Sarah Palin Tells Hannity Less Money is Good For Alaska

This is the latest Sarah Palin attack (no, not the toenails) being forwarded around the internet.  She’s talking to Sean Hannity, and the awkward subject of oil prices comes up.  It’s awkward because high oil prices=good for Alaska, bad for lower 48, whereas low oil prices=bad for Alaska, good for everyone else.

Sean notes that the price is rising, but could be much higher.  Now, I guess Sarah could have said that lower oil prices are good for everybody, but I guess that would have sounded too spread-the-wealth-y?  Instead, she says this:

Hannity: …The price of oil is going up again. It’s not quite at $140 a barrel, but it’s on its way up to $70 and $80…

Palin: Yeah, well and I thank God it’s not at $140. You know people say, “Hey, Alaska! 85% of your state budget is based on the price of a barrel of oil. Aren’t you glad the price is going up?” I say, “No!” The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend. And that’s good for our families and for the private sector.

There is a measure of redemption to be had here, though.  The blog reporting the gaffe, The Mudflats, committed a gafflet of its own.  When you write a headline, whatever you write first becomes the URL, even if you change the headline later.  The headline embedded in Mudflats’ URL?   “governor-palin-we-can-still-here-you-up-here”

Damn, nothing undermines snark like a typo.



  1. gee, her hair has really gotten long….

  2. Mr. Christopher,

    Standard conservative fare. Ask Ed Morrissey next time you see him…he would explain it to you much better than I could, but I’ll try anyway. Government has to spend whatever is needed and not a red cent extra. What happens if oil goes back to $140 a barrel and Alaska gets a budget bonanza? Well, people start demanding that the extra money be spend, even when there is no actual need to do so. Chile is a good example:

    SANTIAGO, Chile — During the emerging economies’ commodities boom a few years back, Chilean Finance Minister Andrés Velasco was a wet blanket at the fiesta. Chile, the world’s largest copper producer, was reaping a bonanza from the quadrupling in the metal’s price. Mr. Velasco insisted on squirreling away a large chunk in a rainy-day fund.

    As the savings swelled above $20 billion — more than 15% of Chile’s economic output — Mr. Velasco faced growing pressure to break open the piggy bank. In September, protesters barged into a presentation by Mr. Velasco, carrying an effigy of him and shouting, “The copper money is for the poor people.”

    The 48-year-old Mr. Velasco, wary that a flood of copper income could generate lending and consumption bubbles, stood his ground, even as the popularity of the center-left government withered. Latin American history, he cautioned, was full of “booms that had been mismanaged and ended badly.”

    This particular story had a good ending, because Chile’s government knew how to deal with this problem, stuck to their guns and now that they are in a recession they have the resources to spend for economic stimulus without having to borrow from the Chinese or mortgaging their children’s future (like some big, former English colony in north America that for now will remain unmentioned).

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s