Governor Palin Used Her Executive Authority to Make Government Smaller and More Ethical

Executive experience is often seen as a needed criterion when looking for potential presidential nominees, especially among Republicans. It has been more than 130 years since the GOP nominated an eventual winner for President who only had legislative experience (Note: President Eisenhower’s military experience easily qualifies as executive experience). It goes beyond the simple dichotomy of legislative versus executive experience, however. What is even more important is how one used the executive experience that he or she has. Did he or she use such experience to make government smaller or bigger? Did he or she use their executive experience to create personal mandates or to expand individual freedom? Did he or she use their executive to perpetuate or get rid of cronyism.

The office of Alaskan governor is known for being a very powerful office—2^nd most powerful state executive in the country. What makes the Alaska governor’s office so powerful include line item veto power that can only be overridden by three-fourths majority in the legislature and the ability to appoint all statewide executive department heads and various board members positions and the like. The only two statewide elected officials are the governor and the lt. governor; other positions, such as attorney general, are appointed by the governor. In many ways, the proverbial buck indeed stopped with Governor Palin. During Governor Palin’s tenure, she used her executive power to make government smaller and more ethical and transparent.

As Governor, Sarah Palin vetoed nearly $500 million in spending during her tenure including vetoing nearly a quarter billion in 2007 alone. Such vetoes enabled her to cut Alaska’s budget 9.5% over her predecessor’s budget. She also vetoed $268 million in the FY2009 capital budget. Despite legislative outcry over these vetoes, they did not even take up a vote to attempt to override her veto. Earlier that year, Governor Palin vetoed nearly $58 million for funding various projects in a supplemental bill. She did not use her line item veto indiscriminately though. Some of the projects proposed by legislators were projects Governor Palin had vetoed the year prior. She gave legislators the opportunity to justify why such projects should be funded:

She said if lawmakers didn't want her to simply veto the projects again, they could make an appointment to come to her office and explain why the projects were worthy of funding. Palin personally attended more than a dozen meetings with lawmakers, and even opened them to the media.
On Thursday, members of her staff hand-delivered the results to lawmakers.

Of the $70 million in projects at issue, Palin accepted 52 projects totaling $12.4 million, chopped 16 worth $22.3 million, and put 155 projects worth $35.4 million in what she designated the "move" category.

In 2009, Governor Palin vetoed nearly $30 million in federal stimulus aimed at energy efficiency because it required federal building codes to be implemented. Her veto was later overridden by the legislature. Governor Palin was concerned with the sustainability of projects funded by the federal government when the funding would later dry out saying,” [i]f the legislature wants to add funds to grow government, then I also want to hear how we will get out of the fiscal hole we'll be in just two years from now when those temporary stimulus funds are gone". She could have used her pen to simply sign into law any spending project handed to her, but she did not. She exercised fiscal restraint, even to the dislike of the legislature, because she wanted to ensure government remained small and that all projects approved were truly worthy of state funding. Governor Palin used the power given to her by the Alaska constitution, but she did so to shrink spending, make state government smaller, and make Alaska less dependent on the federal government.

Governor Palin used her executive power to appoint individuals to cabinet type positions, councils, and the like who were of the same mindset when it came to making government smaller and reduce bureaucratic red tape. This can be seen in her creation of the Alaska Health Strategies Planning Council to address Alaska’s healthcare issues early in her term. This council was comprised of Department of Health and Social Services and individuals from various levels of government, the business community, the healthcare industry, and faith based organizations, and they were all appointed by the Governor. The recommendations from this council provided the basis for a healthcare proposal from the Governor, the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act, which would increase patient choice and remove bureaucratic red tape for providers—essentially making government smaller. One thing this act proposed was removing the Certificate of Need (CON) requirement for building new healthcare facilities:

STATE CON LAWS originated, like so many bad health care ideas, with a mandate from the federal government. In 1974, states were effectively told by Washington that no new medical facilities could be built unless a “public need” had been demonstrated. The idea was to reduce costs, but the only measurable effect of this federal decree was a morass of bureaucratic red tape that stifled competition in the health care market. In 1987, the federal statute was finally repealed, but many states inexplicably kept their CON processes in place. Alaska was one of them and, as Governor Palin put it in an editorial for the Anchorage Daily News, “Under our present Certificate of Need process, costs and needs don’t drive health-care choices — bureaucracy does. Our system is broken and expensive.”

This bill ultimately was rejected by the legislature, but it indicates-- both through her personal policy convictions and that of those whom she appointed-- smaller, less bureaucratic government was the goal.

Through her appointments, Governor Palin showed how she desired to use her executive power to make government void of crony capitalism and more transparent. This was seen in the seven individuals she brought in to work with oil and gas issues, who had become known as the Magnificent Seven. One of these individuals, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner, Tom Irwin, was fired by Governor Murkowski, Palin’s predecessor, due to his questioning of the legality Murkowski’s pipeline deal. Six other DNR employees quit in protest of Irwin’s firing. Governor Palin brought these individuals back to work for her administration appointing Tom Irwin as her DNR commissioner. These individuals were instrumental in both the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)—her natural gas pipeline project—and Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES)—the oil tax structure. AGIA was negotiated in a transparent manner and allowed all potential pipeline companies and energy development companies to compete for the opportunity to participate in the project and also allowed Alaskans to view these proposals in a transparent manner. No special treatment was shown to any particular companies because neither Governor Palin, her commissioners, nor her DNR staff had industry cronies. The same could be said of ACES. Previously, PPT, the oil tax structure signed in to law by Governor Murkowski, was done in secret and was favorable to Murkowski’s cronies, which led to the indictment and arrest of Murkowski’s chief of staff, some legislators, and industry personnel from the pipeline company, VECO. ACES was not influenced by only certain oil companies, but instead provided incentives for any companies willing to engage in oil exploration. Governor Palin’s appointments helped rid Alaska of the crony capitalism and lack of government transparency.

Much of Governor Palin’s efforts to shrink government and make it more ethical are a direct contrast to the supposed GOP executive frontrunners in the race for the 2012 nominations. Both Governor Romney and Governor Perry grew government obligations. They both increased state debt at a far greater pace than Governor Palin, while Governor Palin actually reduced state liabilities for pensions and the like when Governors Romney and Perry increased state liabilities. Governor Romney’s infamous universal healthcare/individual mandate plan, which he defends on the basis of federalism, is very heavily funded, not by state monies, but by federal Medicaid and Medicare dollars and continues to run way over budget. Governor Perry once issued an executive order (thankfully later overturned by the Texas legislature)that mandated young girls to get a HPV vaccine manufactured by a company that gave substantially to Perry’s campaign. On the other hand, Governor Palin proposed a plan that gave more individual choices, not mandates, in healthcare. Governor Romney has a history of receiving campaign funds from entities that he once did business with and also had a history of engaging in and supporting corporatism through various subsidies. Governor Perry, too, has a history of crony capitalism by awarding business related grants to those who have donated to his gubernatorial campaigns. Governor Palin’s natural gas pipeline and her oil tax structure were aimed at removing cronyism, and her ethics reform bill sought to remove the influence of political favors for campaign funds.

Executives at any level of government could use their power to grow government spending and power and to reward cronies or those who donated to their campaign. Governor Palin is the only one who has a proven record of using her power to make the government smaller and less powerful. Governor Palin used her power to reduce government spending and state reliance on the federal funding. She desired to increase individual choice, not create individual mandates. She used her executive authority to make government more ethical and transparent while removing cronyism rather than perpetuating it. The differences could not be clearer.

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin vs. The Boys on Government Mandates and Health Care Reform

As Ian highlighted earlier, Governor Palin levied some criticism at Governor Mitt Romney's health care mandate today at stop in Massachusetts on her "One Nation" bus tour. Governor Palin commented on Romney's plan and how that plan will be received by Tea Party voters:

"That perhaps will be a big challenge for him because tea party activists are pretty strident, in a good way, in making sure that the candidate that many of the tea party patriots will support -- the candidate has a record of living out the principles that tea party patriots do embrace," she said.

Palin added that Romney may have a "good argument" that what he implemented in Massachusetts applied only on a statewide level and would not be appropriate nationally. But then she quickly went back on the attack.

"However, even on a state level and a local level, mandates coming from a governing body, it's tough for a lot of us to accept because we have great faith in the private sector and in our own families and in our businessmen and -women in making decisions for ourselves," Palin said. "Not any level of government telling us what to do."

Governor Romney's health care plan is considered by many to be his potential albatross in the 2012 race. He passed the health care plan by first promoting the personal mandate using language often supported by conservatives--personal responsibility. Now, he is trying to defend his legislation by attempting to claim that such a plan was supported by another ideal conservatives tend to support--federalism. Governor Romney's rhetoric, however, is not supported by his policies.

Romney is not the only candidate in the race who has supported a health care mandate. Although Governor Tim Pawlenty did not support a mandate nearly as vehemently as Romney, nor did he pass any mandate legislation, he is on record saying he thought a health care mandate was "potentially helpful" and that he was "open to" a universal health care law. Speaker Newt Gingrich flip flopped on his support of government mandates one day saying that all have a "responsibility to pay" , only to walk back his comments the next day.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, has been the most vocal critic of government involvement in health care over the past two years ranging from criticizing potential of government bureaucrats to ration health care to emphasizing the need for tort reform. Her rejection of government overinvolvement in health care and her support of patient centered and market based solutions are not simply lip service; they are the types of policies that she supported as Governor of Alaska as well.

One of the first things Governor Palin did upon taking office was to appoint a health care council (the Health Care Strategies Planning Council--HCSPC) to assess how to address the health care challenges faced by Alaskans. This health care council generated a report chock full of market centered ideas and focused on the choice of the individual, as the American Spectator reported shortly she was selected as Senator McCain's running mate:

The recommendations of the HCSPC were decidedly pro-market and emphasized the power of the health care consumer: "With respect to lowering costs, insurance that is portable and consumer-owned plays a central role... consumerism is an essential component of bringing rationality to the health insurance structure in Alaska." Such a consumer-driven approach assumes, of course, that the patient possesses useful data about hospitals and physicians. Thus, the HCSPC also advocated providing patients with "cost and quality information about health care providers and services."

Additionally, this council recommended health care solutions that were based on true personal responsibility--a responsibility for one's personal health, not a responsibility to a government mandate:

First, Alaskans must be encouraged to play a much greater role in their own wellness by having both a personal and financial “stake” in their own health. Having a “stake” in their own health is the product of a personal investment in wellness, and realizing the financial benefits of saved dollars by maintaining healthy lifestyles. In the opinion of the Council, the most effective mechanism for increasing the personal health investment of Alaskans is incentivizing and supporting positive change.

Additionally, the Council recommended that decreasing the number of uninsured Alaskans be addressed by not by implementing a mandate, but by increasing choices:

Consumerism is an essential component of bringing rationality to the health insurance structure in Alaska, and extending coverage to as many Alaskans as possible. The key to success is insurance that at least covers catastrophic care, so no Alaskan suffers from the extreme financial burden of catastrophic or unanticipated health events. In addition, insurance must be consumer-owned, market-responsive and portable; this recommendation has received attention elsewhere in this report. Coverage options debated in the Council’s discussions, which are by no means exhaustive, include Health Savings Accounts, Health Opportunity Accounts, and high-deductible plans with a strong prevention component. This list provides a solid foundation from which to continue the ongoing discussion about expanding health care coverage for all Alaskans.

From these recommendations, Governor Palin proposed the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act, which the aforementioned American Spectator article does a good job of summarizing:

Having received HCSPC's report in December of 2007, Governor Palin subsequently introduced the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act to the state legislature. The bill not only called for the kind of price transparency recommended by her planning council, it also included a provision advocated by many free market health care reformers -- repeal of the state's Certificate of Need (CON) statute. This provision was designed to introduce much needed competition into Alaska's health care market, and it created trepidation in the state's health care establishment. As the Juneau Empire phrased it, "Gov. Sarah Palin frightened Alaska hospitals when she proposed repealing Certificate of Need regulations that many say help them stay in business."

STATE CON LAWS originated, like so many bad health care ideas, with a mandate from the federal government. In 1974, states were effectively told by Washington that no new medical facilities could be built unless a "public need" had been demonstrated. The idea was to reduce costs, but the only measurable effect of this federal decree was a morass of bureaucratic red tape that stifled competition in the health care market. In 1987, the federal statute was finally repealed, but many states inexplicably kept their CON processes in place. Alaska was one of them and, as Governor Palin put it in an editorial for the Anchorage Daily News, "Under our present Certificate of Need process, costs and needs don't drive health-care choices -- bureaucracy does. Our system is broken and expensive."

Governor Palin highlighted this market centered approach based upon true personal responsibility, not government mandate, in both her 2008 and 2009 State of the State addresses. In 2008, Governor Palin said (emphasis mine):

Alaskans want health care in the hands of doctors, not lobbyists and lawyers. We are considering what other fiscally conservative states have done to incentivize employers to provide medical insurance for employees, based on the free market. But comprehensive reform must include not only government reform, but Alaskans choosing to take more personal responsibility. All Alaskans must do better to be better, and healthier.

In 2009, Governor Palin re-iterated this approach to health care and government's proper role in helping those who need it and in encouraging better personal choices (emphasis mine):

In this chamber, we share a commitment to serious health-care reform. We’ve learned from experience that all the answers do not come from Washington. When Congress turns to health-care reform this year, we look to our delegation to make the case for greater competition, more private sector choices, and less litigation in the health-care market. But we’re not going to wait. Here, reform can move forward without delay.

I look forward to working with you on adjustments to kid’s health insurance. We’ll fund more early screening – for example, for autism – because early detection makes all the difference. We’ll focus on preventing disease and promoting healthy living. I’ll ask that physical education be incorporated into daily school schedules, too. We have alarming levels of heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity – and all of these maladies are on the rise. Now, I won’t stand here and lecture – for very long – but health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.

It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise. In my case, it’s hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors – and when you live in the Great Land, there’s no excuse.

Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future.

Governor Palin's health care transparency bill ultimately did not pass through the legislature, but her consistency through her tenure as Governor up until now as a potential presidential candidate show that she is committed to true personal responsibility, a proper and limited role for government in health care, and market drive, patient based solutions. Juxtapose these firm and consistent conservative policy stances to the liberal policies or flip flopping on the part of the Boys, and it is clear that Governor Palin is right yet again on the issues.

Crossposted here, here, and here.