Comments on: $2.38 Billion In Earmarks For Clinton?

By: Ali

Ali — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:47:36 +0000

Seriously, 2.3 billion in earmarks?

Personally, I’m not a big fan of clinton

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:12:01 +0000

Quoting the Politico again, OW?

Very cagey the way they distort this one, comparing Clinton’s request for next year with the amount received this year by other states. As if requests are the same thing as appropriations.

Don’t feel bad. I was taken in by this too, but Media Matters set me straight.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:19:20 +0000

The money is needed for homeland security, emergency response and health projects throughout New York, according to documents provided by her office.

I can kinda see this all right, seeing as how Lurch Chertoff cut DHS funding for NY, and how Wichita is more at risk of attack. Or …something.

By: Wellstone

Wellstone — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:39:52 +0000

Way to go, E.L. — Good answer.

Lesseee now, she proposes to invest $2.3 Billion on the people of NY State? That would come to about what we wasted the last 72 hours in Iraq.

Think which expenditure will provide the best return for Americans in jobs, education, roads, and infrastructure repair.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:01:10 +0000

I agree, this is a non-issue. Wealthy states like New York deserve earmarks as it is the only way that Federal money gets returned to the taxpayer. Our taxes are high in part because we only get back 50-75 cents of every Federal tax dollar in favor of Southern and Midwestern welfare states where the population is poor. We have to pay state and city taxes to build and fund things that the Feds fund elsewhere.

By: merl

merl — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:17:42 +0000

So? Washington State gets a hell of a lot too, and I’m not complaining.