Originally Posted by tonton
Once again, you cannot see the trees for the fruit.
"Let's see here... creating debt is evidence of failure. Cool."
"Citizens having to pay more taxes is evidence of a politician's failure. Outstanding."
No. I made that point because Sarah Palin's supporters (or the vast majority thereof) claim to believe this to be true, and I'm pointin
Originally Posted by Jubelum
OK... wow, this is low hanging fruit.
Let's see here... creating debt is evidence of failure. Cool.
Citizens having to pay more taxes is evidence of a politician's failure. Outstanding.
Buying things that do not have a good ROI is evidence of failure. Awesome.
I just cannot wait to apply these rules.
g out their hypocrisy... and hers.
"Buying things that do not have a good ROI is evidence of failure. Awesome."
We simply differ on what constitutes a good return. I believe it doesn't have to be restricted to financial terms. That doesn't preclude the fact that something that *should* be financially manageable and wasn't managed correctly was not a good investment.
What undermines all of the contrived hair-pulling over Palin is the obsessive, dishonest, and hysterical attacks on her - the kind of thing usually reserved for the person that is actually running for the Presidency. Not even Dan Quayle (who was dense) or Thomas Eagleton (who was a severe bi-polar that was hospitalized and underwent electroshock treatments) engendered this level of fear and loathing within a few weeks of nomination. I guess one has to write it off to the new kind of politics since 2000 - constantly screaming alarmism and a love of dishonoring all truth or reality to get one's way...very sad to see it repeated.
I am quite open to the truth, and to honor it. I don't have a horse in this race. But using the KOZ as source is pointless when its SOP is character assault on behalf of the church - this time against Palin from the git go. One does not need to object to its article because of its source though - the article's own argument is (in an of itself) disingenuous, uninformed and senseless.
The first six paragraphs repeatedly states that there was no capital debt before she entered office, and repeats it in each paragraph (each time illustrating 'the debt by using percent, then per person, then total, etc.). Although I am sure they hoped to make the reader alarmed by a repetition of reformatted numbers of "the debt", all it really says is that the City chose to acquire capital debt on some capital projects. So far, ho hum.
I can't take this sort of Axe grinding seriously. As a former City budget manager and financial analyst this is typical of all cities - you want a capital project, you sell bonds and cover it with special obligation funds (raised by new taxes, government grants, etc.). Almost ALL cities have capital debt, the only news here is that this little berg did not (which may be good OR bad, depending on what capital needs are unmet). And in my experience, a city with 6.4% on capital debt spending is laughably small; having experienced City work in Oklahoma and California - no wonder this kind of carping by KOS looks like more venom tossed out for eager Palin haters.
And it is not made more convincing by repeatedly (and disingenuously) noting in each paragraph that "Palin signed the budget" or "Palin signed the ordinance". Such signatures are required regardless of whether a Mayor voted for an ordinance or a budget, or not. The City Council passes ordinances and budgets by majority vote - the Mayor having one of those votes. Signing such is meaningless - a detail the writers ignored.
Finally we learn (when they quote a critic) that "(he) has been particularly critical of a $ 5.5 million road and sewer bond passed last year by voters. He says the bond payments could make the city vulnerable should the economy turn down. Palin notes residents approved the bond, which she says was needed for critical road work." [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 10/5/99]"
Again, this is scandal? Not only did the City Council see a need for roads and sewers, and a recreation complex, but so did the voters. So the community willingly chose to raise taxes (a paltry 1/2 cent on a minor 2 cent sales tax base) and the Obama axe grinders think they have discovered a female Nero burning Rome to build an imperial palaces and provide bread and circuses on the backs of the oppressed citizens of Wasila? ...gasp!
The only interesting part of this is the KOS claim that "Palin mismanaged the land deal" because she did not sign all the papers. However, the details supporting that claim are left out; i.e. in my experience you sign the paper's the City Attorney has you sign...its routinely done. And the City Attorney, in turn, usually gets those papers from the City staff and perhaps their contract advisors. Mayors are clueless as to what is needed for legal reasons - that is not his/her job. Moreover, your City Manager, not your Mayor, supervises the department heads who assign City staff to manage the project's budget, and authorize the expenditures.
So that was another accusation without supporting evidence.
Finally, the law suits and claims are routine in City business. Very often it is screw ups by City staff and bad internal processes, other times it is merely another vendor or contractor looking to intimidate the City into paying out of court on a dubious claim (so as to avoid publicity). And yet other times it is because the private individual is far more adept at tactical moves and in rent seeking. About the only thing I am sure of in my 20 years of City work is that the Mayor, from the best to the worst, is never in a position to cause these kind of screwups.
This is where Mayor's do matter:
- Cutting Ribbons
- Pushing for Specific programs or capital projects
- Telling City Councilmen when they are out of order at meetings
- Brokering deals with fellow council persons on votes
- making speech's at City sponsored events.
- bitching about staff (or supporting staff)
- collecting campaign funds
- attending useless conferences and state meetings
- lobbying the State and Feds for more money and grants.
So if you find a source that says that she pushed for objectives that people did not want, or duties she was shitty at, or that no conservative should support even on a local level - then you may have something. I would be far more interested in what she, personally, did rather than all oblique and unwarranted inferences of "she signed this".
In the meantime, note that it is equally disingenuous for forum liberals to carp that she is not qualified because you think she is not being conservative (she supported capital projects and raised taxes and sought grant (pork) money). That may be true, but do you think her ACTUAL opponent (Biden) or self assigned oppenent (Obama) is opposed to increasing taxes and new expenditures and giving grants????
And finally, that Obama is more qualified in 'qualitative' executive experience is dubious. Every "community organizer" I met in my work was a supplicant to the City council asking for grants for community groups and demanding a forum to lobby for special favors for racial and special interest groups. In other words, salesmen and talkers.
So ya, get serious folks. Use a modicum of skepticism when reading screeds that don't support their own claims. It's not worth our time to deconstruct...at least not repeatedly.