Governor Palin and the Difference between Responsive Leadership and Reactionary Politics

Vice President Biden has come under fire for awful comments he made regarding the Chinese’s one child policy while in China on Sunday (emphasis added):

“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China,” he continued. “You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

Vice President Biden condoned the horrific policies of the China government that allow only one child per family which has subsequently resulted in forced abortions, including sex-selective abortions, human rights violations, fines, and loss of jobs. These comments have engendered responses from the declared Presidential candidates. Governor Romney called China’s policy “gruesome and barbaric” while asserting that Biden acquiesced. Governor Perry criticized Biden for “moral indifference”.

This “one child” policy is decades old, and the Obama administration is more than two and a half years old. Where were these men on human rights abuses and the Obama administration indifference prior to this presidential election, when their comments could score political points? As we highlighted during the Chinese President’s visit to the US in January, Governor Palin has been at the forefront of highlighting international human rights and the Obama administration’s negligence in addressing these abuses, not because it would score her political points, but because of her principled support for human dignity and the sanctity of life. In September of 2009, during her a speech in the Chinese region of Hong Kong, Governor Palin boldly, yet diplomatically, criticized China for their injustices and disrespect for human liberties (emphasis added):

Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.

I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties. They apply to citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter 08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel’s Charter 77. Charter 08 would not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself. No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry about a China where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear.

In May of 2010, Governor Palin hammered the Obama administration’s State Department for essentially apologizing to the Chinese for Arizona’s immigration law, when it was China who was one engaged in true human rights violations, including their population control measures (emphasis added):

The absolute low point of this campaign came last Friday, when a U.S. State Department delegation met with Chinese negotiators to discuss human rights. Apparently, our State Department felt it necessary to make their Chinese guests feel less bad about their own record of human rights abuses by repeatedly atoning for American “sins” – including, it seems, the Arizona immigration/pro-border security law. Asked if Arizona came up at all during the meeting, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner answered:

“We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.”

Note that he said “We brought it up” – not the Chinese, but the U.S. State Department’s own delegation. Instead of grilling the Chinese about their appalling record on human rights, the State Department continued the unbelievable apology tour by raising “early and often” Arizona’s decision to secure our border.

Arizona’s law, which just mirrors the federal law, simply allows the police to ask those whom they have already stopped for some form of identification like a driver’s license. By what absurd stretch of the imagination is that the moral equivalent of China’s lack of freedoms, population controls (including forced abortions), censorship, and arbitrary detentions?

This is not the only time that Governor Palin has made principled policy statements that were later echoed by announced, campaigning presidential candidates. Last week during an interview with Lou Dobbs, Governor Palin was asked about Governor Perry’s comments on the Federal Reserve, to which Governor Palin replied (emphasis added):

[Perry] called it like he saw it and I always respect people for doing so.What Governor Perry is voicing concern about is something I wrote about on Facebook pages about ten months ago, this quantitative easing or monetizing our debt, essentially printing money out of thin air, which will eventually devalue our dollar and, I think, lead to inflation, in order to make it look like our debt isn’t as bad as it really is, and Governor Perry was voicing great concerns that many of us share. He just used some more candid terms, I think, than some of us would have used.

Again, Governor Palin was principled and politically prescient enough to speak on the effects of quantitative easing as early as November of 2010, long before Governor Perry made such comments during the nascence of his presidential campaign. She made statements on Facebook and during a speech in Arizona warning of the inflationary impact of quantitative easing because it was important for our country to be aware, not because it had potential to score political points or provide red meat for potential supporters.

Governor Palin’s prescience and principled stances are not only a matter of rhetoric, but of record. During her time as Governor, she cut spending 9.5% and vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, not because times were tough, but because she wanted to keep government small and solvent. She reformed Alaska’s pension system and used surplus dollars to help pay down underfunded pensions, which reduced Alaska’s liabilities by 34.6 % to help provide analysts at Moody’s with enough confidence to later upgrade Alaska’s credit rating to AAA. This were not politically expedient decisions (she actually came under fire from lawmakers and unions for these decisions), nor were they done because of fiscal emergency, they were done because they were the right things to do for the short and long term fiscal health of Alaska. These are the kinds of rhetoric and record that distinguish a responsive leader like Governor Palin from the reactionary politicians like Governors Perry and Romney.

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin's Prescience Proven on the Effect of a Weakened Dollar on Energy Prices

Governor Palin has been very outspoken about the need to become energy independence by opening up drilling both on and offshore in Alaska and through the country. Energy independence is interrelated with multiple levels of security. Producing more of our own energy helps protect us from the threats of dangerous regimes who are also energy producers and helps shields us from higher prices of oil when their is instability in those countries. Energy independence also produces American jobs providing economic security. Additionally, there is an interrelatedness between energy independence and monetary security. This is yet another issue that Governor Palin has been prescient on. On October 9, 2009, Governor Palin wrote a Facebook post in response to discussion that an international currency should replace the American dollar as the global currency. She discussed how the devalued dollar, energy independence, and the national debt are all connected:

The British newspaper The Independent reported today that Gulf oil producers were negotiating with Russia, China, Japan and France to replace the dollar in pricing oil with a basket of currencies.[1] According to the Wall Street Journal, Arab oil officials have denied the story, but even the possibility of such a talk weakens the dollar and renews fears about its continued viability as an international reserve currency.[2] In fact, today a United Nations official called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar and end our “privilege” to run up huge deficits.[3] We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar.[4]

All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.

In his book Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer points out that the Obama administration is focusing primarily on “green energy," while ignoring our need to develop our domestic conventional energy resources.[5] We’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we’re dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we’re also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can’t allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas.

Governor Palin recognized that there is a relationship between a devalued dollar and higher energy prices. At the time that note was posted, oil was around $70 a barrel and gas prices were at about $2.46 a gallon nationwide. More than a year later, in November of 2010, following the Fed's decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing by essentially printing hundreds of billions of dollars, Governor Palin shared these words to a trade association meeting in Arizona (emphasis mine):

The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work. After all, the problem isn’t that banks don’t have enough cash on hand – it’s that they don’t want to lend it out, because they don’t trust the current economic climate.

And if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here? Where will all this money printing on an unprecedented scale take us? Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

Again, Governor Palin saw the effect of a weakened dollar on energy prices. Now the price of a barrel of oil is just below $100 a barrel and nationwide gas prices are hovering at about $4 a gallon. A study just released by the Congressional Joint Economic Commission, a bipartisan and bicameral committee, shows that the devalued dollar has added $17.04 dollars to the price of a barrel of oil and 56.5 cents to the price of a gallon of gas.The Weekly Standard reports:

The weakening of the dollar since 2008 has added 56.5 cents to the price of gasoline, the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) has found. The average price of gasoline would be $3.40 per gallon, instead of the current average price nationally of nearly $4, if the dollar hadn’t declined.

[...]

When the Federal Reserve uses loose money to boost the economy in the short-term, consumers pay the price,” the study said. Because oil is traded in dollars, oil prices increase to compensate for the falling value of the dollar. And the price of gasoline at the pump also increases.

“Since the Fed launched its program of quantitative easing in late November 2008, the value (trade-weighted) of the U.S. dollar has declined 14 percent,” the study calculated. “The declining value of the U.S. dollar has added $17.04 per barrel to the price of oil (Brent Crude),” thus driving up the price of gasoline.

“Arguably there are other factors affecting the price of gasoline than just the price of oil,” according to the study. “[G]iven that oil is the primary input to gasoline and the close correlation [between oil and gasoline prices],” JEC Republicans said it is possible “to determine how much of the current price of gasoline is attributable to the declining value of the dollar.

Suffice it to say, Governor Palin was right again, and she saw it nineteen months before everyone else did--the value of the dollar effects energy commodity prices which can affect prices throughout the economy. Printing hundreds of billions of dollars is no solution for an economic boost, and in fact, it has done just the opposite. This brings us full circle, as Governor Palin said in November, the money the Fed has printed essentially is re-directed towards foreign countries for their oil, when we have the opportunity to drill for it here to provide security on multiple levels. Addressing America's energy problem requires a strong energy policy and a prudent monetary policy, just as Governor Palin has promoted.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin on the Issues: Monetary Policy

A few weeks ago, C4P asked readers and commenters for suggestions for the site. One commenter (H/T Riley4Palin) suggested that we comprehensively highlight Governor Palin's stance on policy issues. Over the next few months, I will attempt to post on at least one issue per week. It is my hope that this project will help to show what many of us as Palin supporters already know--Governor Palin has a firm, intelligent grasp on the issues and a principled, yet pragmatic approach to policy. The likes of Karl Rove should know that gravitas is not defined as possession of XY chromosomes and an Ivy League education. It is defined as showing policy chops in such a way that resonates with the American people. Governor Palin does this exceedingly well.

Most recently, Governor Palin has been a leading voice on monetary policy. She also spoke out on the devaluing of the dollar more than a year ago. Governor Palin has effectively addressed the issue of a weakened dollar and its relationship to the rising U.S. debt and the policy of quantitative easing that contributes to inflation. She addresses these issues in the context of how policies affect the American people directly and what can be done to address these problems.

Regarding the devaluing of the dollar, Governor Palin recognized that out-of-control spending and debt both contribute to the problem, while cutting spending and reducing debt, in addition to becoming more energy independent help provide the solution. In October of 2009, Governor Palin said:

In fact, today a United Nations official called for a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar and end our “privilege” to run up huge deficits.[3] We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar.[4]

All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.

[...]

We’re ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we’re dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we’re also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can’t allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas.

Discussion of issues such as the price of gold, standard currencies, and the like are generally left to members of the banking industry and economists. Governor Palin distills these issues down to describe why they are important for everyday Americans-- governmental spending, national debt, energy independence,and commodity prices. Obviously, governmental spending and the national debt are related, but Governor Palin addresses why her signature issue of energy independence ties into value of the dollar, as it puts America at the mercy of foreign countries for both energy sources and potential changes in trade currency that would have far reaching ramifications. The increase in commodity prices ties into one of the problems that Governor Palin discusses with her recent discussions on Quantitative Easing--rising grocery prices. The National Review recently published an excerpt of a speech that she gave on this "priming of the pump" by Ben Bernanke:

I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air.

The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work. After all, the problem isn’t that banks don’t have enough cash on hand – it’s that they don’t want to lend it out, because they don’t trust the current economic climate.

[...]

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

Governor Palin also does an excellent job of articulating the effects of Quantitative Easing on Judge Napolitano's show a couple of weeks ago. For the video, courtesy of the Right Scoop, go here.

A few quick facts about the Fed. It was established in 1913 by President Wilson to address banking crises, but its general goal was to provide stability to prices. The Fed is an independent entity, as its decisions do not have to be approved by the President prior to implementation, but it is under the oversight of Congress. In 1977, the Fed was forced to also met another mandate in addition to price stability: maximization of employment.The Fed's dual mandate often requires contradictory actions, and thus makes these goals difficult to simultaneously meet.

Governor Palin does a very effective job at addressing the earlier Fed mandate in her speech and in her appearance on Judge Napolitano's show by addressing impact of inflation on grocery prices while also addressing the fact that she first warned about a year ago--the direct relationship between energy independence and the value of the American dollar. She also discussed on Napolitano's show that QE2 could potentially put America in the same position as countries like Japan with such actions by the Fed. In a Facebook post following her QE2 speech, Governor Palin also addresses the second mandate of the Fed--unemployment (emphasis mine):

Will QE2 then at least boost domestic investment? No, again. As I explained in my speech in Phoenix, the reason banks aren’t lending and businesses aren’t investing isn’t because of insufficient access to credit. There’s plenty of money around, it’s just that no one’s willing to spend it. Big businesses especially have been hoarding cash. They’re not expanding or adding to their workforce because there’s just too much uncertainty created by a lot of big government experiments that aren’t working. It’s the President’s own policies that are creating this uncertainty.

Governor Palin understands and emphasizes the effect that the Fed's actions not only drive up inflation which increases grocery prices and other expenses for American families (i.e. their actions have not stabilized prices), it affects American businesses that provide jobs. Governor Palin stands firmly against the actions of the federal government in policies which simultaneously devalue our dollar, drive up our debt and leave us dependent on foreign sources of energy. She also stands against the actions of the Fed which inflate prices at a time when Americans are already on tight budgets and do nothing to aid employment.

As an additional note, the Left,uber purists, and Paulbots often argue that Governor Palin supported the bailout in the Fall of 2008. However, it should be noted that such support can only be construed as support for her running mate, Senator McCain, and due to the limited information of the details of the plan at the time of the Senatorial vote. Any discussion of the bailouts following the campaign showed that Governor Palin did not support them. For example, in an interview with Human Events in December of 2008, Governor Palin said:

Of course, we saw [Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben] Bernanke and others appear to change the rules right away, it seemed like, after that initial rescue plan or bailout was given the green light, then everybody in the public, including me, started hearing that the rules were changing on where those dollars would go and what the criterion would be. Unfortunately, that leads to distrust of decisions our politicians make on our behalf and bureaucrats make on our behalf.

Governor Palin remains consistent in her belief that the reach of elected officials and appointed bureaucrats be short and the goal of any government action be done in concert with the will and the benefit of the people.

Thanks to Chicago's Conservative for his assistance.

Crossposted here and here.