious help.

Pretty easy concept to grasp.

One could argue that energy is a special case as it’s something we can’t realistically do without…it’s not hamburgers we’re talking about here. Still, because it’s all through our taxes, pay now or pay later.

Why should the people of Alaska foot the bill for energy that would benefit private companies, the U.S. as a whole or foreign buyers?

Federal projects and those dealing with national security and infrastructure should be funded by Washington (the rest of us that is). But, what upsets us is if the money is being spent frivolously or just to benefit special interests and not the People at large.

Wherein the media attempts to deflect blame from the President, who vowed to end earmarks and who, critically, actually has the power to do so, and put some of it on a governor (from a small, tiny, insignificant state, as……

Sorry, my writing was a little sloppy, since it was late at night and early this morning.

Well look into it. When did this providing link garbage start?

lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM

“Well look into it” doesn’t qualify as justification for a series of attacks on a range of public officials and corporate decisionmakers. “Looking into it” is what we’re doing now, and you’re not helping.

If you can’t provide a link or directions to publically available sources or maybe a few names of experts whose opinions and qualifications we could check out for ourselves, and presuming you’re unwilling to identify yourself and provide your own qualifications and credentials, then you’re just some unpleasant non-entity vouching for his own statements and arguments.

That’s neither persuasive nor useful. Suppose we decided what you’re saying made a lot of sense, and decided to spread the good word. When our colleagues and friends, no doubt nodding their heads agreeably, asked us where we got our information and arguments, all we could say is that we got it from some guy with a vaguely sexually suggestive all-lower-case screen name, who we run into at right wing web sites, and who obviously hates Sarah Palin’s guts.

“So wait,” our brother-in-law says, “you got this all from a HotAir troll?”
“Uh, yeah.”
“…Huh. So what do you think Pittsburgh’s chances are of a repeat?”

These are Palin-drones.

The media has an SOS out: Stuck on Stupid.

ajacksonian

heh.

Without even researching, I imagine it a good idea, having another strategically located airport for transporting, landing and refueling in such a zone as the Alaskan arctic where small aircraft are greatly needed and utilized.

That Alaskans are able to perform so effectively given their few numbers is hardly reason to discriminate against them because they don’t hire excessive employees to conduct business and provide energy and national defense.

That’s how journalism should be. Good job, Tapper and Palin. MSNBC however can go kiss off.

What does Sarah has that the DemocRATS don’t?

…*crickets*…

Way to go Sarah, I know all is well in Alaska and the Lower 48 are truly constipated. —–> the media is too. ;D

800 comment threads are great … when they contain really debate.

Not trolls and the same false arguments over and over again.

joey24007 on March 14, 2009 at 9:28 AM

The thread been hijacked anyway.

There is no big mystery here, we have plenty of cheap gas right now with an efficient pipeline distribution system in place in the lower 48, we don’t need Alaskan gas now.

lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM

Here’s a link for you from the International Herald Tribune. It repeats what one of the Alaskan articles I posted, except it takes a national view.

Gas production in the US is up about 9% this year, a rate of increase not seen since a one-year jump in 1984 and matching rises more typical of the 1950s when gas drilling was booming. Most of that gain is coming from shale, particularly the Barnett Shale around Fort Worth, Texas, which has been under development for several years. The increase in gas production stands in sharp contrast to the trend in domestic oil production, which has been declining in fits and starts since 1970.

Barnett proved that shale gas could be practicably extracted, but companies have lately set their sights on shale formations that could produce far more gas. Testing to determine the productivity of fields has been completed on just a tiny fraction of the potential acreage. According to a new report by Navigant Consulting, paid for by a foundation allied with the gas industry, there could be as much as 842 trillion cubic feet, or 24 trillion cubic meters, of retrievable gas in shales around the United States, enough to supply about 40 years of use at today’s consumption rate. But thousands of wells need to be drilled before the exact reserves will be known.

Contrast that with…

Dr. Mark Myers, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Coordinator, noted that much of the proposed production of shale gas will face environmental opposition over water use and disposal and conflicts over surface uses.

Alaska has 35 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of identified gas reserves, with average estimates of another 227 tcf of technically recoverable undiscovered gas.

Natural gas prices in the US have spiked 9% although the price is low right now given the current economy.

Your comment about Alaskan oil fields “running out” is wrong. The North Slope is drying up but nowhere near exhausted. There is tons of oil in the Beaufort Sea area, but that’s tied up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most energy companies have to factor in environmental groups, as was pointed earlier.

Alaska has more natural gas than the entire US, and the US supply would only last the next 40 years. Plus, that supply is shale deposits, which Alaska has factored into the equation and points out: it’s expensive because of extraction, and the method will make it difficult in areas like Colorado where drinking water is in demand and environmental groups will challenge it.

Your final argument, that no one will want to assume the cost of the pipeline has been shot down by quotes provided that the Canadian government, the US government and two private companies are currently undertaking the cost. The US has already put down $550 million on the pipeline. Canada committed several billion already. ConocoPhillips is moving ahead and securing capital.

You’ve taken an entirely solipsistic, contrary point of view which you refuse to back up with sources or statistics. It sounds like you’re the one in denial.

Energy is the key to security.

Palin gets that