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.
It’s YOU’RE, not your.
Please sound as intelligent as you think you are.
Your posting history has been that of a ‘concern troll’ for a long time, pushing Perry and dismissing Palin.
Quit lying and just support your candidate straight up, drop the concern troll sleaziness.
How do you figure it’s unfair? Doesn’t she have until the deadline? Has she ever SAID she WAS running and then backed off on that? No? Has she promised anyone she was? No?
If you say it’s unfair, you need to show how it’s unfair. If you say she’s NOT running, you need to either post the copy of the letter she sent you saying she was not or take us into the future with you on your next trip do we can see for ourselves because you must be the only person outside her house that knows ‘for sure’.
Both cases are just your opinion of things aren’t they? I don’t see her as ‘unfair to her supporters at all and I think she is running. One of us is wrong.
I have said since 2008 that Palin was my #1 pick for 2012. I have also said since 2008 that Perry was my #2 pick.
In fact, I predicted a Palin/Perry or Perry/Palin ticket also way back in 2008
I have also been very up front about who I support and who I think has no chance.
I support:
Palin
Perry
Bachmann
In that order, but since it is my belief that Palin isn't running. That moves my support to my default 2nd choice, Perry.
Now if Palin decides to run, I will probably support her, BUT there is an expiration date on that support and there are several reasons why. IF she is not running, she is doing a great disservice to all her supporters by not saying so ASAP, because as long as she keeps teasing us with the possibility, she is sucking all the oxygen out of the room for the other candidates who are running. We don't need rabid Palin supporters tearing down all the other candidates for someone who won't even be running.
Now the on the other hand if she has decided to run, she also needs to do this within a reasonable amount of time (and according to a previous post in this very thread) Palin has said herself that it would be unfair to her supporters to drag her decision beyond mid September. And I agree with that completely.
So! to review.
If she isn't running, she needs to say so NOW.
If she is running, she needs to say so by her self imposed mid September deadline
That's all I am saying.
Support who you want, I merely pointed out that your concern troll method is sleazy.
what? I wrote all that, and that’s how you respond!?!?
WTH
So, basicaly you don’t care.
LOL, no I don’t care about you, I merely pointed out that the ‘concern troll’ method is sleazy, support your candidate in a more above board fashion.
I SUPPORT PALIN!
wow
READ!
Let me ask you this, is your support for Palin unconditional?
If she runs 3rd party will you vote for her?
Another nonsensical post by you, you have been saying for months that Palin is not running while you pumped Perry.
If you want to pump Perry do it, but drop the ‘concern troll’ nonsense.
Listen, I want a conservative Republican to win in 2012.
That’s my bottom line.
I support Palin, but if she is not running, she is hurting our chances in 2012 by not saying so. can’t you see that?
Do you think it’s GOOD if Palin’s fans tear down all the other candidates... and THEN she decides not to run?
And if I am right and Palin isn’t running, who are you going to support then? have you put any thought into that?
Like I said, you are a ‘concern troll’, just push Perry straight up, stop with the games.
Let's say that the dims go all the way to their convention and then realize that Obama just ain't going to hack it.
Can the dim delegates throw Obama under the bus and pick a new stumble bum to run?
lol
your just silly.
Wont answer a single question.
Romney is a republican that no one should support, period.
I can sit and watch and listen to some one for an hour or two and then be able to read all the nonverbals, tone of voice, facial expression, body language and a lot more that are never mentioned. I have scared people telling them what they are thinking.
Governor Sarah Palin will run for president. On top of that, she makes Machiavelli look like an amateur. This election is going to be so much fun!
You said:
“I think it is time to quit talking about Sarah Palin.”
Really? What purpose would that serve, aside from eliminating an excellent choice for CEO of the USA? And, in some ways, leaving OUT the person LEAST palatable to the liberal MSM and established big-govt parties? Why would you want to please the people who created the current mess?
I think the world is going to be talking about Sarah Palin for a very very long time, regardless of what she has decided to do about 2012. She HAS decided, just not made the announcement, contrary to the less than correct reporting out there.
Why are you here on a pro Palin thread if she is not your candidate of choice? Just reading your post here, I see you doing exactly what you are accusing Palin supporters of doing.
Cult members
zealots
same as left wing moonbats
It is people like you, who enter into threads like this to stir up trouble, that we laugh at. Sometimes we need comic relief. Thanks
I’m not Romney at the caucus but if he’s the nominee, I’m firmly Romney over Obama.
Well, let us just pray that it is Governor Palin who will end this Romney nightmare once and for all.
The man needs to be driven from republican politics forever.
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.