FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 09-18

Governor Palin Continues to Express Serious Concerns with President’s Stimulus Package

February 3, 2009, Juneau, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin again today expressed her serious concerns with President Obama’s proposed stimulus package. In a joint letter sent to Alaska’s congressional delegation, Governor Palin, House Speaker Mike Chenault and Senate President Gary Stevens cautioned that unrestrained spending, initiation of new programs that the states may be asked to continue after the federal stimulus is gone, and the borrowing of hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for it may result in serious economic problems in the future.

Governor Palin recently traveled to the nation’s capital to personally express her concerns with the stimulus package with business, economic and political leaders. The trip was not an effort to endorse or lobby for the current stimulus package now before Congress.

“I agree with the decision of Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young to vote NO on the package,” Governor Palin said.

The governor has strongly supported funding for infrastructure that creates good American jobs and will have a positive effect on the nation for generations to come.

“It’s a given that a stimulus package is needed and will happen,” Palin said. “With guaranteed spending on the table, I am arguing for needed construction projects and tax breaks that will truly stimulate the economy and create jobs, and against increased federal programs that will become a state’s unfunded mandate to continue funding for generations.”

Senate President Gary Stevens agreed. “We need the funding but not more federal programs to maintain,” he said. “We need to make wise use of limited state funds.”

House Speaker Mike Chenault added, “The letter addressed to members of Congress and the Alaska Delegation basically tells those members where Alaska sits on the issues of the stimulus package and how it will affect Alaska as far as a funding formula goes. So it just gives them a little bit clearer picture on what the needs are for the state of Alaska in comparison with the rest of the nation.”

Governor Palin and the legislative leadership also highlighted the conventional fuels that Alaska has to offer and the need to find ways the federal government can help bring the state’s clean burning natural gas through a pipeline to the midwest.

A copy of the letter sent to Alaska’s congressional delegation can be found here.

Governor Palin Reduces Current Year Spending:

Governor Sarah Palin submitted a supplemental budget to legislators today that reduces general funds by $268.6 million and seeks authorization to access savings to balance the budget at the end of the fiscal year.

[...]

“With changing market conditions and declining oil prices, our state agencies have been working hard to find savings and still provide needed public services,” Governor Palin said. “Through savings targets we implemented at the beginning of the fiscal year and by efficiently managing our programs, we have been able to reduce the current budget and minimize supplemental funding. The more we reduce now, the less we will have to draw from savings at the end of the year.”

[...]

“With the drop in oil prices, it will require reductions in the budget and access to reserves to keep Alaskans employed and the economy moving,” Palin added. “I am committed to working with the legislature, as we have over the past two years, to make prudent budget decisions and continue to invest in infrastructure that will help develop our resources and our communities.

JR: I think it is safe to say that “prudent” is her favorite word. Alaska, unlike most states, has the luxury of having savings just in case of a budget crisis. Governor Palin increased the state savings by not allowing the legislature to go on a spending spree when the price of oil was through the roof over the summmer.

This is also not the first time Palin has “sharpened her ax:”

Now the Republican governor is displeased that legislators are trying again to fund part of last year’s wish list by padding what’s known as a supplemental budget.

So she has the veto ax in hand and is ready to strike again.

On Monday, two leading Republican lawmakers representing South Anchorage took their turn — Rep. Kevin Meyer, co-chairman of the powerful House Finance Committee, and House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels.

The half-hour meeting was cordial, with lots of smiles and laughter, but with a serious undercurrent.

Palin sat at a long boardroom table in her third-floor Capitol office with her chief of staff, Mike Tibbles, budget director Karen Rehfeld and legislative director Russ Kelly.

The guests said $10 million for an expansion of the Anchorage seaport topped their list.

“That’s your baby?” Palin asked.

Meyer explained the money was needed soon to allow port director Bill Sheffield, a former Alaska governor, to put it to work right away.

“Anything you would eliminate?” Palin asked.

But Meyer pressed ahead with a list of what he said are valid needs.

“I’ll start with the next big one, the Anchorage Museum, $5 million,” he said.

The money is needed for maintenance, he said, noting a leaky roof that threatens artwork.

“Who’s paying for that Lego thing up front, that statue?” Palin asked.

Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer has a piece entitled “It’s Palin’s Party Now.” Mr. Kornacki attempts to make the case that Palin’s popularity in the party is the result of a “shrinking” GOP and nothing more:

To brand Mrs. Palin the front-runner for the ’12 nomination, as opposed to calling her one of several top-tier contenders, isn’t a stretch at all. But don’t be fooled: this status has nothing to do with anything Mrs. Palin’s done since November and everything to do with what the Republican Party has become. Her improving odds of winning the next G.O.P. nomination are a symptom of the party’s rapidly shrinking base – not of an expanding appetite for Mrs. Palin among the general public.

Mr. Kornacki is right on one point, the Republican party is beginning a shift to the right. But his notion that this is a negative for the party is preposterous. In recent history, when the party shifts to the right … we win. Reagan shifted the party to the right in 1976 and Newt Gingrich did it again in 1994.

Also, the cross tabs from the most recent Rasmussen poll has Palin with a 61% approval rating with “independents.”

Mr. Kornacki:

Ever since Barry Goldwater’s forces beat out Nelson Rockefeller and his Eastern Establishment backers for the 1964 G.O.P. nomination, the core of the Republican electorate has been defined by its conservatism. But, as Goldwater’s horrific showing in the ’64 general election established, a party must be inclusive and expansive enough to welcome voters who aren’t so ideologically rigorous.

I just love how Kornacki brings up the Goldwater defeat as his example. Let us take a closer look at Goldwater and 1964. If Goldwater had proven victorious, that would mean three presidents for the United States in a two year period. Lyndon Johnson was viewed by many as the one to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda. Americans were still in mourning after Kennedy’s assassination and were not ready to throw out his successor. Also, the economy in 1964 was pretty good for most Americans and Vietnam was not yet the huge issue it would become later in the decade. Goldwater himself was not a very good Presidential candidate and he lacked the charisma and appeal of a Ronald Reagan or Sarah Palin. There are many comparisons one can make between Sarah Palin and Barry Goldwater, but their impact as a Presidential candidate is not one of them.

Mr. Kornacki:

It is the shrinking size and appeal of the G.O.P. that accounts for Mrs. Palin’s strong position within the party.

The old tradition among Republicans is to hand the next open presidential nomination to the runner-up for the last one. By that logic, Mitt Romney would be the favorite heading into ’12. Mr. Romney, whose cynical transformation from outspoken moderate to avowed conservative mirrors that of George H.W. Bush years ago, fits the old model of G.O.P. nominee – willing and eager to pander to the base, but equally ready to wink to “soft” Republicans and the party’s non-ideological establishment.

But the soft voters are gone, leaving a rabidly conservative base that now is the party’s establishment. These are the voters who adore Mrs. Palin, mostly because she doesn’t even pretend to be interested in what non-conservatives have to say. With soft Republicans vanishing, the influence of the base is growing by the day. This is the perfect recipe for Sarah Palin to win the Republican nomination in 2012 – and for the party to suffer a thorough defeat in the fall.

We don’t want to simply hand the nomination to the “next in line.” That strategy has never proven successful for the Republican party. The “next in line,” last time, was John McCain…

A party that has been decimated should be forced to shrink in size for a period of time. The GOP needs to get back to its roots and find itself. What do we stand for? What will we bring to the next national election? One can argue that under Ronald Reagan’s guidance the party did shrink and then expanded. In fact, Ronald Reagan told moderates and soft Republicans to go their own way:

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

[...]

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

The GOP has lost badly in the last two elections because we have strayed from conservatism. If shrinking the party means that we have the chance to reorganize and come back better and stronger than ever before, then so be it.

I have just finished reading this <a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203928.html”>article</a> from the Washington Post.  The article basically describes how John McCain has settled back into his familiar role of the “maverick.”

<blockquote>The surest sign of McCain’s return to his “maverick” ways came when he caught wind of an effort by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) to delay Clinton’s confirmation vote by a day, pushing it from Tuesday to Wednesday because he was seeking greater disclosure about foreign donors to former president Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation. McCain found the objection gratuitous — despite policy disagreements with Clinton, he and most Republicans consider her well qualified — and said so publicly.

[...]

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said McCain has accepted the election outcome and decided, “Let’s move on with it.” He said McCain’s campaign agenda remains his agenda in the Senate: immigration reform; overhauling energy and environmental policies; budget restraint; improving Social Security. <span style=”font-weight:bold;”>”He’ll be one of the leaders of the loyal opposition and he will obviously try to find that middle ground on big items,” Graham said. </span></blockquote>

It seems that Senator Graham misses the big point.  We don’t to find the “middle ground” on the big issues.  The big issues of this administration will include the expansion of unions, huge government spending programs and the weakening of our security.

In his <a href=”http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp”>speech to CPAC</a> in 1975, Ronald Reagan stressed that the Republican party had to be the party of “bold colors.”  He urged moderate Republicans who wanted to catch a ride on the democratic express to “go their own way.”  Well, I believe that we face a similar situation today.  There is a war over the soul of the Republican party between those who want to go along to get along and the rest of us.  <a href=”http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/01/adn-still-digging-through-trash.html”>You see evidence of this even today from Palin kneecapper David Frum.</a>  He reported on his blog the “story” concerning the disposal of clothing purchased by the RNC for Governor Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign.  Why is this an issue?  Well, because it makes Palin “look bad.”  Governor Palin is a true conservative and to the David Frums of the party she must be stopped.  We must remember this, John McCain was the choice of the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party.  He was pushed on us by so called “conservative intellectuals” because he could attract those pesky independent voters.  As the campaign progressed I realized that I could barely tell the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama on most issues and I was getting the sinking feeling that McCain only wanted to be the Republican nominee and nothing more.

From time to time you may have heard the terms “centrist” and “pragmatist.”  We need a more centrist party.  We need pragmatic candidates.  Make no mistake, the terms centrist and pragmatist do not have the same meaning.  We are told that a centrist is somebody who governs from the middle, centrists are also pragmatists because they respond to an issue or crisis by crafting a response regardless of political ideology.  This is not the correct path for the Republican party.  A conservative can be a pragmatist.  Ronald Reagan was a pragmatist.  Even as the recession in the early 1980s became more severe, he knew in his heart that lower taxes and less government would lead the United States out of it.  When he was crafting a response to the challenge, he looked into his heart and made a decision.  A “centrist-pragmatist” does not look into their hearts to make a decision because they have no political foundation.  They see a challenge and they look around the room and ask, “how do I solve this?”

If people like John McCain and Olympia Snowe want to become democrats, they should just change their party identification.  Why should the conservatives, who make up the heart and soul of the Republican party, be forced to continue to support these candidates with millions of dollars and hours of volunteering?  All we seem to get in return is “crossing the aisle” and knife wounds in our backs from their work in Congress.

Today is the first full day of the new Obama administration, and he is already reversing some of President Bush’s national security measures. President Obama has ordered the end to certain trials taking place in Guantanamo Bay, and it has been speculated that he will close so called “black sites,” which are used by the CIA to transport and hold terror suspects. Although I have disagreed with President Bush lately, especially over the TARP plan, I must say that I truly respect and admire the former president.

President Bush is the only president I have really known. He took office when I was a freshman in high school, he was re-elected when I was a freshman in college, and he left office in my senior year. President Bush has brought nothing but class and dignity to the Oval Office, and he has performed his primary duty of keeping the nation safe flawlessly. Can you honestly say that you did not expect another terror attack on the homeland after 9/11? President Bush inherited a military that was dramatically underfunded and neglected, and he sought to fix that. His actions have led to the liberation of nearly fifty millions people in Afghanistan and Iraq. His critics claimed that his vision of a peaceful democratic nation in the heart of the middle east would never become reality; well, they were wrong. The Democratic Party and the left in this country fought the President every single step of the way during his eight years in office. He was the target of disgusting attacks both in the media and in the chambers of Congress. The Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid claimed that the war in Iraq “was lost.” This is totally unacceptable behavior by a leader of this nation. At times it was difficult to tell the leaders of the Democratic Party from the bizarre anti-war protesters outside the White House.

Even on his last day as President, he was jeered and taunted by liberal supporters of Barack Obama. He was given the finger and liberals chanted “goodbye” to his helicopter as he left Washington, D.C. for the last time.

And they had the nerve to call President Bush a “divider.”

But who is the real divider — the President of the United States, who made decisions everyday that saved the lives of countless Americans, or the Democratic Party and the fringe left, who referred to President Bush as “Hitler” and jeered him as he walked onto the inauguration platform? Who is the real divider — the President of the United States or media dinosaurs like Tom Brokaw, who compared Obama’s election to the “velvet revolution” in Czechoslovakia? Brokaw basically drew a similarity between President Bush and a ruthless communist regime with that statement.

President Bush likes to say that he never had to take an opinion poll to tell him how to act on an issue, and he never did. He was not a typical politician who just so happened to occupy the White House for eight years. He was a real leader, and I am proud to have cast my first ballot in his favor at the age of eighteen. And believe me, voting for President Bush on a liberal college campus is not exactly “following the polls.” But President Bush’s conduct taught me to do what is right, not what is popular.

Here is a thought for all Americans:

On January 19th, 2009, President Bush read the terror threat report that came across his desk and made a decision in the best interest of the people of the United States. For the next four years, it will be President Obama making that decision.

But, hey, let’s make sure that it only lasts four years, and in 2012, let’s go out there and win just one more for the “Gipper.”

Conservatives4palin.com

Conservatives4palin.com

Biden: Hey Grahamnesty, how do you like the Taj Mahal?

Graham: Hey! Senator McCain says that people are being mean to me when they call me that! Which Taj Mahal is this anyway?

Biden: Come on dude, this is Atlantic City … I am the third senator for that part of New Jersey.

Graham: That is awesome Joe…

Biden: I am an awesome guy, what can I say?

Graham: I mean it is awesome that we are traveling together and working with Barack to move America again! Senator McCain says that Obama is just swell, he also says that we have to watch out for that conservative Sarah Palin … she has the power to derail Obama! Are you scared of Sarah too Joe? are ya, are ya?

Biden: Relax dude … I’m kool with the Cuda, do you think she was checking out my plugs at the debate? Man, I wish she could see me rocking these aviator sunglasses. Who is the maverick now?!

Graham: Hey Joe …

Biden: Yes

Graham: Nevermind

Biden: Okay dude, anyway … yeah I knew a dude like Barry back in Scranton, that is where I am from you know, Scranton!

Graham: Senator McCain says Scranton is just swell! Just swell!

Biden: Yeah so, the Cuda was definitely checking me out … I need a wingman though, when I hit up those clubs up there in Anchorage.

Graham: Ah … I don’t think I’m up for the job.

Biden: Dude … dude okay

Graham: Everybody knows that I am McCain’s wingman when we cross the aisle! HA!

Biden: Nice one! That’s ok … I don’t need a wingman anyway, I’m just trying to help you out.

Graham: Gee that’s swell Joe! I love working with liberal democrats to further my career!!!

Biden: Yeah I like RINOs

Graham: Senator McCain says…

Biden: Dude, shut up about McCain already!

Graham: Okay

Biden: Do you think the Cuda listens to Survivor?

Graham: I’m gonna go with Chicago actually … maybe some Robert Palmer.

Biden: Yeah, definitely … maybe some Richard Marx too … “should’ve known better than to fall in love with me”

Graham: Shes gonna have to face it … she’s addicted to you Joe!

Biden: Awesome … hey high five … HA! … too slow Grahamnesty!

Graham: I’m going home

By Joseph Russo @ Conservatives4palin.com
<p style=”text-align: left;”><img src=”http://api.ning.com/files/x3aoSv3mQjN4PU3xW8WuP3JPMSDXmnK1OjwC1AnCskUlSbUaYcSz6eDtNnRZSngGdgLf7cq9nRLDiRguLpD6HSRAoAomRMz-/2009_01_12t082512_450x321_us_iraq_biden.jpg” alt=”" width=”399″ height=”285″/></p>
The famed “expert on foreign policy” was spotted in Iraq the other day. Biden, who was disguised as “Michael Knight” from the 80s tv show “Knight Rider,” was surveying the scene in Iraq. Biden was quoted as saying, ” Look, my next job, established in article I of the U.S. Constitution, allows me to travel the world with my good friend Lindsey Grahamnesty.” Biden, who voted for the Iraq war but opposed the surge had offered his own plan for saving Iraq … which included dividing the nation into three areas. One dominated by those who were “clean and articulate,” the next by people from Scranton and the last area dominated by FDR types who used television in 1929 to tell the world about the Great Depression. He proposed that the new capital would contain a 7-11, “where one would need a slight Indian accent to pass a law.”

Biden, who is still reeling from his debate with Sarah “Barracuda” Palin, also said that he was disappointed that his new hair plugs didn’t impress the young governor from Alaska.

Dave C of At the Point of a Gun has found out the first ten legislative items ready to be rammed through the Senate: What’s in a name, Dave points out how the democrats are using misleading names in order to hide their liberal agenda.

So I came up with some sure fire bills and names of my own, except these ones will actually work:

1. The Energy Independence and National Security Act of 2009 – Approve the drilling for oil and other energy supplies off the coasts of the United States and in the ANWR.
2. Moving the Economy Forward Act of 2009 – Eliminate the capital gains tax for one year, drop the current income tax rate from 39% to 15% and drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 10%. (goal for the future: elimination of the income tax)
3. Governmental Reorganization Act of 2009 – The elimination of the Dept. of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture
4. Free Market Solutions Act of 2009 – The removal of TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, no more bailouts for private businesses and this bill will also remove federal regulation that is hampering struggling industries such as American auto makers. The end of federal subsidies for private enterprise which includes farming and alternative fuel development.
5. Defend Our Borders Act of 2009 – Establish a clear and viable plan for lasting border security with dates certain for funding and construction goals.
6. State Funds Act of 2009: States currently request funds for projects through grants, which leads to endless pork barrel spending and bureaucracy. Instead of this process, we will simply send X% of the income tax received by the federal government straight back to the state from which it originated. For example, the State of New Jersey sends, lets say X billion of dollars in tax revenue to the federal government, instead of the federal government sending back the funds in the forms of grants, the state will simply keep X% of that money. This will mean the end of the “donor state” (New Jersey) which occurs when a state sends more money to D.C. than it receives from the federal government. It will also mean the end of pork-barrel requests. If a state is more reliant on federal funds, then they will simply keep a larger percentage of federal tax revenue … the money belongs to the people of the state and it should stay in the state!
7. Governmental Responsibility Act of 2009 – Any member of the Congress who has requested an earmark in an appropriations bill must take to the Senate or House floor to explain why their earmark request is essential for their district.
8. Free Speech in Campaigns Act of 2009 – Repeal of “McCain-Feingold”
9. Term Limits Act of 2009 – Senators and Representatives who come into office in the NEXT Congress will be held to term limits: For Senators, two six-year terms … For Representatives, three two-year terms
10. Wall St. Regulation Act of 2009 – The repeal of “mark to market accounting” by the SEC on the threat of pulled funding

Background info:

First poll:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2008/12/palin-versus-murkowski.html

Second Poll:

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/01/new-palin-murkowski-poll.html

What the media will not tell you about the latest Murkowski-Palin poll:

1. The poll comes almost immediately after a poll in which Palin soundly defeats Murkowski in a hypothetical Senate race. With the results almost the exact opposite.
2. The poll was commissioned by talk show host Dan Fagan, who is a staunch enemy of Governor Palin and uses his talk radio to “misrepresent” Palin’s positions on the issues. (From Kaylene Johnson’s biography of Gov. Palin)
3. Fagan runs a negative Palin blog in which he has used this data to make the claim, “that Palin is “no longer Alaska’s most popular politician.” It seems to me that Fagan has made the classic error of using date to come up with a predetermined conclusion (to him).
4. The pollster Fagan uses for this poll, Dave Dittman, is a supporter of the Murkowski wing of the Alaskan GOP. And reader JD points out, Dittman was also the private pollster for Murkowski in 2004:

The senator’s pollster, David Dittman, said that when Alaskans are asked an open-ended question (What don’t you like about Lisa?), they say they “don’t like the appointment.” That was the response of about 90 percent of those polled at the beginning of the campaign, Dittman said, adding that it “is beginning to fade as time goes on.”

5. Dittman’s wife is a donor and supporter of Lisa Murkowski

So there you have it … obviously a political stunt waged by the Republican machine in Alaska in order to downplay the threat posed by Governor Palin should she be interested in Murkowski’s Senate seat.

Socialists claim to support the “People.” But who are the “People?” To the socialist the people are monolithic group who must be herded by the government. The leaders of the government are not part of the “people,” because elitism is necessary in socialism. The people are to be used by the elite for economic purposes. They are moved from one industry to another. There is never to be any individualism because the individual is the enemy of the collective.

Ever notice that once a nation turns socialist, economic output declines? This is because the government does not have the ability to allocate resources and labor to particular industries. In a free-market system resources and labor are efficiently allocated because the market can foresee and react to economic changes. The socialist also believes that the government can set the price of commodities and goods but this never works. For example, a socialist may see that people are hungry so they attempt to “freeze” the price of a certain product. This freeze will create a shortage because there will be a rush to purchase this product at the new discounted price. The producers of this product will not be able to keep up with the demand, so next the socialist will nationalize this industry in the name of the “people.”

A socialist nation can never actually create anything … they always seize what already exists, socialism can not exist without capitalism. Capitalism creates the factories, farms and goods that the socialist seizes. Once the seizure takes place, there is no longer an incentive to create new goods, products and technology. Socialism also pushes away foreign investment in a nation, which leads to less capital to work with.

We believe that the “people” are individuals … each with their own skills and dreams. When each citizen pursues their own happiness, economic prosperity is created. Unlike socialists, we believe that the power of the individual is superior to the power of the collective.