She never said she was against earmarks. She said she was against earmark abuses. There are legit reasons to have earmarks. One thing, Alaska shouldnt’ pay the full burden of the effects on their infrastructure by having government employees continually coming into their state and using their roads, etc., Those things need maintenance, and it is fair to help Alaska in that case.
LOL. "Earmark abuses" = "earmarks for somebody else instead of me".
true but mccain is against all earmarks out of principle.
I disagree.
My understanding is that earmarks are spending requests that occur during the conferencing between the House and Senate, i.e. spending that has not been voted on by either house.
In some cases these earmarks appear AFTER the final bill has been approved by both houses, so there is no opportunity for a true vote.
Pork-barrel is one thing, but earmarks are even worse.
At least with pork that is included in the original bill, there is accountability. With earmarks we don't even necessarily know who made the request or where the money is actually supposed to go.