Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oh my...turns out Governors don't have "veto" power over earmarks.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 01:56 AM
Original message
Oh my...turns out Governors don't have "veto" power over earmarks.


A Bridge Too Far: McCain Falsely Claimed Palin Vetoed Earmarks

McCain has repeatedly said Gov. Palin "vetoed" millions in federal earmarks. But the claim turns out to be bogus: a governor can't "veto" an earmark, and Palin did no such thing.

The notion that Palin "vetoed earmarks" has become a fully-fledged GOP talking point in recent weeks. Here, for instance, is Republican congressman Jeb Hensarling repeating the claim at a news conference 12 days ago.

But governors don't "veto" federal earmarks. As Palin's own gubernatorial spokesman, Bill McAllister, told TPMmuckraker: "She can choose not to submit the request, but once Congress makes them, they're there."

It's true, as the Boston Globe reported over the weekend, that as governor, Palin vetoed over $500 million in state legislative spending requests over two fiscal years.

But generic spending requests, which Palin rejected through the use of her line-item veto power as governor, aren't remotely the same thing as earmarks. As McAllister told us: "It's called line-items, generally. ,that's not common parlance." And the money that Palin cut didn't come from the federal government, which is the starting point for the whole earmarks debate. So that $500 million figure has nothing to do with earmarks.

In other words, McCain has taken a statistic from one issue, and applied it to defend Palin's record on a different one -- under the assumption that the press won't look closely enough at the details to call him on it.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/a_new_frontier_in_mccains_dish.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good find, dkf! K and R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. She also vetoed starfish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Her reason being "stars belong in the sky, silly".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoQuarter Donating Member (532 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
3. What would you expect
from a lying sack of shyte?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. It would be interesting to see where the line items that she vetoed
originated from. I would bet that she vetoed a lot more democratic projects and kept the GOP projects in the budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoris Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. Whats next? Are we going to find out she was never a "hockey mom"?
Has she ever said anything that is actually true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Someone in Wasilla said she was "for about 5 minutes".
Whatever that meant; didn't elaborate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. This could be one of those half-truths. Governors can veto legislation.
So maybe Palinocchio is trying to say that she is vetoing legislation that has earmarks attached to it? One never knows what she is trying to say!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
8. NFS
Dur
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-16-08 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. Hmmmm k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC