Without the oil revenue Alaska is not a rich state. The Alaska public sector is well-financed from oil. Personal per capita income is somewhere above average, but the price level there is out of sight.
All this pork/earmark business may be good tactics for Obama, but it speaks to bad principles. Lots of earmarks are useful. A non-earmarked program that provides grants to a state or local govt simply moves the earmark decision down the chain. Some animus towards science grants is just indulging (or playing to) ignorance. You could describe the genesis of great scientific discoveries in a way that would sound ridiculous to a "sensible" albeit uninformed citizen.
I'll be saving this point mostly till after the election, but there is nothing wrong with any politician milking the system as much as possible under rotten rules. I'm against a bunch of tax deductions, but I'm sure going to make use of them if they are available. I'm for a speed limit and I speed. Etc. Naturally using earmarks and pretending to crusade against them looks bad. But it makes sense.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Ben Smith has published a new story:
>
> Palin's earmarks: Not just for the halibut
>
> Alaska has been spectacularly successful in getting earmarks. And though
> she sounds a different tune now, Sarah Palin often supported them.
>
>
> read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13353.html
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>