Tammy Bruce: Palin's Pork Problem

Palin's Pork Problem

A post by Pat

Sen. Obama, who supports earmarks, is attacking Gov. Palin for her changed position on earmarks. As Mayor and Governor she obtained millions from Washington. Gasp!--she even hired a lobbyist. Just this year she sent a proposal to Sen. Ted Stevens for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million---more, per person, than any other state. McCain is totally opposed to earmarks characterizing them as favors doled out with scant oversight. He included earmarks for Wasilla during the time Palin was Mayor in one of his lists critical of spending without oversight.

Gov. Palin wrote a column in a Fairbanks newspaper in March of this year explaining her position on earmarks. She points out that her request for funds was reduced in keeping with the reform in Washington for fiscal responsibility.

I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed. Accordingly, my administration has recommended funding for specific projects and programs when there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support.

...The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced ...

I believe this represents a responsible approach to the changing situation in Congress. Some misinterpret this as criticism of our congressional delegation. In fact, it responds to messages from the Congressional delegation and the Bush administration. They have told us that the number of earmarks in the federal budget will be reduced and that there must be a strong federal purpose underlying each request.

We have also heard that, wherever possible, earmark requests must be accompanied by a state or local match. So, there are state budget consequences that must be considered as well when we ask for federal help.

Unfortunately, Alaska has been featured prominently in the debate about reform. By recognizing the necessity for change, we can enhance the state's credibility in the appropriations process and in other areas of federal policy.

One of my goals as governor is making Alaska as self-sufficient as possible. Among other things, that means the ability to develop our natural resources in a responsible manner.

It seems to me as long as truckloads of money are rolling out of Washington, it's part of doing your job as a Mayor or Governor to get some. Her defense of earmarks from that point of view is reasonable. It is the responsibility of the federal government to be proper caretakers of federal tax dollars. A Palin campaign spokeswoman pointed out that Palin was working in the best interests of Alaska, working within the confines of the system.

McCain promises to veto every single bill that has earmarks. On the surface it seems awkward for Gov. Palin. She has been boasting she refused the "bridge to nowhere" funds exclaiming if they wanted a bridge they'd pay for it themselves. This is regrettably undeserved bravado that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, I see in Sarah Palin a woman who does her job and works hard in the best interest of the people she is serving.

I hope the McCain campaign doesn't let this fester without a quick and effective response. Perhaps McCain should modify his position against wasteful spending specifically and for more oversight. Not all earmarks are wasteful. Palin obtained funds for things such as a youth center and a rail project, not a teapot museum or a toilet conference. I think Palin's position on earmarks is more reasonable than McCain's and more responsible than most other politicians.

Posted by Pat · September 7, 2008 08:02 AM · Permalink
Pat Post

Comments

It's got to be a situation of dishonesty when people criticize politicians for changing their minds, especially when the change is to the better?!!! Right? Could it actually be stupidity?

If there is a good/reasonable explanation of why the change, it's a good thing. In Palin's situation that is what obviously happened.

I've been changing my mind all my life. If a person doesn't change their attitudes and beliefs then, imo, they've never come across new information (rather unbelievable) or they're just ignoring all the new information brought to our attention throughout our lives.

I never would hold it against someone who changed their mind for the better and had the strength of character to be willing to change and face the probable following criticism.

Posted by: Nonnie at September 7, 2008 12:30 PM

The Woodstock Museum in upstate New York immediately comes to mind. Thanks, Pat S, for the clarification. All of us need the most info as our friends and colleagues are going to attack full force before the election. And it is up to each one of us to address each point, in order to win over the other side. Every single stinking vote is a risk we cannot afford to lose.

It is nobler to pick up the glove than to throw it down, but in either case our blades must be sharp and ready.

Posted by: KatieSilverSpring at September 7, 2008 12:52 PM

Hi Tammy,

As you have reported Obama is attacking Palin for asking for some federal earmark help for her city of Wasilla. I have been reading the City of Wasilla's budgets and I posted an analysis, complete with documentation, of the situation they were in and why Palin as Mayor asked for some federal help.

When it is all examined it seem's that Palin acted pretty reasonably. Here is the link.

http://tinyurl.com/59gvzz

I dont want it to look like I am spamming you so it is ok if you dont post this comment, I just wanted to get this information to you.

All the best

Posted by: ChuckNorton at September 7, 2008 01:35 PM

Thank you, Pat for that information. While extremely excited about Palin, I was a little hesitant because of the earmarks and Bridge to Nowhere questions.

I think you are right - it's okay to get money for important things or things that are needed, but not okay for teapot museums and the like.

And, yes, it's okay to change your mind about something if that changed is reached due to research and thinking, rather than just reading the polls.

I think McCain-Palin should definitely be ready to answer questions about this issue, though. For the most part, Americans have a good BS detector and if they think they're being snowed or spinned, it could hurt McCain-Palin, especially among independents and undecided voters.

Now, what about the "book banning"?

Posted by: ladykrystyna at September 8, 2008 10:16 AM

ladykrystyna,

The book banning story is a lie. She didn't ban any books. The list that's circulating is a list of all books that have ever been banned in the U.S.

Pat

Posted by: pat_s at September 8, 2008 06:00 PM