As we know, the Republican party is masterful at saying one thing and doing another. Whether it be on moral issues (anti-gay politicans cruising bathrooms for men, abstinence-only fundies with pregnant, unmarried teen daughters; family-values guys divorcing their old wives in the hospital in favor of young, rich ones) or money (guys who claim to be for less government spending cut taxes on the richest then spend huge sums on subsidies to oil companies and new bureaucracy), you can count on the right wing to show us all about bad government through hypocrisy.
I think that most people endowed with common sense would not fault Sarah Palin for the foibles of her daughter, who by all respects seems like an ordinary American teen. Nor would we judge her or her daughter on the basis of what is, frankly, a common occurrence in our society. No, what causes the controversy is the “do as I say, not as I do” pattern that politicians like Palin exhibit. This is a woman who is staunchly opposed to a woman’s right to choose, and yet she and her party laud the choice that her daughter made in keeping the baby. They’re celebrating the fact that she chose, but in an ideal conservative world, she would never have been allowed to make a choice.
Add to this Palin’s abstinence position, and one is forced to ask: if the governor of Alaska can’t convince her own children of the value of abstinence, how do we expect kids on the street with no effective parents to embrace it? Palin’s daughter, and her future grandchild, will have a family with the means to support them. Many pregnant teens don’t have the benefit of that cushion.
These two items point out the fundamental flaw with conservative dogma: it doesn’t ever take into account reality.
Meanwhile, let’s examine yet another piece of evidence that puts the lie to that mythical Republican fiscal policy.
During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million.
Gosh, came into office with no debt, left behind a record debt. Sound familiar?
