Hey I realize you’re in the thick of the election and I don’t mind some occasional irrational exuberance when it comes to someone supporting their party’s ticket, but this is too much.

Palin is decidedly not a porkbuster. She’s a typical trough-feeder who at best you could argue has the potential of weening herself off of earmarks and actually behaving like a good steward of taxpayer funds.

This isn’t to say she’s any worse than most other career politicians, but I fail to see where she’s any better, and anyone interested in good fiscal discipline and proper governance ought to be mindful of this as we hold these people accountable for their actions and positions and attempt to exact some specific policy promises by which to continue holding them accountable after they take office. I like McCain’s promise, for example: “I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks.” [cite]. Now that’s a promise you can be held accountable for.

DeMint now calls himself a “recovering earmarker” who equates pork-barrel spending to a disease.

Pork-barrel spending is a disease? Agreed! But what does Palin say about earmarks, in her own words not more than six months ago?

I am not among those who have said ?earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation.?

[...]

Accordingly, my administration has recommended funding for specific projects and programs when there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support.

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

I believe this represents a responsible approach to the changing situation in Congress.

[...]

My role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can.

[...]

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.

However, I am also mindful of the role that the federal government plays in our state. The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship. [cite]

So, no, she isn’t the “only governor in America who has said no to earmarks”. Far from it.

What does the Governor’s own Special Counsel say about Palin and earmarks. Well, in an article titled, “Palin not abandoning earmarks altogether”, he writes:

In my opinion, earmarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress’ constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.

[...]

The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan. In responding to the new realities, we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here. [cite]

A porkbuster, you say?

… under her leadership the state this year asked for almost $300 per person in requests for pet projects from one of McCain?s top adversaries: indicted Sen. Ted Stevens.

That?s more than any other state received, per person, from Congress for the current budget year … Other states got just $34 worth of local projects per person this year, on average, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based watchdog group. [cite]

This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. [cite]

It also appears that she didn’t really have any conviction against using federal funds for the bridge to nowhere, either:

I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now – while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist. [cite]

Ok, ok. I come not to bury Palin but to point out that with all the mythologizing and rose-colored glasses, you’re missing the chance to take the fight for fiscal responsibility forward by seriously evaluating Palin’s record and then demanding that she do much, much better. “Lady Reagan”, she is not.

Hold her accountable for the bad behaviour, ask her how she’s going to help John McCain make good on his promise to veto every bill with earmarks. Maybe she needs to exert some influence in Alaska and turn it into the model state that takes the first step toward ending the unjust redistribution of taxpayer funds, directed by central planners toward their own pet projects.

BTW, here’s a pretty objective take on some of the cons and pros of Palin’s actions regarding taxes and spending.

You’re unable to click the links marked as [cite]?

I count seven sources in my comment. Reread and tell me how many you see.

Have you taken into account, how much of the landmass of AK is owned by the Federal Government?

It would strike me as odd if the State government were requesting earmarks from the federal government so that the state government could undertake state projects on federally owned land. I would presume the national parks and forests system, for example, is awarded its own budget and spends accordingly. I could probably conceive of some situation where this might seem reasonable, but if you want to offer up some data on the percentage of earmarks sought by and awarded to Alaska under Palin’s administration that are actually being spent to enrich federally owned land as opposed to land owned by Alaskans or by Alaska, I’m all ears.

That’s a pretty thin response to Palin’s own words (and actions) on the subject of earmarks. And it offers no support for the post’s claim that Palin is a “porkbuster” who said “no to earmarks”.

I’ve read a lot of what Achance writes. A major theme I glean from his posts is that Alaska is just a real different place with a very different culture. Fine. That doesn’t excuse poor fiscal behavior and really has nothing to do with whether Alaska’s disproportionate trough feeding is just or unjust. If I were a selfish Alaskan I’d love the status quo. If I’m concerned with seeing America governed by principles of limited government and devoid of socialist wealth redistribution schemes like earmarking, then I’d like to see status quo ended.