Will McCain Vote For An Alaska-Friendly Earmark In The Senate Bailout Bill?
Will McCain Vote For An Alaska-Friendly Earmark In The Senate Bailout Bill?
In an effort to garner more support for the Wall Street bailout bill, the Senate added “tax extenders” to its bill. One of the additions — which some conservatives are labeling “pork” and “tax earmarks” — is a six-page measure protecting Alaskans from having to pay taxes on rewards from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, starting on page 301:
SEC. 504. INCOME AVERAGING FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXXON VALDEZ LITIGATION [...]
(c) (1)…no portion of qualified settlement income received by a qualified taxpayer shall be treated as self-employed income.
(2)…no portion of qualified settlement income received by a qualified taxpayer shall be treated as wages.
Despite Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) oft-repeated vow to “veto every single bill with earmarks” and to “make them famous,” he has indicated he will vote for today’s bill, apparently earmarks and all. This case seems to be yet another time that McCain’s anti-earmark rhetoric can’t match his actions.
Of course, voting against the earmark could cause a rift between him and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). A search through Thomas reveals that it was Palin’s own senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who first introduced the Exxon measure. What’s more, Palin has been an ardent supporter of the Exxon Valdez litigants, who would benefit from this earmark. After the Supreme Court slashed the damages Exxon Valdez would have to pay Alaskans — from $2.5 billion to around $500 million — Palin said she was “very, very disappointed” the court slashed Alaskans’ benefits:
It breaks our hearts because it’s been — as former governor Cooper explained — justice delayed being justice denied, for so many. … It’s not right. I don’t think that it is fair. … I am extremely sorry for this decision by the Supreme Court ratcheting down those punitive damages.
In a blog post on the Corner, conservative writer Rich Lowry expressed his incredulity at the earmarks: “Pretty outrageous. Isn’t this in John McCain’s wheelhouse?”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
These Exxon victims are getting screwed enough anyhow, it’s nice to see McIIIrd have to eat crow.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:17 pmRemember 7 Brides for 7 Brothers? This is 700 Bailouts for 700 Billionaires…
October 1st, 2008 at 3:18 pmAh, yes! Another spectacular example of how the more things “CHANGE”, the more they remain the McSame!
Blatant and disgusting hypocrisy.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:20 pmYet interestingly she couldn’t even recall this Supreme Court case when Couric asked the question the other day.
If McCain votes for the bill and it includes ANY earmarks, Obama ought to hammer him on it. If it includes the Alaska earmark he should hammer McCain AND Palin. Make sure everybody knows their names, as it were.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pmMcCain-Palin are LIARS, HYPOCRITES and FRAUDS.
McCain-Palin are LIARS, HYPOCRITES and FRAUDS.
McCain-Palin are LIARS, HYPOCRITES and FRAUDS.
McCain-Palin are LIARS, HYPOCRITES and FRAUDS.
McCain-Palin are LIARS, HYPOCRITES and FRAUDS.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pmOh no! Not the Supreme Court decision Sarah Palin couldn’t mention.
This campaign is fractally haunted….
October 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pmTrump Duck, third grade was the best three years of its life.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pmLet’s see, could they just say, Hey! It’s an aural receiver/translator German currency funding thingy?
October 1st, 2008 at 3:39 pmI think the “dump-truck” is in reference to the weight of the lies that the Republican Party is carrying around….
October 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pmNot self-employed income and not wages: ok, I can see that. It is income, how ever it’s named, right? This seems unusual, being slipped in the bailout bill. Is it? Is income from litigation usually taxed or not?
This and other ‘paradoxes’ is exactly what McCain gets for being so melodramatic. He’s made himself out to be totally against any and all earmarks even though there are some really benefitial monies that are earmarked.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:42 pmI hope the dems grow a pair and not accept this payout.
Yeah right, this is a clean bill
October 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pmI have to admit, Palin is right on this one. It’s bad enough that people had to wait nearly 20 years to get compensation and it’s even worse that the compensation was reduced to such a pitiful amount. But to tax that compensation on top of all the other insults? No. Screw that. Her support of the litigants is the first positive thing I’ve heard about her.
Why, I think I’ll run out and campaign for McCain/Palin . . . No, wait. Maybe not.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pmIf anything in Washington needs to change, besides the president, it’s got to get rid of these add-ons to legislation. Taxes on the penalties paid by Exxon have nothing to do with a bail-out for Wall Street. If it’s irrelevent, it shouldn’t be added.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pmBimbo Bachmann, McMighty Mouse & Moose Lips: ‘Bringing 20th Century ideas to your futures!’
October 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pmCrazy old coot wants chimpy to pass bill without congress approval.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pmWell, he has “made her famous” and we do “know her name”…
October 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pmIt’s actually the caribou, moose, the polar bills and others of their ilk who should benefit from the settlement, not the taxpayers of Alaska who stand to have otherwise taxable ‘benefits’ exempted in this case.
Those already enriched Alaskan taxpayers, earning—as a state—$ 1.83 for every $ 1.00 paid to the Federal treasury, and benefiting from the unique annual pay out ‘earned’ from gas and oil revenues, are doing well enough without this special benefit. Toss a bone to the critters, eh?
October 1st, 2008 at 3:59 pmFor those of you who want to compare the candidates on different issues, http://debate1on1.com is a great tool.Enjoy!
October 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm“(c) (1)…no portion of qualified settlement income received by a qualified taxpayer shall be treated as self-employed income.
(2)…no portion of qualified settlement income received by a qualified taxpayer shall be treated as wages.”
They money should be treated as a CAPITOL Gain (As in Washington, DC and taxed at 100%. Just as Failin Wailin Palin should not benefit from living next door to Russia the Alaskans should not benefit from a National Disaster. Admittedly, individuals who suffered legitimate actual damages should be compensated to the extent of their loss but any punitive damages should be awarded to all citizens directly and/or indirectly affected by the spill–namely EVERY CITIZEN and TAXPAYER.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pmHa, ha, ha. This bill will never pass.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pm