Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Palin’s Alaska Reaps the Windfall Profits McCain Decries
Welcome to the People's Republic of Alaska, where every resident this year will get a $3,200 payout, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Sarah Palin, the state's Republican governor. That's $22,400 for a family of seven, like Palin's. Since 1982, the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests oil revenues from state lands, has paid out a dividend on invested oil loot to everyone who has been in the state for a year. But Palin upped the ante by joining with Democrats and some recalcitrant Republican state legislators to share in oil company windfall profits, further fattening state tax revenue and permitting an additional payout in tax funds to residents.
No wonder she is popular with voters in a state whose residents pay no income or sales taxes but are blessed with state coffers rolling in cash at a time when all other states are suffering. Indeed, when the oil companies pay more taxes to the state of Alaska, they get to write that off against their federal tax obligation, leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.
The state of Alaska owns most of the oil-producing land and was getting upward of 85 percent of its budget from the oil companies that lease the fields, even before Palin helped increase the state's cut. While other states fire schoolteachers because of the economic downturn, Alaska has, as Palin indicated in accepting John McCain's offer to join him on the GOP ticket, more money than it knows what to do with. In a display of plucky arrogance at her coming-out press conference, Palin boasted deceptively that if Alaskans wanted that infamous bridge to nowhere, "we'd build it ourselves."
She originally had supported having U.S. taxpayers finance that boondoggle, before McCain and others in Congress blasted it.
Not that I blame Palin for wrangling for her state a bigger cut of oil company windfall profits; it's just not an option that will work wonders for states without oil. Of course we can remedy that by having a federal windfall profits tax of the sort that Barack Obama dared propose, and which McCain and his fellow congressional Republicans have managed to quash. Their argument, rejected quite pointedly by Palin for Alaska, is that it would discourage oil companies from investing in boosting oil field yields.
McCain derided Obama's call for the windfall profits tax, saying it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need." I am far more interested in how McCain handles the contradiction between his and Palin's position on windfall oil profits than whether he properly vetted her on her family-values commitment to the abstinence-only teenage sex education program.
Why is it a good thing for the folks up in Alaska to get a cut of exorbitant oil company profits, but not the rest of us, if we are all part of one nation? Didn't taxpayers from across the U.S. buy the place from the Russians? Isn't it our federally collected tax dollars that have been subsidizing Alaska more lavishly than any other state, both before and after the bonanza of oil?
Just witness the success of Palin, who, as mayor of the hamlet of Wasilla, hired a big-time lobbying firm intimately connected with the state's now-indicted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and thus obtained $27 million in federal earmarks during her tenure. As The Washington Post calculated in a devastating report on Mayor Palin's assault on the federal treasury, her home town of Wasilla (with about 6,000 inhabitants in 2002 when she was mayor) received $6.1 million, or $1,000 per resident in earmarks, almost as much as Boise, Idaho, got this year with a population that is 30 times larger.
It obviously helped to have Alaska's now-indicted senator as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And despite McCain's claims that Palin distinguished herself by breaking with Alaska's discredited Republican establishment in February, the governor sent Stevens a request for $200 million to support various state projects. With representatives like that, it's no wonder that Alaska, despite its oil boom, is still at the top of states subsidized by federal dollars, receiving $1.84 back from Washington for every $1 that Alaskans pay in federal taxes. (California receives 78 cents for every $1.)
Unfortunately, looking to Palin for advice on helping the rest of us during the oil crunch, as McCain has promised, is a bit like asking a Saudi oil minister or Russia's Vladimir Putin to provide a model for our nation's economic woes. They hardly feel our pain at the pump.
102 Comments so far
Show AllThen why not support Nader, Mckinney, Paul, Sheehan, etc ... ?
RichM...you are to be commended...a very excellent assessment.
I second that.
The point is not so much Palin herself as what the nomination of Palin says about McCain. She's about as qualified to be vice president as "Heckuva Job" Brownie was to run FEMA. Not to mention the implications of her ascending to the presidency should anything happen to the oldest president ever elected - like a fifth and fatal recurrence of his cancer.
She was chosen for one reason only - to woo "security moms" and disaffected Hillary supporters to the Republican ticket. She was an unknown even to the man who selected her as his running mate. She could not have been picked on the basis of her stand on the issues: at the time, she had no public position on about half of them, although her positions are beginning to be fleshed out at ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm).
Palin is as authoritarian as Bush and Cheney, and as unqualified as Brown. She's as crooked as Nixon, as far right as anybody you care to name, and as loony as anyone in the religious right. The combination makes for a very scary potential successor to the Oval Office. I think it is entirely appropriate to heap scorn upon "country first" McCain for selecting her as his running mate for entirely political reasons. And to do that, you have to point out what a horrible choice she is.
I just want to say as a disaffected and highly offended (by the sexism and mysogny) Hillary Clinton supporter who refuses to vote for Obama-Biden, I can tell you with just as much certainty that I will not vote for McCain-Palin either.
I view the VP position as potential President. Palin is clearly not qualified to be President.
And on an emotional level, I highly resent this superficial ploy by the Republicans. They had their chance to impress, to pick a powerful woman or minority who is qualified for the VP spot AND brings diversity to the table. They failed miserably ! Their pick tells me that they think we Clinton supporters are stupid, that we supported Clinton only because she was a woman.
Now my mind is made up, I will vote 3rd party in November.
Congrats on your choice! I have to ask though, why were you supporting Clinton... if not because she was a woman, was it her actual policies? Shudder.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
I think Clinton would make an excellent President. I cannot say the same of Obama, Biden, McCain, or Palin.
I understand you think that, or you wouldn't have supported her. I was just curious why you thought she'd make an excellent president... I found her to be advocating nothing more than a continuation of corporate rule, failed neo-liberal trade policies, and mandating that we all have to give money to health insurance corporations. Plus she was waaaay too hawkish. That, and the idea of two family dynasties taking turns at the oval office didn't appeal to me either. But hey, to each their own, I just wondered why you liked her...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
perceptionexperiment,
Your perception of Hillary Clinton's agenda is certainly not based on her Senate voting record. If you had reviewed her voting record you would know that on "corporate rule," "trade policies" and "hawkish" militarism, she if far to the left of Obama (based on his Senate voting record). In fact, on the big issues pitting corporate profits against the public interest, Obama's voting record is closer to John McCain's than to Hillary Clinton's.
On the Iraq occupation, Hillary voted to require that all combat troops be out by June 2008. Obama did not. Hillary also co-sponsored a bill to end the use of (lawless and brutal) mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama opposes that bill, and will continue the use of mercenaries.
The real shame of this election cycle is that we squandered our chance to elect a President who would have moved the country significantly forward on the very issues you mention. And we did so because so many accepted the corporate media's spin on Hillary, and because so many bought into Obama's race-baiting of her (how ludicrous that charge), and because so many bought into Obama's duplicitous campaign rhetoric.
I too will be voting for neither Obama of McCain. I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
YES !!!
It's funny how the righteous Democrat supporters are saying it is okay to have a young inexperienced man to be the president, but it is not okay to have a young inexperienced (but with slightly more administrative experience) woman to be the vice president. This sick and unprincipled bashing of Palin says only one thing. Obama's ship is sinking.
An unfortunate distraction worthy of some attention but not the amount it's been getting (especially when it comes to her daughter's pregnancy... I mean, sure it's ironic, but who cares?)
And I think what the "righteous Democrats" are actually doing is pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in conservatives who endlessly pick on Obama for his "lack of experience" but then choose an equally inexperienced candidate as their VP choice. I mean, come on, you honestly can't see that?
The bottom line is both campaigns care more about image than policy or experience or any other credential. And in our TV dominated, brain-dead world, it is image that matters after all.
It's all about branding.... Hope vs. the Maverick. It no longer matters what the candidates do or say, in the minds of their supporters the brands have already been imprinted on their psyches.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Puh-leese - This woman has neither the qualifications nor experience to be put up as a vice-presidential candidate. It's not clear what the Republicans are trying to pull other than throwing red meat to the bible-beating, book-banning, gun-waving, anti-education science deniers like Palin herself. She will blow away like chaff in a few weeks. Any idiot could run a state which takes in 30% more in Federal funds than it collects; Palin's living proof. Her cherished abstinence-only sex-ed policies don't even work in her own governor's mansion, much less the inner cities; of course, there are no inner cities in Alaska. She apparently got a passport last year so she could visit NG troops on US bases in Germany and Kuwait - a real woman of the world.
As for Obama's sinking ship, I recall when Geraldine Ferraro was put on the Democratic ticket - it was an election the Dems knew they would lose, big time, and adding a woman to the ticket was just for the novelty of it. Come 2008, the Republicans finally enter the 20th century (yeah, the last one) and add Palin for the same reason. They are going down in a big way.
Hey there pkgman!
At least Obama has (7) yrs as an Illinoes Senator + (4) yrs as a US Senator AND..
a Harvard Law degree, and even taught law! That's way more than Palin in my opinion.
Go to the Obama Website and check out the facts for yourself if you doubt what I'm saying. Moreover, Palin denies that global warming is man made, has championed the slaughter of innocent wildlife for sport, and that's just for starters.
And by the way, recently McCain also voted against fair pay for women, healthcare for children, and per US Senator Insley of Washington State, McCain sat in his office when his vote could have passed a very important energy bill promoting renewable energy, millions in of new energy jobs and training. Obama and Clinton voted for the bill.
If I had a choice to vote for a women I would have voted for Hillary, Hands Down!
I along with friends and family will be voting OBAMA for come November.
Teri
On the other hand, I sort of like the sound of President Palin. Trailer trash comes to Washington! Bring the kids. Fun for the whole fundamentalist family. How crazy could it get? Find out in the next episode! We could stop condoms! Not just from being distributed to teens, but from being sold to adults. We could have 'helicopter hunting' as national sport. Perhaps we could have a President, finally, who knows how to shoot a gun and kill an endangered species from a helicopter! Now that's LEADERSHIP. Who better to lead an empire more decadent than Rome? We've just gotten a taste of how much fun it will be. You thought Bush was stupid? You thought Cheney was pure evil? Cheney couldn't even shoot a duck held in front of him. He's never shot animals from a helicopter before. No, Palin has the experience this country needs and WANTS. Shotgun weddings, helicopter safaris, profligate spending, dog-sledding, ATVs, snowmobiles, melting glaciers, drilling everywhere, flags on every street, children from rape and incest... Fun, Fun, Fundamentalism!
Hmm, trailer trash. THAT will really pick up working America's votes, won't it? What is trashy about her? She is married, once only, has five kids, all of whom have grown up or are growing up in a two parent family, both parents are employeed, they are by no means wealthy, and one son joined the military to serve his country.
Yeah, trash. Dysfunctional families like Britney Spears or Bubba and Hillary's are so much better, right?
She is trash if only because she represents the illusion of wholesome regular folk--and sells that particular all-American fairytale that has kept the dumbed-down clinging to the mythology of proud strong, flag-waving, ass-kicking America while their real lives are in a world of hurt and keeps spiralling down while the rest of the world leaves us in the dust. At least they cling to their illusions of pride and power while they lose their homes and their children go off to kill and be killed for wealthy interests. At least they are Americans--sort of like how Southern poor white trash always viewed themselves as superior to African-Americans. Some things never change.
Got any more sterotypes to pass along?
Palin appeals to those who don't need no education and hate teachers teaching evolution and want to start burning books. That mentality is common in trailer parks. Get over it.
You are way too polite when somone like this becomes so personally offensive. I'm disgusted with all the personal attacks....with no merit that I see.
She WAS picked for her stands on issues! Yes, in part, she was picked because she is a woman, but the larger part of it was because she is a FUNDAMENTIST conservative. Lieberman is jewish; Romney is mormon, so the fundamentalists chose Palin for McCain. It was a brilliant tactical move!! All the blogosphere and media hysteria will very likely HELP McCain and Palin. The sexism in the reporting needs to go. It makes her sympathetic and distracts us from debating how dangerous her views (and conservative views) actually are.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
That is why Palin is dangerous--not because she is any different from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Scalia, Rumsfeld, or any of the other fascist lunatics that have ruled over us for 8 years--but she is new and adept at putting a Sally Field, good all-American-girl-next-door likeability veneer over what has been revealed to be rotten, fetid, wanton greed and unspeakable corruption. She makes it all shiny and new again instead of shady and corrupt, to those who really want to believe the mythology--she is even more effective than Reagan was--since the bloom is off the Neocon rose. I never was a big Obama booster-seen one speech, seen them all-was more anti-Clinton than anything and I am not under any illusions about the Democrats-especially with the Clinton stranglehold continuing. But, considering the police actions on the street of late and McCain's doddering embrace of increasing war actions--with Liebermans prodding, we are in for a world of hurt for sure. I say don't let the pretty girlish voice be the apple-pie siren song for a Republican culture war revival take 3.
I've noticed an incredible amount of misogynistic hysteria about Palin, that echoed what I felt happened with Hillary Clinton. Both women could be fairly criticized for their positions - moreso for Palin - but it's gone beyond accetable bounds. I disagree with Palin on EVERYTHING and would as a result never ever vote for her for anything; however, the media hysteria - and blogosphere hysteria - has been so vicious and mean in ways that are not useful or skillful AND in fact wind up helping her and her ilk! Sexism is alive and well in america.
I'm perversely looking forward to her speech tonight. I will criticize it based on substance. As the previous post says, other conservatives ideology is just as dangerous as hers and "experience" hasn't played a part in any of it. Obama is dangerous, too, and look at HIS thin resume!
I totally agree with your comments. Sexism is indeed alive and well.
If one more person talks about 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling I think I'm going to puke ! I was disappointed that Hillary didn't do that finger-down-the-throat thing after she was forced to say it. >:-)
Maybe Palin will surprise me, but I doubt it. There were other better-qualified women governers, but they're older and not so cute. One is Jewish ! I guess that's why they picked Palin. She's inoffensive to the racist Republicans.
visit this website: www.hillaryis44.org
Those are not racist Republicans...
Those are not racist Republicans...
But they sure sound like they are.
I don't see any significant amount of criticism of Palin for being a woman, nor did I see criticism of Hillary for her gender during the primary season. I do believe that the fact that a candidate is female is no more reason to vote FOR them than it is to vote AGAINST them - but if I say I'm not going to vote for so and so just because she's a woman, I'm accused of saying I'm against her just because she's a woman. Not so!
I was against Hillary because she was a corporate whore in the mold of her husband; when it came down to a choice between Clinton and Obama, I supported Obama because he was (if only slightly) less so.
I am against Palin because she is anti-choice, pro-Big Oil, and because she is a religious zealot who denies scientific truth on subjects ranging from evolution to climate change.
Labeling anyone who opposes a candidate for perfectly valid reasons (Palin for her religious-right stances on abortion and creationism, say, or Clinton for her "proud" affiliation with Wal*Mart and her support of the Iraq war) as misogynistic and sexist simply because the candidate they oppose happens to be female is utterly ridiculous. Likewise calling someone a sexist for pointing out that Palin was selected, with little vetting and despite her lack of any qualifications, in a blatantly cynical ploy to appeal to female voters.
Speaking of sexism---why is the Right given carte blanche to attack the "effete" media--and no one even notices the subtle conventional bias against the feminist and the jab against Gay men? Note that Palin and Clinton embrace the machismo of the established order and unlike true feminists--male or female, do not forge a new paradigm as an alternative to the dinosaurs of militarism as strength. Palin appearing as Gidget goes to Washington, reveals her inner Thatcher when she mocks Obama for his community organizing...so much for "Country First", huh? Fonda was right--they are little more than handmaidens to the patriarchy not feminists busting through the mindset.
Excellent. A lot of tacky he said, she said type gossip on Palin passing for political comment.
Pretty fair analysis.
I think we need to give this strong woman a chance. Isn't that what were all about. It would be hypocritical not to.
You're joking right? A "friend" of BIG OIL? Who needs another "Cheney" when America's had enough of one for 8 years?
It's nice to know that the windfall went to the residents of Alaska instead of into Palin's pockets ! She really can't be faulted for doing what's best for her state.
Ok... Palin is a "strong" woman... and you want us to give her a chance... well, everything about Sarah Palin as a person aside, look at what her policy positions are, look where she stands on the issues that matter to the people, and you'll find her far to the right of the average person, and 'wrong' on just about every issue.
My opposition to Ms. Palin has nothing to do with her being a woman, or a mother, or anything like that. It has everything to do with her being a wrong-headed fascist supporter.
Also Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher, Monica Goodling, Anne Coulter, Madame Nhu. Maybe Lizzie Borden.
Joe
Alaska is making money off of expensive oil? So what? So is Venezuela. What do you expect the Alaskans to do, refuse to collect royalties?
The comparison is more as if Zulia (the oil production centre of Venezuela) or the Eastern provinces of Bolivia cornered all the benefits of oil and natural gas production which they have done for many years. Alberta is in a similar position, enjoying budgets surpluses while provinces that long sustained Canada are suffering (and hence the Harper Conservatives financial advantage in the upcoming election). What Venezuela has done is share that wealth for the first time with all Venezuelans, if not all Latin Americans. No other country has been as humanitarian with its oil revenue.
The Alaskan Independence Party position is similar to the neo-confederate rightists who want to keep all the benefits for themselves while relying on the central government for everything else. It's basically libertarianism based in hypocrisy.
I think the author's point was that if it's OK for Alaska to collect on Big Oil's windfall profits, it should be OK at the federal level too. Does their "country first" slogan really mean anything to these people?
Hello Redstatelefty!
In fact, the oil companies and are suppose to pay royalties to the federal government as payment for drilling on federal land. However, during these past (8) years during the Bush Administration, oversight reported that the Oil companies had not paid they full share of the billions in royalties, or didn't pay at all. There's a branch of government amongst many other responsibilities also acts as sort of a accts receivable department for the collection of oil royalties. Well, they weren't collecting or watching the store as closing as they should. To my knowledge, the (surprise) Bush administration had foregiven alot of those royalties, and currently the administration is taking in oil reserves in place of cold hard cash (royalties).
Grrr! That's only one of the hundred's of reasons I will NOT vote Republican!
I'm going to miss Hillary, but I truly, truly believe in Obama.
Teri
Ah, Venezuela is spreading that money around for the common good (hehe)as opposed to milking the system to enrich their own personal coffers. Reminds me of the last oil crisis when the Texans proudly displayed their "Let the Bastards freeze" bumperstickers towards the freezing North of the US. Venezuela, otoh, provides heating fuel to the freezing North of the US.
So is Alaska. What, exactly, do you thing the "Alaska Permament Fund payments" that each Alaskan receives each year are?
Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot for a second that I live in a state without oil yet still my tax dollars get sent to the Rollin' In The Dough State. If they have enough to pay each resident over $3000 this year then they have enough to do without federal funding which can be better spent in states without oil.
On the other hand, I sort of like the sound of President Palin. Trailer trash comes to Washington! Bring the kids. Fun for the whole fundamentalist family. How crazy could it get? Find out in the next episode! We could stop condoms! Not just from being distributed to teens, but from being sold to adults. We could have 'helicopter hunting' as national sport. Perhaps we could have a President, finally, who knows how to shoot a gun and kill an endangered species from a helicopter! Now that's LEADERSHIP. Who better to lead an empire more decadent than Rome? We've just gotten a taste of how much fun it will be. You thought Bush was stupid? You thought Cheney was pure evil? Cheney couldn't even shoot a duck held in front of him. He's never shot animals from a helicopter before. No, Palin has the experience this country needs and WANTS. Shotgun weddings, helicopter safaris, profligate spending, dog-sledding, ATVs, snowmobiles, melting glaciers, drilling everywhere, flags on every street, children from rape and incest... Fun, Fun, Fundamentalism!
HAHAHAHA... now that's some funny shit. LOL!
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Palin and McCain lied about the two problems in Palin's life. They did not come out until they were caught by the press.
Bush started lying at least after he became the president.
Obama is not wrong when he says McCain is more of the same.......
Wake up America before All is lost.........
And Obama lied about his connections with Tony Rezko and William Ayers. I agree, more of the same.
Just write her a letter Robert and tell her your and our grievances. It's wasteful diplomacy to throw out milk you think is sour before you tasted it. So who are you to speak of economic woes? Our job is to make our grievances heard, not whine and give up because another person has a different life experience.
No, he is simply stating the milk is sour, no matter how much you want to believe that you are drinking the nectar of the gods.
Leea, "Just write her a letter" suggests that Palin's VP nomination is a personal matter between Scheer and Palin. Do you think it is the entire nation's business that Palin is just another big oil person lining up to steer this country in the wrong direction? Robert Scheer is doing the media's job by exposing the reality behind the RNC illusions and you call that incredibly important task "whining"?
Also, your "sour grapes" comment is nonsensical considering that the election is dead ahead. If Mr. Scheer was giving up, he would not have written this tough analysis of Palin.
Maybe a better analysis follows: you were deliciously admiring Palin so much that Scheer's accurate analysis turned your "milk" sour. Go ahead and spit it out.
I really do not believe in this Empire mentality where the evil dark lords and ladies conspire with their co-workers as they are lining up to steer us in the wrong direction. I've worked with republicans locally and found that if one speaks up they listen, and speaking up directly to our chosen reps is what it is all about. Not writing letters to blogs, and liberal sites etc. Though this has it's value undoubtedly.
I'm not soured at all by what Mr. Scheer has written, it's just words really and right now our nation is literally flooded in words online, on air and on and on.
I can see how my tone had a sour grapes note to it, and will heed your point.
Thanks
I agree. Most conservatives are fine people. My parents are in that catagory. However, there are dark lords at the top and all around the top trying to break thriough into the military-industrial complex. America is an empire that as McCain said last night, doesn't obey history, WE MAKE HISTORY"
Watch the documentaries: The Corporation and Enron:The Smartest Guys in the Room. Then read up on the Military-Industrial COmplex, the Council Foreign Relations (report: The Crisis of Democracy). and there is so much other incredibly relevant stuff out there that NEVER reaches the national consciousness because those at the top won't risk it.