That's if The Zero doesn't melt down and self-destruct first. 
Posted on 09/06/2008 12:55:37 PM PDT by Chet 99
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (AP) Barack Obama is offering his first direct criticism of Sarah Palin (PAY'-lin) and it's on the subject of earmarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxmc.com ...
Dear Obama:
Sit down and shut your pie hole you metrosexual punk-ass chump.
Signed,
Mrs. Palin
I find it funny though, that if the McCain campaign takes a swipe at Obama the headlines will call it an “attack”.
But if Obama takes a swing at MaCain the same media refers to it as a “rebuke”.
Maybe it's because Obamam hits like a little Nancy-boy?
Obama too frightened to take on Opponent, lashes out at woman!
So far as the “earmarks” issue goes while she was Mayor, I hardly see that as an issue at all. Small local governments, especially those that are basically suburbs (in this case, Wasilla is a suburb of Anchorage) simply don’t have any source of revenue other than fees and taxes. Most of their money comes in the form of state or federal earmarks; it’s just the way it’s done. To reverse that at the small town level wouldn’t help those towns without a comprehensive change at the state level. It would simply ruin them and turn them to ghost towns. Getting money for small towns is necessary unless and until state governments change their ways.
The bigger problem is the Ketchikan bridge (i.e., “Bridge to Nowhere”) Project. It was originally was funded at $223 million by Congress, but its federal earmarks were removed. Her office put out this press release regarding the federal funds that were already sent:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071214143302/http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
I don’t think that’s terrible, but it does somewhat undercut her claim to have said they don’t need the money. It is also very true that she not only supported the project, but her support was, in fact, well known and even controversial at the time—though I don’t think she went so far as to make it part of her platform.
Another link (ridiculously long one, though):
And a more recent report:
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
I think the best response from her, given the last report linked above, is to emphasize that she never opposed the brdige itself, but decided to forgo construction when the costs got too high. Weak, but it’s something. What she cannot say is that the money was returned; it was not and, in fact, it has already been spent on the new road itself.
I strongly support Palin, but the charge is correct. She did suppor the bridge, as well as the earmarks when she ran for governor. The money was not returned but was spent on building the road itself; her own office issued a press release on that, linked above.
What other airports are nearby? The Bridge to Nowhere would have connected Ketchikan to 50 people plus an airport. Not sure the bridge would be worth the cost, but if the Ketchikan airport is the best one around despite the lack of a bridge (ferry service exists) the bridge would not seem useless.
I’m not talking about the Gravina Island Bridge (Bridge To Nowhere) but about one of the side-projects associated with it - namely a project to improve the highway from Ketchikan south.
Just to add to that and my postings above, her apparent change of heart (flip?) on the bridge project did NOT alter the fact that the Ketchikan Daily News from supporting her nomination:
http://www.ketchikandailynews.com/free/e-palin-tapped-nep
That's if The Zero doesn't melt down and self-destruct first.
I mean the Ketchikan Daily News did support her nomination...forgot to edit that.
Wow. Palin/McCain spoke to what--12000 in Colorado Springs?
I thought the Messiah would have people travelling from far and wide just to be near him and cure their hemorrhoids and such.
The crux od the earmark issue is process, or lack of it. The way it works is, after the budget is basically framed out, the Congresspeople all rush to add their own personal amendments which go on the tab without a hearing or anything else. They are just pure pork, and while some are indeed worthwhile, there are tens of billions of dollars worth that go to crap like the Woodstock Museum HillaryClinton wanted to build with a million of our money.
If someone wants to build a hospital in their district let them add it to the budget in public and let the conference committee decide if it is worthy of the final bill.
Looks as if Obama’s attack dog Biden is nothing more than a lap poodle relegating Obama to the position of the dirty slimy every day ordinary politician.
“Travelling from far and wide just to be near him and have their hemorrhoids cured...”
LMAO (no pun intended}
Didn’t the Catholic priest who so viciously attacked Hillary calling her a - you know - get $100,000 of earmarked money from 0bama?
Thank you for the links and the willingness to discuss this issue.
I brought up the Bridge, too, and posted that last link on another thread the other day. But most people seem reluctant to discuss these issues because I guess they think we need to present a unified front. The way I see it, I’m in favor of small government, and if the GOP doesn’t demonstrate that it’s in favor of the same, we need to demand answers from them.
I agree she has a lot of explaining to do about the “Bridge to Nowhere” claim she made. She seems very talented with words, though, so I imagine she’ll give an answer like the one you suggested.
IMHO, the earmarks she received as mayor of a small town are a contentious issue, too. I live in a small town, and Wasilla received a very large amount of federal funds under her tenure - $27 million. Also, there are the earmarks she herself requested as governor for Alaska, including $197 million this year alone, and then there was the tax increase on oil company profits in Alaska.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154664_palin03.html
Alaska is one of the heaviest federally-funded states. I understand her asking for federal funds. After all, as mayor, she had to look out for her town first. As governor, she has to look out for her state first. I imagine that might be her answer to these questions. But her record doesn’t fit the image of her as a libertarian-style conservative Republican who says, “I told them, if we want a bridge, we’ll build it ourselves.”
But, Palin as VP did fire up GOP voters. We’ll see what happens from here on.
And I have anecdotal evidence that Obama isn't even particularily liked by all black people. From my wanderings around here in Mississippi, he seems to be loved only by black women....seems his only reliable constituency is the OJ Jury. Black men are mixed (you won't get them to admit they don't strongly support Obama, but you can hear it in their voice). Of course, this is all anecdotal.
The Bradley Effect may be why he's leading in the polls.
I think we need to focus on just what an earmark is. Not all money going from the feds to a state are earmarks. Earmarks are funds that go to a state for specific projects and that circumvent Executive Branch allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process. (From the OMB definition). Not all earmarks are bad; some are, some aren’t. The majority of federal funds that Alaska received are likely not earmarks, but are part of the general allocation of funds that the state would have received anyway, owing to the vast amount of federal resources there that the state is given responsibility for.
This is a key issue that Palin can and should address because it actually underscores her case—Alaska receives more than other states because more than half of the state is federal property (in fact, the Alaska Independence Party does not advocate secession, it advocates return of all that federal property to the state).
The other issue you raise about the pipelines is also misleading. Unlike other states, all natural resources in Alaska belong to the citizens of the state, not the oil companies that pump it. The oil companies for 30 years had been pumping oil and failing to give the people’s share of the profits back—i.e., that didn’t pay the required dividends. In addition, the oil companies held tens of thousands of acres of land that they licensed for exploration and drilling, but merely landbanked—which they cannot legally do; they also failed to pay the license fees all that time. Palin forced them to give up those licenses (I think she also got back fees).
As a result of her work, the revenue the state got back in fees, profit sharing, and increased tax revenue (yes she also raised taxes on the oil companies), was given right back to the citizens. The oil companies had run Alaska as a fiefdom until Palin. She will come out waay on top on this issue. I am not worried. Look around for her interview with Bartolmo on CNBC where she addresses these points. This area, in fact, is probably her single strongest suit.
There must other factors to the heavy federal funding that Alaska receives. Nevada has much more federal land (almost 85%), but the latest ranking shows Alaska as number one in federal spending and Nevada as #50.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
Then again, that ranking is based on 2005 before Palin took office as governor. I wish we could see the current figures, though I’d be surprised if federal spending in AK has dropped by much, if at all.
Also, that ranking is “per capita,” and Alaska has such a small population, so I thought maybe the low number of people explains the higher ranking. But, take a look at K-12 federal spending by state, for example: Alaska receives far more federal money per pupil than Nevada or anywhere else for that matter:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html
That’s a 2004 ranking, but I’d like to know, did she cut back on those federal funds? I doubt it.
Perhaps this is a big issue for me because I live in a “donor state” at the bottom of the federal funding ranking. I’ve never given too much thought to Alaska, except that I always noticed it at the top. I can’t see the MSM Democrats hammering her too much on this issue because they favor more federal funding and interference, anyway. She could answer that Alaska is building up, and it would benefit the lower 48 to invest in AK. I imagine mostly everyone (except yours truly) would accept that answer.
The oil tax issue might be an issue the Dems can use to their advantage, though. The Alaskan system sounds too much like government ownership and control of an industry. I see it was discussed on FR before she became VP nominee:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061947/posts
In the interview you mentioned, she doesn’t go into the difference between Obama’s “windfall profits tax” idea and Alaska’s system. Maybe I found the wrong interview. But, she might use this argument effectively:
http://lobotero.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/what-did-palin-do-to-the-alaskan-oil-industry/
Whatever she says, the Dems will make sure this issue follows her. I personally am worried, no matter who gets into office now. I’m all for drilling in AK, including ANWR as long as the Alaskans want to. But, if we eventually became more reliant on Alaskan oil, wouldn’t the taxes there elevate the oil prices for the rest of us? I hope McCain is healthy for a long time, especially the next eight years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.