Sarah Palin and Taxes
| Sat Aug. 30, 2008 11:19 AM PDT
SARAH PALIN AND TAXES....Let's talk policy! And to make it even more interesting, let's talk tax policy!
So here's an interesting thing about Alaska governor Sarah Palin: she's a tax raiser. Last September she proposed a new state tax plan called ACES, and by November she had successfully pushed it through the Alaska legislature in a special session. ACES had two goals. First, it replaced a year-old plan called PPT that was mired in corruption and was widely distrusted. No problem there. Second, it was designed to increase revenue. PPT had raised revenues by $1 billion, but that was still less than everyone expected. So Palin's plan increased that by another $700 million.
But it gets even more interesting. ACES, of course, is a tax on the oil industry, since that's how the rugged individualists up north fund themselves. (In addition to massive infusions of federal cash, that is.) And it had three basic provisions:
An increase in the basic tax rate on oil company profits from 22.5% to 25%.
A windfall profits provision. When oil prices went over $50/barrel or so, the tax rate would rise 0.2% for each dollar.
A tax floor. If oil prices fell below about $40/barrel, oil companies would still have to pay 10% of the gross price of the crude they produce.
Palin was especially dedicated to the windfall profits provision, or "progressiveness," as she calls it. For example, here's an op-ed she wrote about how the various pieces of her plan work together:
Progressiveness is the additional share we capture when oil prices and profits are high. I chose to set the progressiveness knob [i.e., the windfall profits tax] at a relatively low level in exchange for more security when prices are low. We accomplished this through a gross tax floor at our legacy fields. If the Legislature chooses to discard that floor, then the knob on progressiveness needs to be set higher — to make sure we capture a more equitable share when prices are high and profits extraordinary.
In the end, the Alaska legislature took Palin's plan and ran with it. The final version twiddled the knobs and ended up producing not $700 million in additional revenue, but more like $2 billion or so. Palin proclaimed herself delighted with the result and said she had no problem with signing an even bigger tax increase than she had originally proposed: "When I rolled [ACES] out," she said after the final version passed, "I had said I was so anxious to work with lawmakers to make this even better."
Now here's the thing: as near as I can tell, Palin actually did a pretty decent job of working with a fractured state legislature to produce a new tax regime in a short period of time. But a tax hike is a tax hike. Here, for example, is the reaction of cranky conservative Anchorage talk show host Dan Fagan:
Most folks think the oil industry with its so-called obscene profits can absorb a 2 1/2 percent increase in taxes. But even the 2 1/2 percent rate increase the media focus on, represents a 10 percent hike in the 22.5 percent production tax. But there is so much more.
Here's what most who rely on the mainstream media for information would be surprised to know. The governor's tax represents a 400 percent increase in the amount of production taxes paid. Four hundred percent increase, not 2 1/2.
....But where the Palin money grab really affects future investment is with the marginal tax rate. At today's oil price, every new dollar the industry earns in our state, the government takes a mind-boggling 85 percent.
Etc. If Palin were a Democrat, this is the kind of jeremiad you'd be hearing from Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist, but instead of talk about looting American businesses and destroying incentives to invest, we get crickets. Norquist doesn't even mention taxes here and Limbaugh, who's been talking up Palin for a while, doesn't either. "Babies, guns, Jesus. Hot damn!" was his reaction yesterday.
So: one of the first things Palin did after she took office was to propose a big tax increase that included a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. I don't have a big problem with that, and I'm sure the McCain campaign will eventually treat us all to a blizzard of spin about why her tax increase wasn't really a tax increase. But facts are stubborn things, and somebody really ought to poke the conservative anti-tax intelligentsia a little harder about how they feel about this. Grover? Rush? Newt? Sean?
UPDATE: It turns out there's more! "Hockey mom" Sarah Palin, when she was mayor of Wasilla, was the prime advocate for a sales tax increase to fund a huge new sports complex there. What's more, she bungled the land acquisition, which meant the city ended up paying $1.7 million for the land instead of the planned $146,000. That's fiscal conservatism we can believe in!
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
It doesn't take a private detective to figure out that Big Oil chose Sarah Palin for the Republican VP slot. It was evident when John McCain had to look at his notes to remember her name when he made his announcement on Friday. (Watch the reruns if you don't believe me.) He hardly knows this woman! Governor of the Big Oil State of Alaska, former chairperson of the state's Oil and Energy department, a cheerleader for drilling in our Wildlife Preserves and even her husband is an oil company employee. Did you think for one second that Big Oil was going to give up control of our government after Dick Cheney and George Bush leave office? Of course not! Sarah is Cheney's replacement. With John McCain's age and health problems, it's easy to foresee Sarah Palin's influences grow, if elected.
Forget all that fluff about pro-life, her son going to Iraq and the proposition that she is a substitute for Hillary fans. The real story is that Big Oil told John McCain whom to name. I feel sorry for old John. It is belittling for a man of his stature. Look forward to continued dominance of our lives by the petro-dictators. They have bought our government. Let's hope that next winter we don't all freeze in the dark.
If you are still paying attention . . . I remember reading an article in Fortune Magazine back in 1998 telling (unfortunately, not warning) readers that the influential Texas oil barons had found a willing candidate for president?. "the likable son of former president George H. W. Bush, now serving as Governor of Texas." The rest is history and as we well know, history has a way of repeating itself.
It doesn't take a private detective to figure out that Big Oil chose Sarah Palin for the Republican VP slot. It was evident when John McCain had to look at his notes to remember her name when he made his announcement on Friday. (Watch the reruns if you don't believe me.) He hardly knows this woman! Governor of the Big Oil State of Alaska, former chairperson of the state's Oil and Energy department, a cheerleader for drilling in our Wildlife Preserves and even her husband is an oil company employee. Did you think for one second that Big Oil was going to give up control of our government after Dick Cheney and George Bush leave office? Of course not! Sarah is Cheney's replacement. With John McCain's age and health problems, it's easy to foresee Sarah Palin's influences grow, if elected.
Forget all that fluff about pro-life, her son going to Iraq and the proposition that she is a substitute for Hillary fans. The real story is that Big Oil told John McCain whom to name. I feel sorry for old John. It is belittling for a man of his stature. Look forward to continued dominance of our lives by the petro-dictators. They have bought our government. Let's hope that next winter we don't all freeze in the dark.
If you are still paying attention . . . I remember reading an article in Fortune Magazine back in 1998 telling (unfortunately, not warning) readers that the influential Texas oil barons had found a willing candidate for president?. "the likable son of former president George H. W. Bush, now serving as Governor of Texas." The rest is history and as we well know, history has a way of repeating itself.
"Palin actually did a pretty decent job of working with a fractured state legislature to produce a new tax regime in a short period of time."
She has a pretty bipartisan record in Alaska, and had Democrats and Independents in her cabinet.
I can understand liberal fears of her, but let me point out that its the Republican party that should be the most scared.
I think there might be a misguide view in the Republican party that they can "guide" her. If you check her record, you will see that she is her own person, and extremely committed to doing the right thing (even if you don't agree with her values).
If McCain wins, I guarantee that she will be the instigator of a major revolution of the Republican party. She really is a "compassionate conservative" compared to GW's fake compassion.
Submitted by TangoMan (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 12:02 PM PDT.
I'm pretty sure that this comment will be deleted like the dozens of other comments of mine that have found their way into the internet ether, but it may stay up long enough for people to notice that it too will soon be deleted.
There is a difference between a royalty rate and a windfall profits tax. Alaska OWNS the oil in its ground. By increasing the royalty rate as the market price of oil increases they are sharing in market gains.
Obama is proposing a windfall profits tax on aggregate levels of profit. Exxon has a profit rate of 10%. Google has a profit rate of 25%. Obama is suggesting that a special tax be placed on Exxon but not on Google.
Resource royalties and windfall profits are not the same kind of tax.
[Actually it was an accident that all of your comments got deleted. I meant to delete a couple on another thread, and an accidental mouse hover marked them all for deletion. So long as you keep the racism in check, you won't be deleted. -Mod]
I am a staunch Republican in the sense of fiscal conservatism, low taxes, limited government, etc...(however I am mostly pro-choice, have no problem with gays, don't want to shove religion down people's throats, etc...) but I agree, she seems more like a conservative Democrat in this sense, I mean her husband is even a member of the United Steelworkers Union.
I wonder if this will pull more Hillary voters to her, as HRC wanted to enact a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, so hearing that Palin has done so in Alaska likely would make them like her even more.
It's plain to see by now that McCain has no idea who is VP nominee is. If I'm the DNC idea man, I'm pitching the ad in which the narrator introduces the two to one another:
-- McCain, tax slasher & scourge of government spending, to Palin, tax & spender;
-- McCain, proponent of "scientifically-sound" climate policy, to Palin, skeptic of global warming;
-- McCain, supporter of stem cell research, to Palin, opponent of stem cell research;
-- McCain, Iraq hawk, to Palin, Iraq blank slate;
-- McCain, professed champion of ethics reform, to Palin, Governor/VP nominee under investigation & slated to be deposed this week.
Of course, this is essentially a parlor game that you can play with the 2000 & 2008 versions of McCain, but either way the point is to hammer McCain, rather than Palin, for these differences. He picked her. She didn't pick him. It's perfectly reasonable to ask McCain if he's so weakly committed to these positions that he's comfortable placing someone who doesn't share them a heartbeat away from the presidency.
I wouldn't call Palin another Huckabee, the difference being that Huckabee is the type who wants to actually change the Constitution to shove religios views down people's throats.
Palin may be very socially consevative, but I mean she vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to gay employees, she said she would like it if schools taught both creationism and evolution, she did not say she wanted evolution banned from the curriculum as so many hardcore right-wingers would, and she did not pressure the BoE to teach creationism alongside evolution either, etc...she seems not the type to try and force her views on others regarding those things.
Apparently the issue was that she fired the state public-safety director (or asked him to resign, same-same) when he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooton, who's an AK Statie.
She has stuck it to more corrupt politicians who were entrenched in power than any other person I have ever seen in politics (including the powers that be in her own party) and as such has pi**ed off enough people that it is no surprise that the words "scandal" and "investigation" are being thrown around right now... I have no doubt it will amount to nothing other than someone with an ax to grind.
This wasn't a nomination as much as it was an act of vandalism. Like when gang members leave a "tag" on the side of a building - to indicate their territory. The gun-loving Christian Coalition just left some graffiti on the wall of American culture.
First you say "So Palin's plan increased that by another $700 million." then you say "The final version twiddled the knobs and ended up producing not $700 million in additional revenue, but more like $2 billion or so."
Which is it... or am I missing something here.
Submitted by cleek (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 12:40 PM PDT.
it won't matter. the wingnuts will all fall in line.
policies and facts don't matter. what matters is that she's not a Democrat.
Apparently the issue was that she fired the state public-safety director (or asked him to resign, same-same) when he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooton, who's an AK Statie.
... I have no doubt it will amount to nothing other than someone with an ax to grind.
This may, indeed, turn out to be the case, and Democrats would be stupid to hold their collective breath & expect criminal prosecutions to be political game changers. (Karl Rove, anyone? And what, exactly, did the Scooter Libby conviction get us, other than a little schadenfreude?) There are a couple of points here, though -- one related to Palin, and one to McCain.
The first is a point that Josh has made over at his site -- Palin's seemingly Bushian instinct to use an arm of the government in order to settle personal scores. If this investigation turns out to have some legs to it, Palin will become an extremely visible symbol of McCain's returning us to the ways of doing business for the last 8 years. This, combined with McCain's propensity to alienate others & hold grudges, raises fundamental questions about the temperament of the ticket.
The second point has to do with McCain's lack of judgment in terms of his choice. What, exactly, does it say about your executive decision-making capability when you're willing to gamble not only your political future, but the future of the country, on someone you clearly don't know, and who's currently under investigation -- the conclusion of which is scheduled (for now, anyway,) just days before the general election? Maybe this all comes out in the wash. That could certainly be the case. But do you really want this kind of a high-stakes gambler with his finger on the button? If the Obama campaign can emphasize these points, it'll go a long way to discrediting McCain, without really bloodying Palin. That, she will have done herself.
Submitted by TangoMan (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 1:10 PM PDT.
[Actually it was an accident that all of your comments got deleted. I meant to delete a couple on another thread, and an accidental mouse hover marked them all for deletion. So long as you keep the racism in check, you won't be deleted. -Mod]
If pointing out that Obama, newly graduated from Law School, got a contract to publish an autobiography because he's Black is considered a racist comment, then this blog is staffed by the very sensitive folks. Racism usually involves hatred, not mere notice of a person's race.
Submitted by TangoMan (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 1:15 PM PDT.
Palin's seemingly Bushian instinct to use an arm of the government in order to settle personal scores.
Not so. The man happened to be her ex brother in law, but he was also a police officer who was a threat to the public. He was violating hunting laws, he was threatening people with violence, he was using his tazer on children. Who wouldn't want this man off of any police force? Should Palin remain silent and let him continue to serve? Would her silence further the public safety?
Submitted by Bondo (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 1:26 PM PDT.
Yes, raising revenue is all fine and well, but windfall profit tax is a bad idea whether Obama or Palin suggest it. And Palin's represents an even worse version with the way that it increases blindly based on oil price. I'm all for severance taxes on resources extracted from a jurisdiction, but it should be flat based on the value of the resource extracted (and the cost to the environment). What she proposes here is most certainly a profit tax.
Though I wouldn't use this one example to layout her entire economic ideology (and certainly not the one the McCain campaign would follow), if I were, it would show she supports bad moderate policies, no great relief. And while Obama supports a similar bad policy, it is balanced out by an otherwise vastly superior energy/economic plan.
The neocons seem to be split over Palin. Kristol for, Krauthammer against.
Frum: a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.... If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?
Submitted by TangoMan (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 1:46 PM PDT.
I'm all for severance taxes on resources extracted from a jurisdiction, but it should be flat based on the value of the resource extracted (and the cost to the environment). What she proposes here is most certainly a profit tax.
If you're a farm owner and you sell your wheat crop, should you be content to receive a base price for the wheat and allow the refiners and other downstream processors to capture all of the value locked into rising prices?
The oil belongs to the people of Alaska. The oil companies deploy capital and expertise to extract that oil. If particular oil companies can earn a higher rate of return than their competitors based on their unique management practices, then they have a solid case for capturing all of the realized gain. What case do they make for capturing all of the gain in the commodity price of oil?
A windfall profits tax kicks in after the cost of materials is already extracted from the sale price. Royalty payments are a cost of goods. Those goods, the oil, belongs to the people of Alaska. They should benefit from the run-up in the price of oil to the same degree that the citizens of Norway, Britain, Canada, etc benefit from the increased price - that is, they should be capturing the value, instead of sending it to the oil company, which doesn't bring any value added contribution to the issue.
Tango man what you are saying makes sense when applied to most industries where virtually all their costs are variable costs.
But because the oil industry is a very, very, very heavy fixed or sunk cost industry with insignificant variable cost your analysis is essentially irrelevant.
sounds like you have had a good course in accounting, but your understanding goes no deeper.
Not so. The man happened to be her ex brother in law, but he was also a police officer who was a threat to the public. He was violating hunting laws, he was threatening people with violence, he was using his tazer on children. Who wouldn't want this man off of any police force? Should Palin remain silent and let him continue to serve? Would her silence further the public safety?
So if this is nothing more than a public safety issue, why did she initially deny that her office had anything to do with his firing? And why was it necessary to also fire the Public Safety Commissioner -- the same commissioner who, coincidentally, refused to fire her brother-in-law? And how in the world is the safety of the public better served by replacing the Public Safety Commissioner with someone who has a history of sexual harassment? At this point, her executive decision-making capacity seems to be as questionable as McCain's.
I'm happy to remain agnostic on Palin's culpability until the investigation is completed, but McCain is taking an enormous gamble by adding someone involved in this type of an investigation to his ticket before any findings have been made. I don't want to know what other kinds of gambles a President McCain would be willing to take with the country.
Submitted by TangoMan (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 2:59 PM PDT.
Spencer,
But because the oil industry is a very, very, very heavy fixed or sunk cost industry with insignificant variable cost your analysis is essentially irrelevant.
Saying so doesn't make it so. Heavy fixed costs are irrelevant to a situation where the investment decision is predicated on the floor price attached to the royalty. If the variable costs of extraction are negligible compared to the fixed cost, the as the price of oil increases on the world market, the variable costs of extraction remain mostly the same, the fixed costs are already sunk, and the profit was already attractive at the lower royalty level.
If you wish to dissuade me of this reasoning you'll have to do better than an appeal to your own authority.
OK. How many states have such an opportunity like Alaska to avoid the really difficult tax issues? Most states, unlike Alaska, do have income and/or sales taxes. Most states are running big budget deficits. In these cases, attempting to raise revenues without raising income or sales taxes on individuals or businesses is a huge challenge that many state governments are failing. Palin gets off pretty damned easy on this account. So, what really difficult taxing decisions has she had to make? None. Her move to increase taxes on oil was a no brainer, no? And just exactly who else is helping to make her look good? Why who else but you federal tax payers and purchasers of oil.
Blah blah blah... ad hominen... blah blah blah... ad hominen.
Then when you try to talk substance you prove you are completely ignorant of the consitution. $100 to anyone who can correctly fill in the blank without looking it up. Another $100 if you can name the article and section.
"The (President/Congress/Supreme Court) shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
This is what you will learn in the third grade:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated...
Guess what? I just registered to vote for the first time, I was not going to vote at all in this election, but I really like Palin, she seems to be a real person... like the rest of america. Yes she may have different ideology than Democrats or Libertarians, but unlike Obama, McCain, and Biden... she is a regular joe like me. I liked what she said about her son being in the military, and I want a real person with a real child serving at the time of her administration. That fact alone will guide her judgement, and I think that by protecting her own, she will protect the rest of americas own. That I like, and neither of the other candidates in this race have that kind of weight on their sholders when making a decision.
Yes, I know some will say McCain is in charge, but buddy, she is down the hall, and I think she will in fact storm in the Oval office and have a heated conversation with McCain if he chooses to do something stupid. We need a regular person down the hall from the President with proven experience authority to "have a little chatt" with the President if need be. To be honest, I don't care if we were having the same conversation about a Democrat, I am one of those Independents, I just want a real person at the white house with the gutts to challenge anyone, and I see that in Palin.
TangoMan: I'm pretty sure that this comment will be deleted like the dozens of other comments of mine that have found their way into the internet ether
Tiny violins are playing. I've seen PLENTY of your posts on this blog.Rightwing self-pity at its finest.
Or at least I thought you were right wing:
Alaska OWNS the oil in its ground. By increasing the royalty rate as the market price of oil increases they are sharing in market gains.
"Alaska" owns it? That would be the collective people somehow exercising ownership of communal resources via the state? Where does the state get off "owning" and levying "royalties" (read TAXES) on oil or anything else for that matter? Sounds like effing Hugo Chavez to me. Whadda you a goddamn Leninist or something?
I don't want to know what other kinds of gambles a President McCain would be willing to take with the country.
And with that, Junebug, you name the thing that is the real heart of the issue here. It's not just the move of a guy who's an arrested 20-something fighter-jock in his head and thinks he's immortal, it's the move of a high roller betting the family mortgage at a high stakes craps table in Atlantic City. Maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn't. But what about the next one, and the one after that? Is that the kind of president we need in these precarious times?
Submitted by DC (not verified) on Sat Aug. 30, 2008 10:33 PM PDT.
Please visit a new SARAH PALIN fan and supporter website at:
It has a bio,photos,contact information and free Sarah Palin computer wallpaper.
>The oil belongs to the people of Alaska.
I think it belongs to the people of *America*. Y'know, the ones who paid for the purchase of, pay for the protection of, and subsidizes the communities of, Alaska.
I think this may be a good time to crack open the whole stinking Permanent Fund mess and wave it under the other 49 states noses.
I mean, I think it the crap about opening offshore drilling somehow affecting today's prices is as much bullshit as anybody. But Republicans believe it.
I know that not only are the quantities of American oil insufficent to get anywhere near "energy independence", but the quality of American oil (esp. Alaskan) is also woefully sub-optimal. But Republicans believe the first and refuse to understand the second.
So if prices at the pump are high, and can be fixed by "tax breaks on oil producers" which will "encourage more production", then I gotta ask Republicans: What. The. Fuck.
Alaska pays every citizen 4-figures every year from oil revenues from the Permanant Fund. Alaska has still managed to amass 40 billion dollars in this trust fund, which is 1/2 of the sum people are screaming at Iraq for.
And if I understand correctly, the revenues directed towards the Permanant Fund are not quite 1/2 of Alaska's total take.
So somebody should ask Gov. Palin, why should Alaskans profit from our pain at the pump? Aren't we supposedly all in this together? Can't Alaska forgo its revenues for a few years to help out?
They have exposed their groin here, and somebody needs to take a kick at it.
TO BE CLEAR: This is not an argument that would appeal to me. I don't care who taxes oil, I think whatever makes the pump price dearer and dearer is unarguably a good thing for the future of our country and the planet. I'm a total enviro-nazi.
But Alaska is two-faced Republican politics at it's finest, and they've just opened themselves up to being publically called on it. If you offered Alaskans ANWR, but with no revenues to the state, you'd suddenly find a state just full of people waving "preserve Alaska's last wilderness" signs.
And everybody would have a subject for a really, really good re-think.
It doesn't take a private detective to figure out that Big Oil chose Sarah Palin for the Republican VP slot. It was evident when John McCain had to look at his notes to remember her name when he made his announcement on Friday. (Watch the reruns if you don't believe me.) He hardly knows this woman! Governor of the Big Oil State of Alaska, former chairperson of the state's Oil and Energy department, a cheerleader for drilling in our Wildlife Preserves and even her husband is an oil company employee. Did you think for one second that Big Oil was going to give up control of our government after Dick Cheney and George Bush leave office? Of course not! Sarah is Cheney's replacement. With John McCain's age and health problems, it's easy to foresee Sarah Palin's influences grow, if elected.
Forget all that fluff about pro-life, her son going to Iraq and the proposition that she is a substitute for Hillary fans. The real story is that Big Oil told John McCain whom to name. I feel sorry for old John. It is belittling for a man of his stature. Look forward to continued dominance of our lives by the petro-dictators. They have bought our government. Let's hope that next winter we don't all freeze in the dark.
If you are still paying attention . . . I remember reading an article in Fortune Magazine back in 1998 telling (unfortunately, not warning) readers that the influential Texas oil barons had found a willing candidate for president . "the likable son of former president George H. W. Bush, now serving as Governor of Texas." The rest is history and as we well know, history has a way of repeating itself.
hey, listen to Sarah Palin in her own words in this NewsWeek Video that was done back in March 2008! Its very telling!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190
Submitted by Howard (not verified) on Mon Sep. 1, 2008 12:46 PM PDT.
Here is another Pic. Now that her daughter is carrying her new baby (maybe this was the one that Sarah had in May) Is this the crack in the story we are looking for - shades of Thomas Eagleton. I hopes its not true but remember these backwoods types handle life differently than we do. Need some birth records reviewed I think. I think there may be a Sarah in the woodpile. You cons deserve it = why didn't you get behind Romney earlier and avoided all this shit.
Sorry forgot the pics
Bristol
http://i523.photobucket.com/albums/w357/tcpeep/bristol.jpg
Pic taken after she shot a liberal
http://img239.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-1513/loc56/51420_n125886_3530...
I am a 40 year old female voter from Michigan. I am elated that mccain picked palin for his vp.. One, he threw away Michigan votes by not picking Mitt Romney and two, she is a liar just like the rest of the republicans that have messed the U.S.A. up. She cant even manage her own family and were sapposed to think she can be commander and chief.. wow thats funny
http://www.jcarsonblack.com/index.php
Read about John McCain's Shotgun Wedding with Sarah Palin on J. Carson Black's blog - what a hoot.
Politics have hit a new low with the liberal dems when they attack a Vice President nominee for a 17 year old daughter getting pregnant. This same hypocrit bunch of libs swoon and bow at liberal movie actors and sports stars, singers who drop illigitmate babies all over the country with no responsibility. Has any main street media reporter asked Obama about his ties with Weather underground bomber Ayres? What about your Muslim father etc. The press is in the pocket of libs and the main reason many of us are turning to talk radio for the truth.
you are kidding right? shes so compassionate that she cut funding for unwed pregnant teens in alaska... she raises taxes.. lobbies for earmarks..and abuses her exectutive powers by trying to fire and ex brother in law.. a real reformer i tell you!
