Nice try, but you can't judge the earmarks per capita. Illinois has a population of nearly 13 million, compared to Alaska's less than 700,000. Of course they're going to spend considerably less per capita.

^ Why wouldn't it be per capita? These are usually for infrastructure, and generally speaking more people = more infrastructure.

Therefore, more people = more money needed.

Illinois got $311 million in earmarks last year (none this year), and Alaska got $198 million in earmarks so far this year.

Illinois got 50% more money, but like you point out, there's over 13 times as many people in Illinois.

Why does Alaska need more than 10 times as much per person?

BTW, Here's the AP's "earmark map": http://ctchnedge01.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/state_earmarks/

They all have different levels per capita, but Alaska is #1 in "per capita" earmarks, and #10 overall.

States don't all get the same amount of money, and looking at the map, they're generally getting less than $100/person, while Alaska is getting $506/person. #2 in "per capita" is Hawaii, and they're getting a "mere" $226/person.

Wyoming, with a slightly smaller population than Alaska is getting $46/person, or $21 million to Alaska's $346 million.

South Dakota, with a slightly higher population than Alaska is getting $115/person, making them #7 in per capita, but 47th in total dollars, with $91 million (compare again, to $346 million from Alaska).

Any way you slice it, it doesn't make Alaska look like a state run by a champion of earmark reform.

Why isn't there lipstick on that pig?

Hogwash

I'll say. Flimshaw, poppycock and balderdash even!

The original video is titled on YouTube: ... And Pigs Fly

>> ^NetRunner:
Why does Alaska need more than 10 times as much per person?


duh... because it's next to russia, silly.

Sorry, downvoted by mistake.

=[