Anonymous Emails v. Actual Record: McCain/Palin

First, let me recognize that I was corrected in a previous post.  It's not Sarah "Calhoun" Palin, it's Sarah "Callahan" (Dirty Harry) Palin.  Thanks to our snarky commenter for the correction. 

Normally, I wouldn't give a fig about anonymous or "semi-anonymous" emails from some partisan unable to get over an 11 year old loss for the mayorship of Wasilla, Alaska, but I think it gives an excellent opportunity to address some more questions about what exactly Palin believes in terms of economics, taxes and taking on entrenched interests.  The email, instead of killing the idea of Palin as VP, actually lends to the reasons why, in fact, McCain chose Palin.  Her record speaks for itself and it directly reflects McCain's actual policies.

Take for instance this claim about "reducing property taxes" and instituting a "sales tax":

"In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs."

Actually, it was a very smart move. Taking it out of the budget reduced the chances of it being a recurring, long term drain on taxes and put it on the ballot for VOTERS to decide if they wanted to fund it or not as I wrote here.

As we know, in the real world, when something starts being funded by taxes, there is no such thing as "short term". They just keep on taking and deciding to use it for more and more, draining the tax payers' wallets.

When you fund something with a bond sale, you do it as a one time event and the bonds don't mature immediately giving the state a longer time before having to pay it and at a lower interest rate, too. Many states actually do this if they aren't interested in just adding another long term, progressive tax.  

These bonds are often bought up by investment funds and businesses who are betting on an improved infrastructure and transportation that will allow them to set up business and make more money than they pay out.  Until the bonds are made "due", the city or state does not pay out on them and, when they do, the interest rates are fixed (as opposed to other loans that are typically taken out and then paid for by progressively more tax money on ever increasing interest rates or expected balloon payments with penalties).  In the end, the city or state pays out less and, like the businesses and funds that by these bonds, actually makes more in tax revenues from the growing businesses and population.

Basically, this lady is complaining that Palin didn't tax Alaskan Citizens ENOUGH or spend Alaskan citizens money as quickly as it came in.  This lady on the email is all about the short term planning and hasn't got a clue (or cares less) about the long term effects. 

In short, somebody should call the 5 o'clock news.  Sarah Palin might actually know what she's doing.  Oh, and she gave the citizens back their own money.  I can see where someone (Democrats, Obama-Biden, et al) who thinks the government should have a monopoly on our money would think that was a bad idea. 

How about the "lowered property taxes" and put a sales tax in place instead? This lady complains that the sales tax was applied to, of all horrors, food. I don't know about the rest of you, but, when I go to the grocery store, I have to pay sales tax on everything but a few items. That is in almost every state except, maybe, Delaware, which has high property tax and virtually no sales taxes or corporate taxes. Which is why many corporations incorporate in the state of Delaware, opening up what amounts to as a "store front" corporate office while their headquarters are located somewhere physically closer to their base of business.

This is actually pretty smart as well and, I bet, this lady isn't telling everything about it.

For instance, property taxes are rarely, if ever, lowered. Everyone who reads here and owns property should know that. Second, its a tax that citizens rarely have a choice or voice in challenging. Usually, the tax assessor does their thing and presto - you're paying higher taxes. Often, they don't reflect actual value and, just as often, the city or town uses these taxes to drive citizens out of their homes. They just used that tactic, raising taxes disproportionately, in Kansas City, Kansas to drive out poorer (minority and elderly) residents from the "inner city" because the city council has been doing "revitalization". It's rezoning without having to fight the zoning boards or citizen organizations.

Even if it doesn't go to that extent, higher property taxes don't always lead to prosperity.  In fact, it's often a slush fund that only partially goes towards paying for schools and is often used to pay for whatever items the city or county wants to fund, but can't actually interest voters in approving on a ballot.

Palin obviously did not do that. What she was trying to do was make Wasilla attractive to families who want to buy a home or start a business without gouging the tax payer. As far as largely benefiting companies and bringing in *gasp* Wal-mart, it was a smart move. With Anchorage growing, Wasilla is no longer "the bush" that takes an hour or more to get to the city. It's quickly becoming a "suburb".

If you want people to move to your town and commute to Anchorage or even live and work in Wasilla, you need jobs. You need affordable housing that isn't hamstrung with insane property taxes.  You need places to shop so people don't feel like they are living in the hinterlands. You need parks and other things that will draw people, families, to live in your town. That is all basic "city/town" planning and what the mayor is supposed to do.

Further, when you draw businesses with lower property taxes and a place for workers to live comfortably, they pump income and sales tax revenues into your coffers and that current deficit becomes a drop in the bucket compared to the revenues.

I'll repeat: This lady on the email is obviously about the short term and hasn't got a clue about long term planning.

In fact, these two items alone actually speak to Palin's credentials as a good economic planner and a foe of higher taxes.

Finally, I would bet 10 to 1 that the sales tax wasn't created with any sort of whisk of the mayoral or gubernatorial pen. Most sales taxes, in my experience, are put on the ballot for VOTERS TO VOTE ON. Particularly, town/city/local sales taxes. While I can't speak to the details on that as yet, I'd go as far as to say that the chances are very good that the citizens actually voted it in themselves.

Further, not a bad deal for the city or state because it brings in more revenue, but it isn't arbitrarily progressive. Instead, it simply reflects the economic power of the citizens and business' ability to spend (which lowered property taxes will increase the number of spenders and aggregate taxes over a wider group) as opposed to a government controlled and arbitrarily determined property tax that doesn't do anything but keep punishing people who want to own property (you know, houses to live in?) and give politicians a fund to use without tax payer oversight.

Of course, its easy for this lady to send a nearly anonymous chain letter with few details and some throw away "I'm being fair to Sarah Palin" lines and get a lot of non-thinking, partisans to go on the offensive to settle whatever petty jealousies this lady has.

In the mean time, I'll throw out my own: Tony Rezko and the slums of Chicago brought to you by funding taken out of tax payers' wallets, sponsored by Barack Obama to his known fund raising pals and special interest real estate and construction groups. Did I mention that people were being thrown out of these condemned slums just a few years later?  That the real estate and construction folks took their money and partied all the way to the bank?  And threw some of it to Obama's campaign?  Any takers?

Talk about "old politics".  I think it's the second oldest profession after...well...you know.