“fiscal conservatives again have reason for concern: the town’s long-term debt reportedly jumped from $1 million to $25 million.”
On one hand, some complain about her increased spending between the 2008 and 2009 budget, claiming that this proves she is not a fiscal conservative. True, spending did go up, then again, state revenue almost doubled at the same time. When this happens, it is important to not only put money in the bank and save it for a rainy day, which she did to the tune of $5 billion, but there is nothing wrong with increasing spending. The increased revenue needs to make it back into the hands of the people via services or a check. Governor Palin did both. The people of Alaska received an extra $1200 in addition to their Permanent fund checks, plus she increased spending on education and infrastructure projects. This is a good use of the extra revenue.
sign of a real fiscal conservative is how they handle the difficult times. No doubt about it, we are facing some difficult times.
Did Governor Palin increase spending?
Absolutely not!
FY 2009 Operating Budget: $11,200,000,000 ($11.2B)
FY 2010 Operating Budget: $9,700,000,000 ($9.7B)
Net Cut in Operating Budget: $1,500,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Operating Budget: 13.4%
FY 2009 Capital Budget: $2,632,000,000 (after Governor Palin vetoed $268 million)
FY 2010 Capital Budget: $1,800,000,000
Net Cut in the Capital Budget: $832,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Capital Budget: 31.7%
Overall FY 2009 Budget: $13,832,000,000
Overall Proposed FY 2010 Budget: $11,500,000,000
Net Reduction in the Overall Budget: $2,332,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Overall Budget: 16.8%
When it comes to budgets, this is a huge number. HUGE!
Keep in mind, this budget includes a large percentage of the stimulus funds in the operating and capital budgets. Some of the stimulus funds were inserted by the Governor (mostly in the capital budget) and the rest inserted by the state legislature (mostly in the operating budget).
All you need to know about this author. He didn't have the basic honesty to disclose that the increase in long-term debt was due to the Wasilla Sports Complex which Palin insisted be put to a vote of the people, which they approved.
BTW, this debt is being retired this year, a year earlier than forecast.
Reagan rebated taxes to the people of California. These "increased revenues" were from a tax, er, "fee" that has since chased many oil and gas producers out of a state with very high unemployment.
When this happens, it is important to not only put money in the bank and save it for a rainy day, which she did to the tune of $5 billion, but there is nothing wrong with increasing spending.
The hell there isn't. It induces an infrastructure of tax consumption, one that is difficult to reverse. Further, to sock that money away is to admit that there is an expectation of a need to spend it later because of higher structural levels of spending.
The increased revenue needs to make it back into the hands of the people via services or a check. Governor Palin did both. The people of Alaska received an extra $1200 in addition to their Permanent fund checks, plus she increased spending on education and infrastructure projects. This is a good use of the extra revenue.
A conservative gives anything left after retiring debt back to the people to expend as they see fit. Moreover, there is no longer any justification for public schools up to at least the bachelor's if not the master's degree level. The State could put the entire pedagogy on the equivalent of YouTube with the testing contracted out and sell the service at a profit (an example is the Iowa State Test that became something of a national standard in private schools for a number of years). An online curriculum could then be both broader and more adapted to individual needs and capabilities than it is now. If the students need tutoring, they can hire one on Skype.
Done.
Moderates lack the creativity, initiative, and courage to think outside the Statist box by which to reduce structural spending permanently.