Posted on 08/18/2011 6:42:04 AM PDT by Anamnesis
Executive experience is often seen as a needed criterion when looking for potential presidential nominees, especially among Republicans. It has been more than 130 years since the GOP nominated an eventual winner for President who only had legislative experience (Note: President Eisenhower’s military experience easily qualifies as executive experience). It goes beyond the simply dichotomy of legislative versus executive experience, however. What is even more important is how one used the executive experience that he or she has. Did he or she use such experience to make government smaller or bigger? Did he or she use their executive experience to create personal mandates or to expand individual freedom? Did he or she use their executive to perpetuate or get rid of cronyism?
The office of Alaskan governor is known for being a very powerful office—2nd most powerful state executive in the country. What makes the Alaska governor’s office so powerful include line item veto power that can only be overridden by three-fourths majority in the legislature and the ability to appoint all statewide executive department heads and various board members positions and the like. The only two statewide elected officials are the governor and the lt. governor; other positions, such as attorney general, are appointed by the governor. In many ways, the “buck” indeed stopped with Governor Palin. During Governor Palin’s tenure, she used her executive power to make government smaller and more ethical and transparent.
As Governor, Sarah Palin vetoed nearly $500 million in spending during her tenure including vetoing nearly a quarter billion in 2007 alone. Such vetoes enabled her to cut Alaska’s budget 9.5% over her predecessor’s budget. She also vetoed $268 million in the FY2009 capital budget. Despite legislative outcry over these vetoes, they did not even take up a vote to attempt to override her veto. Earlier that year, Governor Palin vetoed nearly $58 million for funding various projects in a supplemental bill. She did not use her line item veto indiscriminately though. Some of the projects proposed by legislators were projects Governor Palin had vetoed the year prior. She gave legislators the opportunity to justify why such projects should be funded:
She said if lawmakers didn’t want her to simply veto the projects again, they could make an appointment to come to her office and explain why the projects were worthy of funding. Palin personally attended more than a dozen meetings with lawmakers, and even opened them to the media.
On Thursday, members of her staff hand-delivered the results to lawmakers.
Of the $70 million in projects at issue, Palin accepted 52 projects totaling $12.4 million, chopped 16 worth $22.3 million, and put 155 projects worth $35.4 million in what she designated the “move” category.
In 2009, Governor Palin vetoed nearly $30 million in federal stimulus aimed at energy efficiency because it required federal building codes to be implemented. Her veto was later overridden by the legislature. Governor Palin was concerned with the sustainability of projects funded by the federal government when the funding would later dry out saying,” [i]f the legislature wants to add funds to grow government, then I also want to hear how we will get out of the fiscal hole we’ll be in just two years from now when those temporary stimulus funds are gone”. She could have used her pen to simply sign into law any spending project handed to her, but she did not. She exercised fiscal restraint, even to the dislike of the legislature, because she wanted to ensure government remained small and that all projects approved were truly worthy of state funding. Governor Palin used the power given to her by the Alaska constitution, but she did so to shrink spending, make state government smaller, and make Alaska less dependent on the federal government.
Governor Palin used her executive power to appoint individuals to cabinet type positions, councils, and the like who were of the same mindset when it came to making government smaller and reduce bureaucratic red tape. This can be seen in her creation of the Alaska Health Strategies Planning Council to address Alaska’s healthcare issues early in her term. This council was compromised of Department of Health and Social Services and individuals from various levels of government, the business community, the healthcare industry, and faith based organizations, and they were all appointed by the Governor. The recommendations from this council provided the basis for a healthcare proposal from the Governor, the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act, which would increase patient choice and remove bureaucratic red tape for providers—essentially make government smaller. One thing this act proposed was removing the Certificate of Need (CON) requirement for building new healthcare facilities:
STATE CON LAWS originated, like so many bad health care ideas, with a mandate from the federal government. In 1974, states were effectively told by Washington that no new medical facilities could be built unless a “public need” had been demonstrated. The idea was to reduce costs, but the only measurable effect of this federal decree was a morass of bureaucratic red tape that stifled competition in the health care market. In 1987, the federal statute was finally repealed, but many states inexplicably kept their CON processes in place. Alaska was one of them and, as Governor Palin put it in an editorial for the Anchorage Daily News, “Under our present Certificate of Need process, costs and needs don’t drive health-care choices — bureaucracy does. Our system is broken and expensive.”
This bill ultimately was rejected by the legislature, but it indicates– both through her personal policy convictions and that of those whom she appointed– smaller, less bureaucratic government was the goal.
Through her appointments, Governor Palin showed how she desired to use her executive power to make government void of crony capitalism and more transparent. This was seen in the seven individuals she brought in to work with oil and gas issues, who had become known as the Magnificent Seven. One of these individuals, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner, Tom Irwin, was fired by Governor Murkowski, Palin’s predecessor, due to his questioning of the legality Murkowski’s pipeline deal. Six other DNR employees quit in protest of Irwin’s firing. Governor Palin brought these individuals back to work for her administration appointing Tom Irwin as her DNR commissioner. These individuals were instrumental in both the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)—her natural gas pipeline project—and Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES)—the oil tax structure. AGIA was negotiated in a transparent manner and allowed all potential pipeline companies and energy development companies to compete for the opportunity to participate in the project and also allowed Alaskans to view these proposals in a transparent manner. No special treatment was shown to any particular companies because neither Governor Palin, her commissioners, nor her DNR staff had industry cronies. The same could be said of ACES. Previously, PPT, the oil tax structure signed in to law by Governor Murkowski, was done in secret and was favorable to Murkowski’s cronies, which led to the indictment and arrest of Murkowski’s chief of staff, some legislators, and industry personnel from the pipeline company, VECO. ACES was not influenced by only certain oil companies, but provided incentives for any companies willing to engage in oil exploration. Governor Palin’s appointments helped rid Alaska of the crony capitalism and lack of government transparency.
Much of Governor Palin’s efforts to shrink government and make it more ethical are a direct contrast to the supposed GOP executive frontrunners in the race for the 2012 nominations. Both Governor Romney and Governor Perry grew government obligations. They both increased state debt at a far greater pace than Governor Palin, while Governor Palin actually reduced state liabilities for pensions and the like when Governors Romney and Perry increased state liabilities. Governor Romney’s infamous universal healthcare/individual mandate plan, which he defends on the basis of federalism, is very heavily funded, not by state monies, but by federal Medicaid and Medicare dollars and is running way over budget. Governor Perry once issued an executive order (thankfully later overturned by the Texas legislature)that mandated young girls to get a HPV vaccine manufactured by a company that gave substantially to Perry’s campaign. On the other hand, Governor Palin proposed a plan that gave more individual choices, not mandates, in healthcare. Governor Romney has a history of receiving campaign funds from entities that he once did business with and also had a history of engaging in and supporting corporatism through various subsidies. Governor Perry, too, has a history of crony capitalism by awarding business related grants to those who have donated to his gubernatorial campaigns. Governor Palin’s natural gas pipeline and her oil tax structure were aimed at removing cronyism, and her ethics reform bill sought to remove the influence of political favors for campaign funds.
Executives at any level of government could use their power to grow government spending and power and to reward cronies or those who donated to their campaign. Governor Palin is the only one who has a proven record of using her power to make the government smaller and less powerful. Governor Palin used her power to reduce government spending and state reliance on the federal funding. She used her position to increase individual choice, not create individual mandates. She used her executive authority to make government more ethical and transparent while removing cronyism rather than perpetuating it. The differences could not be clearer.
Pissant? that you? Wanna explain the relevance of that comment or are you just trolling for a Zot?
“but the definition of socialism, in the most pure form, is collective ownership. It can be voluntary, like a commune or an Israeli kibbutz.
the population of alaska getting paid by the oil companies, in an equal amount per person, without regard to how much property is owned or how much taxes were paid by that person is socialistic. The very notion of “collective ownership” is socialism. In pure capitalism, the oil company would be the owner of whatever oil it drills, and the profits made would be shared among the shareholders.”
So what is your point?
This is how the Alaska Constitution is written.
So you wanted Palin to run as Governor on a platform that she would totally rewrite the Alaska Constitution?
Calling it a “living document” that she could alter at will?
The AK Constitution is what it is. If you want to call it Socialist, fine. Move to AK and agitate to have it changed if it bothers you so much.
But Palin, as an Alaskan, running for Alaskan, governor, TOTALLY ran the governorship according to the Constitution - even the parts she didn’t like, such as:
1. Rights to same-sex couples: An AK court said it was unconstitutional for companies to deny benefits to same-sex couples. The legislature passed a bill to overthrow that statement. Palin refused to sign it because she said the executive doesn’t have the authority to overturn the judiciary.
2. Selecting the AK attorney general: A legal panel recommends nominees to the governor - usually 3 or more - but for Palin’s last selection, they gave her only 2. She wasn’t thrilled with either one, and, in fact, took the unprecedented step of requesting all legal records of both nominees so her staff could thoroughly vet them. She went with the judge who most stuck to the Constitution over the guy who was a green activist.
So.
Your harping on the AK Constitution as being socialist doesn’t work as a knock against Palin: It is what it is and Palin recognized her limits under the Law.
Thus, her record shows that she will do the same under the U.S. Constitution.
“In pure capitalism, the oil company would be the owner of whatever oil it drills, and the profits made would be shared among the shareholders.”
In your scenario, the concept of a ‘royalty’ couldn’t exist. The oil would be ownerless and anyone could just come in, drill anywhere on ‘state’ land and do what ever they wanted. Doesn’t add up. Owners of private land are reimbursed for drilling on ‘their’ land. in Alaska, the people of the state are reimbursed for drilling on ‘their’ land. Same difference IMO.
Don't care. The hell with RINOs and the hell with the GOP-E.
You have a real problem.
Nope, you are the one with the problem if you are willing to sacrifice Conservative principles and accept a slick RINO just to beat Obama. For me, it's Conservative or nothing. And Perry ain't it.
There is NO virtue in deliberately losing.
Compared to Obama she is perfect squared. Now compared to the average citizen, she is damn good but not perfect.
True...the field is not yet set. And it is a very, very long way until next November. Hell, in terms of politics, it's a very, very long way until next January! Much can...and will happen to change the national landscape.
However, that said, one just has to wonder exactly where the "tipping" point it?? The back rooms, the "smoke filled" (didn't say what kind of smoke, now did I???) hallways, the inner sanctums of seiu, acorn, and community organizers throughout this great socialist land of ours just have to be "abuzz" with the thoughts of "how low can the stain sink" and "how fast is the stain sinking"? and "when will the stain be too low to recover" and " if he goes that low...who do we have to run against him???
Makes one kind of want to start a "pool" that picks the date of the entry of the "great (you pick the sex and color this time) hope" of the dem/lib/prog/pop party into the fray.
Gonna be one hell of an election season when it begins in earnest, ain't it??
Are you blind SC???? OBVIOUSLY it’s a problem because the evil Sarah Palin was involved. Come on man!!! Catch up!!!
;)
You need to put stop snuggling up with Muslims in there.
“Compared to Obama she is perfect squared. Now compared to the average citizen, she is damn good but not perfect.”
This is true. Some people equate SP support with blind devotion and cultism. Not the case at all. The problem I think is that it has been over 2 decades since a Republican candidate inspired the kind of support she does and people aren’t used to seeing that anymore. Many of us have serious questions about a few things she has said and done just like we did with Ronaldus Magnus. But on balance I at least think the positives far outweigh the negatives and I believe many, if not all of her supporters would say the same. Perfect? HELL NO. But better than anything I have seen thus far.
That too. I have seen knowledgeable people whose opinion I respect on FR argue that he backs “good Muslims.”
Personally I would like to see how a follower of the Koran can be ‘good’ in any western civilized definition or capacity. They are what they are, do what they do and are damn proud of it. If RPs ‘good Muslims” aren’t following that book then they aren’t really Muslims at all. How could they be. But yet they claim they are. Sounds to me like Taqquya blinds some infidels to reality yet again. And don’t even get me started how Mr. Devout Guardisil Open Border Christian seems to want to “Coexsist”.
Palin supported about a 100 candidates in 2010 and had a winning record of about 70, she not only lead in a historical victory, but she helped move in many candidates who were to the right of what was originally planned for the primary.
You wanted her to support Kay Bailey Hutchinson over Perry in Texas?
You are a Perry supporter that has been playing concern troll against Palin for quite sometime.
show me a SINGLE anti Palin post i’ve made before today
Your message for some time has been that Palin is not running and Perry is the man, the next president, and just as on this thread you have many little reasons why she isn’t the right choice anyway.
You keep trying to maintain this concern troll facade of being pro-Palin but... and that is how you work the Palin threads, it is a sleazy method.
lol
good one!
so if you don’t think Palin is running ... your anti-Palin
and if you agree with Palin that waiting beyond September wouldn’t be fair to her supporters.. your anti-Palin
GOT IT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.