Available at 
Tweet
Re: Palin's Speech
Originally posted by Jane
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
So, basically, as a mayor and governor, she did exactly what her job was in terms of trying to get as much FEDERAL money for her constituency as possible. For those jobs, she did the exact right thing--if it didn't go to her people, it would have gone to other people. (As a mayor, she was effective at getting $27MM for her constituency. As a Governor, she was effective at getting $750MM for her constituency. That's exactly what one would hope for an expect from a mayor and governor. They aren't the ones responsible for trimming and containing the federal budget; they are the ones trying to get some of their constituency's money BACK.)
In terms of "vetoing" wasteful spending...again, right, she did: she vetoed wasteful spending of ALASKAN tax dollars--again, her job. I would cite this, too, if I were her--it shows how she manages her responsibilities in an executive office. She never said that she vetoed wasteful CONGRESSIONAL spending. How could she? Not her job, beyond her authority, and against her constituency's interest (where her obligation was), if spending would mean money to her home.
On the bridge thing: she determined that she didn't want the bridge when she realized it was silly, a waste of money, and not in her constituency's best interests to seek. Again, making this determination on behalf of her constituency was her job. If she wants to paint it now as though she did it because she thought that she had some obligation to reign in Congress, that's just silly. Preventing wasteful spending by Congress was not her job. The only reason she should have turned down the birdge project is if it wasn't good for her constituency. Which, apparently, she did.
The fact that she actually made this determination is what is surprising to me. As long as she didn't screw over her constituency by rejecting the opportunity to bring the money for the bridge to her state, then there's no problem. I guess someone could argue that she walked away from the bridge project to help her own caree down the line--to look like a fiscal conservative. I'm not really seeing that, and I am a total cynic. First, walking away from that project completely pissed off her own party in her home state. Plus, would any reasonable, sane person have thought that she had real hopes for national scale political office?
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
Personally, I am so tired of this back and forth on the Obama tax plan. Focusing whether he will raise or lower the individual's tax liability is terribly shortsighted. The much more important point is that he wants to raise taxes on corporations--which he proudly admits and endorses. People act as if this means that the "big bad guys" will be picking up a bigger share and this will cut a big break for everyone else. That's not the way it works. When publicly held corporations are more heavily taxed, the average Joe suffers. Costs go up, dividends go down, and corporate growth and value stagnate. That hurts the pocketbook of the ordinary consumer on the front end (immediate consumer costs) and in the longer run (who owns the shares in publicly held corporations? The public...as in retirement accounts and pension funds). Plus, in a non-tax-advantaged vehicle context, it de-incentivizes savings and investing because it raises taxes on capital investments.
Also, it should be noted that the two institutes that provided the analysis are generally regarded as very liberal.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
Best guess, he was talking about percentages, not raw vote numbers. You may not like Huckabee, but he's not an idiot. ANyhow, if that's the case, then he is correct.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
I suspect Romney was referring to two steps, not one: that is, throw out the liberals (in Congress) AND elect McCain/Palin...not throw out the liberals BY throwing out Bush/Cheney. But, that being said, I would NOT argue with the assertion that Bush is, at times, a big-government liberal...at least in terms of fiscal policy!!
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
So, basically, as a mayor and governor, she did exactly what her job was in terms of trying to get as much FEDERAL money for her constituency as possible. For those jobs, she did the exact right thing--if it didn't go to her people, it would have gone to other people. (As a mayor, she was effective at getting $27MM for her constituency. As a Governor, she was effective at getting $750MM for her constituency. That's exactly what one would hope for an expect from a mayor and governor. They aren't the ones responsible for trimming and containing the federal budget; they are the ones trying to get some of their constituency's money BACK.)
In terms of "vetoing" wasteful spending...again, right, she did: she vetoed wasteful spending of ALASKAN tax dollars--again, her job. I would cite this, too, if I were her--it shows how she manages her responsibilities in an executive office. She never said that she vetoed wasteful CONGRESSIONAL spending. How could she? Not her job, beyond her authority, and against her constituency's interest (where her obligation was), if spending would mean money to her home.
On the bridge thing: she determined that she didn't want the bridge when she realized it was silly, a waste of money, and not in her constituency's best interests to seek. Again, making this determination on behalf of her constituency was her job. If she wants to paint it now as though she did it because she thought that she had some obligation to reign in Congress, that's just silly. Preventing wasteful spending by Congress was not her job. The only reason she should have turned down the birdge project is if it wasn't good for her constituency. Which, apparently, she did.
The fact that she actually made this determination is what is surprising to me. As long as she didn't screw over her constituency by rejecting the opportunity to bring the money for the bridge to her state, then there's no problem. I guess someone could argue that she walked away from the bridge project to help her own caree down the line--to look like a fiscal conservative. I'm not really seeing that, and I am a total cynic. First, walking away from that project completely pissed off her own party in her home state. Plus, would any reasonable, sane person have thought that she had real hopes for national scale political office?
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
Personally, I am so tired of this back and forth on the Obama tax plan. Focusing whether he will raise or lower the individual's tax liability is terribly shortsighted. The much more important point is that he wants to raise taxes on corporations--which he proudly admits and endorses. People act as if this means that the "big bad guys" will be picking up a bigger share and this will cut a big break for everyone else. That's not the way it works. When publicly held corporations are more heavily taxed, the average Joe suffers. Costs go up, dividends go down, and corporate growth and value stagnate. That hurts the pocketbook of the ordinary consumer on the front end (immediate consumer costs) and in the longer run (who owns the shares in publicly held corporations? The public...as in retirement accounts and pension funds). Plus, in a non-tax-advantaged vehicle context, it de-incentivizes savings and investing because it raises taxes on capital investments.
Also, it should be noted that the two institutes that provided the analysis are generally regarded as very liberal.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
Best guess, he was talking about percentages, not raw vote numbers. You may not like Huckabee, but he's not an idiot. ANyhow, if that's the case, then he is correct.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
I suspect Romney was referring to two steps, not one: that is, throw out the liberals (in Congress) AND elect McCain/Palin...not throw out the liberals BY throwing out Bush/Cheney. But, that being said, I would NOT argue with the assertion that Bush is, at times, a big-government liberal...at least in terms of fiscal policy!!
I guess it was one of the few times Obama didn't vote "Present". 
.
Comment