Net tax receipts are up because the Alaskan economy is doing better. Not because people are paying more out of their own pockets. Take an economics refresher course...
As for same-sex benefits... There is nothing in the Alaskan Constitution to prevent employers from granting same-sex benfits. Would you have her over step her mandate as Governor just because you don't like companies having to stick to their contracts?
She was recently running with John McCain whose positions on global warming and amnesty ran contrary to hers before being nominated as Veep. It would'a looked kinda odd if she hadn't at least tried to mouth a couple of platitudes in support of her Prez running mate.
Are you really going to use Wikipedia, noted for left leaning articles, for a definition of "conservatism"? Palin brought in record crowds for a Veep pick. She's got the charisma that none of the other GOP offerings have had in a LONG time.
What you describe is merely libertarianism- While important, it cannot extend itself to encompass Conservatism.
Yes and no. I advocate a STRICT adherence to Founding Principles. Reagan may have tried to redefine "conservatism", as you've stated, but even that doesn't math up strictly with the Constitution. If that's too libertarian for you, tough nuggies. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any government actions that extend beyond it's strict limits is by definition a violation of both the Law, and conservative principles. No matter how "noble" appearing the goal, the long range effects on our Republic are always negative.
Let's all just tax the big nasty corporations.
Again, a blatant mischaracterization of her leveling the politically gerrymandered markets to allow for increased market freedom and competition. Your statement also ignores the spending cuts she enacted. Including Stevens' "bridge to nowhere".
I don't care if Reagan's "drop in the bucket" was a "drop in the ocean". Deficit spending isn't a really good idea. The same policy logic he used then has been used ever since to further increase the size and cost of government. Since FDR really, but the point still stands. Considering the FedGov's Constitutionally limited mandate, their percentage share of OUR GDP Pie should never have increased. Ever. There is no call for it. If they were doing only the specific jobs listed, IE; the conservative thing to do, they'd only be consuming 1-2% of GDP instead of over 30% as your chart shows.
Too "libertarian" for you still? Tough. Reality is a b*tch. Every problem we are currently dealing with is due to Federal over-reach. We need candidates who are going to roll that back. You're pet RINO's ain't it. They merely want to maintain the status quo.
Not true. The increase was across the board, and more troublesome, the windfall portion of the tax, proportionally increasing the tax over $100/bbl.
Juneau Empire: "Senate hands Palin oil tax victory" by Pat Forgey
Reuters: "UPDATE 1-Alaska Gov. Palin signs bill to hike oil tax" by Yereth Rosen Wed Dec 19, 2007
Windfall tax is a major socialist issue on the national scene. In fact, it is something ()bama was *for*, and MccAin't was *against* during the recently past campaign.
Since you declare yourself libertarian, am I to assume that libertarians are now in favor of this kind of progressive tax structure on business? It seems odd to me, as all the libertarians I know (and I do know many) are highly offended by this sort of thing.
Alaskan residents get a check from the State for sharing out the States mineral Rights to oil companies. Hardly "wealth redistribution".
A confiscatory rate of tax was paid by the oil companies (retroactively, btw), resulting in a huge surplus to the state. A part of that surplus was discharged to the citizens as an emergency energy assistance through the mineral rights permanent fund, and as grants to electric companies subsidizing up to 60% of electricity costs per household, among other wealth redistribution schemes. It had *nothing* to do with the actual mineral rights benefits:
CapitalCityWeekly: "Palin unveils plan to return surplus to resource owners" (May 21, 2008)
AnchorageDailyNews: "Palin's energy relief: $1,200 each" By Sean Cockerham and Wesley Loy, June 21st, 2008
When the government takes money away from one entity and gives it to another on the basis of need, that is in fact, wealth redistribution. If there was excess, it should have been given back to the payee. This is no more "conservative" than Bush's "stimulus rebate" was. It is casting coins to the peasants, and nothing more.
Net tax receipts are up because the Alaskan economy is doing better. Not because people are paying more out of their own pockets. Take an economics refresher course...
Net tax receipts are up by some 5 BILLION dollars (the surplus). That is not economy doing better, that is raping the oil companies. All of the citizenry of Alaska together could not raise 5b in gross receipts, not to mention taxes on those receipts. That is oil money, pure and simple.
As for same-sex benefits... There is nothing in the Alaskan Constitution to prevent employers from granting same-sex benfits. Would you have her over step her mandate as Governor just because you don't like companies having to stick to their contracts?
The employer in question was the State of Alaska. As the CEO thereof, and the Congress (the board of directors) being in favor, hell yes, I expect her to stand up. The Alaska Supreme Court does not have more power than she does, and certainly not more power than the Governor and the Legislature together.
If she will not stand up to liberal courts in AK, why would I suppose she would stand up to them in DC? Again, as a libertarian, I am surprised that you and I are at odds in this. The activist judiciary needs to be put back in their Constitutional place. We need players that will confront them and lay a smack down on them. This was such an opportunity.
She was recently running with John McCain whose positions on global warming and amnesty ran contrary to hers before being nominated as Veep. It would'a looked kinda odd if she hadn't at least tried to mouth a couple of platitudes in support of her Prez running mate.
Show me her positions prior to her selection, then. As far as I am aware, as of two weeks before the election, no one knew her stance on these issues at all. As it was, she said she was speaking her own mind, and that no one was pulling her strings. She said she disagreed with MccAin't on some issues, including ANWR, so I take her at her word.
Are you really going to use Wikipedia, noted for left leaning articles, for a definition of "conservatism"?
The definition is accurate.
Palin brought in record crowds for a Veep pick. She's got the charisma that none of the other GOP offerings have had in a LONG time.
So did ()bama. That doesn't mean he is right. And regardless of the crowds, McCain/Palin LOST. Charisma does not win us anything. If you think that upon Reagan's death, millions of people lined the road to see him off because of his charisma, then you really do not have a clue.
Yes and no. I advocate a STRICT adherence to Founding Principles. Reagan may have tried to redefine "conservatism", as you've stated, but even that doesn't math up strictly with the Constitution.
Reagan didn't try... Reagan DID. And it does nothing at all to the Constitution. Reagan's view that all three spheres of conservatism are equally important and interlocked is exactly true.
The Constitution is worthless without the Judeo-Christian ethic, under which, and for which, it was written, as confirmed by our founding fathers. Without that sense, it can be stretched completely beyond its ethical bounds, even as it is being stretched now.
In fact, As I have said here before, I would be more likely to pair libertarianism and social conservatism under one banner, than I would libertarianism and fiscal conservatism (as it is normally given), as it is these two together (in friendly opposition) that create the proper Conservative conscience. And it is these two that always seem to be getting kicked under the bus, too, oddly enough.
We are living through the consequences of not protecting the fiscal conservatives- Had we properly listened to them, and held out for candidates that appealed to them as well, we would be in much better shape.
And none of it means a damn thing without a strong America. The Defense Conservatives are just as necessary as the rest.
It is not that your view is worth less than theirs, or that it is better than theirs, They are all equally necessary, equally conservative, and equally important. That is the ideology of Reagan Conservatism, and it is true.
I would not ever vote for a candidate who is not all of those things... trying to protect all three pillars of Conservatism, even though my own leanings are mainly toward social and business issues.
If that's too libertarian for you, tough nuggies. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any government actions that extend beyond it's strict limits is by definition a violation of both the Law, and conservative principles. No matter how "noble" appearing the goal, the long range effects on our Republic are always negative.
I agree with you. As I said, Many of my friends are libertarians, and you will find many posts here by me defending libertarians. Reagan Conservatives are your best allies, FRiend.
Again, a blatant mischaracterization of her leveling the politically gerrymandered markets to allow for increased market freedom and competition. Your statement also ignores the spending cuts she enacted. Including Stevens' "bridge to nowhere".
Steven's "Bridge to nowhere" was not cut, but re-allocated. It is now Federal matching funds on state highway projects. The spending cuts she enacted are far, far outweighed by the new spending she proposed- the new trans-national gas pipeline, and new highways particularly. But I guess it doesn't matter, cuz she stuck big oil for the bill(mostly), although taxes per capita are up percentage-wise in Alaska since she took office...
I don't care if Reagan's "drop in the bucket" was a "drop in the ocean". Deficit spending isn't a really good idea. The same policy logic he used then has been used ever since to further increase the size and cost of government. Since FDR really, but the point still stands.
You are right, of course, except, I would argue, in "bang for the buck". A huge chunk of Reagan's over-spending went into the war machine, and into defense R&D, and it was desperately needed. Ford's neglect and Carter's reductions had left our military in shambles. He flat outspent the Russians, and put alot of iron on the ground. The same can be said of infrastructure at home, too. That is not an excuse, but it is a reason. And the reward was met in the fall of the Soviet Union.
Considering the FedGov's Constitutionally limited mandate, their percentage share of OUR GDP Pie should never have increased. Ever. There is no call for it. If they were doing only the specific jobs listed, IE; the conservative thing to do, they'd only be consuming 1-2% of GDP instead of over 30% as your chart shows.
Well, I agree with you in spirit- but 2% is probably not likely... it was at 10% before FDR... I would be happy with 10%, or even 15% considering the cost of Defense. But then I suppose I would not see things quite like you would in that regard- I see some things being needful at the federal level that the Constitution could not have foreseen- The Interstate Highway and Rail systems, Interstate Communications, Space Exploration... These things are needful, and I dare say would not have come to pass without the private/public partnerships that caused them to happen.
Even so, We are largely in agreement, you and I, and the first step would be to cut the twenty percent or so off the top that we do agree on, and fight about the spare change when we get there I suppose.
Too "libertarian" for you still? Tough. Reality is a b*tch. Every problem we are currently dealing with is due to Federal over-reach.
Well, some of them are...The problems we face lie more in the area of moral relativism from my point of view. But that is a conservative issue too.
We need candidates who are going to roll that back. You're pet RINO's ain't it. They merely want to maintain the status quo.
The "RINO" I supported in the primaries, while I was still a Republican was Duncan Hunter. The "RINO" I was to vote for, had I been able to get to the polls, was Dr. Alan Keyes. I will stack either of those two against Palin any day, and Palin would come out last. Period.
I am not given to shiny bits and flash-in-the-pan. I support Reagan Conservatives ONLY, and will continue to do so.
Palin is *not* a Reagan Conservative. I find her to be hardly conservative *at all*. I do not believe that she will be able to close the deal with Conservatives, not even Evangelicals, who I number myself among. Her positions, even there, are against the Pro-Life majority and the Pro-Marriage majority. Her record is not accomplished, nor is it long. She is little more than a Thompson-styled moderate in her positions. That will not win.
What is needed now is a TRUE Conservative. A Hunter, a Keyes, a Tancredo, a McClintock, a DeMint... Someone who has flown straight and true for a long, long while, is beyond reproach, and is trusted beyond a doubt by every single faction.
Shake those dewy cobwebs of "electability" out of your head. Think about the other factions that will have to vote for a candidate too. If the candidate you support is not trusted by the other factions, you are supporting the same sort of division that the RINOs used to separate us from each other in the primary.
The Reagan Coalition doesn't ask you to compromise a single principle. All it asks of you is to protect the principles of the other conservative pillars as you would protect your own, and to lend your support and vote to candidates with that in mind. In doing so, you get what you want anyway, with the benefit of a candidate that the other factions will find attractive too! A win-win for everyone.