In Parting, Palin Decries Federal Largesse She Accepted for Alaska
In her fiery parting shot in Fairbanks Sunday, now-ex Governor Sarah Palin resorted to all of her now trademark rhetorical tactics. Bashing the media while using the U.S. military as human shields, she told the television cameras, "How about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin' things up?" She warned listeners of "enslavement to big central government" and the need to "be wary of accepting government largesse."
Of course, when it comes to largesse from American taxpayers, Sarah Palin's Alaska believes it is better to receive than to give. As it turns out, whether in the form of Washington's annual budget, earmarks or the stimulus spending itself, American taxpayers are "spreading the wealth" to Palin's home state.
But listening to Palin's valedictory, you'd never know Alaska ranks third in federal tax dollars received per dollar of taxes paid by state residents:
"We can resist enslavement to big central government that crushes hope and opportunity. Be wary of accepting government largesse; it doesn't come free. And often, accepting it takes away everything that is free. Melting into Washington's powerful, care-taking arms will just suck incentive to work hard and chart our own course right out of us. And that not only contributes to an unstable economy and dizzying national debt, but it does make us less free.
I resisted the stimulus package and we have championed earmark reform, slashing earmark requests by 85% to break the cycle of dependency on a stifling, unsustainable federal agenda. And other states should follow this for their and America's stability. We don't have to feel that we have to beg an allowance from Washington, except to beg the allowance to be self-deterrmined."
As it turns out, not so much. As I noted in March, Sarah Palin's Alaska was only too happy to tap the one-flow of federal funds to the state.
As a 2007 analysis of federal spending per tax dollar received by state shows, the reddest states generally reaped the most green. Eight of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal largesse voted for John McCain for President. Unsurprisingly, all 10 states at the bottom of the list - those whose outflow of tax revenue is funding programs elsewhere in the country - all voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
The data for Sarah Palin's Alaska is particularly telling. Back in the early 1980's, Alaska was a net contributor of tax revenue to the federal government in Washington, DC. But in recent years, the state has been the beneficiary of a massive geographic transfer of wealth from the Lower 48. By 2005, Alaska ranked third in feeding at the federal trough, taking in $1.84 from Washington for each dollar sent there. That performance puts Sarah Palin between fellow stimulus refuseniks Haley Barbour of Mississippi ($2.02 payback on each dollar) and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana ($1.78) atop the charts.
But when it comes to earmarks, the woman who mythically said "thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere almost always says, "yes." In the $410 billion omnibus spending bill passed this spring by Congress, Palin's Alaska led the nation in per capita earmark spending. Alaskans hauled in almost $210 per person in earmarks, while Californians got $16 and New Yorkers $13 in comparison.
And then there's the windfall from the stimulus bill itself. As a recent analysis in the Wall Street Journal ("After Voting No, Republicans Tout Funds") showed, Alaska was near the top of the list in several areas of ARRA spending. Alaska ranked #1 among the states in the per capita allocation of $72 billion in education funds contained in the stimulus bill. The state came in second as a per capita recipient of housing (HUD) funds, anti-crime spending and money for job training. For per person spending on water projects and health care, Alaska is third and 10th, respectively.
As I've noted before, none of the above is to suggest that there is anything untoward or inappropriate in the underwriting of red states by blue ones. On the contrary. After all, many of these Republican states are home both to key defense contractors and military bases which help ensure U.S. national security. Just as important, Americans nationwide want to provide the funding and resources for the education, health care and anti-poverty programs their red state brethren badly need - and deserve.
But for all her grandstanding, Sarah Palin was the queen of what she might otherwise call red state socialism. And in when it comes to the generosity of the American people, Sarah Palin concluded that charity begins at home - in Alaska.
UPDATE: Still failing to understand the First Amendment, Palin announced, "Together we do stand with gratitude for our troops who protect all of our cherished freedoms, including our freedom of speech which, par for the course, I'm going to exercise."
I hope the media doesn't start reading your blog. The truth might get out and ruin poor poor Palin's ongoing campaign to paint herself as a victim.
It is also especially classy that given the opportunity to apologize for all the invectives she has directed at others, she took a pass.
Questions.
What color is the sky in her world?
Maybe the reason people talk about your family is because you hold a public office? And maybe because what most people consider stand-up behavior is not exactly been a high priority for your family? What did you think could possibly be the ramifications of becoming governor?
I understand people have family issues. Thats OK. But deal with it. Ignore the critics. C'mon, woman! but then to run away from them? And as a governor?
Its just sad we even have to deal with this. Doesn't say much about her supporters, does it? Is this really the kind of character people want to represent them?
She doesn't want to be a "lame duck." OK a normal hard-working person would then pull-themselves together and do some work. But, no, for SP, the only option is to quit. What does that say about her character? Not too much, I'm afraid.
Must be nice to have money and be able to leave when times get tough. Or is it? I would think it would be troubling to her deep inside. No?
As Vince Lombardi once said...' When the going gets tough, then the tough get going. ' I guess Sarah misinterpreted the coaches meaning. - Probably didn't stay around long enough to hear it. She had some important hair appointment, I guess.
Mark,
You said,"Maybe the reason people talk about your family is because you hold a public office?"
Does that mean that Obama's girls are free game for media slurs? Not likely, since it's his party that stoops to that low level, using the family to hurt you.
You said"And maybe because what most people consider stand-up behavior is not exactly been a high priority for your family?"
Coming from a group whose majority would have expected her daughter to have an abortion. Lord knows all of palin's opponents and their families have spotless lives, no children born out of wedlock, no parents "quitting" after a small portion of their "term".
txjimmy:
regardless of party... doesn't matter. intuitively, we know when something seems wrong. no? and now, trying to spin it into something its obviously not.
i doubt, if, as she claims, a reason she's leaving was because her family was being attacked. this would make sense in our normal world, but not hers.
if media was cause of her resignation then why is she not now in seclusion? you'd think you'd want to avoid any kind of public situation. but, yet, we see her at all these public events lately.
republican, democrat, independant or whatever... my god, i know bs when i hear it. so should everyone else too.
seems we want to only see and hear superficially. in my experience, which is the only real reality i can really speak to and apparenly unlike sarah, its best to be honest with ourselves and others. short of that, its best to just keep quiet, seek professional help if you can't deal with it now. your self-serving delusion may go on fooling some people, even ourselves, but its not good or healthy for you or others.
I love your spin on how the Red states are supposedly on the Federal Teat. Brilliant job of spinning the numbers. Just because people within the state may be on federal assistance doesn't mean the state is.
Fact of the matter that you will never grasp...Red Staters are sick of a large central government. If aid is needed within the state, it should come from the state...but no we have to flow the money to the central govt, who takes their 40% cut for doing nothing, then flowing it back to the state.
If you'd like...we can play the numbers game, and they are definitely in my favor. You say Alaska gets $210 per person yet California only gets $16...wanna compare the final bill to the each state and see which gets more?
Try telling the whole truth for once...frickin spin sickens all of us Red Staters.
You have got to be kidding me! You left wing finatics are really losing your ability to spin aren't you. I mean you put a lot of effort into it, yet you really miss the mark. In other words your failures.
Let's see, the year is 2009, she has been in office for 2.5 years, that means anything prior to 2007 was before her time. Follow along this is just basic math. Yet you quote data based on 2005. Why? Couldn't find anything truthfull to say. Oh you did make an attempt by citing a 2007 analysis, however that was based on the same 2005 data. Just like you lefties, the truth doesn't deter you from opening you mouth and looking stupid.
Oh yeah, the Wall Steet Journal Analysis was just a recap of the proposed spening amounts for the stimulas funds, which of course came from congress, not the govenors. Additionally that is per capita, not overall dollar amounts.
Can't you find something honest and productive to do?
Don, sarcasm is not productive.
Hope I can have a nice blog like yours with so many visitors everyday