For those interested in knowing how that money McCain complained about was spent, you can find the study online [1]. McCain, in the past and in last night’s debate, used this research as an example of pork-barrel spending without actually saying what the study was for. According to the online explanation,
Managers and biologists are working to identify population size, trend, survival, and the corridors that link separate populations. Advances in genetic technology allow us to address these parameters through the identification of species, sex, and individuals from DNA extracted from bear hair without ever handling a bear. This project will apply these techniques in conjunction with statistical models to estimate the number of grizzly bears inhabiting the [Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem]. DNA will be analyzed from bear hair collected along survey routes and from systematically positioned hair snag stations.
In other words, the money was needed by the U.S. Geological Survey to record grizzly populations in a specific region of the U.S. You may or may not agree that this is worth spending taxpayer money – however, it was important to somebody, important enough to get funding in a spending bill. The danger of criticizing earmarks? The process is available to everybody equally, and you have probably benefited from an earmark without even knowing it. Glass houses, you know.
Besides, McCain voted for the bill including this spending. While bills are big, complicated things, he uses this argument against other people without making this clarification. Want more info? Check out the FactCheck.org discussion of this spending [2]. As they put it:
The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.
[1] http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/NCDEbeardna.htm
[2] http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
