McCain, Palin castigate earmarks

Thursday 11th September, 05:57 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

15 Comments

buddha4brains at 07:39 AM JST - 11th September

Two weeks ago Palin was working for earmarks, now she is going cold turkey swearing off the stuff. I wish her well.

McCain has stayed away from earmarks for his state - that's good judgment - but why choose a running mate who is a chronic abuser of taxpayer funds? Not so sound judgment.
McC72 at 07:51 AM JST - 11th September

I just don't understand why no one seem to question all these plain lies of the past week of McCain/Palin. She keeps on referring to this eBay stuff she didn't do and she goes free on that, the earmark thing and she goes unquestioned, the pig lipstick thing which McCain used before and they wanna hang Obama for using it...Well, I suppose the tactic is working. First attack/silence the media first and then push through with your lies unquestioned
adaydream at 07:52 AM JST - 11th September

There are both types of earmarks; those that are getting levees built to protect families and properties or there are those that find out the sexuality of the mountain goat.

John McCain swings those little fists and threatens to veto the first bill that comes across his desk, if he's elected, with earmarks. Even the ones that are needed to save life and property? Right.

He'll be as two faced as george bush is. < :-)
adaydream at 08:01 AM JST - 11th September

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci10385036?source=mostemailed

According to PolitiFact, the plane, bought by her Republican predecessor whom she beat in 2006, was listed for sale three times on the San Jose internet auction giant. But no one ever met the minimum bid. The plane was listed with an asking price of $2.5 million in 2007. The state had paid just under $2.7 million for it in 2005.

Finally, the state turned to an aircraft broker, who sold the jet to an Alaskan businessman for $2.1 million.

McC72 - Because she and he are a line of lies and the ones calling out the truths are being overshadowed by the constant line of lies. They can create more lies faster than the Obama can respond and the media takes it sweet time correcting the error or pandering it to nonsence news that confuses voters.

Remember one of them even thought it would be smart to say, a profit was even made off the sell, also. < :-)
CavemanLawyer at 09:38 AM JST - 11th September

According to PolitiFact, the plane

I suggest letting the plane thing go. It was listed on eBay. It was sold. Those are facts. People are going to link the two, falsely, yes, and it can't be helped. Whether the candidates accidentally did that or not, I have no idea. I don't care either. I have made such mistakes myself. And frankly, whether lie or mistake, it really makes no difference if the jet was sold on eBay or at Walmart. It was viewed as waste and sold. People are going to like that and the means of sale won't matter to them.

adaydream, you did not say it clearly, but I think you are trying to say the jet was not sold at a profit. That would be a more significant lie. On the surface, paid 2.7 million then sold for 2.1 million looks like a loss, doesn't it? Well, it probably isn't. When you factor in two years of depreciation, it probably was a profit according to any accountant. I certainly would not be shouting that kind of profit from the rooftops though. But they probably did not know all those details. If the accountant said profit, they probably took them at their word.

Many will like the fact that she felt the governor did not need such a luxury and sold it. The means hardly matter. I cannot say if the governor of one of our most remote states needs a jet or not, but I would say more than the governor of New Jersey. But a candidate for the V.P. spot does need a jet it seems. And so, she has bought her own:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-09-05-palin-jet_N.htm?csp=34

Conserve your punches. What you say about earmarks is spot on. They are not inherently corrupt. If McCain/Palin want to end earmarks, my question is: How in the Devil are they going to distribute Federal money to the states in a way that is fair and balanced? The system we have is called "earmarks". If they have another system, they better tell us quick. Are they going to keep all that federal money for themselves?

--Cirroc
SuperLib at 10:33 AM JST - 11th September

I just don't understand why no one seem to question all these plain lies of the past week of McCain/Palin.

It's pretty much a numbers game and a classic Republican election tactic. They will say anything they want in a speech which gets national attention, and they know any holes in the speech will be exposed days after in a newspaper article which far fewer people will read or see.
smithinjapan at 12:26 PM JST - 11th September

Undaunted by his running mate’s ties to earmarks, McCain said: “I’ve fought corruption, and it didn’t matter if it was Democrats or Republican, and so has Sarah Palin.”

Last line should read: "...and it didn't matter if it was Democrats or Republican, OR Sarah Palin."!

This is another speech that will come back to haunt him and Palin; it's just a MAJOR shame that they can tell bold face lies to the public and they will buy it hook, line, and sinker (well, desperate Republicans, anyway).

Meanwhile, Palin is not allowed to be interviewed by anyone that the McCain camp deems 'unfit', and any media that have interviewed her thusfar have only been allowed to do so (and listen to her convention soundbites) if they promise it's off the record. Pathetic! Utterly pathetic!
skipthesong at 12:33 PM JST - 11th September

They will say anything they want in a speech which gets national attention, and they know any holes in the speech will be exposed days after in a newspaper article which far fewer people will read or see." R u trying to tell us the repubs have a monopoly on this tactic? c'mon, don't be such a blind groupie.

All of us on this board should not be waving flags for neither Obama nor McCain. We should be propelling non dem and non repubs... Until that happens, you ain't gonna see any positive change in the US..
sdmsec at 01:21 PM JST - 11th September

If McCain/Palin want to end earmarks, my question is: How in the Devil are they going to distribute Federal money to the states in a way that is fair and balanced? The system we have is called "earmarks". If they have another system, they better tell us quick. Are they going to keep all that federal money for themselves?

Best way I see to handle it is to not give that money to the federal government in the first place. Lower federal taxes and allow states to make more decisions locally.
sdmsec at 01:23 PM JST - 11th September

McCain, Palin castigate "earmarks"

Silly politicians don't even know enough about anatomy to perform a castigation.

Earmarks! LOL! A little further south.
CavemanLawyer at 01:30 PM JST - 11th September

Best way I see to handle it is to not give that money to the federal government in the first place. Lower federal taxes and allow states to make more decisions locally.

But you are not running for office. I want the McCain/Palin plan since they are the ones who brought it up. I don't think we will ever hear it.

--Cirroc
CavemanLawyer at 01:37 PM JST - 11th September

All of us on this board should not be waving flags for neither Obama nor McCain. We should be propelling non dem and non repubs... Until that happens, you ain't gonna see any positive change in the US..

I would love to have other parties running. We need it badly, agreed. But until the all or nothing electoral college system is changed a new party has no chance of even getting off the ground in the United States. That is the way our rich masters want it. No new parties means we peasants can't start over.

I would love to get a sound off of how many here think we need a new party or two, but it would not be allowed.

--Cirroc
Nessie at 02:34 PM JST - 11th September

Selling the plane was a good thing. She deserves credit for it, regardless of whether the details of her explanation are a big foggy.

As for earmarks, maybe McCain can be her sponsor at Earmarks Anonymous. Remember, Sarah, the first step is admitting you have a problem.
WhiteHawk at 10:44 AM JST - 12th September

I know yabits will complain about the source, but that's his problem.

From Neal Boortz:

When it comes to Sarah Palin, we've been through the specifics on this Bridge to Nowhere cr-p. In fact, the Democrat Party in Alaska acknowledges that it was Sarah Palin who finally scrapped the bridge. That website, by the way, disappeared for a while, until pressured to re-post the page (which they did, only at a different address). But just as a little side note ... guess who DID vote for the Bridge to Nowhere. Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Why doesn't the media bring THAT to your attention. Even when given a second chance to shift the funds to Katrina relief programs, Obama and Biden still voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. While John McCain did not end up voting on the amendment, he is on record opposing the earmark.

When it comes to Sarah Palin's record of reform ... let's just look at earmarks, since this is something that Palin and her Senate opponents have in common. Before Sarah Palin's time as governor, the state of Alaska used to request over 100 earmarks each year to be secured by Alaska's congressional delegation. When it came time for Sarah Palin to request her earmarks for the first time as governor ... she slashed that number by half, requesting 54 earmarks. The next year, Palin cut that number AGAIN down to just 31 earmarks. Of those 31 earmarks, 27 of these are continuous or were previously appropriated. When Palin entered the governor's office, the total amount of quests averaged $550 million a year. That number has been reduced to less than $200 million now that Palin is in office. And it would only continue to decline. One of Palin's stated goals as Governor is to ask Congress for no more than a dozen earmarks for her state. On top of all that, Palin insisted that each earmark requested by the state of Alaska demonstrate an important federal purpose and public support. Whenever possible, Palin wants to have earmarks only if they can be matched by state or local budgets. And her administration is currently re-examining previous decisions on transportation earmarks ... the Alaska Department of Transportation is conducting an audit to determine the status of every single one of its recent earmarks.

Let's go ahead and take a look at Barack Obama's earmarks in the Senate. In just three years, Barack Obama has requested over 300 earmark projects totaling $740 million. For the 2008 fiscal year alone, Obama requested 112 earmarks. Sarah Palin? 31.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200809/09102008.html

And there you have it. No matter how hard adaydream will try to misrepresent Palin's campaign promises, the whole truth is that she has in fact reduced both the number and the amounts of requested earmarks for her state substantially. It's a trend she shows every sign of continuing, if she remains governor of Alaska and doesn't become the Vice President.

Pelosi hasn't reduced earmarks. In fact, they've increased. Obama and Biden have done their share too. But they're not promising to reduce wasteful government spending, they're merely promising to charge "someone else" for it all. And so goes the class warfare game.

Not all federal spending is through earmarks, they are attachments on other bills. They rarely have anything to do with the bill they're attached to, and the only way the president can stop them is to veto the entire bill and send it back to congress.

There are two solutions: 1) Eliminate all earmarks and require each spending request to be a separate bill or 2) give the president the option of the line-item veto so he can eliminate specific earmarks without sending the entire bill back.

But these solutions make sense, so don't expect congress to ever allow them. Especially if it's run by Pelosi and Reid, and even moreso if under a Republican administration.
yabits at 09:03 PM JST - 12th September

WhiteHawk writes: "I know yabits will complain about the source, but that's his problem."

I don't complain about Republicans using unreputable sources. It's to be expected from them. Palin's statements regarding her telling Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge have already been debunked as lies. (Congress stopped funding for the project while Palin was still voicing support for it.) The other thing that Palin didn't do, was say "thanks, but no thanks" to the federal money that was earmarked for the project.

Just like the statement that 30+ lawyers have been sent to "dig up dirt" on Palin has been discredited.