Right In Front of Your Face

This is probably the most shallow junk I've read all year. From none other than Crooks and Liars, who, while I'm not a regular reader, I was under the misguided notion C&L was somewhat of an objective site. Silly me, I guess their name is appropriate, taken from the famous remark of horseface John Kerry when he was describing his bedfellows in DC.

C&L: Sarah Palin is on a new jag or an old one actually. She's ranting about some New World Order nonsense and while introducing wingnut radio host Michael Regan in Alaska, told the audience that the government wants to control the lives of "the people."

Via CNN: Alaska governor Sarah Palin let loose Wednesday on the Obama administration for enacting fiscal policies that "fly in the face of principles" and "defy Economics 101."

Palin: We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she said. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people.

There's something pretty weird hearing the term "Economics 101," being uttered by Sarah because she showed little knowledge of economics on the campaign trail, but that being said...the right wing constantly is reaching out to the far depths of the conservative movement and are trying to instill more and more fear into that base which will only increase the violence that comes out of those merky depths. "People control," really Sarah? She should stop hanging out with nutty talk show hosts.

Just to help her out a little bit, it was under George Bush and conservative---neocon warhawks that the global financial markets melted down and led us down the path of being "afraid." And wasn't it under her governance that she took money from the oil companies and handed it out to her people?

CC's Indecision (Comedy Central blog): It should just sit back and let the free market do its thing and, um, dispense the lucre…

In Alaska, where Palin is governor, natural resources are state-owned, and Alaska residents receive yearly dividend checks from a $30 billion state account built largely from oil royalties….

When home fuel and gas costs soared this year, Palin raised taxes on oil companies and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

Even the grammar-challenged Governor knows there's word for that kind of redistributive policy. Starts with S.

---- Hmmm. I don't think the word "starts with S."

To C&L: Michael "Regan" should be Reagan, Ronnie's son. I have never listened to him so do not know if he's a wingnut or not - but then I don't get my news from Colbert or Jon Stewart either, as many "progressives" seem to do. I did google on over to Reagan's website and read a couple of columns. In one he described Boy Bush's era as "big government and wild-spending."

Pssssttt we've been doing that for decades, spending just gets wilder with each president.

As to the sniplet from CNN by way of C&L: "Just to help her out a little bit, it was under George Bush and conservative---neocon warhawks that the global financial markets melted down and led us down the path of being "afraid."

I suppose it's best to blame those "neocon warhawks" (haven't seen that phrase in a while), rather than look aghast at the money Obamasiah is throwing on the flames of those melting markets (and ignore the fact that Barry O. isn't antiwar, he was pandering to the sheople). And if you want to pin blame there's enough to go around at least back to the Clinton era of come one come all for toxic lending. In fact, I would say HUD/Fannie and Freddie were pretty much the Clintonistas damage. And, wasn't the housing market the first domino in this meltdown?

The question asked by CNN blog: "And wasn't it under her governance that she took money from the oil companies and handed it out to her people?"

Are you serious? The Alaskan PFD is not simply "handed out to her people." The Fund has been around since 1976, overhauled in 1982.

The governor Palin replaced in 2006, Murkowski, sought sweetheart deals for oil companies and Alaskan voters put him out of office. Several of the governor's negotiators were later indicted, accused of making back-room deals with the industry. It was Palin who scrapped Murkowski's deals, stood up to big oil, and raised their taxes. But ... " "it would be an overstatement to brand Palin as an enemy of Big Oil. Her husband works as a production supervisor for BP. And her support for drilling in the Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve, as well as exploiting Alaska's natural gas resources, certainly won't endear her to environmentalists. "Personally, I have respect for the industry," she said in an interview with Fortune last year, "for the contributions it's made to our state ... and great respect for what their CEOs are doing. We know their mission, to take as much as possible and leave as little behind."

I'm stumped I tell you, stumped - why would "progressives" diss a pol who obviously stood up to Big Oil, and taxed them? One who so accurately calls corporate CEO's mission "to take as much as possible and leave as little behind." And isn't that what we've witnessed from both parties in the Halls of Power for the past 3+ decades?

On the other hand some Alaskans believe Alaskan politicians, the Fund managers and their operating costs, the corporations the Fund invests in, all benefit too much from the fund while sending stipends to the people.

Stipends that range from $300-$3200 per year per eligible person. Felons are not eligible, and if you owe taxes, child support, etc. the state will be keeping that PFD. Alaska had a population of approximately 686,000, and a PFD fund of $38 billion in 2008. Even if all residents are eligible, which they are not, the total paid out in 2008 (a record $2080-2100) would be $2.1 billion - around 5-6% of the total fund. Sarah also passed out a $1200 resource rebate check that year because of high energy costs. Sort of like the Bushobama rebates and stimulus checks, except Alaska could afford to do it.

But tell me, how will that work with other states not as fortunate, not sitting on oil and gas? California is struggling even with all the wealth from tourism, energy, agriculture, hi-tech, etc. Will all or only a few industries have their profits placed in a California State fund for yearly stipends to the state's 37,000,000 residents? What about those poor states like Arkansas and Kentucky? What about illegal alie....oops, I mean undocumented workers, would they get a stipend if they meet the eligibility requirements? Will Alaskans be angry when their stipend goes down in order to help stipenders in states like po' Mississippi and West Virginey?

Every state would have funds collected, from State run industries of course, and then BigDaddy Guvmint will dole out the dividend stipends, and it would need to be the same amount for every individual, just as it is in Alaska. So poorer states will get some of theirs from the richer states. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? I don't think that's called socialism, and the BigDaddy State will never wither away - that happens only in neoprogressive dreams and chat rooms, usually after a little Maui Owie. (And if, as in Alaska, a felon is not eligible - guess what color and rung won't be getting a dividend.)

You know Bubba, there may not even be a word yet for the Government that's coming to redistribute the stipends, but my best guess is ... it will start with a T.