The BoBo Files

I don’t know how many of you saw this yesterday – but Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post is reporting that while Sarah Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla – she received more than $5.5 million in earmarks.  Here’s the breakdown of what has been reported:

• $1 Million for a bus facility,
• $500,000 for a community mental health center,
• $500,000 for a transitional living program for homeless youth at an emergency shelter,
• $1 Million for a regional dispatch center,
• $1.5 Million for water and sewer improvements, and
• $600,000 for another bus facility.

Given the nature of these “earmarks” we wonder what the big deal is, right?  These are great programs to be putting money in to, aren’t they?  The money goes in to community improvement versus the government coffers.  The big deal for the left is that she is siding with McCain on eliminating “earmarks.”   I guess what we need to do first is to define just what “earmarks” are:

From the Office of Management and Budget

OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

• Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress — in either bill or report language — for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process.
• Earmarks and Programmatic “Control.” If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of “control critical aspects” includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding.
• Earmarks Include:
  1. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
  2. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
  3. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.

OMB has used this definition to gather data on earmarks internally. This definition is similar to the definition that the Congress recently developed for disclosing earmarks in spending legislation (H. Res. 6 and the Senate-passed version of S. 1).

I guess what we need to find out is whether these really were “earmarks” as defined by the OMB or if they were actually requested funding.  Personally, based on what the money went to, it would seem like these came from requested funding.  The reports have been citing something from Citizens Against Government Waste – a very non-partisan and fair watchdog group.  The media would have to have gone way back to find these as they are not immediately available on the website.  I’ll see what I can dig up there to see if I can confirm them.

If the reports are true – I’m still not necessarily ready to throw her under the bus.  Afterall, she made these requests while she was in her inaugural term as the Mayor and just getting her feet wet in politics from 2000 – 2002.  It was after that when she started seeing the corruption in the state government regarding earmarks and wasteful spending that she flipped.  I’m willing to grant her the “rookie” or “noobie” mistake.  Considering her requests went right back in to community improvements, I’m not entirely sure this was a bad thing.  It would be nice if they had actually been funding requests.

But – CAGW also issued their report on the candidates – this isn’t very surprising at all:

• Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) 2007 rating was 10 percent, making his lifetime score 18 percent. The 2008 Congressional Pig Book contained 53 earmarks worth $97.4 million for Sen. Obama, including $1,648,850 for the Shedd Aquarium.

• Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) received the worst possible rating in 2007 with 0 percent, while his lifetime rating is 22 percent. According to the Pig Book, Sen. Biden had 70 earmarks for a total of $119.7 million in fiscal year 2008, including $246,100 for the Grand Opera House in Wilmington.

• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received a score of 100* percent and has a lifetime rating of 88, has never requested nor received a single earmark, and has pledged to veto any spending bill that contains any earmarks.

*Sen. McCain was only present for 11 of the 35 Senate votes that CCAGW tallied. Therefore, he was not eligible for the Taxpayer Super Hero Award

I guess we really want those FIRST two in the Whitehouse don’t we? Here’s another interesting article you might want to check out since the left is so ready to pounce on Palin’s earmarks:

Obama and Biden’s Son Linked by Earmarks

I guess it’s all fun and games until the truth comes out!

Tags: biden, citizens against government waste, earmarks, huffington post, McCain, Obama, Palin, pork-spending, sam stein

13 Responses to “Of Palin and earmarks!”

Talk to the BoBo!

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

This site is using OpenAvatar based on