The Blog @ Spolitics

Palin vs. Obama on Earmarks: Apples and Rotten Politics

E tu, Wall Street Journal. I’ve written twice now about shoddy reporting from the press. Add this story from the Journal to the list. They tried to paint Palin as a bigger porker than Obama. Of course, to do that, they had to change the facts. Here’s what they wrote:

At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor — which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.

According to Obama’s own website, he has requested $931.3 million in earmarks. In addition, when the reporters write “this year” they mean fiscal year 2009. Sen. Jim Demint sponsored an amendment (co-authored by McCain) that would have legislated a one-year ban on earmarks. Since they were running for President, both Clinton and Obama supported the effort. It failed to pass, but Obama is trying to redefine himself as a reformer, so he agreed to abide by it voluntarily — hence no earmark requests for 2009. This makes one year in which Obama didn’t seek earmarks, compared to over twenty for McCain. Unlike McCain, Obama was “for earmarks before he was against them” — he just happened to have a change or heart about them while campaigning for President. (Add it to the long and growing list of other things he’s changed his mind about.)

With regard to the Journal’s claim about Palin’s earmarks, it’s not the same number ABC or McClatchy are reporting. They peg it at $453 million. It seems the Journal wanted to blame Palin for her predecessor’s earmarks, too.

Take a moment to consider what they’ve done. They compared three years of earmark requests from the Governor of Alaska — including the year before Palin was in office — to two years of Obama’s earmarks, excluding his first two years in office during which he submitted most of his requests (he didn’t think he’d be running for President back then).

McClatchy also makes an important point that the Journal leaves out. Earmark requests declined considerably under Palin. In her first year Palin reduced earmarks requests by 27%. In her second year she reduced it by an additional 23% for a total 44% drop from her predecessor. Alaska is heavily dependent on federal dollars. This is something that Palin has tried to rectify and it has caused her to bump heads with her own party. She came under fire from Ted Stevens after she killed the bridge to nowhere:

Palin ruffled feathers when she announced – without giving the delegation advance notice – that the state was killing the Ketchikan bridge to Gravina Island, site of the airport and a few dozen residents.

Don Young, the congressman who requested the earmark, threatened to “crush her.”

In response to criticism from Palin, Senators Stevens and Murkowski and congressman Young pledged to post the earmark requests they receive so their state could see what the money was for. Oh, and they did this before Obama posted his.

It’s also worth considering where the earmarks were going. Palin’s went to infrastructure projects. Obama has a track record of doling out cash to his cronies and fundraisers. When Obama was elected to the senate his wife got a promotion and 160% raise! Obama then turned around and requested a $1 million dollar earmark for her employer. He also requested millions in earmarks for Joe Biden’s lobbyist son. And he sought $8 million for General Dynamics. A member of Obama’s national finance committee serves on that company’s board. Given how dirty Obama’s earmarks look, why did he opt to wage his latest war of words on this quicksand?