DelawarePolitics.net

Mar 16th, 2009 by David Anderson

Alaska is not only benefiting from the huge surpluses stocked away by the tenacious vetos and stringent budgets of its Governor Sarah Palin, but its economy seems to be doing reasonably well. It is affected by lack of tourism and falling commodity prices, yet the state is not doing too badly. I thought people where stupid in Alaska. They elected some small town hick mayor who is full of ambition and clueless. Maybe not, apparently the people of Alaska are smarter than the entire Washington press corps.

What is really interesting about Alaska is that the state saved enough revenue to run itself for two years without a dime of taxes. They saved the oil surpluses because they used common sense fiscal management. Governor Palin was criticized for being too austere. I wonder how those critics are spending their relative security?

Posted in Sarah Palin, economy

8 Responses to “Stupid Palin ruining Alaska- oh, Alaska doing alright Never Mind”

on 16 Mar 2009 at 21:541noman

Too bad the US failed to enact a windfall oil profits tax like Palin did.

Well at least she cut spending – oh wait, she didn’t:

a href=”http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/fueled_by_oil_taxes_alaska_spending_soared_under_palin/”>Fueled by oil taxes, Alaska spending soared under Palin

It will take the genius of a Limbaugh to paint Palin as a tax-cutter and fiscal conservative.
on 17 Mar 2009 at 07:432David Anderson

My friend, you forgot to read page two of the article. Not only did she veto a half a billion dollars in spending, most of the 30% increase where important things like funding the state pension funds and the one time rebate checks which were not reoccurring programs. She determined to fully fund education and headstart. I would think that you would love that.

Taking money while you have it and setting it aside for the future is fiscally conservative to the core.
on 17 Mar 2009 at 07:563noman

Blah, blah, blah… bottom line – she raised spending. Doesn’t matter that I probably agree with most of those expenditures.

Taking money while you have it and setting it aside for the future is fiscally conservative to the core.

“Taking money…” isn’t that socialist?

I thought you guys said corporations can’t pay taxes, they can only collect them from consumers. Why does Palin get a pass on her oil taxes?
on 17 Mar 2009 at 11:384LiberalGeek

Somewhere, a crazed Alaskan is saying “Put money aside?!?! That’s my money!”
on 18 Mar 2009 at 08:365david anderson

You guys are funny. I almost wonder should I play the role of straight man to your comedy. I will take the bait because it allows me to address a serious issue.

We are cheating the taxpayers by promising benefits in the out years when we don’t set aside money to invest to provide for it. Those who don’t prepare will be crushed in the future by these obligations and either promises will be broken or vital services in the future will be sacrificed. Taxes will go through the roof and prosperity will be harmed. The wise leaders are looking toward the future. Palin is one.
on 18 Mar 2009 at 09:586noman

So you are for a national oil windfall profits tax?

We are cheating the taxpayers by promising benefits in the out years when we don’t set aside money to invest to provide for it.

Here’s a thing I don’t think conservatives understand: The Federal Government is unlike households, states, and other investors, because the Federal Government cannot set money aside. Where would it put the money?

For the US to sit on large sums, or to park them in private entities, is extremely damaging to the functioning of financial markets. The best investment for the US is to invest in itself.

If the US gets its hands on gobs of extra money – money that truly exceeds requirements – the best place to put it is toward the national debt, or toward tax reductions (depending on economic conditions at the time).

When the US takes on debt to get through the out years, prudence requires that you take on no more debt than you can manage when growth returns to historic norms. That is the baseline that has been failed by both parties.
on 18 Mar 2009 at 11:067David Anderson

I disagree. I believe putting money in investment grade corporate bonds, municipal bond, commercial paper, and agency securities would bolster the economy and prepare us for the future.
on 18 Mar 2009 at 11:208noman

I believe putting money in investment grade corporate bonds, municipal bond, commercial paper, and agency securities would bolster the economy and prepare us for the future.

That is as good a definition of socialism as I’ve heard lately.

For what it’s worth, here’s what Alan Greenspan had to say on the topic:

I believe, as I have noted in the past, that the federal government should eschew private asset accumulation because it would be exceptionally difficult to insulate the government’s investment decisions from political pressures. Thus, over time, having the federal government hold significant amounts of private assets would risk sub_optimal performance by our capital markets, diminished economic efficiency, and lower overall standards of living than would be achieved otherwise.

(even if you disagree, you gotta love the phrase “eschew private asset accumulation”)