Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those who may not know an earmark is directed spending. Out of a big pool of money given to the state(s) by the federal government, like a big spending bill such as the transportation bill, an earmark directs a certain amount of that money to be spent on a specific item, location, project etc. Pretty much anything you can think of. The bridge to nowhere was part of a massive 230+ billion dollar spending bill that sent money to every state. So each governor gets a big pile of money to spend any way they see fit on transportation projects in their state, except those funds earmarked for a specific project must be spent on that project as directed in the earmark.
Are you forgetting that Senator McCain said today that she had no earmarks while she was Governor? It doesn't make any difference what Obama had he has not denied having earmarks. Only the McCain camp has.
I didnt hear McCain claim that Palin has not had any earmarks, but McCain himself has NEVER had any earmarks.. In his whole political career.
I didnt hear McCain claim that Palin has not had any earmarks, but McCain himself has NEVER had any earmarks.. In his whole political career.
He said it on The View today. He's said it during town hall meetings before he picked her as his VP candidate (as a negative thing). I can post the link if you would like. As the day went on his campaign has backed away from the statement (since we've been told he doesn't speak for his own campaign I guess this will have to suffice as a "slip up").
Here is an article about earmark requests that Palin put in THIS YEAR.
As far as Governors not getting earmarks, not true. They request the monies via their representative and it comes to the state if approved. Palin did not spend the earmarked money that the state received on the bridge to nowhere but she did spend . I can research to see exactly how she did it (roads I think) but the point is, she used the money for the state.
I personally don't have a problem with money being used for it's citizens well being.
Well Obama and Biden voted YES on those Alaskan earmarks, McCain said NO and governors can't get earmarks, only congress can.
I just love how people keep saying that governors can't get earmarks. This is a semantic argument. Gov. Palin HIRED a lobbyist to serve as HER representative to plead her case for her desired earmarks. The fact is that she DID receive them.
From the LA Times 9/3/2008:
"Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
