On Sep 14, 5:22*pm, hk wrote:
527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:48 pm, HK wrote:
Despite the b.s. from McCain and Palin that the latter doesn't take
earmarks, just the opposite is true. Alaskans still lead the nation in
receipt of earmarks, per capita

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...gbook2008porkp....

Alaska should lead the nation in Per Capita Earmarks. *2/3 of Alaska
is owned by the other 48 states locked up in 5 very large military
installations and parks of one kind or another.
Why shouldn't the federal government pay to upkeep its facilities?
The total area of the parks alone is something like 18 times the size
of Illionois and 60 times the size of Delaware.

D'oh. The point is not that Alaska got earmarks, the point is that Mr.
Near Death and Ms. Knows Nothing are campaigning partially on her
non-existent record of turning down earmarks. The claim of course is
absolute bull****.

You need to be more specific. Do you mean soft earmarks, or hard
earmarks? The whole subject of earmarks makes good political rhetoric
but often lacks specific details.

Ref:
In United States politics, earmarks refer to congressional provisions
that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that
direct specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
Earmarks can be found in both legislation (also called "Hard earmarks"
or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports
(also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are
binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have
the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.
[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a
specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in
his/her home state or district.

Congressional earmarks are often defined loosely as anonymously
authored guarantees of federal funds to particular recipients in
appropriations-related documents.

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds
provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the
congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents
Executive Branch merit-based or competitive 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.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform
legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and
the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none
of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely
was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy
research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general
legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or
in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or
entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report
language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint
explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is
required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the
United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all
appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides
Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent
on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a
regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal
government.

Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in
the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money
to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency
according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With
an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a
specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a
particular project, without the Members of Congress having to identify
themselves or the project.

There is an argument over whether civil servants should appropriate
the money or whether elected officials should do the appropriating.
Critics argue the ability to earmark Federal funds should not be part
of the legislative appropriations process [1]. Tax money should be
applied by Federal agencies according to objective findings of need
and carefully constructed requests rather than being earmarked
arbitrarily by elected officials. Supporters of earmarks, however,
feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding
needs in their own districts and states and that it is more democratic
for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than unelected
civil servants. Critics counter that elected representatives have too
much of a vested interest in their own districts and do not have the
Nation's interests as a whole in mind when making these decisions with
taxpayer money.

The congressional year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains
nearly 10,000 Congressional earmarks worth $10.4 billion, according to
a comprehensive database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.[2] In
addition, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, passed
earlier in the year, contains nearly 2,200 earmarks worth $7.9
billion. The total congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008
numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion. This is a 23% cut in earmarks
from the high in FY 2005, but falls well short of the 50% reduction
House leadership set as its goal earlier in the year.[3]

Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08
earmarks representing $13.2 billion as "Pork Projects", significantly
lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years:
13,997 "Pork Projects" for a total of $27.3 billion in 2005, and 9,963
projects for a total of $29 billion in 2006.[4]