John Katz, Special Counsel to Gov. Sarah Palin, published an article in the Juneau Empire in March 2008, explaining that Gov. Palin does not oppose earmarks, except where they become "controversial". (John McCain says he opposes every form of earmark, no matter what it is, and claims he has never asked for or accepted any such funds for his state —we should look into this, thoroughly; we should examine every single line of every bill he's voted on to see if this is true or not—, so Palin's position is absolutely at odds with what McCain claims about her.)
Katz explains that "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." Legally, this is true, but it clashes violently with Sen. McCain's claims of a reformist platform, based almost exclusively on the earmark issue. Katz also explains that:
Earlier this year, President Bush and the congressional leadership announced that the total number and dollar amount of earmarks must be reduced significantly. The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.
Earlier this year, President Bush and the congressional leadership announced that the total number and dollar amount of earmarks must be reduced significantly.
The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.
So Gov. Palin herself, in the midst of the period in which she now claims she was an anti-earmark crusader, requested 4 entirely new programs be funded by earmarks. He does claim that Gov. Palin's budget requests "incorporate" the concept of matching federal funds "wherever possible", but the specifics about any case where this was done are lacking. We know that in the case of the "bridge to nowhere", her standard was 100% should be funded by the federal government, despite the "federal interest" aspect of the initial request essentially having been questionable.
Speaking for the governor's entire administration, Katz writes that "We take the position that each entity must interpret the new budget realities for itself. The members of the Alaska congressional delegation are the final decision makers concerning which earmark requests to pursue." So, far from being a stalwart opponent of all federal earmarks, or saying "thanks, but no thanks", Gov. Palin left it to her state's corrupt political establishment to seek whatever money it would from Washington.
Commenting on the fact that a national debate on the integrity of the Congressional budgetary earmarking process had featured certain projects to build "roads and bridges", Katz says that Gov. Palin had decided to re-examine "certain previous decision", due to the fact that Alaskan projects were receiving "unwanted attention". Political expedience, one might say, or simply a reaction to the climate of the times.
So was it principle, or was it that she was told to make changes? Katz writes that "Palin has said the state can either respond to the changing circumstances in Congress or stick its head in the sand." He claims that efforts to re-examine Alaskan projects funded by federal earmarks will help make Alaska more credible in a new legislative climate.
The basic truth of the matter is that Gov. Palin was not a crusader against earmarks and she did not "cancel" the Gravina Island bridge project due to the moral indignation of a no-nonsense reformer; she took a new political position on certain earmark projects (and not on others), opposed some while still making new requests, because the times were changing and it was a Democratic Congress in Washington reacting to the outrageous quid-pro-quo scandals involving high-powered lobbyists, corrupt members of Congress and earmarks.
In such an environment, and with the Republicans losing their majority —during which funding these projects was easier to come by—, it was less viable to base the state's budget priorities on the easy flow of federal dollars. Katz reminds Alaskans that "The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan." He adds that her decisions regarding earmarks are a response "to the new realities" and that "we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here."
Her position was to adopt the policy on lobbying transparency, money and gifts that may change hands and earmarks, demanded in legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and pushed, supported and passed thanks to the efforts of none other than Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois. In this case, change came to Juneau, because reform-minded Democrats projected new standards out to the states, in connection with federal budget rules. Palin was just adapting "to the new realities".
Comments are closed for this post.
