About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS

Double Talk on Earmarks--Pork is Okay if Palin Needs it, After it Wasn't

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 18:09:37 PM EDT
It has become a commonly cited statistic here at BH that New Hampshire receives back $0.67 for every dollar it contributes in federal taxes, and Alaska receives $1.83 to the dollar.  Now, we can't expect every state to get a dollar for every dollar, because that would mean the government would be spending nothing on the mechanics of government (like the judicial system, the military, etc as opposed to functions like the postal service, national parks, road subsidies, etc), but that figure in Alaska is pretty egregious.

CNN reports today Governor Palin's federal earmark requests in her first year in office (2007)--and that's just Palin's things, not everything her delegation takes--exceed the total amount of earmark money taken by the entire bi-partisan delegation from New Hampshire, a state with about twice as many people.

New Hampshire's delegation requested took 238 million dollars in earmark money.  Governor Palin requested 256 million.  Her state's Congressional delegation took a combined total of over 486 million dollars, 456 of which by Senator Stevens--who, by the way, is a longtime political ally, advocate, and collaborator of Palin, not simply another Republican from her state.

Alaska takes more money per person in earmark money than any other state.

And to top it all off, the $27 million in earmarks Palin secured as Mayor of a town of 5,000 people--far more than many members of Congress take in a year, and Congressional districts are generally more than a hundred times the size of Wasilla.  On three separate occasions, Palin projects in Wasilla met criticism ("objectionable" on McCain's regularly published pork lists) at the time from Senator John McCain, whose campaign was recently asked about that very same money.  Respondeth McCain's people,

Towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs.

A big change from making a point to object.  Furthermore, if that's true, then when he promises to veto any bill with earmarks, isn't John McCain screwing Small Town America?

This issue is vitally important; it may be the only real thing McCain is talking about changing.

h/t in part to CNN
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.congress.org/congre...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://marcambinder.theatlanti...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...
Douglas E. Lindner :: Double Talk on Earmarks--Pork is Okay if Palin Needs it, After it Wasn't
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Double Talk on Earmarks--Pork is Okay if Palin Needs it, After it Wasn't | 13 comments
Nice work (0.00 / 0)
I love this --

On three separate occasions, Palin projects in Wasilla met criticism ("objectionable" on McCain's regularly published pork lists) at the time from Senator John McCain

There is a minor caveat we have to add to all this: it's Alaska. It needs more development, certainly more than New Hampshire does. I don't know what a fair comparison is, frankly, but any way you look at it, the Stevens figure is staggering, and $27 million for a town of 5,500 is ... notable.

If Alaska needs more development (4.00 / 3)
Alaska could use some of its oil revenue (when you look at its state budget the first page includes a multiplier factor for the current price per barrel).

Or it could use some of the money the state currently mails to every resident.

[ Parent ]
Use its oil? (0.00 / 0)
Hmmm ... that rings a bell ... another country, I think. I can't remember.

Do you suppose the Palins were hailed as liberators when Sarah took office?

[ Parent ]
The way it seems to work in Alaska: (4.00 / 3)
1. The politicians work hard to eliminate any environmental regulations.
2. In return the oil companies don't object when...
3. The politicians levy significant taxes on their oil revenue and
4. Then use that money to send checks to the voters who
5. Re-elect the politicians
[ Parent ]
Circular logic n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Just an efficient closed ecosystem (4.00 / 1)
Who are the parasites? Depends on your perspective. Arguably all.

But the ecosystem isn't really closed; just as our biosphere needs solar energy from outside, so Alaska needs federal money to maintain that cute little political loop.

[ Parent ]
6. ...Who take egregious amounts from the other 49 states to keep those "surplus" checks coming! (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
When you analyze the use of the pork barrel money vs. opportunity cost of the surplus checks, (4.00 / 1)
It's really not much more complicated than the citizens of 49 states writing checks to the citizens of Alaska every year.
[ Parent ]
Your point is a good one (0.00 / 0)
but the number is not quite 49. A number of states receive more in federal money than they pay in federal taxes. New Hampshire is obviously not among them -- the people of our state pay more in federal taxes than we receive in federal spending. What I'm trying to say is, we bear an even greater part of the burden for subsidizing Alaska's dividend checks than many other states.
[ Parent ]
I think you're splitting hairs based on "in the red" and "in the black" distinctions that don't apply here. (0.00 / 0)
For example, New Mexico gets over $2.00 back per dollar they pay in federal taxes, largely, in my understanding, because, that is an extremely poor state.

But people in New Mexico aren't taking checks from their state government and then asking the federal government to pay for state projects.  The state of Alaska spends its money sending "surplus" checks to the citizens, and the federal government essentially reimburses the state.  That's not the same thing as more people in New Mexico, for example, needing federal safety nets.

[ Parent ]
The permanent fund (4.00 / 2)
is kind of a good idea. The state allocates some money effectively to a financial endowment, and can use the money how ever.  The people of Alaska basically determined they would rather have a dividend issued to them rather than to use the fund for state projects, or more interestingly, economic development... but I think the underlying idea is a pretty good one. The dividend surely injects a lot of money back into the local economy.

In Quebec, they kind of do something similar through the province-run Caisse de depot, which manages pension funds and invests some percentage of its holdings into Quebec businesses.

Once you determine an appropriate source of capital (oil royalties in the case of Alaska, pension contributions in Quebec), and are able to keep investment decisions relatively out of the hands of the politicians, there is so much potential for strengthening the local economy.

I certainly agree it's a little two-faced for Alaska to take so much money from taxpayers in New Hampshire when they have such vast revenue sources that they elect to use in a way that doesn't pay for their own development. New Hampshire taxpayers certainly shouldn't be subsidizing cash handouts in the form of the dividend in Alaska, when we take care of ourselves as a net donor state and struggle to maintain a balanced budget.

[ Parent ]
isn't that why we fought the war (0.00 / 0)
so the oil revenue would pay ?
Hey it's late and this stuff is confusing.

This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.

   Dorothy Parker

[ Parent ]
Earmarks wouldn't be necessary if Republican administrations hadn't (4.00 / 1)
started allocating funds on the basis of how many votes they got, instead of where the improvements were/are objectively needed.
Double Talk on Earmarks--Pork is Okay if Palin Needs it, After it Wasn't | 13 comments
Powered by: SoapBlox