The state that she governs has no income or sales tax.
Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields.
The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a
four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of
the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve
hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269.
A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting
journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other
states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we
share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps
there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing
it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills
of Karl the Marxist.
Yes, the Sarah Palin, who just two months ago was proudly bragging to a journalist about how the people in the state she governs collectively own the resources and share the wealth, has been running around the country calling Barack Obama a socialist.
I don't recall the Obama speech or policy wherein he proposed that under his presidency all Americans, including children, would collectively own the resources of this great land and share in the wealth.
I heard Barack say he'd like policies that spread the wealth around, which, really, isn't much more radical than when corporations pay dividends, or give their employees bonuses. It's certainly not a departure from the income taxation policy we, Americans, have had since we, Americans, have had an income tax.
And Obama's tax proposals are nowhere near as redistributive as that total communist--and last honest Republican President--Dwight David Eisenhower.
Seriously, you can look it up.
And while I'm too lazy to look it up, I'll bet you Barack Obama's tax proposals are less redistributive than, yep, Ronald Reagan's.
Okay, I'll look it up.
Oh, gee! In seven out of eight years of Reagan's presidency taxes were higher than what Obama proposes! What a surprise!
Not really. Since Reagan was such a fervent communist.
At least, according to the proud and popular governor of America's only socialist state.
What do you call a person like Sarah Palin?
I mean, I know she's stupid. And I call her that. And I know I'm not alone:
I’m sympathetic to Eskew and Wallace,
and not just because they’re decent people. They’ve held their tongue from
leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me—namely, that Palin
simply knew nothing about national and international issues. Which meant, as
one such adviser said to me: “Letting Sarah be Sarah may not be such a good
thing.” It’s a grim binary choice, but apparently it came down to whether to
make Palin look like a scripted robot or an unscripted ignoramus.
Apparently, the people who put her on the ticket and worked closely with her and tried and failed to coach her on how to answer such hardball questions as, "What newspapers or magazines do you read?" also think she's a total moron.
And, of course, that begs the question, "What kind of political party puts an idiot like this on their ticket again and again and again and then does its best to hide it from Americans so that our country can be governed by a moron?"
Whatever.
But what's truly abhorrent about Palin is not her stupidity. Her loose grasp of facts and history, total disinterest in policy, and complete lack of curiosity or understanding about economics, our government, or the world have been pretty much a job requirement for a Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime.
No, what's grotesque about Palin is that she is a person who believes in nothing and can bring herself to say anything. And whatever she's saying, even if she knows it's untrue, even if she doesn't personally agree with it, she says it with total, visibly emotional conviction.
She gets fired up! About just goin' on out there! And saying things! She knows aren't true! You betcha!
And that's a dangerous person.
I guess that's what you'd call her.
Though, if we, Americans, know what's good for us and our grand democracy, what we'll call her for a few more years is "Governor".
And then, if we really do right by ourselves, "trivia".
Recent Comments