Monday, September 8, 2008


It just keeps getting better.
When Palin took over Wasilla, the town had no long-term debt. By the time she was done, debt service had increased by 69 percent, the town had close to $19 million in long-term debt.
So we're suppose to believe that Palin is fiscally conservative how? Seems like she has the same playbook W used when he took over the White House.

Seriously. Seriously. We're suppose to think McCain and Palin are good for America?


Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin is HOT!!!

Anonymous said...

believe it! she's going to be the next vp! perhaps the democrats should have nominated someone with actual experience rather than someone who spent the past two years sitting on oprah's couch.

ps- she is the bottom of the ticket. your top guy requested $750 mil in earmarks during his tenure in the us senate. change you can believe in!

Mark said...

She again failed to mention the earmarks she has accepted for Alaska which amounted to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in her first year and 31 earmarks valued at $197 million this year.

Palin's requests to Congress came at a time of huge federal deficits, while Alaska state revenue was soaring due to rising oil prices and a major tax increase on oil production that Palin signed into law in late 2007.

But by 2000, into her second term, the city had hired a Washington, D.C., lobbyist, Steven Silver, a former aide to Stevens, then the ultimate rainmaker as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

"She was hungry for earmarks just like everybody else," said Larry Persily, who worked at the Alaska state office in Washington, D.C., until earlier this year. "Everyone was feeding at the trough."

Before she left office, Wasilla, with aid of the lobbyist and the blessing of Stevens and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, got $27 million in earmarks, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Yep, fighting that pork barrel spending.

Anonymous said...

She's still HOT!!!

Anonymous said...

From today's WSJ:

"Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state’s history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska’s budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were “not a state responsibility.”
Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor’s center in Louisiana.
Mrs. Palin cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska’s decades-long earmark addiction.
Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark."

is your concern overspending by a mccain/palin administration? mccain is the top of the ticket and never takes earmarks and has promised to veto any earmarked legislation that crosses his desk while president. obama/biden haven't made any such pledge.

Mark said...

Well I suppose the spin machines are churning. She cut some and requested some. She got $256 million last year. Obama got $100 million. She got $197 million this year. Obama requested none this year.

The problem I have is that she claims to be the big earmark slayer, yet she got nearly $500 million in earmarks in 2 years. Don't champion yourself to everyone and tell them you're cutting earmarks while you are simultaneously accepting and lobbying for earmarks.

My problem isn't an overspending administration. It's a hypocritical administration.

I also think earmarks are getting far too much attention. I think we should all move on from them and address other issues.

Mark said...

Actually, my concern is an anti-gay union, anti-abortion even in the case of incest or rape, pro-Bush tax cuts, staying in Iraq for another 100 years, being in Iraq is God's will, gun-toting administration.