Politics | 03/23/2009 8:35 am

Sarah Palin Under Fire for Stimulus Rejection

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Sarah Palin received an earful from constituents this weekend when dozens of Alaska voters gathered to protest the governor’s rejection of education-related stimulus dough.

Palin must have sensed this protest coming, for last week the Democratic National Committee made headlines when they came out against Palin’s decision, which would leave about $170 million in education assistance in Washington. The furor, however, may have been larger than she anticipated.

The protesters gathered outside of an Anchorage library where lawmakers were meeting to hear complaints, but many of the messages were written on placards, including one that read "We need a governor, not a presidential candidate," reports the Miami Herald. There has also been a series of articles and op-eds taking aim at Palin’s decision.

One local journalist, Ethan Berkowitz, blasted Palin for not only refusing the education money, but also money that would help victims of domestic violence and $2 million to feed the hungry. She wrote:

The reality of governing means that the governor and her administration have the responsibility to make informed decisions before acting. The evidence here is that the governor failed to consult with would-be beneficiaries of the stimulus, a failure of process that belies her promises of open and transparent governance.

…

As for the education funds — it doesn’t make sense that zero funds to teach kids for the next two years is better than $170 million for that time frame, that special-education students should forego $34 million and that declining $50,000 of emergency school lunch money does any good.

So governor, do the right thing. Take the stimulus. Make sure Alaskans know that you truly have our interests at heart.

Palin has described the stimulus package as nothing more than a bribe. We wonder if the public outrage will change her mind.

110 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Well this is exactly what I have been saying all along, Sarah is just playing politics here and she is going to suffer big time down the road. She may have to eat crow I’m afraid as they are not going to go away over this….she needs to remember who she works for!!! Is it the people or is it for herself and it’s looking more and more like the latter!!!

By caj p on 03/23/2009 8:43 am

e-mail alert

Right now, they’re seeing a shiny $170 million lure, and ignoring the hook. She sees the hook, and is trying to protect them against it. What remains to be seen is if they’re smart enough to see it too, or if they’re too focused on the "prize" to worry about the hook.

By Rachel F on 03/23/2009 8:59 am

e-mail alert

rachel f. i am not good with politics like i want to be os please do not think this is a hatefull question i am asking .

what is the hook that you are referring to? our mayor here where i live turned down a stimulous amouint and we have so many needs in our city it is amazing. many of us say when we talk about it —-there has to be a thign behind this . he knows and he has to see what our needs are. thank you rachel for your answer

By newzie snoozie on 03/23/2009 10:18 am

e-mail alert

Hi Newzie, thanks for the question. :-)

Governor Palin noted when she first rejected parts of the stimulus that she was rejecting funding for things that would eventually have to be paid for by Alaskans (i.e. funding for programs that, once the federal money was gone, would have to be maintained by the taxpayers). In other words, she’s rejecting funding for things that Alaskan taxpayers would probably *not* support if they were the ones paying for it, and doing so on the grounds that, even though the federal government will give them some money up front, once it’s gone, the taxpayers *will* be paying for it. This is "strings attached" money. Palin is by no means the only governor to recognize this — and refuse it on those grounds.

Sadly, it seems that the idea of "free money" (the lure) is blinding a lot of people to the whole picture (the hook and line).

Hope that explains what I meant. :-)

Rachel

By Rachel F on 03/23/2009 10:36 am

e-mail alert

Rachel,

I have a question with regard to Governor Palin’s rejecting funding for programs that once the fed money was gone would have to be maintained by the taxpayers, and that they probably would not support these programs if they had to pay for it. Did Governor Palin actually say that was the reason she was rejecting Stimulus money for Education? The only similar reference I found was from a press release from the State of Alaska web site that said and I quote "We won’t be bound by federal strings in exchange for dollars, nor will we dig ourselves a deeper hole in two years when these federal funds are gone. For instance, in order to accept what look like attractive energy funds, our local communities would be required to adopt uniform building codes. Government would then be required to police those codes. These types of funds are not sensible for Alaska." I honestly do not know what the Stimulus Package says for Education funding for the States, but I have just download it from the Education Departments website and will go from there. It was my understanding that this money is to help states that have budget shortfalls for education, and the Federal Govt is filling in the gaps and will do so for the year 2009,10 and 11. The idea behind all of this is that by 2010 and 2011 all the states and the people will be in better fiscal shape due to an increase in revenue, jobs, etc, which will make paying for these programs not such a burden!

With regard to other posts concerning the dropout rate in the state of Alaska, these figures are from Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. posted 11/24/2008.

Figures are based on grades 7 thru 12. Statewide number of dropouts 3,232. Drop out rate 5.3% for the school year 2007-2008.

Buzzysmom

By K F on 03/24/2009 12:34 pm

e-mail alert

I just want to address a small part of your post about energy and building codes. In the state of Alaska, if you build a structure to inhabit, as long as you fail to finish the final construction, a few shingles or bits of siding, you cannot be taxed on the final value of the structure you inhabit. I have been to Alaska and when I commented on why most homes had not been totally completed this was explained to me by an Alaskan.

By frances roehm on 03/25/2009 12:01 am

e-mail alert

Frances, What I wrote was a direct quote from Governor Palin, concerning one of her reasons for not taking certain stimulus money. and that in that article which came directly from the State of Alaska’s website, there was no mention at all that she was not or was taking stimulus money for EDUCATION. Although the statement goes on to say that the legislation requests $252.5 million for capital projects. Capital projects requested include $20.7 million for education and job training????

By K F on 03/25/2009 6:20 am

e-mail alert

Frances, Also with regard to my post, I was asking Rachel, if she had read a direct statement from Governor Palin that said she would not take Education stimulus money. Because if she did, I would like to see exactly what she had said.

By K F on 03/25/2009 6:31 am

e-mail alert

Federal money always comes with strings, such as you must use a certain percentage for this, or after so long, you owe us something. I don’t know if I agree with Gov. Palin’s move or not - I need to know all the details and most new pieces are this seem to lack the entire picture.

By Patience Hackler on 03/23/2009 1:44 pm

e-mail alert

If you believe that then you will believe anything. Sarah is just posturing and again as I said she will suffer.

By caj p on 03/23/2009 10:52 am

e-mail alert

She may suffer, but that doesn’t mean that she’s posturing.

You say she is posturing. Is everyone who rejected stimulus funds also “posturing”, in your opinion?

By Rachel F on 03/23/2009 11:29 am

e-mail alert

Absolutely, they all are. All of them are playing political games and not giving a toss about their states or the people and what they want.

By caj p on 03/23/2009 4:19 pm

e-mail alert

She may suffer, but that doesn’t mean that she’s posturing.

You say she is posturing. Is everyone who rejected stimulus funds also "posturing", in your opinion?

By Rachel F on 03/23/2009 11:29 am

e-mail alert

Yeah, I myself am confused by the "posturing." Typically that means doing things to win voters over, not alienate them. This is hardly posturing.

By Patience Hackler on 03/23/2009 1:46 pm

e-mail alert

LOL, well put. Instead of "posturing", I think this would fit more along the lines of "principles", that you follow even if it *isn’t* the most popular thing to do.

By Rachel F on 03/23/2009 2:04 pm