McCain is lying when he promises to eliminate earmarks...

John McCain's definition of earmarks comes from the Congressional Research Service...

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."

In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)#Definition

This is backed up at...

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/mccain_israel.html

The Office of Management and Budget analysis found earmarks totaling $16.9 billion, and the Taxpayers for Commonsense analysis found $18.3 billion. Both show that earmarks account for only about 0.6 percent of government spending. More importantly, neither earmark tally would put a dent in the massive spending cuts required to offset McCain’s tax proposals.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/mccain_earmarks.html

Eliminating earmarks means doing away with 2/3 of foreign assistance, including Israel. At one time military housing was so dilapidated that congress had to step in to give families acceptable living standards. For the most part it was earmarks that paid for it.

It's nothing but a political stunt.

and using his definition that would include Israel and military housing. When he says this...it's a lie.

I have no doubt he'd go after Dem ones.

done for Y2K, shows Federal taxes paid and Federal expenditures made by state. I haven't looked at the data for awhile, but I'd wager that both Alaska and Arizona receive far more than their fair share.

If your political system is corrupt and dominated by the same interests election after election, then your Senators and Congresspeople are likely to have disproportionate seniority and to head powerful committees, the way McCain has and the way Ted Stevens has.

Committee heads have the power to see to it that their states get far more than their fair share of Federal largesse. IMO, many earmarks that aren't absurdly wasteful can be seen as (small "d") more democratic states' chances to balance things out. If your state has a (small "d") democratic party system, you can expect parties to shift their positions until each has an equal chance to win elections. Thus there will be more party shifts from election to election, less seniority, and less tipping of Federal expenditures to your state.

IIRC, the general pattern of taxes and expenditures is a huge shift in resources fron Blue states like CT and NJ to Red states like AK and MS.