http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html
Liberal commentator Michael Kinsley drops a bombshell in this article:
"But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative."
Kinsley launches into a full-throated, snide polemic about Palin's heavy-spending habits in Alaska. But he neglects to consider two things:
1. Context.
2. History.
Neglecting context and history immediately makes your analysis suspect. I'll try to add some, for Kinsley's sake.
Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices.
The $1,200 bonus for Alaska's residents is a big deal, I think, in favor of Palin as a fiscal conservative. A more left-wing leader would have rolled the money into sweeping social reforms (fully-funded Pre-K? higher-paid teachers? lower-cost health care?). Palin, instead, gave the money back to the people.
As for the $2000/year/resident in oil revenues, this is a non-Palin development, one that goes along with the massive resource development that Alaska has done throughout its history. The Alaska Permanent Fund has been a way of redistributing oil revenues from the state to the people. It is NOT Palin's invention. Pseudo-socialism? Perhaps. But this is an element of tradition, not of political ideology.
Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
Again, not Palin's doing. This is the work of the tireless Congressional delegation from Alaska. It's also another recent historical reality.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
If you sift through the file, you can see that Alaska has been in the top 10 in dollars received from the federal government per dollars paid in taxes. This is a trend that has been ongoing for years. Again, not Palin. Palin is, in fact, being conservative by not upsetting something that works well for her constituents.
At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.
Again, lacking in context.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surplus5-2008sep05,0,2756085.story
Palin's vetoes marked the largest capital budget cuts in the last 10 to 15 years, said Gerald McBeath, a political science professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. "She has the potential for exercising budget discipline with legislators who see money on the table and want to spend to the last dime," he said.
Really, the absolute values are far less important than the relative values, because the relative values take into account the context. The thing to take out of all of this is that Palin is far harsher with the veto pen than her recent predecessors.
So, what do we know about Palin?
- She has been unusually active with the veto pen.
- She has sought to give the population spending power over the state government.
- She has not spent a particularly long time fighting federal dollars coming into her state, but she did eventually come around to rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding.
What do we not know about Palin?
- Her views on federal spending.
- Her views on federal power.
Why is Kinsley's argument specious? Palin's job, to date, has been to work for the citizens of Alaska, and she's done a damn good job to that end. But the US government does not function the way that Alaska does, and a flexible, capable leader would be able to distinguish the differences.
Apparently, though, Michael Kinsley cannot. And he gets to write for Time. Good for him; he's fooling a lot of people, certainly.
Liberal commentator Michael Kinsley drops a bombshell in this article:
"But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative."
Kinsley launches into a full-throated, snide polemic about Palin's heavy-spending habits in Alaska. But he neglects to consider two things:
1. Context.
2. History.
Neglecting context and history immediately makes your analysis suspect. I'll try to add some, for Kinsley's sake.
Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices.
The $1,200 bonus for Alaska's residents is a big deal, I think, in favor of Palin as a fiscal conservative. A more left-wing leader would have rolled the money into sweeping social reforms (fully-funded Pre-K? higher-paid teachers? lower-cost health care?). Palin, instead, gave the money back to the people.
As for the $2000/year/resident in oil revenues, this is a non-Palin development, one that goes along with the massive resource development that Alaska has done throughout its history. The Alaska Permanent Fund has been a way of redistributing oil revenues from the state to the people. It is NOT Palin's invention. Pseudo-socialism? Perhaps. But this is an element of tradition, not of political ideology.
Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.
Again, not Palin's doing. This is the work of the tireless Congressional delegation from Alaska. It's also another recent historical reality.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
If you sift through the file, you can see that Alaska has been in the top 10 in dollars received from the federal government per dollars paid in taxes. This is a trend that has been ongoing for years. Again, not Palin. Palin is, in fact, being conservative by not upsetting something that works well for her constituents.
At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.
Again, lacking in context.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surplus5-2008sep05,0,2756085.story
Palin's vetoes marked the largest capital budget cuts in the last 10 to 15 years, said Gerald McBeath, a political science professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. "She has the potential for exercising budget discipline with legislators who see money on the table and want to spend to the last dime," he said.
Really, the absolute values are far less important than the relative values, because the relative values take into account the context. The thing to take out of all of this is that Palin is far harsher with the veto pen than her recent predecessors.
So, what do we know about Palin?
- She has been unusually active with the veto pen.
- She has sought to give the population spending power over the state government.
- She has not spent a particularly long time fighting federal dollars coming into her state, but she did eventually come around to rejecting the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding.
What do we not know about Palin?
- Her views on federal spending.
- Her views on federal power.
Why is Kinsley's argument specious? Palin's job, to date, has been to work for the citizens of Alaska, and she's done a damn good job to that end. But the US government does not function the way that Alaska does, and a flexible, capable leader would be able to distinguish the differences.
Apparently, though, Michael Kinsley cannot. And he gets to write for Time. Good for him; he's fooling a lot of people, certainly.
No comments:
Post a Comment