Yes, Sarah Palin is a RINO.

The Reality Check ^ | 2010-01-23 | Zbigniew Mazurak

[ChrisInAR]

But you can’t deal w/ the fact that ALL votes for Sarah were counted as votes for Juan McCain, can you?

[FreeReign]

Tom Coburn recently endorsed Carly Fiorina in CA. Not a peep from the purists around here that I saw.

I believe Coburn also endorsed McCain during the primaries in 2008.

[gogeo]

I was a fan of Palin myself. But I’m now convinced that she’s not a conservative, nor is she a politician qualied for the Presidency of the United States. She’s simply just another RINO endorsing another RINO. No real conservative would ever endorse McCain for the Senate...

I used to be skeptical when I saw the words "real conservative" used in a rant.

I have since moved to cynical. Get thee back on the porch, shaking your fist at the neighborhood children, demanding they observe your "rights" and stay off your lawn.

[Finny]

You just confirmed what FReepers and lurkers should know about your charge when they see it bandied about: your use of the word "windfall" is purely because of its propaganda value; in truth, it's like calling a Yugo with leather upholstery a "luxury vehicle" -- quite simply, bullsh*t.

You don't actually dispute that what you're calling a "windfall profits tax," which leads readers to believe that it is a tax collected after all is said and done, on the item produced and sold by the business ...

... is actually the lease price of land owned by the state of Alaska. Here's the truth: your use of the term "windfall profits tax" is deliberately deceitful.

But "windfall profits tax" sounds so much nastier and scary than "leasing fee," which is really what it is. If what I understand is correct (again, I urge folks to investigate independent of FR and go beyond the MSM stories and into blog debates), because of Palin that leasing fee is determined on the market price of oil per unit that the oil company produces from the land rather than a straight price per unit produced; the higher the market price of oil, the pricier the leasing terms. The lower the market price of oil, the cheaper the leasing terms, giving oil companies incentive to produce more in lean times.

And I see you remain MUM on how that leasing income is distributed directly TO the individual people of Alaska to spend, invest, or save as they please, as opposed to going back into the state coffers.

You ominously warn, "How do I know she won't pull the same as President?" What, direct incomes made from the lease of government-owned land for private uses directly to the people instead of into state budgets? And therefore, as acting executive for the "owners" of the property, to negotiate the leasing terms in the best interests of the owners?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Personally, I think the term “RINO” is getting to be overused, and largely in ways that have nothing to do with somebody actually being a true to life RINO.

Most often, the term “RINO,” as used by FReepers, seems to mean one of two things:

1) You don’t agree with me 100% on every last thing, or

2) You refuse to join my third party.

I reject both of those as being legitimate uses of the term.

I agree that we’re seeing a political realignment, but it is one which involves CONSERVATIVES - not so-called “independents” (who can be of any political persuasion). Conservatives both within and without the GOP need to be involved in recapturing the GOP for conservatism and using it as a vehicle to advance our agenda. If we try to rely upon “independents” alone, especially in the form of some hokey “Tea Party Party,” then we’ll be playing a fool’s game. Independents are independent, in part, because they tend to be people who are less engaged with the process, less knowledgable about piolitics, less organised, and less ORGANISABLE.

One thing I am increasingly having less and less patience with is this nonsense about third parties. It’s to the point where I consider third partyism to be well-nigh treasonous to conservatism. It’s like somebody trying to come in, sow discord, and undercut the unity and strength of our movement. I notice that a lot of the third partyists seem move interested in bashing everyone else for not being as “pure” as they are, rather than they are in helping to move conservatism forward.

Which brings up the obvious question - if they’re just splitting conservatives into factions and sowing discord, can they really be considered “pure”? I do not think so.

[StAnDeliver]

I yawned so hard my ears popped. Although I did notice this:

"Zbigniew"

What is it with these Zbigniew guys and cranial-rectal insertion?

[StAnDeliver]

"Three things: one, have some respect for BufordP; two, ALWAYS ping your fellow FReepers when you talk about them; and, three, don't assume that everyone I ping is just like me."

Four, ACTIVE thread management by the responsible posting FReeper is more than a couple of goofy jpgs and a handful of one-liners.

[Clinging Bitterly]

I haven't read that whole argument but the main thing, with regard to Alaska's policies on resource extraction charges and distribution of same, is it is a STATE issue - and as long as whatever is being done is authorized by that state's constitution and not prohibited by that of the U.S., it is fine.

Too many people confuse the roles of state and federal governments and that is one area where I hope there will be progress in this upcoming election cycle.

For example: You want socialized medicine? Fine, if your state constitution allows it, go for it! Of course a real obstacle to something like that is that the potential revenue stream to pay for such is greatly diminished because of grossly excessive federal taxes - AND a state's ability to do that sort of thing is also limited because of excessive federal control over the states and individual citizens and what they can, can not, or must do. The fedgov is supposed to require of states a republican government and free trade, and very little else.

What a future President and Congress does to turn around that balance of power is a big interest of mine. None in my lifetime - not even Reagan - have ever addressed this ROOT CAUSE of most of our nation's problems.

[PhilDragoo]

This is yet another get-Palin op run out of the Tricky DICK (Doper Islamo Commie Kenyan) White House War Room.

[Finny]

You had to become the opposite of direct when explaining why you think this qualifies as a "windfalls profits tax" (such drama queen phraseology). Although I see you haven't used the equally potent "profit wealth redistribution" to label Alaska's practice of distributing directly to Alaskan citizens the dividends from oil revenues paid to the state by oil companies that accept them as among the terms they agree to when using state owned Alaskan land for oil production.

And you ask for a "direct" answer to something you cannot defend in equally direct terms? Of course you can't, because it's complicated and mathematical. Why should I go to the trouble of replicating what others have done? I provided links for FReepers and lurkers to go investigate for themselves, as I had done earlier, for the non-direct argument against your demonstrably non-direct charge. It's too complicated for a direct answer, just as it was too complicated for you to explain simply why it qualifies as a "windfalls profits tax."

FOOD FOR THOUGHT in a non-direct way. FReepers and Lurkers, read this from the frightening Palin-hopeless start all the way to the bottom. Way down -- after the panic has subsided and cooler assessment starts to kick in (pretty far down the discussion thread), a person who appears to have worked on such contracts points out:

1. The profound distinction between royalties and taxes, and that a royalty is not even a tax, let alone a windfall tax.
2. That a private landowner could charge a flat fee, but more likely would opt to participate in the profits in escalating royalties. Points out that at $20 a barrel, would want the royalty/lease fee to be $1 to $4 per barrel, but $12 per barrel at $40 per; this would be standard in a private contract.
3. That oil producers should expect to pay the same type of fees they'd pay in a private contract; if states and fed didn't do this, why would oil companies ever drill on private land?
4. The accounting purpose of describing escalating royalties as taxes as part of the contract would allow the oil companies to use the "taxes" to offset other taxes; speculates that was worded such in Palin's deal for the express purpose of providing those breaks to the oil companies.

Lurkers, fellow FReepers, and you, Catfish who "likes Palin but ..." (and who has regurgitated directly what another FReeper ID'd as Maureen Dowd's "caribou Barbie" Palin insult here on Free Republic), I could (and will, once again) spend HOURS investigating and reading the real depth of this, which AGAIN reveals that Catfish is MISREPRESENTING, and many would say DOWNRIGHT LYING when he characterizes this as a Windfall Profits Tax; one poster even links to this blog that purports to point out that much of the taxation Catfish demonizes with Drama Queen phraseology "Windfalls Profits Tax!!!" isn't even an income tax, but a severance tax.

CATFISH, so far this is a 600+-word post -- because there can be no DIRECT answer to your question; your charge is deceitful by being indirect, and so revealing it as false must be equally "indirect." So Folks, GO DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE and relax in the knowledge you'll find by doing so that Catfish and others are misrepresenting Palin here. Then next time you watch in horror as this single "Windfall profits tax!" charge silences and discourages Palin supporters as you see it did on the Hot Air blog, you will know that you are righteous and accurate in calling bullsh*t on it, but that it's damned near impossible to do it directly. Guys like Catfish are banking that you won't go to the trouble. He's deceitful.

[Finny]

Please take the time to investigate fully (not just the top 25 percent of the posts) the information in the two links I provided in post 490. Thanks.

[Finny]

By the way, I agree with you a whole lot on the States Rights front -- if MA wants to force RomneyCare down its peoples' throats and young folks move away in drives because they don't want to have to live at home with Mom and Dad just to be able to afford to pay the monthly health insurance cost they have to come up with straight out of the gate of earning their own way, so be it. It's hard enough for a 23-year-old to pay the rent on the first apartment; to have to come up with anotehr $300 per month just to be legal in the health insurance department ... well, that kid, if he or she has any yearning for independence, is going to move to a different state.

But I must also point out that elsewhere, good ol' Swampsniper has eloquently pointed out that part of the Fed's power is to prevent States from running roughshod over basic rights.

With regard to this Palin thing, which is so stupidly being misrepresented as a "windfall profits tax" by folks who are either easily duped by a clever liberal media, or plain deceitful -- ABSOLUTELY, it is an Alaska state issue, and Alaska is outstanding in how different it is from the rest among all 57 of These Glorious United States!

[Al B.]

I'm far from an expert on this and I understand it's a very complicated subject. My understanding of ACES is as follows:

1) It provides more revenue to the resource owner (Alaska) as the per-barrel price of oil goes up.

2) It is designed to provide a stable per-barrel profit to the oil companies no matter what the price or how much (or how little) they pump.

3) It is designed to provide NO disincentive to drill regardless of the oil price.

4) It is distinguished from a true windfall profits tax in that there is no attempt to limit oil company profits from drilling in Alaska. Drill more, make more.

Am I missing anything?

BTW, even the good ol' boys in the Alaska legislature (or at least the ones not sent to jail) must have thought it a fair deal because they passed it 59-1.

[SoCalPol]

The article bashing Sarah Palin is by Paul Streitz.

If he were alive during the late 1800s or early 1900s, said Paul Streitz, he would have barred Eastern European Jews from entering this country, even if they were fleeing pogroms.

More recently, he said, in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s, the United States should have never admitted the thousands of Jews who sought to leave the Soviet Union and, later, the former Soviet Union. “We’re not their savior,” he added. “They should have settled things in their own country.”

As for the Jews who tried desperately to escape from Hitler’s Europe, the co-director of Connecticut Citizens for Immigrant Control said he would have allowed in those refugees but under one condition: that they return, at some point, to their native land

Paul Streitz is a despicable POS

Anyone who posts his anti semite trash and agrees with it
are typic Ron Paul NeoNazi lemmings.

[onyx]

Absolutely disgusting. He’s one to watch.

[Finny]

Thank you, Al, for a heartening response. I have just spent the past few hours reading and clicking further links so I can be certain that Cfish is indeed misleading folks.

Cfish, you need to prepare to be smacked harder and better everytime you bring up the false analogy using the scaremongering semantic "windfall profits tax."

Al notes:

4) It is distinguished from a true windfall profits tax in that there is no attempt to limit oil company profits from drilling in Alaska. Drill more, make more.

On three different blogs where this topic was discussed before Palin was even named by McCain as his VP pick, it was pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN: a "windfall profits tax" is based on the total profits of a company after the fact.

This usage fee is based on units produced independent of total or net profits made by the company, and is graduated based on the selling price of oil rather than a flat fee. The more supply of oil on the market, the lower the price of oil; the more that oil companies produce, the lower the land use fees (or taxes, if you want) they will pay to Alaska.

When the fee was a flat rate, as it was before Palin became Governor, oil companies had incentives to restrict production in order to restrict supply because it would drive up the price of oil. This way, they have incentive to INCREASE production because the lower the price of oil, the less tax they have to pay on what they produce.

It is not a windfall profit tax because it isn't based on the profit a company has realized, it's based on the price of oil per barrel at the time that the company produces the oil on Alaska state-owned land.

[Al B.]

When the fee was a flat rate, as it was before Palin became Governor, oil companies had incentives to restrict production in order to restrict supply because it would drive up the price of oil.

And they had incentive to pay off politicians to keep it that way. That incentive is gone thanks to Palin and the legislature, through the enaction of ACES.

Drill baby, drill.

[betty boop]

One thing I am increasingly having less and less patience with is this nonsense about third parties. It’s to the point where I consider third partyism to be well-nigh treasonous to conservatism. It’s like somebody trying to come in, sow discord, and undercut the unity and strength of our movement. I notice that a lot of the third partyists seem more interested in bashing everyone else for not being as “pure” as they are, rather than they are in helping to move conservatism forward.

It seems third parties go nowhere in our political system, be they the Bull Moose, Libertarian, Socialist, Conservative, et al. parties. Thus they are quite pointless distractions. One wonders why people engage in them at all. The explanation you give above is an astute one, and I think you hit the mark.

I'm not a champion of a "Tea Party Party"; to me, it's not needed. There is already a conservative party (or at least there used to be; it used to be called the Grand Old Party). Yet the Tea Party movement is conservative to its core. The one I attended in Boston drew Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, and Independents. What unites such a disparate group is a common love for the Constitution and the system of liberty/limited government it establishes, plus disgust and anger over the arrogance, corruption, and profligacy of government in general.

IMHO such folks are natural conservatives, and as such are aligned with the historical principles and values of the Republican party, whether they realize it or not. But the GOP has been so totally lame in articulating these values and principles in recent times, that talk radio hosts at Tea Parties have to do it.... Not to mention GOP elected officials violate their constitutional oaths seemingly just as often as Democrats do. The public is growing cynical....

Not to quibble over language, but Tea Party folks are "independents" (with a lower-case "i") regardless of party affiliation, if any. That's because they are by and large "traditional Americans"; i.e., self-reliant, responsible, hard-working citizens who want to run their own lives rather than have some bureaucrat with a rubber-stamp run it for them. They don't like being "bossed around" by the gummint. They are deeply concerned about future generations of We the People — that they are being saddled with debts created to pay for "benefits" for our generation — which is encouraged to want everything "now" and to think that money grows on trees. Etc. They should be prime prospects for GOP "recruitment."

But the GOP seems to think it has to sell its soul to get them; e.g., all those "big tent" accommodations, especially on the most critical and divisive social issues. The party should be articulating, defending, and "selling" its core message instead. That's part of what it means to lead.

In short, I'm more conservative than the official Republican party is right now. It's moved way to the Left of me, and that's for sure. Which is why I left it. If it ever should come to its senses again, and return to its core conservative philosophy (and practice), I'll come back to it.

Otherwise, I need it as little as I need the Democrat party. Both are "big government" promoters, which means both are equally guilty of having shucked the Constitution.

I also agree with your description of people who use of the term RINO. LOLOL!!!

Thanks ever so much TQC, for your excellent essay/post!

[catfish1957]

LOL....You fools still didn't directly answer the question. I don't care how you spin it. When the graduated tax rate goes up as the price of oil goes up (profits)...... That is a windfall profits tax. You Palinites can stick together all you want, but the defintion is the defintion. I think most people here have the snap to discern the truth.

Tools.

[jonrick46]

Thanks for you excellent articulation of the issues.