Opportunists are piling on Diane Benson in the race against Don Young because of a practice that characterizes the entire house. Earmark kickbacks are rampant, and they are very difficult to track. Did Don Young support an earmark in exchange for something? I don't know. Is Dave Obey making shady deals behind the closed doors of his office while he and his staff sort out the 36000 earmarks that were submitted? I don't know. Did John Murtha do the same? I don't know. Intent is very hard to prove. The problem is with the culture in planet Washington. There have been suggestions on how to change it, but so far Chairman Obey has not heeded the advice. This is not a defense of Don Young. He is going to have to defend himself before I defend him.
What do I think he should do? Right now, I think he should address this directly. He needs to speak more to it. So far, it's only democrats that are mounting against him. Yes, I said only democrats ---LeDoux is just a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He may be able to pull through this, but I hope, for the sake of Alaska, that Don Young is carefully considering more than just his own pride in these events. The only problem with my advice is that the Ethics Committee in the US Congress is going to try to stretch this investigation as close to the election as possible. By speaking to it, he is just giving the number one campaigner for the democrats ---the ADN--- ammo.
The sad thing is that I don't think it would be wise to trust anyone currently running against him to actually do things differently when it comes to earmarks.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Income Tax???
Tom Brennan writes about how spoiled we are here in Alaska. Read the article here. The article makes a lot of points (too many for one article). Some of them are good points; some of the points i simply disagree with; and one of the points is just plain foolish: He seems to think we should have kept the income tax.
I may look like it, but I'm not stupid. I'm only pressing this point because I think Mr. Brennan needs to have a better explanation for this belief. I would have a tough time arguing that it's a Conservative belief. I realize there are a bunch of quasi Marxist Liberals around blathering away about the state getting its "fair share." But let's not sell out our principles to debate them on this point.
I may look like it, but I'm not stupid. I'm only pressing this point because I think Mr. Brennan needs to have a better explanation for this belief. I would have a tough time arguing that it's a Conservative belief. I realize there are a bunch of quasi Marxist Liberals around blathering away about the state getting its "fair share." But let's not sell out our principles to debate them on this point.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Governor Rolls Out ACES
Today the Palin administration rolled out ACES, the reform to PPT. You can visit the website here. ACES stands for Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share.
What makes the debate over the tax interesting is the nature of everyone in it, and what they are pushing. There seem to be two kinds of Conservatives and one kind of Liberal (There are Liberals who are inconsistent, but we'll leave that alone for now).
The first kind of Conservative takes the same kind of position that Conservatives would take at the national level. Lower taxes and less government are the better way to go. We here at ASP tend to advocate the free market, but we also think this first kind of Conservative is wrong to use free market justifications to justify a lower PPT tax.
The second kind of Conservative operates from the principle that the resources are owned by the people of Alaska (as it says in the Alaska Constitution), and that it is the duty of elected officials to manage, sell or develop those resources for the best possible profit for the citizens here. The oil, mines and even the large stash of natural gas that the producers have stored up north: it all belongs to the citizens of Alaska. While this kind of Conservative would revolt if the federal government tried set up something similar, he's okay with this situation at the state level. Inconsistent?
I argue no. There is a qualitative difference between the state and federal government. A federal government is a kind of utilitarian construct. The state governements in most cases are bodies where the people have a genuine connection with each other that is more than utilitarian. Because of this qualitative difference, there are things we can do at the state level that we would never do at the federal level.
The Liberal who seeks to raise the PPT tax, does so for Marxian reasons, and would push for a higher tax even if the resources were not owned by the people of Alaska. What the Modern Liberal argues for at the state and federal level is the same, because ideology is not nuanced by context. Blinded by its forward march to whatever utopia it sees, it cannot discriminate between community (state) and construct (federal), and will gladly walk over any tradition, moral, principle or person who stands in the way. And that is what makes it inferior to the other two.
Both kinds of Conservatives need to keep the locus of debate between them and not allow this to become a conversation between Liberals and Conservatives. Ideology has little if anything constructive to contribute to the conversation.
What makes the debate over the tax interesting is the nature of everyone in it, and what they are pushing. There seem to be two kinds of Conservatives and one kind of Liberal (There are Liberals who are inconsistent, but we'll leave that alone for now).
The first kind of Conservative takes the same kind of position that Conservatives would take at the national level. Lower taxes and less government are the better way to go. We here at ASP tend to advocate the free market, but we also think this first kind of Conservative is wrong to use free market justifications to justify a lower PPT tax.
The second kind of Conservative operates from the principle that the resources are owned by the people of Alaska (as it says in the Alaska Constitution), and that it is the duty of elected officials to manage, sell or develop those resources for the best possible profit for the citizens here. The oil, mines and even the large stash of natural gas that the producers have stored up north: it all belongs to the citizens of Alaska. While this kind of Conservative would revolt if the federal government tried set up something similar, he's okay with this situation at the state level. Inconsistent?
I argue no. There is a qualitative difference between the state and federal government. A federal government is a kind of utilitarian construct. The state governements in most cases are bodies where the people have a genuine connection with each other that is more than utilitarian. Because of this qualitative difference, there are things we can do at the state level that we would never do at the federal level.
The Liberal who seeks to raise the PPT tax, does so for Marxian reasons, and would push for a higher tax even if the resources were not owned by the people of Alaska. What the Modern Liberal argues for at the state and federal level is the same, because ideology is not nuanced by context. Blinded by its forward march to whatever utopia it sees, it cannot discriminate between community (state) and construct (federal), and will gladly walk over any tradition, moral, principle or person who stands in the way. And that is what makes it inferior to the other two.
Both kinds of Conservatives need to keep the locus of debate between them and not allow this to become a conversation between Liberals and Conservatives. Ideology has little if anything constructive to contribute to the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
