Showing posts with label bailouts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bailouts. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Sarah Palin: Bailouts Reward Bad Behavior

"American taxpayers should not be expected to bail out wasteful state governments"
*
On Facebook, Gov. Palin makes the case against bailing out the states:
Bailouts Reward Bad Behavior

Do insolvent states actually believe other states should bail them out? In June 2009, I was invited to introduce Michael Reagan at an event in Anchorage. In my remarks as Governor of Alaska, I warned against President Obama’s debt-ridden stimulus bill and its effect on all our state budgets. I believed that the bill’s benefits would be limited because government would grow exponentially, and I warned that the package was equivalent to a federal bribe with fat strings attached that created new unfunded mandates for state governments. At the time, most state legislatures, including Alaska’s, chose to ignore that warning. I predicted that states like California would soon be coming to the federal government asking for a bailout. After I gave that speech, I remember the mocking I received for predicting California and other big government states would continue to spend recklessly and yet expect others to bail them out. The naysayers in the media went a bit wild in their condemnation of my sounding that alarm.

Well, fast forward to today. We now know that the nearly trillion dollar stimulus package didn’t lead to the job growth promised by President Obama; instead it left already struggling state governments even deeper in debt because now they are on the hook to continue programs and projects that were started by these “free” federal funds. So now, as predicted, folks in Washington and in over-spending state capitols are whispering the dreaded “b-word”: bailouts – for individual states!

American taxpayers should not be expected to bail out wasteful state governments. Fiscally liberal states spent years running away from the hard decisions that could have put their finances on a more solid footing. Now they expect taxpayers from other states to bail them out, which will allow them to postpone the tough decisions they should have made ages ago and continue spending like there’s no tomorrow. Most Americans would say these states have made their bed and now they’ve got to lie in it. They accepted federal dollars and did not voice opposition to the unfunded federal mandates, and they even re-elected politicians who foisted debt-ridden programs on them that could never be sustained.

Instead of coming to D.C. cap in hand asking for more “free” money, they should follow the example of their more prudent sister states and take the necessary steps to sort out their own finances. They must start by reforming their insolvent pension systems. Many states have multi-billion dollar unfunded pension liability problems that they have refused to address for many years. They’ve deferred their spending problems, assuming the problem deferred would be an issue avoided; instead, it’s resulted in a crisis invited. These states still won’t reform their costly defined benefit systems for fear of offending the powerful public sector unions. Sooner or later, their pension systems will collapse unless they do what states like Alaska did, which is to swap unsustainable defined benefits, which are more like glorified Ponzi schemes, for a more prudent defined contributions system.

My home state made the switch from defined benefits to a defined contribution system, and as governor, I introduced a number of measures to build on that successful transition, while also addressing the issue of the remaining funding shortfall by prioritizing budgets to wrap our financial arms around this too-long ignored debt problem. When my state ran a surplus because we incentivized businesses, I didn’t spend it on fun and glamorous pet projects for lawmakers – though that would have made me quite popular with the earmark crowd. In fact, I vetoed more excessive spending than any governor in our state’s history, and I used the state’s surplus to bring our financial house in order by paying down our unfunded pension plans that some other governors wanted to ignore. This fiscal prudence didn’t make me popular with the state legislature. In addition to vetoing hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending, I put billions of dollars into savings accounts for future rainy days, much like most American families do in responsibly planning for the future. I also enacted a hiring freeze and brought the education budget under control through a commitment to forward-funding. I returned much of the surplus back to the people (it was their money to start with!) through tax relief and energy rebates. I had proven as the mayor of the fastest growing city in the state that tax cuts incentivize business growth, and though the state legislature overrode some of my veto cuts and thwarted an additional tax relief request of mine, the public was supportive of efforts to rein in its government.

It’s one thing to veto spending and reduce the size of government when your state is broke. I did it when my state was flush with revenue from a surplus – though I had to fight politicians who wanted to spend like there was no tomorrow. It’s not easy to tell people no and make them act fiscally responsible and cut spending when the money is rolling in and your state is only 50 years shy of being a territory and everyone is yelling at you to spend while the money is there to build. My point is, if I could fight this fight in Alaska at a time of surplus, then other governors can and should be able to do the same at a time when their states are facing bankruptcy and postponing this fight is no longer an option.

So, let’s not continue to reward irresponsible political behavior. Instead of handing out more federal dollars, let’s give the governors of these debt-ridden states some free advice. Shake off the pressure from public sector unions to cave on this issue. Put up with the full page newspaper attack ads, the hate-filled rhetoric, and the other union strong arm tactics that I, too, had to put up with while fighting those who don’t believe a state needs to live within its means. Stand up to the special interests that are bankrupting your states. You may not be elected Miss Congeniality for fighting to get your fiscal houses in order; but in the long run, the people who hired you to do the right thing will appreciate your prudence and fiscal conservatism.

As Michael Reagan’s dad once said, “We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected…. ‘We the people’…” The people deserve leaders who will make the tough decisions to secure the future prosperity of their states.

- Sarah Palin
- JP

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Sarah Palin on the Fox Business Network

*
Sarah Palin appeared on "America's Nightly Scoreboard" on the The Fox Business Network Wednesday...


Part 1: Sarah Palin on the May 18 primaries and putting the country back on the right track:




Part 2: Sarah Palin on the need for immigration legislation and to protect the American border:




Part 3: Sarah Palin on the Greek bailout and the need for financial reform:




Part 4: Sarah Palin on BP, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, corruption, terrorism and national security:



- JP

Monday, September 21, 2009

Obama wants to bail his Palin-smearing dogs out of the pound

Michael O'Brien in The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:
The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

[...]

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.
Problem is, Mr. President, your Democrat-Media Complex doesn't do any more "serious fact-checking" than the nutroots blogs it gets its material from. The legacy media seems only too happy to simply publish what it gets from leftist smear blogs with no fact-checking being done in the entire process. Why let facts get in the way of a good smear? 

Case in point: Leftist blogs insisted (and some still do) that Sarah Palin made rape victims pay for "rape kits" when she was mayor of Wasilla. Some prominent Alaska Democrats repeated the lie, and it was reported as fact by the Boston Globe.

Another example: Moonbat blogs have long peddled the lie that as Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. The lie was repeated by CNN's Soledad O'Brien, who never bothered to investigate it. If she had taken the trouble to do so, she would have learned that Palin actually increased funding for special needs students by nearly 300 percent.

Strike Three: Then there was the hoax in which "Martin Eisenstadt" outed himself as the source for Carl Cameron of Fox News, who passed along the lies that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent and could not name the three countries in NAFTA. Not only did Democrat media outlet The New Republic and leftist website Huffington Post report it, but lamestream media mouthpieces MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times also went along, again without making any effort to verify the story. As it turned out, "Eisenstadt" was a fictional entity cooked up by a couple of hoaxers.

The problem is that even after these embarrassments, liberal "journalists" still doesn't bother to do their jobs to obtain multiple independent sources and investigate leads to determine if they are factual or not. So spare us the pontificating about fact-checking, Mister President. Your lapdog media will say or do anything it thinks it needs to do to deify you and demonize Sarah Palin, and you damn well know it.

Kim Priestap gets the closing quote:
Journalistic integrity? Fact-based reporting? Serious investigative reporting? Obama thinks it’s ok to bail out the newspapers in order to preserve these characteristics? Who does he think he’s kidding? If the mainstream media had done even the slightest amount of fast-based or serious investigative reporting about him and his radical past during the campaign he wouldn’t be the president right now. So he’s looking at paying them back for propping him up and unleashing their attack dogs on Sarah Palin and her family instead.
- JP