US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Palin Hired Lobbyists To Bring In $27 Million

AllieBaba · #8 (**permalink**) 09-02-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Silence

I think you're kind of missing the point. I have no problem with going after federal money for city and state improvements. I have a problem with someone who is running on a platform who bashes others who do it knowing full well they were dipping their fingers in the coffers too.

Palin Received Millions In Earmarks, Clouding Reformer Image

From 2000 through 2002, Wasilla received more than $5.5 million in federal cash for transportation and social service projects.

According to the group Citizens Against Government Waste, the city received $1 million for a bus facility in 2000. In 2001, the Wasilla Health Center was granted a half million dollars for a community mental health center. That same year the city's emergency shelter also was granted $500,000 for a transitional living program for homeless youth. A year later, the Wasilla regional dispatch center received $1 million in pork, the city was granted $1.5 million for water and sewer improvements, and received an additional $600,000 for a bus facility.

The use of the earmark system that -- as a vice presidential candidate -- Palin now criticizes continued into her tenure as governor. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the state of Alaska requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million for next year's federal budget. And according to Citizens Against Government Waste, Alaska received $379,669,715 in pork during fiscal year 2008, nearly $100 million more than any other state.

Now personally I think all those programs are worthwhile and money well spent. But I'm a liberal who believes in government helping their citizens improve their lives. Are we sure Palin isn't a dem? I mean except for the NRA/pro life thing she seems like a liberal to me.

She vetoed an anti-gay bill, she built a mental health facility, she built a shelter for homeless teens? I'm cornfuzzled now...

I have no problem with someone who legally obtains money for her people when it's available, while at the same time stating she will vote against earmarks. Why should she force her constituents to suffer when everybody else is raking in the benefits of a crappy and stupid system? Meanwhile, she can work to reform it.

When the earmarks end, so does the flow. Until then, it's there, she might as well grab it. Doesn't mean she has to vote for it.

And don't be confused, though dems are often confused when they are hit between the eyes of the reality of republicans, as opposed to their misconceptions.

We need mental health facilities. In the 70s and 80s they were all shut down and our mentally ill were turned out onto the streets...a huge mistake made by LIBERALS, and which resulted in a huge blossoming of homeless, mentally ill people wandering around...while funding essentially stopped for the mental institutions. Republicans have always voted for maintaining mental institutions and prisons. Now we have no place to put our mentally ill people. There aren't enough group homes, the hospitals themselves are not adequate, jail is an inappropriate place (though where many end up..and jails and prisons are also inadequate, given the influx of alien criminals taxing the system).

None of this is conflicting, except in the eyes of those who have preconceived (and incorrect) notions of what republicans and conservatives are about.