Yesterday Governor Palin penned a post on her Facebook page expressing her support of Senator McCain in the face of censure by his own party in Arizona. In many ways, it echoed the op-ed she wrote for the Arizona Central when she endorsed Senator McCain's re-election nearly four years ago. Governor Palin's support of Senator McCain shows far more of her character than of his merit. As Governor Palin wrote last night:
We live in a time of diminishing virtues because of societal influence towards total self-centeredness. This is unfortunate and makes raising families, conducting business, and governing that much more challenging. I know how important the virtue of loyalty is because in politics it’s pretty much nonexistent. I stand on that most important virtue and answer those asking today: “Yes, I am proud to have been asked to run with him in 2008, and he is my friend.”
If loyalty is essentially nonexistent in politics as Governor Palin notes, how would anyone know what it looks like? One needs to look no further than Governor Palin's own character and action over the years. Governor Palin has stood by Senator McCain's side since 2008, in spite of his often tepid support for her and his nonexistent defense of her when she was more or less accused of murdering his Arizona constituents in Tucson three years ago. Governor Palin's loyalty has been noted by many. For example, Governor Nikki Haley noted in her book about Governor Palin's continued support in the midst of allegations during Haley's gubernatorial campaign that she had an affair:
When allegations from Folks first surfaced, Haley remembers having Palin in her corner after just one phone call – a contrast to the way another supporter, Romney, had handled the news.
“Sarah goes with her gut, and I love her for that,” she writes. “Mitt’s team [said] they were going to have a ‘Nikki Haley meeting’ the next morning to decide what to do next.”
Governor Palin again stood with Haley in May of 2012 when a South Carolina union leader beat a pinata with a picture of Governor Haley's face on it. This came even after Haley's silence when Governor Palin and the Tea Party was blamed for the Tucson shooting. Suffice it to say, Governor Palin's loyalty is because of who she is (her character), not because of who the others are.
Support differs from complete agreement, however. Governor Palin has expressed disagreement with McCain either implicitly or explicitly multiple times. As she noted in her Facebook post, Governor Palin parts ways with Senator McCain on ANWR and immigration. She has parted ways with him implicitly too. Her "Let Allah sort it out" approach to Syria is 180 degrees different than Senator McCain's neocon approach to Syria. In her vintage speech to a Tea Party rally in Iowa in September 2011, Governor Palin mocked Senator McCain, although not in name, for his reference to Tea Partiers as hobbits.
To be sure, Governor Palin has her share of disagreements with Senator McCain, just as some supporters may disagree with her for supporting Senator McCain in this manner. That is the beauty of independence of thought--difference of opinion does negate support. As Governor Palin's brother Chuck Heath Jr. noted on his Facebook page today:
It can't be said much better than that. We don't have to always agree, but we all can learn a lesson in loyalty from the one political figure who personifies it. Crossposted here, here, and here.
It seems that often in politics--at least with our media--political views are too often dichotomized rather than seen on a continuum or through the lens of circumstances. The recent discussion of likely intervention in Syria has been a fascinating display of this common practice of categorizing political views into tidy categories for intellectually incurious journalists and commentators. These individuals try to pigeon hole people as either isolationists or neo-conservatives, doves or hawks, etc. These are false choices. Those who want America to be secure and strong without being the world's policeman are neither isolationists "doves" or neo-conservative "hawks". Such individuals could be better defined as by our very own national bird--the eagle. An eagle is neither a docile dove, nor a hawk, or even a vulture, which seems to characterize some who think that America must be involved in every civil war or skirmish throughout the world. An eagle is a strong, noble bird, who is both territorial and protective of its interests.
Eagles are known for being territorial when nesting, aiming to keep other eagles out of their area. They only leave their nest to build another nest if they feel threatened. The male and (mostly) the female eagles take turns sitting on the eggs to protect them from squirrels and other animals. Furthermore, because of their great size, "eagles often ignore the mobbing behavior of smaller birds".
American foreign policy should be seen in the same way. Eagles protect their own territory and their own interests only. They protect themselves and their interests--their future generations--by staying at home to protect. They are not like hawks or vultures swooping down preying on any opportunity to "intervene" to pad their own political pocketbooks. They are not doves who won't intervene even when they are truly being threatened. When they are being threatened, they act in overwhelmingly, quickly, and with great strength. Look no further than the philosophy of Ronald Reagan during his presidency and the five point approach suggested by Governor Sarah Palin just a few years ago.
Which prompted Reagan to eventually write out a set of four principles. Four principles, he would write in his memoirs, that were specifically designed “to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents.”
Here they are:
Reagan Rule 1: The United States should not commit its forces to military actions overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
Reagan Rule 2: If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
Reagan Rule 3: Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)
Reagan Rule 4: Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
Third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.
Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.
Like the eagle, America is strong and should seek to protect its own interests. This does not include potentially siding with the very evil that killed thousands of Americans twelve years ago on American soil this week or those who trained the jihadists who killed four Americans in Benghazi last year this week. This does not excuse the evils perpetrated by Assad, but there is no need to choose sides in a civil war between two evils.
On Thursday, CNN reported that nearly three dozen CIA agents were on the ground during the attacks at the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012. Additionally, the Obama administration is subjecting many of these individuals to very frequent polygraph tests (and changing Benghazi survivors' names). These revelations beg two questions. One--why is the Obama administration subjecting agents to what Jake Tapper's source is calling an "unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out" if this is simply a phony scandal? Of course, that is a rhetorical question. Second--why were so many CIA agents in Benghazi at the time?
On Thursday night, Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf indicated that the CIA was moving guns in Benghazi, per Breitbart News:
“We’re getting calls from people who are close to people who were [in Benghazi at the time] that they were moving guns. So where are the guns?” asked Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), a sub-committee chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Wolf also wonders what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi on that night. Stevens and three others were killed over the course of the attacks.
“Are they in a warehouse somewhere? Some people say they moved on to Turkey and then from Turkey to Syria," Wolf told Breitbart News on Thursday. "Did they fall into the hands of some of the Jihadis?"
"Nobody knows, so I think there are so many questions from the failure to respond to where the guns went,” he stated.
Wolf is currently attempting to create a Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack by launching a discharge petition from committee. He needs 218 signatures to take the issue to a vote on the floor.
In January, Senator Rand Paul asked then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if guns were being run to Turkey from Libya, which she did not answer, but deferred to the CIA (see the 2:17 mark):
About that same time, the CIA denied that guns were being run from Libya through Turkey to Syria.
To look at this more completely, we must take a step back. It was an absolute failure of security to not have more protection at a consulate in an Islamist country on a date with such significance as September 11th, especially with the threats and violence that had already occurred in Libya in the previous months. Remember too that in August 2011, Gaddafi was overthrown. A dictator was defeated, and a country in a volatile region of the world was even more unstable. When that happened, Governor Palin warned (emphasis added):
Finally, we must make sure that terrorist groups don’t try to co-opt the revolution, as Al Qaeda is trying to do in Syria. We should continue to use our intelligence assets to monitor the situation in Libya to ensure that potentially dangerous weapons are secured, and that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda don’t gain a foothold in Libya.
The President has often touted that bin Laden is dead and that al Qaeda is decimated. He has cheered the death of Gaddafi. While these three things help rid the world of evil, only two of them are true. Al Qaeda seems to still be very much active. On Friday, the State Department issued worldwide travel warnings for the entire month of August because of al Qaeda threats. US Embassies are closed this Sunday (President Obama's birthday) throughout the world including places like Iraq and Egypt.If a terror network was truly decimated, there would be no need to take caution over their threats.
It is phony reasoning to suggest that the death of two evil men means the death of an entire network of evil. It is phony leadership to not heed real warnings of the potential for evil and to intimidate those who were survivors of such evil by subjecting them to polygraph tests in an attempt to silence them. The only ones who should be subjected to such tests are those who claim the death of four brave Americans is solely a "phony scandal".
On Friday, Governor Palin hammered President Obama for characterizing his lapses of leadership, his administration's corruption, and his neglect of the Constitution as merely "phony scandals":
On her "redneck whiteboard", Governor Palin noted several real scandals of the Obama White House: 1) IRS targeting of Tea Party groups 2) Benghazi 3) Accessing Fox News journalist, James Rosen's email 4) NSA spying 5) Holder's perjury 6) Fast and Furious 7) Obamacare lies...and the list continues.
Governor Palin is the perfect person to distinguish between real and phone scandals. When she took the reins as Governor, she did so on the heels of a massive vote buying scandal that indicted members of the Alaska legislature and Governor Murkowski's staff. Prior to that, she had called out the real scandal of the head of the Alaska GOP, Randy Ruedrich, doing party business on state time. She recognizes scandal because she has often had to clean it up.
When it comes to Governor Palin herself, the media, the Left, and establishment Republicans have all tried to spin faux scandals as legitimate scandals and have tried to turn lies and half truths into scandals. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the media claimed that Palin, as mayor, tried to ban books before they were even written. Some in the media, and people like Andrew Sullivan to this day, questioned that she was the mother of her son, Trig. The Left once tried to claim that during Palin's childhood, the Heath family, received socialized medicine in Canada (before Canada even had universal health care). At one point in 2010, the media tried to turn the language in her speaking contracts into a giant scandal over, gasp, bottles of water and bendable straws. The media and the Left have searched her emails looking for scandal only to find that she was a hard working dedicated governor. Recently, the media, the Left and the Establishment GOP have all tried to paint her as a consultant-laden, hypocritical politico because she dared to have her PAC spend money on things like postage. The list could go on and on of examples of phony scandals drudged up by the triumvirate of hypocrisy--of the media, the Left, and the Establishment GOP.
If the Obama administration is trying to find phony scandal, look no further than all the garbage that has been thrown at Governor Palin over the years. Real scandal lies in the fact that the American people have been the targets of intense, gratuitous IRS scrutiny, that the 4th amendment has been desecrated by the NSA, and that four brave, patriotic men died in Benghazi because of a lack of true leadership. Those are real scandals, and it is an insult to the American people to assume we are in capable of recognizing the truth about the lies of the Obama administration.
Our nation's political messaging has often been one of dichotomy--splitting America in half to pit us against each other. Both political parties are guilty of engaging in this kind of talk. Some Democrats in recent years have discussed America in context of the 1% (the wealthiest Americans) versus the 99% (the rest of us), essentially trying to capitalize on the pitting the nation's proverbial "haves" versus "have-nots". Meanwhile, some Republicans have seen things in the context of the 53% of Americans who pay federal income taxes versus the 47% of those who do not, in essence trying to dichotomize Americans as either productive or lazy. The truth is not every "one percenter" is greedy, nor is every ninety-nine percenter selfless. Not every fifty-three percenter has a strong work ethic, nor is every forty-seven percenter lazy. In reality, the dichotomy (and the disconnect too) comes between the permanent political class and the American people--primarily the working class. The working class primarily would fall into the 99% or the 53%. These individuals are self-sufficient enough to not be dependent upon the government, but not wealthy enough to be of importance to most politicians seeking campaign donors.
Too often, the working class are political pawns for union bosses and Democrats and frequently only discussed in the context of the "small business owner" for the pro-business (but infrequently pro-market) Republicans. There are rare politicians, however, who recognize that the working class are not political pawns, nor are they a class of citizens the government needs to do something for. They are a class of citizens that the government needs to stop doing something to! Tony Lee and Stephen Bannon co-wrote a great piece at Breitbart yesterday highlighting Governor Palin's ability to connect to the working class and how the Senate immigration bill has been a slap in the face to the working class:
"Meanwhile, the upper middle classes in coastal cocoons enjoy the aristocratic privileges of having plenty of cheap household help, while having enough wealth not to worry about the social costs of illegal immigration in terms of higher taxes or the problems in public education, law enforcement, and entitlements," Hanson wrote. "No wonder our elites wink and nod at the supposed realities in the current immigration bill, while selling fantasies to the majority of skeptical Americans."
Last Friday, a panelist on Fox News's Hannity's panel of black conservatives, which included Sirius XM Patriot's David Webb and Breitbart's Sonnie Johnson, emphasized that the Senate's immigration bill would have a "detrimental impact" on black Americans.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), one of the most critical opponents of the immigration bill, noted that the bill would hurt working class Hispanics in addition to all working class Americans and the "poorest among us." Sessions noted that according to the CBO report, the bill would have a devastating impact on wages of Americans looking for job security, and it would raise the unemployment rate while only solving 25% of the illegal immigration problem. He posited that between 30 million and 50 million workers will be added to the labor force in the next ten years, completely destroying the possibility of upward mobility of working class Americans of all backgrounds. Yet, Republican senators like Murkowski (R-AK), Rubio (R-FL), Ayotte (R-NH), McCain (R-AZ), and Graham (R-SC) voted for the final bill.
"Why would any Member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a time of high unemployment, falling wages?" Sessions asked on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday.
[...]
For Republicans to win back the majority and the presidency, they need to win the so-called Reagan Democrats and a new generation of working class minorities who will have to become Reagan Democrats 2.0. They need to win over the father who got laid off from his manufacturing job and has a child who did everything society said to do--go to college, get a degree, find a decent-paying job in the technology industry--and now may meet the same fate his father did when the labor market is flooded with an influx of cheap immigrant labor brought to do jobs Americans supposedly do not want to do.
These Americans that the immigration bill most adversely impacts make up the backbone of this country and see in Washington a permanent political class who are against them and think they "can't cut it." They see in Palin, though, someone who fights for them because she simply "gets" it--and them.
Once again, I’ll point out the obvious to you: it was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good. You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.
Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.
The immigration bill does negatively impact the working class, but the political connected will benefit. Although he ultimately voted for the bill, Democratic Senator Leahy would boost corporate cronyism. Big GOP donors ultimately want "comprehensive immigration reform" to pass as well. What will the House GOP do? Will they cave to political pressure in order to receive the needed money for their next re-election--their own constituents be damned?
The immigration bill is not the only way that the working class is being passed over for the sake of the political connected class. Look no further than the next divisive issue de jour--climate change. Earlier this week, President Obama gave a speech touting his next "green" push. This push was gleefully described by an Obma adviser as a needed "war on coal". The war on coal has already started, however. In President Obama's home state of Illinois, in the blue collar town of Decatur, nearly 500 Caterpillar workers were laid off this past Spring. Caterpillar is the world's largest maker of mining equipment, and with decreased coal mining, less mining equipment needs to be manufactured. Meanwhile, President Obama is promising $8 billion more in green energy loan guarantees in his new climate change plan. Past is often prologue,and in the 2009 stimulus package, 80% of Department of Energy loans went to companies with connections to Obama donors. It would surprise no one if this new round of loan guarantees again go to the political connected. Suffice it say, yet again, the working class gets a pink slip while the permanent political class get "green slips".
The working class are not simply a voting bloc, however. They are the backbone of our country and the essence of Americana's John Does. As so well voiced in "John Doe's" speech in Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe" (H/T to this great Rebecca Mansour piece from 2009):
We are the meek who are supposed to inherit the earth. You’ll find us everywhere. We raise the crops; we dig the mines, work the factories, keep the books, fly the planes and drive the buses. And when a cop yells: "Stand back there, you!" He means us, the John Does!
America's John and Jane Does are the hope of the earth. The permanent political class would do well to recognize them not as a group to be placate or to be pandered to, but instead as the very people who made America what it is today and who make it what it could be tomorrow, if the permanent political class does not transform America into something unrecognizable.
Politicians wonder why we can't trust them? Campaign flip-flops like this and carve-out bribes in the Amnesty Bill for politicians like Begich &Murkowski to exempt AK seafood workers.
She then linked to a Townhall piece highlighting Senator Rubio's "flip flop" on amnesty and featuring this clip from one of his 2010 debates:
Regarding those"carve out bribes" in Alaska that the Governor references, a piece by Byron York highlights the deal given to Senators Begich and Murkowski given in exchange for their votes. From my brief "Binging" of deals for votes in this bill, there seems to also be deals for Florida's cruise industry, Colorado's ski industry, South Carolina's meat industry, and New York's Irish population. Additionally, there is a special deal for Nevada's gambling industry. Perhaps the bill should be re-named the "Last Frontier, Centennial, Sunshine, Empire, Palmetto, Silver" Kickback. There's still time before the vote, however, and according to the President, there's 51 more states to go!
One of the lines that stood out in Governor Palin's speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition last week centered on her disapproval of aiding the Syrian rebels. "Both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line 'Allahu akbar' ... I say let Allah sort it out.", Palin said at the event. This line drew headlines, predictable outrage from neoconservatives, and even surprise from some. However, it should not be surprising. Over the last few years, Governor Palin has articulated a foreign policy that rejects the false choice between neoconservatism and non-interventionism. She has spoken not only about when America should not intervene militarily, but also when they should not provide other forms of assistance to volatile regions around the globe.
In May 2011, Governor Palin gave a speech at a "Tribute to the Troops" event where she laid out a clear, 5 point "doctrine" of when American troops should be involved:
There’s a lesson here then for the effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.
First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.
Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.
Third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.
Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.
Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.
This kind of "doctrine" of limited military intervention has continued to guide her analysis of America's foreign policy, as I highlighted in a post in August 2011:
Today, in her Facebook post, Governor Palin offered her thoughts on the recent activity in Libya, evaluating the situation realistically and cautiously and highlighting how the “Palin Doctrine” would be applied in practice. She cautioned against “triumphalism” and warned of co-opting of Libyan liberation and the future Libyan government by radical Muslim groups like the Islamic Libyan Fighting Group and al Qaeda, as is being done in Syria. Much in the same way, she had warned against the takeover of Egyptian government by the Muslim Brotherhood after the ousting of President Mubarak in February. She also warned against committing troops to being involved in missions in Libya that would not be in America’s best interest, much in the same way that she blasted President Obama in April when she questioned President Obama’s lack of clarity on Libya and his decision to place US troops under foreign command. Her statement today was a weaving of multiple points of her military doctrine into a clear vision of what America’s role should be in Libya following the defeat of Gaddafi.
Following the attack on the Benghazi consulate last fall, the Obama administration issued an apology for the you tube video red herring that served as a scapegoat for the attack. At that time, Governor Palin ripped the president for "waiving the white flag", as it ran counter to the constitutional protection of free speech, and urged the president to withdraw troops if their mission was to be counter to protecting the freedoms of Americans:
Look, if our fearless leaders insist on waiving the white flag like this, they may need to bring our troops home from the Middle East. No more blood, no more U.S. treasure spent, not one drop, if those in control of our troops' lives and tax dollars going into things like this are going to capitulate, wait, apologize for a first amendment right of ours, freedom of speech, that our troops are over there fighting for. Sean, our commander in chief is contradicting what we believe our troop's mission is and that is to protect freedom.
Governor Palin's foreign policy vision is not so narrow, however, as to only consider the use of American troops abroad, but also America's financial resources. In May 2011, Governor Palin wrote:
Throwing borrowed money around is not sound economic policy. And throwing borrowed money around the developing world is not sound foreign policy. Foreign assistance should go to American allies that need it and appreciate it, and for humanitarian purposes when it can truly make a difference.
Foreign assistance of any kind should be reserved for allies and should be for humanitarian purposes only. Again, considering Governor Palin articulated this sentiment more than two years ago, it should surprise no one that Governor Palin believes that America should not intervene in Syria by providing arms to al Qaeda rebels.
Our political media across the spectrum try too often to dichotomize foreign policy, as if political leaders must either be Ron Paul or George W. Bush. This, of course, is a false choice. The "Palin doctrine" provides an America-centric alternative to neoconservatism and non-interventionism.
Erika Harold, Republican candidate for the 13th Congressional district, is being described as "a glimmer of hope for the Illinois GOP" and "a formidable candidate". Those very reasons just may be why, months before the 2014 GOP primary, Harold is already being attacked.
Harold has a compelling background. She is multi-racial woman in her early thirties and a Harvard educated lawyer. Harold is also a former Miss America. She won the coveted crown in 2003 and used the scholarship money she won to pay for law school. Harold is challenging an incumbent Congressman, Rodney Davis, who just took office earlier this year. In 2012, shortly after the GOP primary, Congressman Tim Johnson retired. The Republican party in the 13th district was tasked with finding someone to take Johnson's place on the November ballot. Candidates were asked to put for their names if they were interested in being considered. From those names, four preliminary candidates were chosen. Both Rodney Davis and Erika Harold were among these candidates. A series of forums were held where these potential candidates shared their views. GOP chairs from the counties represented in this district were then charged with the task of choosing the candidate to represent the party in November's election. Davis, a longtime Congressional aide and the interim executive director of the Illinois GOP, ultimately became the choice of the county chairs. The voters of 13th district were never given a choice. That, in part, is why Harold is running. Harold told the Washington Examiner in an interview earlier this month, " I think it’s important for the party that the primary voters within the district have the final say on who represents them going forward".
In that same interview, Harold also spoke about oft-spoken political "war on women":
“If I thought that the Republican Party wasn’t a welcoming place for women, I wouldn’t run, because making sure that women have the ability to pursue their aspirations both professionally and within their families is something that’s very important to me,” Harold replied when The Washington Examiner raised the topic during a phone interview conducted in two parts on Thursday and Friday.
Harold added that she wants “to show that principles of economic freedom and limited government are not part of the ‘war on women’ but can actually empower women.”To that end, she suggested that “it’s important for our party that we do promote strong women in the Republican Party, because that’s a great way of showing that, not only is there no war, but that we support women that want to stand for conservative principles.”
Harold articulates a clear message about the empowerment that the free market can bring women and her belief that the Republican party is welcoming to women. Unfortunately, Harold has been targeted by people within her own party. On Wednesday, the Montgomery county GOP chair, Jim Allen, a supporter of Davis, launched a sexist and racially charged attack on Harold through an email, saying:
Rodney Davis will win, and the love child of the DNC will be back in Chicago by May working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires. ...The little queen touts her abstinence. Now, Miss Queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the Democrat Party. These pimps want something they can't get.
Allen's attack is not only vile and absurd; it is demonstrably false. Harold got to where she is on her own merits, not as a result of a law firm's need to fulfill quotas. As someone who was a delegate to the 2004 RNC convention and who strongly espouses conservative principles, she is hardly a "love child" of the DNC. Harold responded by noting that such comments had "no place in the public discourse" and that she wanted to remain focused on a positive campaign. Sadly, sexually charged attacks are common place when conservative (and minority) women take on the establishments of their own party. Sarah Palin has been referred to as the " supreme commander of MILF-istan" by pundit Tucker Carlson and referred to as a Spice Girl during her mayoral campaign in the mid 1990s. Indian American South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was called a "raghead" and was hit with allegations of an affair by men within her own party during her 2010 gubernatorial run.
The Davis campaign and RNC chair Reince Prebius rightfully called for Allen's resignation, and on Thursday, Allen resigned from his chair. To borrow from a World War II term, if Erika Harold is taking flak; she must be over the target. Flight crews knew that if they were taking flak from the enemy, they must be over their target (doing their job effectively). Those who choose to take on the establishment of their own party are often attacked. Women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley especially can attest to that, but that puts Harold in pretty good company.
Crossposted from the New Agenda.
En route to investigating a story on the Top 10 Persian Cats of the Hamptons for our new feature--the Felines of Long Island, we happened to run into two of today's top political opinion writers--Joan Walsh and Kathleen Parker--who were having brunch at one of the most exclusive spots in the area. By the time we spotted them, Walsh was already on her fifth mimosa, but both Walsh and Parker agreed to answer a few questions. Below is our transcript:
Buzzfeed: You both wrote excellent, insightful pieces recently about Sarah Palin's speech last week at the Faith and Freedom Coalition. What do you think of Palin's role in the conservative movement?
Parker: She has no impact on conservatives. She's extremely irrelevant. That's why I wanted to write about Mama Grizzly's maleficence-- because people need to be informed about inane irrelevance. Palin is all about parity. Can you believe it? I think that is all they teach at the University of Idaho--potatoes and pregnancy. The University of Idaho just doesn't educate you like Florida State where I attended.
Walsh: I know, right? Can you believe white people? Look. Palin is just a parody of her hateful self. Here at Salon, we've done a lot of investigative research on race and vileness. It turns out that a lack of melanin is correlated with absolute awfulness. Alaska goes months and months without much sun, you know. That keeps you pale. But, that's exactly what makes Palin attractive to those racist redneck conservatives.
Buzzfeed: Ah yes, Honey Boo Boo. Hasn't her show lasted longer than your show with Elliot Spitzer? Parker: What are you trying to say, feline fanboi?
With that retort, Buzzfeed decided to let the ladies return to their brunch. Walsh and Parker were beginning to turn a very bright shade of green anyway, so we decided to leave before we caught whatever they had.
Please stay tuned for our new series of the Felines of Long Island!
Disclosure: This is only satire. So please, don't fall prey to a Suzi Parker scoop. Crossposted here and here.
Over the weekend I saw the Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson movie " The Internship" (trailer shown above) Vaughn (Billy) and Wilson (Nick) played two veteran watch salesmen who had lost their jobs in part because people don't wear watches anymore, but simply check their cell phones to determine the time. Billy ultimately lands two internships at Google for both himself and Nick where they were placed in a group with other (much younger) interns who were still in college.
During one scene, this group of interns discuss their concerns of finding a job after college. One of the college-aged interns said to Billy and Nick (paraphrasing), " You could achieve the American Dream. The American Dream isn't the same for us. It isn't guaranteed". I found this line intriguing. It is clear that this movie takes place in the present day. Thus, Hollywood and Google are essentially admitting that the Obama administration has not created confidence for young millennials seeking jobs after college. Hollywood, of course, is notorious for being quite Left in their political ideology. Also, Google is very tight with the Obama administration. Yet, both Hollywood and Google--whether intentionally or not--indicated that liberal ideology (and hope and change) have not lived up to the expectation of millennials. There are two key issues to consider when looking at the economic hope of those in their late teens to mid twenties--1) their educational choices 2) their means of funding their education.
The group of millennials depicted in the movie would likely enter the technology field, a field where there are more opportunities for jobs than other fields. However, some students are choosing fields that are not particularly employable. This, plus a sustained poor economy, has contributed to 48% of those with a college degree working in a job that does not require such education. This is not to say that people should forgo college, but the liberal ideal of universal college education is wrong. A high school graduate with a strong work ethic should not be frowned upon, nor should a high school graduate who seeks training at a technical school. In fact, likely due in part to our culture's emphasis on intellectual output over tangible output, skilled trades like carpentry and car mechanics are among the ten hardest jobs to fill in America.. As a researcher in academia, I certainly don't want to downplay intellectual output, but our society needs a myriad of outputs to continue to be the strongest nation in the world. As Governor Palin wrote in a post earlier this Spring:
It’s crucially important today for young people to think about the big picture when making education decisions. And the big picture is the goal of self-reliant business opportunities based on work ethic and not entitlements. One of the reasons I aggressively encouraged vocational training opportunities as governor of Alaska is because they lead to good paying jobs and happy careers. Young people should not be pressured into assuming that a college degree is the only path to employment today. It’s not. Some college degrees obviously lead to clear professions, like those in the medical and engineering fields, but that’s not the case with many of the liberal arts degrees young people today gravitate toward either because they aren’t sure what they want to do after college or because they’ve been led to believe that college life is a sort of rite of passage for any career. That might have been the case once, but the salary and career opportunities a liberal arts education alone can get you have been dramatically limited these days. It’s so sad to see young people holding expensive college diplomas that come with no practical job opportunities.
[...]
Follow your dreams, by all means. But don’t be blind to the fact that your dreams might be achieved outside of acquiring an outrageously expensive traditional college degree. Do not be lulled into thinking that good jobs grow on trees or that the government will somehow take care of you. The bottom line is – as my dad always told me – find out what you love to do, then find out how to make a living doing it. Learning a trade can do both. No one can take those vo-tech real life skills away from you.
It's not only the choice of educational training that makes the difference; it is also how you fund it. For all the flack Governor Palin received for taking five years to graduate from college and for changing schools multiple times, she did something few people do--graduated from college with no debt. The governmental subsidization of education has lead to public higher education costs to increase 250% since 1982, which makes it harder for college to be affordable. However, it is still achievable. Some students are fortunate enough to have parents who fund their entire education. Some are able to obtain scholarship to assist them, and some work during college and summer breaks to pay for college and/or help mitigate the need for student loans.
Student loans, like any other construct with government intervention, have become a political football. In 2010, nearly concurrently with the passage of Obamacare, President Obama signed a student loan overall that wiped out fees paid to banks who act as intermediaries in administering student loans (i.e. the federal government took over the student loan industry). President Obama noted at the time (emphasis added):
Mr. Obama portrayed the overhaul of the student loan program as a triumph over an “army of lobbyists,” singling out Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender, which he said spent $3 million on lobbying to stop the changes. “For almost two decades, we’ve been trying to fix a sweetheart deal in federal law that essentially gave billions of dollars to banks,” he said. The money, he said, “was spent padding student lenders’ pockets.”
Things haven't changed since the three plus years after the bill took effect. The student lenders' pockets are still being padded, but now those pockets are Uncle Sam's pockets. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the federal government will reap $51 billion in "profit" from these student loan borrowers. This profit is greater than that of Exxon Mobil or Apple.
As was the case last year, student loan rates are set to double on July 1st, thus perpetuating the political game between Congressional Republicans and the Obama administration. The House has passed a bill that would make loan rates fluctuate based upon market rates, while the Obama administration wants rates fixed (i.e. controlled by the government). Politicians continue to use students as a political football, and the Department of Education is reaping the benefits. Students need to make smart choices in their education, but the government must stop trying to "fix" things only to pad their own pockets.
There is every reason for hope for millennials, and I say this as someone who is on the "old" end of that generation. America is rife with opportunity if people are willing to work hard enough, be rational, and plan ahead. Abraham Lincoln, one of our most famed presidents, did not have a college degree, but he had wisdom--and an ax. Lincoln is quoted as saying, " if I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six hours sharpening my ax”. He prepared for the goal ahead of him, and he was efficient. Millennials can act in the same manner by making wise decisions with educational, occupational, and financial choices. The American Dream is still achievable, in spite of a government that acts as a barrier.
Crossposted here and here.
Instead of leaders who offer real solutions, we have leaders who practice the politics of emotion. Now, emotion is a good and necessary thing, but we have politicians exploiting emotion for their own agenda.
[…]
Emotion won’t make anybody safer. Emotion won’t protect the good guys’ rights, and emotion is not leadership. The politics of emotion? It is the opposite of leadership. It is the manipulation of the people by the politicians for their own political ends.
[…]
We have these tragedies like Aurora, and immediately, the question raised in Washington is, “well, what can we do to limit the freedom of the people?” But, it’s the wrong question! The question better asked is, “what can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom?"
As I listened to Governor Palin’s speech at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday, I couldn't help but think of a quote from Aristotle, “law is reason unaffected by desire”, often stated as “law is reason free from passion”. This is not the kind of “law” that the Left aims to write, however. The Left uses horrific evils like the Newtown shooting to attempt to pass background check laws, when background checks don’t prevent murderers from stealing guns to kill. They ignore areas like Chicago with extremely strict gun control laws, yet high levels of gun crimes and murders, because it does not fit their narrative. The Left believes they know better than the people, and therefore must dictate a set of restrictions and mandates. Aristotle also once noted in his writings that “both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.” Aristotle realized that in order to win a political battle or a revolution, as was the context of the above quote, the oligarchs and tyrants must disarm people. This example isn't histrionics, nor is it an emotional counterpoint to the Left’s emotion. Instead, it is simply an example of how an over-reaching government can take away constitutionally protected rights by conflating rights with government-determined needs.
Aristotle was a student under Plato, but ultimately became one of Plato’s greatest critics. In his book Ameritopia, Mark Levin provides a good overview of Plato’s book The Republic. Plato’s "republic" is a “utopia” where everything is provided by the Ideal City (i.e. the state), while at the same time, everything is taken by the state (i.e.there is no private property). In the Ideal City, the nuclear family structure is not allowed, eugenics is promoted, and an elitist class system is created. The Guardians, as Plato called them, were the ruling class of philosophers who dictated to the people of the Ideal City. In some ways, the Left wants to pursue a similar "utopia". As has been highlighted by Melissa Harris-Perry’s recent comments, the Left wants to move away from the concept of family to a concept of children belonging to the community, rather than their partents. Washington has become the new “Guardians”, an elitist class who selectively impose laws on the American people that they themselves do not have to follow. This is the kind of government that Governor Palin warns against.
In her book Going Rogue, Palin wrote:
"At its most basic level conservatism is a respect for history and tradition, including traditional moral principles. I do not believe that I am more moral, certainly no better, than anyone else, and conservatives who act "holier than thou" turn my stomach. So do some elite liberals. But I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, among those is that man is fallen. This world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.
[...]
We don't trust utopian promises from politicians. The role of government is not to perfect us, but to protect us--to protect our inalienable rights. The role of government in a civil society is to protect the individual and to establish a social contract so that we can live together in peace."
--Governor Sarah Palin
Going Rogue page 385-386 (emphasis added)
The above excerpt helps answer the challenging question that Governor Palin posed in her NRA speech--what can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom? It is to recognize what government's (and the Law's) role is and what government's role is not. Government's role is to adhere to the Constitution that protects unalienable rights. Government's role is not that of a god-- a provider or an arbiter of good and evil. A government and a cultural that understands this can help nurture freedom.
The response to anything Governor Palin tweets, writes, or says is often akin to Pavlov ringing the bell to feed his dog.She tweets, and the hounds come running. The Governor's tweet on Saturday rightly calling out the "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality of both the "a**clown" press and politicians in DC garnered a lot of pearl clutching fauxrage from the Left and some of the "me too" pseudo-conservatives. Some wrongly deemed her a hypocrite for calling out the White House Correspondents' Dinner self-absorption and decadence in the time of financial hardship for much of the nation. However, Governor Palin never attended the White House Correspondent's Dinner, as she was giving a pro-life speech at the time of the 2011 dinner. Did she attend the brunch in the morning or the after parties following the dinner? Yes. However, using Palin's critics logic, this means that President Obama cannot criticize the House of Representatives because he once was part of the Senate--which is tangentially associated with the House per our Constitution. I'm not going to hold my breath for the Governor Palin's critics to turn their fire towards President Obama though.
Prior to and following Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner, at least four award winning journalists have essentially agreed with Governor Palin's sentiments. Usually I could care less about a journalists' opinion, but if there are several of them who agree that the event has become a largely gratuitous, narcissistic, and out-of-touch, it is worth noting. Additionally, if these are journalists who are have won the respect of their peers, yet are criticizing their profession's self-absorption, that is also worth noting.
Tom Brokaw, who has won numerous journalistic awards and has attended the event in the past, compared the present-day WHCD to Versailles and said that he's seen "more dignity at my daughter's junior prom". Ron Fournier wrote at the National Journalthat the Washington is "never more out-of-touch" than during the weekend of the dinner. Fournier's comments are especially pertinent as he won the Merriman Smith Memorial Award presented at the 2005 Correspondents' Dinner. There has been no hue and cry about the hypocrisy of these journalists.There shouldn't be, just as their shouldn't be for Governor Palin. Brokaw and Fournier are just more self-aware than their peers.
I don't understand the WH Correspondents Dinner. Journalists shouldn't be social butterflies with people they cover.
— Lee Strobel (@LeeStrobel) April 30, 2013
All of these individuals echoed Governor Palin's sentiments of the self-indulgent, incestuous, and out-of-touch nature of the event. It isn't any wonder she compared Washington D.C. to reality television during her CPAC speech last month. It's almost as if Washington D.C. has become "The Real World on the Potomac" except the press and politicians (minus the examples listed above) have yet to "stop being polite and start getting real".
At the end of last week without even a vote, both the House and the Senate approved a repeal of a portion of the STOCK Act. The STOCK Act, signed into law last Spring, is a transparency and ethics law aimed primarily at Congress and their staff. The law requires those individuals to disclose their conflicts of interests (such as stock purchases) and prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit. However, the bill also applies to many higher ranking federal employees as well. With the repeal of the portion of this bill (if signed by the President), two components of transparency will become opaque, as detailed by the Sunshine Foundation (emphasis added):
The bill enacted last year would require already public financial disclosures of senior congressional and executive branch officials to be put online in order to prevent or root out insider trading. There were concerns that some provisions of the bill were overbroad and would put some government employees at risk. Rather than craft narrow exemptions, or even delay implementation until proper protections could be created, the Senate decided instead to exclude legislative and executive staffers from the online disclosure requirements.
The sweeping exemption goes even farther than critics of the disclosure requirements requested. For those to whom online disclosure would still apply (the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation) the Senate bill made electronic filing of the information optional and struck the requirement that online information be searchable, sortable and downloadable, making even the disclosures that remain in the bill tepid and relatively unusable.
Even prior to the aforementioned legislation, implementation of the STOCK Act had already been delayed multiple times. Additionally, the bill was not even available for public consumption on the Library of Congress website until after the measure was approved by Congress. Imagine that--a bill that would repeal transparency passed through Congress in a non-transparent manner.
In today's data-driven, information age, if such government information is not online, it is essentially useless to the American public. How will constituents be able to hold their leaders and their leaders' staff accountable if such information in not available online? If such online disclosure is merely optional, there is little motivation for politicians to be voluntarily transparent.
The research and work of Peter Schweizer led to such legislation being seriously considered at all. Legislation banning insider trading never got any traction until Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out was released in 2011. Schweizer called the passage of the STOCK Act a "victory", but noted that the bill did not go "nearly far enough to deal with the problems of cronyism and corruption that we face."
What must Governor Palin and Peter Schweizer think of the non-transparent weakening of an already weak bill?
The STOCK Act only received 5 "nay" votes total between the House and the Senate when it passed in early 2012. Why did a bill that received overwhelming support now engender such an overwhelming response for its weakening? Why didn't the co-author of the original bill, Senator Gillibrand, call for at least a legitimate vote on the weakening of her bill? Why did Congressman Duffy, who proposed a stronger piece of legislation, not reject such a bill?
It seems that the political forecast in Washington D.C. remains cloudy with little chance of sunlight and transparency.
A lot has already been written about the John Avlon piece at the Daily Beast that casts Governor Palin as some kind of hypocritical charlatan who exploits donors to her PAC. I don't want to re-hash what has already been said too much. Please just read here, here, and here.
I do want to make a few points though. Please excuse this atypical format. I'm writing after a long work day combined with overindulgence in caffeine. If it's not too violence inciting, I just want to make a few bullet points. I'm italicizing my sarcasm to avoid confusion:
* Avlon also tries to conflate a PAC with a political campaign. When Governor Palin called for consultants to be fired and pollsters to be furloughed, she was referring to the types of overweight consultant schmucks who told her what to eat, micromanaged her every move, and suggested to her running mate that suspending his campaign was a good idea in 2008. If you want to look at the kind of "consultants" Governor Palin hired, consider the following descriptions. The speechwriter she hired, that Avalon snarkily blasted, is as grassroots as you can get, yet could run circles around Peggy "Thousand Points of Spite" Noonan. This speech writer is a from far outside the beltway and started as #justablogger who started a site you may have heard of with a $10 domain name purchase. Other "consultants" the Governor hired include advance people. You know, the people who ensure that all the logistics are worked out when she stumps for candidates. Yes, those are the real entrenched guys who corrupt the political process that the Governor called out--the guys who make sure that she gets from the airport to the stump, make sure her notes are on the podium, and usher the Governor through rope lines, among a lot of other tasks. But wait, weren't we told earlier this week that the Governor never talks to the grassroots? Additionally, there are those who do things like assist with clerical and administrative things like websites and mailing lists, and of course, a treasurer. But, no, Palin should not pay a treasurer to make sure she's in compliance with the oh-so-simple FEC regulations! She should just use TurboTax, just like that smart guy who used to be a Cabinet secretary.
*Avlon also mentions that Governor Palin spent a chunk of change on postage for direct mailings. What's that? A political figure sends out direct mailers. That never happens! It's amazing that Governor Palin employed a government agency like the post office as a "consultant"! Shouldn't the Left be praising the Governor for being so generous to an agency that is essentially bankrupt? Or are they saying that Governor Palin should hand deliver her mailings by snowmachine?This piece at RedState, written by a fellow Illinois conservative, goes into more details on specifics. Yes, I'm recommending a piece at RedState. They're few and far between, but there are some good ones.
*Avlon also whines about the return on investment of Palin's endorsements and the amount of overhead, but he fails to mention the limits that PACs have on giving. He'd rather take advantage of the fact that casual readers won't know the FEC caps on giving. The maximum amount a PAC can give is $5,000 per election (general and primary are counted separately). Even if the Governor devoted one-third of her spending to candidates, she would have to give the maximum to both the primary and general elections to over 150 candidates, but even then I suppose she would be criticized for hiring any staff and not supporting 450 candidates. She should have endorsed every GOP Congressional candidate! However, Palin is a force multiplier (h/t RefudiateGOPe). When Governor Palin gives an endorsement, the phone rings off the hook for those candidates. Perhaps we should just ask Senator Dewhurst how effective Governor Palin's endorsement? No?
* A final point. Social media is not the absolute barometer of what we loosely call the "conservative movement", but it is a barometer. People who decried this news are the same ones who tongue lashed conservatives who were critical of Romney in 2012. They certainly didn't have a problem when news came out weeks before the 2012 general election that Governor Romney's campaign invested over a hundred million dollars in consulting firms owned by his senior staffers and he lost! No circular firing squads, they say! Unless they're the ones who get to hold the gun. This is par for the course in the "conservative movement" though. When Governor Palin worked her butt off to try to get McCain elected generating more excitement in the GOP than had been there in over 25 years, she ultimately got blamed for the loss. When Governor Walker was getting hit with a recall, the GOP and "conservative movement" was eager to help, but when Governor Palin got inundated with dozens of frivolous ethics complaints, crickets. When Governor Palin was cast as accomplice to murder in Tucson, there were conservative bloggers and some media personality who defended her, yet again, overwhelming crickets from her own party machinery. However, when Ann Romney was told "she never worked a day in her life", you couldn't get Mr.overgrown college Republican and the RNC to calm down in demanding an apology. Today, you certainly didn't hear outrage when Marco Golden Boy spent over 90K of his PAC donors' money on political consultants in just the month of February alone, did you?
I'm tired of this. Tired of the lies. Tired of the finger pointing and intellectual dishonesty. Tired of the attacks. However, as the World War II saying goes, "if you're taking flak, you're over the target", which is good if you're loaded for bear:
On her Facebook page, Governor Palin shared this clip of President Obama's ridiculous comparison of Palestinian-Israeli conflicts to American-Canadian disagreements:
Regarding this comparison, is he thinking it's America or Canada that would be lobbing mortars across the other's border to strike fear and kill innocents? And is he thinking that America is compared to Israel or Palestine? Or is it Canada that's more like Israel or Palestine? Really, friends, if anyone else, ANYWHERE, had made such a claim, that person would be skewered and pilloried forever. Again, what is America's leadership thinking?
She is absolutely right. Canada and America are allies. Our disagreements are based on issues like whether or not the Keystone pipeline should be built, and people certainly aren't fearing for their lives over these disagreements. Also, since when has an American leader said the following about Canada," I will never allow a even a single Canadian to live on American land"? Never! But that is exactly what Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas said about Israelis in 2010. Disagreements over energy policy are one thing, but disagreements over a nation's claim to its own land are another. Again, what was President Obama thinking with his ridiculous moral equivalency argument?
During her CPAC speech last Saturday, Governor Palin included some Alaskan constitutional populism (emphasis added):
If Mrs. Thatcher were with us here today, she would remind us that there is a big difference between being pro-business and being pro-free market. On this there can be no mistake where conservatives stand. It's time for “We the People” to break up the cronyism and put a stake through the heart of "too big to fail" once and for all.
That includes these resource-rich states like Alaska, my home state. Read your constitution, Alaskans. Realize that the natural resources that God has created for man's use -- they're not owned by the big multinational conglomerates and the monopolies. They're owned by the people. They don't own them, so don't let them own you. You have a right to those resources to be developed for our use.
Governor Palin rightfully notes two important issues in particular--1) the Alaskan constitution's charge that development of resources for the good of the people 2) the warning that the people (and politicians) of Alaska not allow themselves to be owned by the oil companies.
The Alaskan constitution notes that the state's natural resources belong to the people and are to developed for their maximum benefit :
The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.
The newest version of the oil tax bill was introduced Thursday. In the hours before it passed there no public testimony. There was no testimony from Alaska's independent oil explorers. The only industry testimony came from Alaska's Big Three oil producers, which had been invited to testify.
"It was sort of striking that the oil industry gets a chance for public comment and the rest of Alaskans don't," Wielechowski said.
Many of the smaller independent players in Alaska's oil patch are the beneficiaries of tax incentives aimed at new production from new fields, rather than the strategy pushed by Parnell and championed by legislative leaders of pumping oil, faster, from known fields.
Testimony from the Big Three acknowledged that the oil-tax changes proposed under SB 21 would make Alaska a more competitive tax environment. But they would not promise new production.
One of the positives of ACES is that smaller, independent oil companies have been able to develop in Alaska. In fact, the number of oil tax returns filed with Alaska has increased 383% since ACES was passed. Annual capital expenditures have nearly doubled since FY2007, meaning that producers are engaging in increased infrastructure development (i.e. more rigs) and the like. These expenditures are helping to lead to increased profits for even the major oil companies. For example, in 2012, 13% of Conoco Phillips's oil and gas development occurred in Alaska, but Alaska contributed to 34% of their income. Additionally, according to Alaska's own labor statistics, oil and gas jobs increased more than 15% between 2007 and 2012.
So, why is there a push for reforming ACES? Because of the very thing that Governor Palin warned against in her CPAC speech--being owned by the oil companies. In theory, the Senate bill is better for the oil companies because it flattens ACES's tax rate and provides incentives for new oil. This sounds pro-business, right? That's what Governor Palin warned about in her CPAC speech as well. There's a difference between the invisible hand of the free market and the hand-in-hand "pro business" relationship between business and government. This "hand-in-hand" relationship is the very type of relationship that was the impetus for ACES being passed in the first place, as the Murkowski administration prior to Palin's administration was shrouded in corruption due to the pay-to-play deals between the oil companies and lawmakers. Governor Parnell has not had that kind of relationship in his dealings, but he has had a revolving door relationship between the oil industry and politics. As I wrote nearly two years ago:
In the early and mid 1990s, Parnell served in the Alaska House of Representatives and Senate. Following his time in the Senate, Parnell became director of government relations for ConoccoPhillips. He then went to work for Governor Murkowski as the director state division of oil and gas from 2003 to 2005. During part of this period time, Governor Palin had served as an oil and gas commissioner until she encountered unethical behavior from another commissioner and Alaska GOP chair,Randy Ruedrich, and she resigned and lodged a complaint against Ruedrich. Prior to running for Lt. Governor in 2006, Parnell worked at Patton Boggs, a law firm that represented ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil in the Exxon Valdex oil spill case.
Although the bill was passed in the Senate, it was proposed at the request of Governor Parnell. He found 11 allies in the Senate, and the bill passed 11-9. One Senator, Peter Micciche, who is also employed as a ConocoPhillips natural gas plant supervisor, paid lip service support to ACES, indicating he would reject Governor Parnell's proposal. However, Micciche ended up voting for the modified Senate bill that Governor Parnell applauded.
The Senate bill removed the capital expenditure credits that ACES has, which particularly benefited the smaller companies who were not given the opportunity to testify before the Senate. The credits gave companies breaks on infrastructure development and expansion (e.g. new rigs) and the like, which because of economies of scale, helped smaller companies (with their smaller budgets) be able to grow. This was another thing Governor Palin noted during her CPAC speech, "if you're not at the table, you're on the menu". Such may be the case for these smaller companies who were not given a voice in these Senate debates.
ACES has not only helped boost Alaskan jobs and investments by oil companies, it has strengthen Alaska's fiscal health. ACES has helped create $16.5+ billion in state savings and has contributed to Alaska being upgraded to a AAA credit rating by both Fitch and Standard and Poor's in the past 14 months. As a House committee begins to discuss this bill today, one would hope that, rather than appeasing the oil companies for increased production that may or may not occur, legislators would look at the economic and overall fiscal benefits that ACES has brought to the state.
