![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Details on Gov. Palin's Experience
In my last post, I pointed to a column about Gov. Palin's experience as mayor of Wassila, Alaska.
I thought I might higlight a small portion, because it seems to me more than a little apropos of how she things gov't ought to do things.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefitted large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
Just the thing. It's quite in keeping with John McCain's tax plan.
So, what did she do with the increased revenues? We can assume (as a fiscal conservative) she either invested it in needed things, or that she set it aside, against unexpected need.
Sadly it seems she didn't quite do that (to the shock of all, I am sure, given the examples from Washington DC since the Republicans were in charge of all three branches of Gov't for six years and could set an example of how to reduce the tax rates; stimulating economic growth, while trimming fat and keeping spending in line with income).
The huge increases in tax revenue during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list, though — borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt but left it with indebtedness of more than $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through, on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in five to seven years without any borrowing.
There you have it. The governing mindset of the potential Vice President. Running with the oldest man to ever run for a first term as president.
I thought I might higlight a small portion, because it seems to me more than a little apropos of how she things gov't ought to do things.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefitted large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
Just the thing. It's quite in keeping with John McCain's tax plan.
So, what did she do with the increased revenues? We can assume (as a fiscal conservative) she either invested it in needed things, or that she set it aside, against unexpected need.
Sadly it seems she didn't quite do that (to the shock of all, I am sure, given the examples from Washington DC since the Republicans were in charge of all three branches of Gov't for six years and could set an example of how to reduce the tax rates; stimulating economic growth, while trimming fat and keeping spending in line with income).
The huge increases in tax revenue during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list, though — borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt but left it with indebtedness of more than $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through, on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in five to seven years without any borrowing.
There you have it. The governing mindset of the potential Vice President. Running with the oldest man to ever run for a first term as president.
no subject
no subject
Wasilla is really an exurb of Anchorage, kind of like Hell.
no subject
It had a budget larger than your high-school, and issues which didn't bedevil your high school. It has, I am sure, a charter. Alaska doesn't have towns, villages, etc.
And, for all the quaintness of the names, those don't mean much in the US. There are "Towns" which have more people than "cities."
She ran a municipal gov't., that's the point.
How she ran it, that's the issue.
no subject
It does and it doesn't. Village has a very specific connotation up here, and generally is taken to mean a Bush community in an unincorporated nonBorough area of AK.
As for Wasilla, it was caught between a rock and a hard place. It was growing explosively from all the escapee's from Anchorage(its the the fastest growing municipality of its size anywhere in the US) and did not have the services to support anywhere near the population. Her pushing for a sports complex and not a sewage plant is one of many reasons she wasn't all that hot a mayor.
no subject
no subject
no subject
As a Governor I'd say she's adequate but not stellar(anyone can appear to be great when they have lots of money to throw around), and I'm still baffled as to why she was picked as VP.
no subject
http://mudflats.wordpress.com/
via WordPress on the day of the announcement. At some point, I must pull myself away (if only to eat). But now, I am horrified and fascinated.
no subject
The first priority of a municipal budget should be necessary services, those needed to maintain a functional infrastructure. This would include water supply and treatment, sewerage, power generation and distribution, transportation systems, a police and fire department.
The next priority should be services that make life more pleasant, but which are too expensive to be funded by a single private entity. A library system might be an example of this, or perhaps a metropolitan park system.
After this, the private sector is pretty much on its own. If you want a sports team, you canvas for partners and form or buy one. The municipality has no part in this.
All the while, you operate your municipal budget to get the most for what you have to spend. If you are a small municipality, you might have to join with some surrounding municipalities to provide the police or fire department you can't afford yourself, for example, in the way that Homestead, West Homestead, and Whitaker PA don't.
As I see fiscal conservatism, it is something that must be practiced at all levels, right down to the private home. Do what you need to do, then within what you can afford, do what you'd like to do.
no subject
As far as I can see, the Republicans controlling the U.S. for the past eight or ten years have not only not been Fiscally Conservative, they've not been Fiscally Responsible. Not that the Democrats are much better, but at least they seem, generally, to realize & admit that if they're going to increase expenditures they're going to have to increase the income (mostly in the form of non-regressive taxes) as well.
no subject
Sometimes, "deficit spending" is a necessary thing, for the same reason you take on a mortgage to buy a house. But the rational "deficit spending" is exactly what the rational mortgage is: borrowing money based upon the ability to repay because you don't have it all in a lump when you need to spend it.
no subject
no subject