adn.com | Alaska Politics Blog : Palin to call special session

Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

2008 Election

At one point the races with Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young promised to be the highest-profile campaigns in Alaska history.

SECTION

Palin coverage

The nation was captivated by Sarah Palin's run to the White House, and now Alaska awaits the return of their governor.

Photo galleries

Reader-submitted Palin photos

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

Palin to call special session

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: May 12, 2008 - 6:06 pm

From Sean Cockerham in Anchorage --

Gov. Sarah Palin plans to call a special session of the Legislature to provide some kind of short term energy cost relief package for Alaskans.

Details are fuzzy at this point, but it sounds like it would probably follow the June 3 special session on the gas pipeline. Palin is supposed to announce her energy relief plan on Thursday.

This follows a letter House Speaker John Harris sent Palin today requesting she add energy cost relief to the gas pipeline special session. It sounds like Palin didn't want to mix the topics and thought energy cost relief should get its own session.

We'll have more details in tomorrow's paper.

login or register to post comments

10 May 15, 2008 - 9:40am | Lysander_Spooner

Pathetic

How sad is it that hate-obsessed posters below, who are openly pro-choice, criticize the governor for not defending a position that is antithetical to what they believe in?

9 May 14, 2008 - 12:57pm | Stags_Leap

what about abortion?

Instead of subsidizing those who choose to live in bush communities, why not use the special session to pass the pro-life bills Palin has repeatedly alleged her support her?

So much for her conservative credentials.

May 15, 2008 - 9:31am | AK_Lady

Stags,

She can't do that, it would lower her approval ratings.

May 18, 2008 - 8:14am | rfn

Might it bolster your opinion

of the governor if she were to call a special session to fund abortions so there might be fewer mouthes to feed at today's food prices? Prices largely caused by converting food to ethanol as some would like to squander Alaska's natural gas to turn mud into oil to be shipped to Asia?

That would also reduce the need for any kind of energy cost relief; not so many children to have to keep warm.

I can see how some minds might consider that all part of an energy related special session.

I shall pray that it is not so.

~~rfn, DD

8 May 13, 2008 - 6:15pm | dab

This is a great Idea

Having traveled the State of Alaska and seeing first hand the cost of surviving in cities and remote towns all over the State, I believe a special session, to help relieve some of the burden from Alaskans, is a very needed and welcomed response to peoples needs. The Governor's energy adviser has been working very well with the locals in each area on long range plans. Juneau is having problems with increased energy costs--but they are only coming up to where other cities in Alaska have already been. We will need short term relief until long term energy needs can be met. We can only hope our legislators come to the table ready for solutions.

May 13, 2008 - 6:32pm | haut_monde_ak

And people need to come to the table also...

Relying on legislators to solve everything is short-sighted. People in this state have to come to the table to make real attempts to conserve as well.

For example, while parked waiting to pick up my son from school to take him to an appointment, I counted numerous cars, at least 10, that waited 15 minutes with their engines idling- it's 50 degrees outside and gas is $3.79 per gallon!! Come on people! We complain yet we do nothing about it.

7 May 13, 2008 - 9:27am | jmacinak

The short to medium term

The short to medium term solution is to build an in-state line, using that five hundred million subsidy proposed for transcanada to take an equity stake in a line to tidewater. The long term solution would be the large lines as proposed. The advantages of an in-state line are numerous, and have already been mentioned in other forums and studies. It should be built as a totally seperate project from any other proposal from Transcanada or Conoco/BP. It would supply all outlying areas with energy, it would supply in-state businesses, such as Agrium(fertilizer demand worldwide is growing by leaps and bounds as the world struggles to feed a growing population). It would bring gas to a world market that pays, currently, $18-$20 dollars per mcf, instead of the "henry hub" price which is approximately $11.50 as I write this. The lower price would be the basis of what we would get in royalties and taxes, which the oil companies would compensate us by. The added value of selling our gas at the world market price would greatly add to the pay-back for Alaska in many ways. We would also have access to the very valuable gas liquids, which would be a base for growth industries here in Alaska. A pipeline to tidewater would be built faster, cheaper, return larger profits per unit (more-so if we take an equity position in the line) than the long route through Canada, which would greatly reduce our portion due to the high transport tarrifs. The issue of short term energy cost relief deserves it`s own focus, seperate from what Alaska will do in the long term to market (it`s) gas. Alaska took a bold and courageous step towards it`s long term ability to prosper by taking back Pt. Thomson. That, and the gas found by Anadarko, and other smaller players, insure that an in-state line would have a long profitable life. The all-alaska line should be considered on it`s own merits, and not in any way connected to the large oil companies plans to market their gas from Prudhoe and surrounding fields to Canada. We are in the process of taking back our sovereignty from the corruption that has guided events here for years, and I for one am proud and hopeful for our future because of it. Sarah and her team have been the major part of getting things off the dime. I hope the boldness and courage continue, with the general welfare and constitutional mandate to maximize the benefit of our resources for all Alaskans, always the first consideration. Not what is best for everybody else BUT Alaska. The gas will get to market one way or another. That is a given. Why give away far more than we need to, by giving control, ownership, and the political power, all over again, to those who would control our destiny the same way they have tried to for the past thirty years. The reason they never developed Pt. Thomson was because of the cheap labor they found in Russia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. As we now know, that was a strategic mistake on the oil companies part. I don`t want to have to pay for those mistakes, and neither should my fellow Alaskans.

6 May 13, 2008 - 7:29am | black33

The Governor and Speaker Harris are on the right track

At a time when the state treasury's cup is overflowing- and household and other energy costs are rising for the same reason- $120/barrel oil, it's great to see that the Governor and legislature will re-visit a short term plan to help Alaskans throughout the state.

This should come in 2 forms: (1) some type of individual payment to each Alaskan household, which could be in the form of a voucher that could be used to pay electric or fuel oil bills. This would be a fair way of addressing traditionally high cost areas in the state as well as special circumstances, such as the many people in Juneau who are facing extraordinary increases; (2) additional payments for revenue sharing, as local governments are having the same problem. The legislature provided an additional energy payment for schools; the same could- and should- be done for cities and boroughs.

In any case, thanks to the Governor and Speaker Harris for putting this subject back on the table.

5 May 13, 2008 - 12:37am | Stumpy1

The Solution

Is found within the Alaska Constitution.

"Article 8 - Natural Resources

§ 1. Statement of Policy

It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest."

The areas of Alaska that are hardest hit by this energy crisis are the ones that use Alaska's royalty oil for heating and electrical generation. Anchorage and most of Southeast Alaska are in pretty good shape as they have cheap hydroelectric power- or STATE SUBSIDIZED CHEAP NATURAL GAS.

So, the solution is simple. Sell Alaska's royalty oil that is to be used for heating and electrical generation at a BTU equivalent price for what Alaska is selling natural gas to Anchorage for.

A simple solution and what our Constitution requires. Why? The key sentence in the Constitution that prefaces the words about maximum benefit are "...the settlement of its land..." If Alaskans are having to move, or unsettle the land, due to Alaska selling royalty oil for exorbitant prices, then that proves that the Constitution is NOT, being followed.

Are Alaskans unsettling the land? The Fairbanks North Star Borough has declared an energy emergency- and the mayor up there predicted a loss of thousands of residents before the next winter.

And Valdez is in the same situation, and may also declare an emergency.

Governor Palin and the legislature must act immediately on this- I am glad Sarah is calling a special session.

If crude oil hits $150- $200 dollars a barrel- as some predict- then it is all over for most Alaskans who depend on oil. (Fairbanks, Valdez, Nenana, Delta, and most villages).

May 13, 2008 - 12:03pm | akhalfwit

No Doubt SDog will probably blog on and call you a socialist

If he does, Ask him how many of his patients are paid for by my tax dollars, who paid for him to go to med school? (Taxpayers?) and who paid for him to take a fee ride in the airforce for an entire carreer. (us taxpayers)
But only ask him if he shows up on this blog and makes an issue out of it.

May 13, 2008 - 9:55am | akwillis

Bust OPEC and create public policy intended to conserve fuel...

In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, break the trust of OPEC. More the 70% of current fuel costs go to those whose contribution is simply having the resource under their national boundaries. Tell Saudi Arabia that it they don't want Iran calling the shots in the region and tossing the Royal Family out on its bloated butt, they damn well better start paying a lot more of the cost of our protection of them and purchasing products from manufacturers and producers in the United States in direct proportion to what we purchase from them. Find a rock to put in the shoe of each of the bastards.
The tragedy this time around is that our government has allowed/created a commodity bubble to form and while we wait for it to burst none of the alternate sources of fuel are being developed as they should be. It may be time for steep tariffs on non-domestically produced fossil fuels.
Locally, how about we free more fuel for the private sector by strictly rationing fuel to non-military government agencies. Lets respect your right to drive as fast as you want and let your car idle as you see fit on your property. However, we can raise the cost of a speeding ticket or for idling a vehicle in prohibited areas (like gas stations while re-fueling) to $1000.00. We require remote starting devices to time out in a few minutes and then not be usable for perhaps a half hour. To stop the silly practice of multiple grades of gasoline we don't allow engines in production vehicles that won't use a common grade of gasoline. We underwrite construction of modern Nuclear power stations, hydro-electric facilities and other alternative clean sources so we can use electricity instead of fossil fuels for all building climate control and illumination. We base our energy policy on he laws of supply and demand and the laws of thermodynamics so that we don't repeat foolish practices like the use of corn based ethanol that actually consumes more energy than it creates and removes food from the market place.

May 13, 2008 - 8:29am | TheSdog

Socialist stumpy

As usual, you want to bastardize the Alaska Constitution and use it to rationalize socialist policy.

You want to remove all "subsidies" from natural gas for Alaskans that use it then be my guest.

The truth is that natural gas remains a cheaper alternative for energy needs. If you live in an area without access to it then you must find other sources. It is not the responsibility of government to equalize the cost unless of course you believe in a socialist goverment.

If the cost of existing becomes prohibitive economically then the place should go away. It is the story of history. When the means to have a civilization go away, the civilization goes away.

May 13, 2008 - 2:13pm | Black3

We've been through this before, Sdog.

Whether or not you like it, Alaska is in the main a socialist state and it was designed by the State's founders to be that way. Rightly or wrongly, the fundamental assumption at Statehood was that Alaska would never have either the population nor the development patterns that came about in the older states. That's why all subsurface rights are commonly held and the resource development policy articulated in the Constitution is development and utilization for the common good; oil and gas are a commonly held asset of the People of Alaska and the Government's duty is to utilize that asset for the common good. Now we can have a good argument on just what constitutes the common good, but the fundamental premise is cast in stone with the founding of the State.

May 13, 2008 - 9:55pm | TheSdog

You still have to make a leap to go from what the document states to the complete socialist ideas and interpretation placed on it by stumpy and company.

Did you happen to notice they all refuse to admit it is socialism? At least you can admit what it is.

May 13, 2008 - 2:39pm | akhalfwit

SDog and how he views socialism

Socialism according to Dog= All Alaskans own our subsurface resource wealth

Not Socialism according to SDog=All Americans paying to put SDog through med school.

Socilaism according to SDog= Palin trying to get the best deal on gasline for Alaskans

Not Socilaism according to Dog= Having US taxpayers pay for medicaid patients that are a big part of his practice.

May 13, 2008 - 9:01am | Stumpy1

The Duty

The duty of the government is to follow the Alaska Constitution, even if you don't like it, Dog.

You ever take a civics class?

May 13, 2008 - 9:33am | TheSdog

Honest interpretation

does not necessarily lead to the socialist policies that you are always pushing.

That is okay but at least admit you are a socialist. You could probably achieve everything of which you speak if you were to carry out your plan to nationalize the oil companies.

May 13, 2008 - 9:42am | Stumpy1

Fine

Forget about the rule of law.

We'll just run Alaska on Dog's opinion and throw away the constitution.

So much for our Constitutional Republic.

LOL

May 13, 2008 - 9:51am | TheSdog

Ever wonder why

courts can get overruled?

Or why every SCOTUS decision is not 9-0?

Or that there is debate on public policy and the law?

Sorry, stumps but you do not have a monopoly on interpretation.

There are a variety of ways to interpret things and your "rule of law" means socialism. My interpretation is different than your interpretation. Not surprising, since you see everything from the socialist perspective on state issues.

Good to see you can finally laugh and be comfortable in your socialist shoes.

May 13, 2008 - 11:13am | Cartman3_15

Monopoly on interpretation

Interesting that you are able to make this point, but are unable to realize it applies to you, too.

While you continue to demonstrate you have no clue what socialism is, that is secondary. If you can allow that Stumpy's interpretation -- and the interpretation of most Alaskans -- could be wrong, then by extension it is possible that your interpretation is wrong.

Although I suspect that would never cross your mind, short as that trip might be.

May 13, 2008 - 10:19am | Stumpy1

Your chip on your shoulder has blinded you to objective thought

"It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest." Article 8, Alaska Constitution.

When you argue that Alaska's towns and villages be depopulated by selling Alaska owned resources at a cost prohibitive rate, then you are not "misinterpreting" the Alaska Constitution, you are ignoring it.

May 13, 2008 - 11:14am | Cartman3_15

Well said, Stumpy

Although at this point it should not surprise you that Dog freely ignores anything that doesn't fit his narrow world view.

May 13, 2008 - 10:44am | TheSdog

Stumps

Settlement should only occur where there is the potential to develop resources even under that statement.

There is no reson to settle areas without an economic base.

They should be allowed to turn into ghost towns and development should only take place where it is sustainable.

May 13, 2008 - 1:10pm | Stumpy1

Funny stuff.

Dog has no idea how unintentionally funny his posts are.

Hysterical.

Take this Dog nugget: "Settlement should only occur where there is the potential to develop resources even under that statement."

Like Anchorage, Huh? Let's see, tell us about all that mining Anchorage has? None? How about timber extraction? None? Well, how about agriculture? None? Oil? Nope, again.

Meanwhile, the areas of Alaska that do all these things- mining, oil, timber, agriculture, are place like Delta, Fairbanks, Kotzebue, and Palmer.

May 13, 2008 - 9:58pm | TheSdog

Stumps

Are you really that uneducated?

Tell us why Chicago is where it is?

Tell us why Boston is where it is? Or New York? Or San Francisco?

You could have located a hub anywhere with flat land along Cook Inlet where there was a place for a port. Anchorage may not have been the perfect place but it certainly fit the needs for a place to stage transport. It grows from there just like the other places mentioned.

It clearly had growth secondary to other factors as well including the military. It is essentially a service industry town. It does however in its role have roots in the resources.

Alas, you are so clueless you do not even understand the simplist concepts of economic geography.

May 13, 2008 - 10:48pm | Cartman3_15

Your clueless original statement

is the exact opposite of what you say here, which is correct. Then you try to pass it off on someone else's cluelessness.

Stumpy is right. You are funny. And you think no one notices your complete flip-flop here (and elsewhere when proven wrong)? Totally hilarious.

May 14, 2008 - 8:24am | TheSdog

No cartman it is not

Cities show up when there is a reason.

They do not grow the crops in downtown Minneapolis. They do not drill the oil in downtown Houston.

Access to transportation routes is a "resource." So is access to a labor market and labor markets tend to develop along transportation hubs as well. Support for the base industry of a region(medical centers, lawyers, accountants, managerial people, etc.) also tend to organize near the hubs for easy access to all.

There are economic reasons for all of it but it is all above your head.

May 14, 2008 - 7:45pm | Cartman3_15

Cities show up where there is a reason.

Correct. Unfortunately, you've co-opted Stumpy's point with this statement.

Your original statement says exactly the opposite. And that does not change just because you flip-flop and say "no it doesn't."

May 14, 2008 - 10:13pm | TheSdog

cartman

Look again.

Stumpy essentially wants to build cities everywhere. That is not how it works. development should happen by economic forces. The govt can shape policy to help it but it should not create untenable situations or maintain ones who have no more economic sustainability.

May 13, 2008 - 10:58am | rfn

"Allowed" is one thing.

Frog-marching people to Seattle-North is quite another.

May 13, 2008 - 10:21am | rfn

Perhaps not

if you join in the mindset that defines Alaska as being that geographic area defined by the boundaries of The Municipality of Anchorage (aka "Big Wild Life"; "Seattle-North).

4 May 12, 2008 - 10:50pm | Zamboni

Thank you Gov Palin!

Gov Palin again showed leadership and foresight in announcing a special session to address Alaska's high energy costs. She continues to make decisions based on the best interest of Alaskans. Thank you, Gov Palin!

May 13, 2008 - 9:57pm | Kuskdaka

Yeah, better late than never, will the legislature catch on too?

I guess that they're finally catching on. Unless you're Bert Stedman, with his winter's over statement....

Oh, but he got $50 million to pour down Ketchikan's Interie fiasco. OK, I'll admit, it may pay for itself in the future, but $100 million for Ketchikan in total - they could have bought half a bridge! Or lowered their sights a bit.

Get public utilities out of the power development business, let the private sector take the lead. Government should monitor, but not be developing energy, leave that to the marketplace. Public
-private partnerships if you must....

3 May 12, 2008 - 10:29pm | _Syrin

Details are fuzzy?

Everything associated with this governor is lacking in detail and very fuzzy, indeed.

May 12, 2008 - 10:46pm | Cartman3_15

Not that truth matters to you,

but this is at the request of the House speaker.

2 May 12, 2008 - 9:37pm | akwillis

Dysfunctional government plays "whac-a-mole" with public policy.

How many other critical issues will require "special sessions"? Our state government which has evolved to cater to primarily Trade Unions, Oil Companies and other large contributors can no longer resolve critical public policy.
Like the arcade game where you try to keep the little gophers in their holes by hitting them with a mallet as they pop up, critical issues keep haunting our "leaders". The time tested and beloved process of relying on a few pea brained legislators and/or administration officials in a closed caucus to orchestrate the death of legislation by trading votes, blocking hearings, and protecting the "brethren" from a public vote is no longer working to keep the largess flowing only to the politically deserving.
"Short term energy cost relief". All that can mean is handing out money which will not encourage anything except more reliance on some demonstrably inept people in State Government. Put my "relief" money in an effort to build a single state of the art nuclear or coal fired plant that could be replicated in other areas of the state to provide for future energy needs.

1 May 12, 2008 - 6:37pm | rfn

Original sure got updated fast!

And a fast response it was on The Governor's part!

I could not agree more that the limited attention capability of the legislature should not be diluted with more than one issue per special session!

The matter of timing, though, is of concern:

1. Costs are at their highest during tourist season. If both special sessions are held in Juneau in June it could squander the entire oil tax surplus just on lodging! If lodging can be found.

2. The legislature would be more focused were there some time between special sessions. Perhaps holding the session on energy closer to the Winter heating season. Perhaps late September (after the tourists are gone) or in October when the folks could settle down and get it done in minimum time, hungering to be back home campaigning instead of tending to business.

Of course any energy cost relief needs to be proportionate. Wonderful that government has finally noticed! Folks in rural areas have been suffering from the disparity for decades. This will be a good opportunity to make energy costs roughly equal for all Alaskans without regard to where they live. Of course reality dictates that the most favorable treatment will go to those areas with the most votes...but what a wonderful opportunity to prove we (long justified) cynics wrong!

May 13, 2008 - 11:33pm | Kuskdaka

Partly agree with you rfn, but disagree somewhat

Other civilized places do have a uniform electric rate, however, they don't permit industrial rates unless there are interties capable of delivering low cost energy. PCE isn't the answer, it is merely a means to have folks eke out an existence.

And yes the rates are equalized, so that a more fair and uniform rate is paid by all. Cook Inlet state royalty gas subsidized Southcentral for all these years. Now that everyone is hurting, we're looking for solutions for all which is the right path to follow.

May 12, 2008 - 9:06pm | akted

This is not the goverments job.

They should vote no for any money for individuals. People chose where they live. You live where there are no jobs or economy. We also should not pay 40 million for a seawall in Kivalina a town of 377 people that run off and threaten teachers.

May 12, 2008 - 10:44pm | Cartman3_15

Thanks SDog

Keep that elitism coming.

May 12, 2008 - 9:36pm | Talkradio

Were all guilty

We have been proping-up villages for too long. As I think about it, the State has been an ATM for everyone and every community in some way. It's just how you want to look at things. Has anyone seen the Capitol Budget and the operating budget? Were all guilty.

One mans pork is anothers energy rebate.

Eddie Burke
KBYR

May 12, 2008 - 8:26pm | TheSdog

Nonsense rfn

If you choose to live in a more expensive place it is your free will. Energy costs should not be equal just like real estate costs or any other costs should be equal.

Shoulevery American pay the same for energy, real estate, food, gas, etc? Of course not unless you are a socialist. Oh wait, I just answered the question I was posing.

May 13, 2008 - 9:49am | rfn

It's sort of like health care.

Every American should have to pay for their health care. Exactly the same price no matter where located. Now I won't say it should be free; then it would be overused. Just a nominal, uniform price per use. A simple flat fee wouldn't work on an annual or monthly basis; overuse would result as the energy example below relates:

Not long ago there was an Alaska community where electricity was sold at a flat rate per household. Reason was that a lot of the residents were seasonal and didn't use any during the off season. It was set up so that if you had power available at the pole in front of your place you paid a single per-month price for every month whether you hooked up or not; without regard to how little or how much you used.

This encouraged a lot of people to spend more time living there and doing crazy stuff like heating with electricity when the temperature was -30. After all, it wouldn't cost any more. That place no longer has electricity.

One of the really great parts of living in America is that you can call anybody who disagrees with you a socialist or worse. Enjoy it while you can; Hillarycare (or worse) is about to change the lifestyle for so very many.....

May 13, 2008 - 6:23pm | haut_monde_ak

Not true about health care...

then according to you everyone should pay the same for houses, food, etc.

Please don't forget that the cost of medical care ties in to the cost of living in that particular area. If real estate is more expensive, therefore affecting the cost of renting office space and wages, you can bet that you will pay more for health care in that area. Otherwise no one could afford to practice medicine. If no one practices medicine in your area because they can't afford to be there then what will you do?

Hillarycare, or socialized medicine, has the potential to affect everyone, not just physicians. If a doc gets paid the same or a flat rate no matter how many patients he/she sees in a day, then guess how long it will take you to get seen? Sure, other countries utilize this approach and it works for them, as long as you are willing to see an imported physician and wait a very long time for an appointment.

May 13, 2008 - 9:20pm | Cartman3_15

"Socialized medicine"??

Why is it that those opposed love to talk about "socialized medicine", but you never hear anyone complain about socialized law enforcement, socialized water and sewer service, socialized military, or socialized postal service?

May 14, 2008 - 8:30am | TheSdog

Cartman

Public safety and basic infrastructure are necessary functions of the government.

You can make an argument about the postal service and it does have significant private competition. The private competition does things more efficiently and cost effectively. They cannot however manage to do the same thing for a place like Alaska all the time which is one of the challenges to development up here.

You forgot to mention education in your post by the way.

May 14, 2008 - 7:41pm | Cartman3_15

Didn't forget

I chose not to include it, and several others. Let's face it, the list is long.

So are you saying that if something is a "necessary function" of the government, then it can't be socialist, or just that socialism is OK if it's a necessary function?

May 15, 2008 - 7:11am | Stags_Leap

energy relief over protecting the unborn

sending rebate checks will buy her more votes and higher popularity numbers than pushing the pro-life bills -she continues to abandon.

So much for her conservative credentials. It's all about what's popular.

May 14, 2008 - 10:29pm | TheSdog

There are certain

base government responsibilities.

Public safety and basic infrastructure are necessary functions of government. There are a few other limited things the govt should run and education and the postal service fit that formula.

It should be noted that the govt is inherently inefficient even when it is performing the necessary functions. The govt simply does not respond to forces like the private sector does. It has no need to do so.

Without some limited socialism, you have no government. This country was founded on government being limited though and not involved in every decision.

The problem is we have lost our way over the past 230+ years. It has grown well beyond core functions. Much of it has happened because of a shift that began with FDR.

It was well intentioned as a safety net but now the government is trying to solve every problem with large social programs and invasive policies.

There is a bigger problem which is the culture has changed and the public now expects the govt to solve every problem. That is what this energy argument is about.

May 14, 2008 - 10:55pm | Cartman3_15

I don't need a civics lesson, Dog

I posed a simple question, based on your "simple" analysis. You simply ignored the question and chose, as usual, to try to impress everyone with how clever you think you are by basically repeating and elaborating on your earlier post.

Pretty clear you're afraid to answer the question. Could it be that an honest answer would unmask you as an intellectual fraud?

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

Alaska Politics Blog

Contributors

Features

Archive

Palin to call special session