Here’s a Time Magazine article by Michael Kinsley that looks at Palin’s home state of Alaska, recipient of lots and lots of federal funding.
Here’s a Time Magazine article by Michael Kinsley that looks at Palin’s home state of Alaska, recipient of lots and lots of federal funding.
She’s a welfare queen. Among the myriad disconnects w/ the Palin pick (this is one of those disconnects that actually connects in an Oh, I get it now! way), the claim “she’s a reformer/most popular governor/rails against earmarks” etc is that Alaska is a state that’s fundamentally different from the lower 48 and Hawaii.
For one whose state is run as a Welfare state that the rest of us pay for, and whose oil leads to revenues for each citizen, I just don’t see how that kind of experience translates nationwide.
What kind of understanding does she have about states that need to generate revenues by growing stuff? Or whose economies are so robust that, per capita, they contribute more in outgoing taxes than they receive in the form of government services/infrastructure. I’m talking California here, that place that is NOT necessarily filled w/ “Small Town Values,” praise be unto them.
In fact, I’d be interested in doing a cross-tab analysis of the kinds of places that have “small town values” and whether they’re a net outflow or inflow when it come to government dollars. In my copious spare time, of course.
Carry on.