Just Another Politician
Palin, writes Timothy Noah, hates big government -- except when it's her state feeding at the trough (links within his piece are live at the Slate link above):
Please take a moment to look at this U.S. Census chart showing federal-government expenditures, per capita, in the 50 states. You will observe that Alaska receives about $14,000 per citizen from the federal government. That's more than any other state, and a good $4,000 more than every other state except Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Dakota. The chart is from the Census Bureau's Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2005. I skipped over the 2006 report, the most recent one available, because Hurricane Katrina put Louisiana and Mississippi ahead of Alaska that year. But that's an anomaly. Alaska held the per-capita record for sucking on the federal teat in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000. According to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, Alaska gets back $1.84 for every dollar it pays into the U.S. Treasury--even though Alaska enjoys a higher per-capita income than 34 of the 50 states. This is a state that preaches right-wing libertarianism while it practices middle-class socialism.Palin has not bucked this venerable tradition. It's been widely reported that even though Palin came out against the federally funded, $223 million "bridge to nowhere," a wasteful Alaska earmark (and one she'd supported before it created an uproar in Congress), Alaska ended up receiving the same amount of federal money as transportation funds to be spent at the state's own discretion. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she hired the former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Stevens, the recently indicted dean of the Alaska congressional delegation, to lobby for the town (pop. 6,700)--which, as a result, wound up receiving nearly $27 million in federal earmarks over four years. As governor, Palin just this past February sent Stevens a memo outlining $200 million in new funding requests. Granted, Palin enjoys inexplicably warm relations with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, whose founder's anti-Americanism, Rosa Brooks points out in the Los Angeles Times, puts Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the shade. ("The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," he told an interviewer in 1991--a year when Republicans controlled the White House and U.S. troops went into battle to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.) But there's little real danger that Alaska would ever choose to secede from the Lower 48. Independence would cost it too much in lost federal revenue.
Can anybody name anybody in government who doesn't just pretend they're a fiscal conservative, but actually is one? Anybody you'd vote for for president of V.P., for that matter?
"Can anybody name anybody in government who doesn't just pretend they're a fiscal conservative, but actually is one?"...
No, but Republicans are still running on that platform, and their devotees are still buying it. I don't know if the morals voters even consider fiscal policy.
ahw at September 5, 2008 8:17 AM
Oh, why can't I fit in? I tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on financial issues, but I tend to vote more Democrat than Republican. OK, I only voted for one Republican, and that was for secretary of state. But I'm not as "true" a liberal as could be--I'm not unilaterally against the death penalty, I'm not 100% pro Union, I'm definitely for NAFTA, and I'm not for giving endless handouts to people who won't help themselves. Neither party really works for me.
MonicaM at September 5, 2008 8:40 AM
And I'm definitely all for personal choice, in a variety of social and financial issues, but also for the RESPONSIBILITY of those choices. I'm personally childfree, but if a couple can afford to have 11 kids, I say, more power to them, that's their right. It's not a lifestyle I pursue, but it's also NOT MY BUSINESS. If a single mom (of any color!) keeps having kids by different fathers and is on welfare, then it is NOT her right and it IS my business. When you give up responsibility for your own life, and depend on the state, I think that's wrong. No, it's not any of the kids' faults, and yes, it would be cruel to leave them without care, but something has to change. Welfare should be temporary, not a lifestyle!
MonicaM at September 5, 2008 8:45 AM
I was under the impression that Ron Paul is a true fiscal conservative. Has that been debunked?
Libertarian though I am, I can't really fault any politician for trying to get federal money for his/her state or district. That's kind of their job.
Rex Little at September 5, 2008 10:17 AM
Maybe Tim Noah needs to do a little more digging, Amy. Private property in Alaska makes up only 11% of the land. The Feds own 65% of that land, so every dollar spent administering Federal holdings (242 million acres) is "pork" by some people's definition.
At $2000/acre, that's $484 billion in untaxed assets that the Nation of Independent Alaska could recoup upon sale and tax until eternity.
If my math is correct, according to Slate Alaska receives $9.1 billion annually and sends back $4.9 billion annually. Seems to me they could sell a couple million acres per year for 120 years without feeling any pain.
Alaska Land Holdings
Some Seppo at September 5, 2008 10:19 AM
Luv you, Seppo
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 5, 2008 1:36 PM
"Can anybody name anybody in government who doesn't just pretend they're a fiscal conservative, but actually is one?"..
Ron Paul.
He is what he is...the only true, small government conservative/libertarian in Congress.
From ronpaul.org:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Dave from Hawaii at September 5, 2008 2:48 PM
Mac and Sarah will take your money to fund the American welfare state. The Obamunist will take more of your money to fund a more bloated welfare state. Ron Paul can't win, and a vote for him as a matter of principle will effectively be a vote against Mac & Sarah and for the Obamunist. If you can think of a better idea for November 4th than holding your nose and picking the dead fish that stinks the least, let us know.
Martin at September 5, 2008 7:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/09/05/just_another_po.html#comment-1587751">comment from MartinExactly my sentiments.
Amy Alkon
at September 5, 2008 11:27 PM
Hi Amy.
Thanks for the inside scoop on Palin. It made me sad, I almost thought she was someone I could support fully, but is always good to have all the facts.
I still dig Sarah-cuda, though.
-Bruce
Bruce at September 6, 2008 12:08 AM
Leave a comment