Earmarks Redux

**Bonestorm** · 09-12-2008, 11:47 AM

This is why the fact that Palin requested all sorts of earmarks, more in per-capita requests than any other state actually received, is relevant:

WALTERS: What is she going to reform specifically, senator?

MCCAIN: Well, first of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.

WALTERS: She also took some earmarks there.

BEHAR: A lot.

MCCAIN: No, not as governor she didn’t, she vetoed…

WALTERS: As Mayor.

MCCAIN: Well, look, the fact is that she was a reform governor.

Because John McCain and Sarah Palin keep lying about it.

**Timshel** · 09-12-2008, 12:59 PM

For the most part earmarks are beside the point anyway. Earmarks are just directions on how to spend money already in the budget. If the legislature does not direct the spending then it is left to the executive branch. There is little reason to believe it will be done any more responsibly or that it will not be done in a corrupt manner.

The only possible argument against earmarks is that it might then cause those who claim to support limited government or fiscal responsibility to actually vote that way. But that is not a very good argument since the executive can just promise them pork for support of a spending bill or any other bill. If the executive leaves the decision in the hands of bureaurats then clearly they will have an incentive to favor politicians that increase their budgets.

The argument against earmarks is an argument for more executive power and WE DO NOT NEED THAT.

**Bonestorm** · 09-12-2008, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by RStringfield

For the most part earmarks are beside the point anyway. Earmarks are just directions on how to spend money already in the budget. If the legislature does not direct the spending then it is left to the executive branch. There is little reason to believe it will be done any more responsibly or that it will not be done in a corrupt manner.

The only possible argument against earmarks is that it might then cause those who claim to support limited government or fiscal responsibility to actually vote that way. But that is not a very good argument since the executive can just promise them pork for support of a spending bill or any other bill. If the executive leaves the decision in the hands of bureaurats then clearly they will have an incentive to favor politicians that increase their budgets.

The argument against earmarks is an argument for more executive power and WE DO NOT NEED THAT.

I understand all of that. I'm not the one making a central tenet of my campaign that I will "change Washington" by eliminating earmarks and by tapping the governor of the state that is the highest per capita recipient of earmark money and who requested millions in earmarks more than other states actually received all while claiming that said running mate is anti-earmark and is a "reform candidate" based on her objection to earmarks.

Get it?

**uscitizen** · 09-12-2008, 07:23 PM

No they never get it. That is the problem.

**Timshel** · 09-12-2008, 07:48 PM

Oh I got it from the beginning, I just think the hypocrisy argument makes it seem as if you are implying support for the position McCain claims to champion because this is an issue that seems to have gained some consensus. The press reports on it irresponsibly making it seem like new spending. If you are talking about reforms to make earmarks more transparent, fine, but earmarks in and of themselves are not bad.

**FUCK THE POLICE** · 09-12-2008, 08:07 PM

What we need in America right now, I think, is more unchecked executive power. I'm 100% for that. As long as Obama's pres.

**Topspin** · 09-13-2008, 07:24 AM

Doesnt congress ask for earmarks.
Is Palin in congress?

**Timshel** · 09-13-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Topspin

Doesnt congress ask for earmarks.
Is Palin in congress?

Congress puts them in the appropriations bills. The problem of earmarks is if the congressperson trades their vote for them. Palin had no such vote to trade. But still it is dishonest for them to pretend she opposed "the bridge to nowhere."