Let not get silly here, Palin isn't perfect, and has her flaws just like the rest of them.
The oil companies do not own the natural resources of the state, the people of Alaska do as per the state constitution. They are essentially paying royalties to be allowed to extract the oil.
In this case, the State of Alaska is participating in the free market, and it is the role of the CEO to get the best possible deal for her shareholders.
Being conservative and ethical means being pro-free market, not pro-big business. You can argue whether some of the numbers could be modified for the benefit of it all in order to adjust the current situation, but on principle what Palin did was perfectly in line with conservative though, ethics, and the Constitution of Alaska.
absolutely correct.
I’ve criticised Palin on a number of things.
(including illegal immigration.)
but, the point is this article is valid.
making a big deal about “executive experience” is fine.
but, a failed executive, who doesn’t fix problems,
who grows the government, making it BIGGER,
when big government and spending is the problem,
is worse than NO executive experience!
Palin is weak on immigration, etc. how about discussing something more important, than oil companies which did fine under her?
i have 3 main issues.
1) Cut spending and shrink government.
2) stop illegal immigration.
(preferably by stopping benefits. AND building a fence!)
3) stop Islam.
(no sharia law, no special treatment of Islam.
and any candidate who praises the “Religion of Peace”,
and quotes approvingly from the Quran, is a NON-STARTER.)
personally, i dislike Bachmann. but right now, others like Perry (who endorsed Guiliani and AL GORE!), aren’t even close to her on these 3.
our CHILDREN are in debt 14 trillion - $92,000 each !!!
...the picture worth 10,000 words here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2759341/posts?page=2#2
who has a RECORD of cutting government?
WHICH candidate, with or without “executive experience”,
will fix that?!?
The Oil Company profits were made off of resources owned by the people of Alaska. Yes, it is ethical to take royalties from the Companies and pay it to the people who own the resources, just as the companies have to do when they drill on private property and don't own the mineral rights. Sarah may not be perfect but she was eithical and conservative in this move and this was not an example of a flaw.
However, your thinking is severely flawed.
Those funds were not oil company profits, they were royalties the oil companies paid for the prvilege of taking oil out of land owned by the people of the state of Alaska.
Now if you don't think the people of Alaska should own natural resources - who do you think should own it? How would this be determined and who would profit?
[ It’s somehow “ethical” to take oil company profits and “redistribute” them to the people? ]
She didn’t do that...
The “OIL” belongs to the people NOT the oil companies.. -OR the federal government..
They should pay royalties to “the (State) people”... as well as mining and logging companys.. AND commercial fishermen..
Which they do... at least in Alaska..
**Note: the federal government OWNING land or any resource in any State is completely politically OBSCENE..
Go read Alaska’s constitution and get back to us.
Whaddaya know, another Palin thread where however often you say you like her you always have an often groundless criticism.
Including here, where it has presumably previously been pointed out to you that according to Alaska’s state constitution all of the oil extracted by oil companies in the state actually belongs to the citizens of the state.
For her to assure they get a cut of that is a good thing. But what’s more, she changed the system so there was an alignment of interests and incentives for the oil companies to extract more oil.
Again, you probably know this already, but just think if you falsely tear Palin down it’ll somehow boost your candidate Perry.
Your response leads me to believe that you’re either ignorant of the facts or just dishonest. Which is it?
The reason your argument doesn’t work is that it is founded on an unviable premise.
Your premise is that the Constitution of Alaska should not dictate legal matters in Alaska.
Since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline began pumping oil in 1977, Alaska has been collecting royalties and taxes from oil companies and "redistributing" them to the people. Have you always been against this or are you just unhappy that Palin was doing it?
You don’t understand the Alaska Constitution.