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?...2008porkpercap

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.

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****.

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]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:41:50 -0700, 527_blue_collar_worker wrote:


Lets see you are comparing people that chose to live below sea level
next to a very large body of water where hurricanes often appear to
people that live in Alaska.
No, we Alaskans are not that dumb, or even near that dumb. There is no
comparison.

Really? 40% of Alaska's population live in Anchorage. Anchorage is
built on a quick clay deposit. Anchorage is in an active earthquake
zone. Anyone ever explain soil liquefaction to you?

On Sep 14, 11:34*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:48:45 -0400, 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....

Harry you are going to find out Palin cut the earmarks 40% during the
time she was gov. It is stiill a lot of money but 40% less that
Murkowski was getting.

so she and mcbush lied when they said she didn't take earmarks? is
that before or after she...ahem...'visited' iraq....which, of course,
she never did.

On Sep 14, 6:11*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:41:50 -0700, 527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
Lets see you are comparing people that chose to live below sea level
next to a very large body of water where hurricanes often appear to
people that live in Alaska.
No, we Alaskans are not that dumb, or even near that dumb. *There is no
comparison.

Really? *40% of Alaska's population live in Anchorage. *Anchorage is
built on a quick clay deposit. *Anchorage is in an active earthquake
zone. *Anyone ever explain soil liquefaction to you? *

Most of the minorities from the lower forty eight states live in
Anchorage on the fault line.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:34:18 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:48:45 -0400, 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?...2008porkpercap


Harry you are going to find out Palin cut the earmarks 40% during the
time she was gov. It is stiill a lot of money but 40% less that
Murkowski was getting.

Wasilla was hardly getting anything until Palin became mayor and hired
lobbyists specifically to go get Federal earmarks. Earmarks are
something you have to aggressively chase after. If you don't ask for
them, you don't magically get ANY at all.

Palin = The Earmarks Queen

She's not a hockey mom, so much as a welfare mom.

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.

So, you admit that McCain and Palin are liars. That's the
first honest thing that you have written in two months,
KKKwifi.

Where is the 'whitey' tape, KKKwifi?

Where is the 'Obama calls Palin a Pig' tape, KKKwifi?

527_blue_collar_worker wrote:
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?

ROTFL! KKKwifi is becoming the earmark expert.

Where is the 'whitey' tape, KKKwifi?

Where is the 'Obama calls Palin a Pig' tape, KKKwifi?