Enough of the personal crap. Sarah Palin: In Love With Federal Pork

I find all the personal issues of the last few days boring with Gov Palin. Here's something actually relevant. The supposedly rugged individualistic and self sufficient Palin as we all know lobbyed for the Bridge to Nowhere before it became politically untenable. Where did she learn that? Why by hiring a lobbying firm, as soon as the Bush admin moved into Washington, to earn an astounding $26,000,000 in federal pork projects while she was mayor of Wasilla. That's more than $4,000 per person.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html

Sounds like your run of the mill Alaska Republican of the last eight years.

 

Does palin think aol is the internet?

 

Federal Highway funds aren't pork. The Feds collect taxes in your state to build highways, you have to have projects to get that money back.

 

Your spinning is fun. $15 million to connect your town by rail so you can travel to see Senator Ted Stevens is the porkiest of pork out there.

 

ehrie, ehrie, ehrie...when are you going to learn? It's only pork if a Democrat is behind it.

Republicans are 100% kosher.

 

Gov. Palin got money to repair roads! IN ALASKA OF ALL PLACES! How could they possibly need all that money! I learned on Ice Road Truckers that all their roads are ice and they get refreshed every year!

IT'S A FUCKING SCANDAL!!!!111

 

I thought Ice Road Truckers was in Canada.

 

I thought it was both?

Yeah, I was waiting for something negative to come out about Palin. This is pretty mild, but it's still at least something, and not the muckraking personal bullshit that's been tried so far.

 

Each person, including children, paid over $4,000 to the federal government highway fund? Or did you not read the article? I imagine the latter. You'd see nearly all of the pork she got lobbying didn't go towards road repair.

 

From the article:

$500,000 for a youth shelter
$1.9 million for a transportation hub
$900,000 for sewer repairs
$15 million for a rail project
$500,000 for a mental health center
$500,000 for the purchase of federal land
$450,000 to rehabilitate an agricultural processing facility.
$1 million for a rail and bus project in the town.

Not seeing a lot of "Highway Funds" in there.

But, I digress. The article says, "...almost $27 million in federal earmarks..." Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the figures mentioned aren't "almost $27 million."

 

Huh? What? I'm sorry. All I caught was "Sarah Palin: In Love With...Pork" and had to go rub one out.

 

I imagine those were the big ones. Not all earmarks are big numbers. After that stuff you probably get to the $25,000 for earwax and $1785.36 for chicken wings.

 

Palin was also for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. Let us all hail the savior of the GOP!

 

Wow. A whopping $26 million over 6(?) years. I think my part of the Bay Area gets over 1000 times that every single year, with decidedly less than 1000x the population. Disappointing? Maybe, but this is mote vs. beam in the eye territory here. Especially since she was elected to have the city's and state's best interests in mind, in contrast to Ted Stevens, who was elected to have the country's best interest in mind.

 

That was last Friday, numbnuts.

You're suppose to be foaming at the mouth over her daughter's pregnancy.

 

I wish I got her pregnant. What a lucky bastard.

 

Link? I haven't heard this, 'cause the article ehrie posted just says she was against it.

"...her opposition to a $223 million bridge in the state..."

 

Xerafin, Xerafin, Xerafin...when are you going to learn? It's only flip-flopping if a Republican is behind it.

When a Democrat [-]waffles[/-] evolves his or her position, it's the result of enlightenment.

 

Wait, these are earmarks, not additional spending? Forget it, I don't care and am not disappointed in the least. Earmarks are a red herring, a buzzword not synonymous with pork, despite the very fervent wishes of fraudulent politicians looking to continue increasing federal spending and executive discretion while looking like they are against spending.

 

My understanding on earmarks is that they are quite simple. At least at this state level, where I watch them closely, the money was going to get spent either way. The only question of who was going to get it, hence the earmark designating it specifically to a certain project/group.

 

That's from the questionaire that's been floating about.

 

Let's put it this way. She took over a town that had zero debt and left it over $20 million in debt. You decide.

 

And as to the authenticity of said questionaire?

 

1) Which is related to her requests for earmarks... how?

2) Link to prove she was responsible for it? For instance, if her town has a system such that the mayor has next to no discretion over the budget (my city works this way, for instance), this is hardly relevant.

 

I smell Fail in the air.
That Xerafin comes in to spout a one liner with nothing else confirms it.

Jez guys, this all ya got?

 

This article sucks. Nothing in it adds up.

Try harder, ehrie.

 

Bonds to match the Federal funds I mentioned above? If so...so?

If it is a traditional mayor/council style of government, the council had to not only pass all those spending measures, they had to originate there.

 

Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006 is the source of the questionarre. Their linking to that article is by pay service, so I aint paying for that.

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

That's the same paper talking about the same topic though and covers her support for the bridge.

 

Her town received no earmarks in her first two years, until President Bush was elected. Then she hires a lobbying firm and the monies start flowing in. What exactly are you looking for?