*The following information was gathered from .gov web sites only (Unless otherwise noted)No spin, no lies, no misleading, only facts.

In 2005. Earmarks in Alaska were up 62% from 2003 (http://inside.ffis.org/ff/EarmarksFY05.pdf)

Alaska appropriated $690,639,000 in 353 total earmarks
Which is $1,031.71 per capita.

This is over 1150% higher than the average of all other 49 states.
In 2005, Alaska was #1 in earmarks by over 3 times that of the next highest state of Hawaii.
But of course, Palin was not governor in 2005. This just shows the culture of earmarks in the state she had to work with.

Then I looked at 2008 data.

Alaska appropriated $154,865,000 in 119 total earmarks.
Which is $226.58 per capita.

This is 550% higher than the average of all other 49 states.
Obviously still #1.

But from 03’ to 04’ to 05’ Earmarks in Alaska had grown by +62% (http://inside.ffis.org/ff/EarmarksFY05.pdf)
But from 06’ to 07’ to 08’ Earmarks in Alaska had shrunk by -78%
To be fair, all other states in the union except 3, (Minnesota”My state”, Arkansas, and Louisiana) reduced earmarks in the same time frame.
But no other state in the union even comes close to this kind of Maverick earmark reduction.

What else has happened to earmarks in Alaska during the Palin administration?
The number of earmarks was reduced 66% from 353 to 119.
The size of each earmark was reduced by 34% from $1.956M to $1.301M
Alaska reduced its earmarks under Palin more than the next 4 states in line, combined.

Alaska still is #1, but at this rate of reductions it’s gaining more ground than any other state by leaps and bounds. This is most likely the greatest reduction in earmarks in American history? But I don’t have a way of measuring that yet.

Even McCain’s state of Arizona is making incredible ground, slashing the number of earmarks in half.
Moving from 34th to 49th on the list of per capita earmarks, only beat by Florida.

This compared to Obama’s Illinois that is losing ground from 43rd in earmarks in 2005 to 31st in 2008.
And Biden’s Delaware slipped from 22nd in earmarks in 2005 to 14th in 2008

Also note from the provided links:
“Note that the number of earmarks across all States is less than the total number of earmarks by individual State because some earmarks have recipients in multiple States.”

Since both Alaska and Hawaii are not bordered by any other state, it is the most likely that the least of the $7,134,260,000 in earmarks not in the 2008 budget and the $1,530,274,000 in 2005 budget that are not counted went to Alaska or Hawaii. Meaning the incredible reductions above by Alaska is almost certainly drastically more than reported.

Sources:
2005 Earmarks appropriations by state, not including interstate beneficiaries
http://www.earmarks.omb.gov/by-state/summary.html

2008 Earmarks appropriations by state, not including interstate beneficiaries
http://earmarks.omb.gov/2008-appropriations-by-state/summary.html

Census from July 1st 2005 and July 1st 2007
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

Racists.

money for Tunday?

you are a insanely dumb

Note that this is not an endorsement for spending, Robert Byrd style. I’d like to see spending reduced, particularly with discretionary spending. But I’d like to see the Feds cede more land back to these states.

Alaska #1

In 2006, Obama requested $2.5 million the University of Illinois College of ACES Illinois Program for Integrated Sustainable Agriculture. The Illinois Program for Integrated Sustainable Agriculture will research and develop an integrated livestock and corn-soybean production system which will recycle valuable nutrients from the animal waste stream in an effort to improve agricultural productivity and reduce the emission of livestock wastes into the environment.

Barry requested $2.5 million dollars to study bullshit spreading techniques!
Money well spent in his case.

Blake @ 49 — Obama was a US Senator at the time. What you are describing, and what has been alleged to be the case, would be classified as a “gift” by Rezko to Obama under Senate Ethics Rules. Obama would have been prohibited from accepting Rezko’s financial assistance.

That is why neither Obama or Rezko have EVER admitted that Rezko overpaid for the vacant parcel so that Obama could get the house for $300,000 less than the listing price.

Missing the point, it’s not a gift if he bought vacant land legaly from Obama. From my past experience with Canadian prices of land (which are lower much than America’s save for larger cities), 300K Vacant land in a million dollar plus neighborhood, isn’t overpaying.

–

Baracky was asked about Baracky’s positon on that issue, not God’s position on that issue. Thinking for himself is above his pay grade.

Well he did actually, he said in the debate he didn’t like abortion, but governing wise he thought choice was best. Up here in Canada, that’s a very common stance on the issue (having it both ways of course). But then again, not too many politicians have firm stances in minority governments. :p

Obama gets a sweetheart deal for property from a crook like Rezko, and works on getting earmarks for the hospital where his wife works, and Blake wants to defend that.

Again about the Rezko deal, look directly above. As for the Hospital, I could see some favouratism there. However, Obama isn’t the one arguing earmarks are bad or unhealthy, McCain is.

–

He said it without saying it !!!!!!!!!!! Code words !!!!!!!!!!! This way, Blake can take any actual words, impute meaning and motive not there, and say that you said something that you did not. This is tactic 2.1 in the liberal playbook.

Of course I’m a liberal, I’m Canadian ain’t I? eh. Our Conservative government is pretty much the Democrats.

However there’s a difference to imputing meaning that’s not there and discussing how people may take something because of the way it was said, not what was said.

–

Show us in Baracky’s votes and actual record where he has been an advocate for lowering taxes. He may claim to be in favor of doing so during the election, much like Clinton, but nothing, zero, zip, nada, zilch in his record suggest that lower taxes is on his actual agenda.

Well that’s not the issue is it? Even McCain has said he may not cut taxes and may have to raise them as the need arises. you don’t see Obama saying “McCain wants to raise your taxes” do you? It’s about not playing the divination game about your opponent’s policies and actually attacking them factually based upon what’s put on the table.

–

100 years of war? Indefinite war?

I concede on those, I can’t believe I forgot about them and your right it’s not completely honest. Funny how we forget about things that don’t fit our point of view? I could sit here and argue well “McCain did say that didn’t he?” However, that would be against my own point wouldn’t it and we would be switching positions. The fact is it goes to my point of saying something that’s not completely honest, playing on peoples lack of knowledge of the actual comment.

But like I said, I vote on issues first, then who treats the public in a more mature/intelligent fashion second. Pfft so much for conceding on a point, I tried.

I will let the discussion progress about earmarks, rather than me blabbering on about other issues. I have work in 7 hours, but I thought I would post one more time tonight.

I do have a low opinion of the average voter. The fact is the average voter doesn’t listen truly to policy or detail, they listen to 15 second pieces of info, their “expert friend’s” second hand info, or none of the above and go into a voting booth without any knowledge on election day.
– I think the average voter is a bit more engaged than how you describe it here.

There’s a line that I heard once that went basically this: “An individual is smart, but people are stupid.” Is the average voter dumb? No, many are intelligent and many are dumb. Does the average voter make knowledgable and wise decisions, by informing themselves? Nope.
– Do you think they make knowledgeable and wise decisions regardless of the process?

If McCain was honest about his message, he would concede that Obama wants to lower your taxes
– It isn’t McCain’s job to instruct the public on his opponent’s platform, or vice versa.

He would also concede that Obama’s record is pretty good, but it just doesn’t compare to his.
– Who says that it’s pretty good? Just being in public life doesn’t give you a pass.

Also that paygrade stuff, anyone who watched and has an ounce of critical thinking and knowledge of what Saddleback was about, the paygrade remark was Obama basically saying “Only God knows,” but no it’s an “elitist remark.”
– His remark was imprecise, equivocal and indecisive. If he meant “Only God knows,” why didn’t he just say that?

Closest I have seen Obama not being honest about his message in regards to McCain is when it comes to McCain equaling Bush. He does back it up with statistics of how many times he voted in relation to Bush’s policies the same, but not the specifics of what those decisions were.
– And doesn’t note that he voted with Bush 40% of the time, and therefore disagrees with McCain at most 60% of the time.

I guess I’m just sick of simplistic to the point polticians.
– Being direct and straightforward shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a detriment.

Sure my heart wants to believe exactly what they say will work out, but my brain tells me otherwise. The fact is the loudest and most definitive people seem to be the same people who make the most mistakes.
– Frankly, that’s a generalization that doesn’t mean very much.

That’s why this year I will probably vote in my own elections conservative again, because the liberal leader and his definitive statements are not only wrong, but dumb and counter productive.
– As long as you vote conservative, it’s all good.

It’s the same reason why I would vote for Obama next to the issues, because he treats people like an adult even when they don’t act like them.
– Bad policies are bad policies, no matter how they are presented. You could drop a lump of shit in a Christmas stocking, but who would keep it?