Sarah Palin's new 'nickname for Obama?
Barack the Wealth Spreader.
OK. Aside from sounding like something concocted by an angry third-grader (or worse, one of my terminally nerdified D&D buddies from back in the junior high school days), it's an incredibly hypocritical comment coming from the Governor of a state that pays its residents each year with taxed profits from Alaskan oil companies. I've never figured out how that's any different from taxing those among us that can better afford it in order to provide much needed services for the entire country while at the same time easing the tax burden on the middle and lower class.
Fortunately, someone from AP finally decided to act like a journalist and connect the dots.
Sarah Palin's Alaska Spreads Its Wealth
from the AP article out tonight:
Obama wants to raise taxes on families earning $250,000 to pay for cutting taxes for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," he told Wurzelbacher.
McCain said that sounds "a lot like socialism" to many Americans. Palin has derided the Illinois senator as "Barack the Wealth Spreader."
But in Alaska, Palin is the envy of governors nationwide for the annual checks the state doles out to nearly every resident, representing their share of the revenues from the state's oil riches. She boosted those checks this year by raising taxes on oil.
Whaaaa? Palin's spreading the wealth? She's attacking Obama for the same concept she herself actually advocates as a fair way to 'share the wealth' of Alaska's natural resources? This can't be!
McCain spokesperson Taylor Griffin tries to weasel out of the apparent snare by claiming that
...spreading wealth through Obama's tax plan and doing it through Alaska's oil-profit distribution are not comparable because Alaska requires the state's resource wealth to be shared with residents, but it's not taxing personal income.
Okay. I get it, now. It's a totally different thing because the state requires redistribution of resource wealth by taxing the corporations, who then most likely pass that cost along by raising prices for heating oil and gas... but we're not taxing income tax. Of course, that would be hard to do anyway, since Alaska has, uhm, NO STATE INCOME TAX.
Alrighty, then.
So taxing big oil companies in Alaska so you can pay off the residents of your state is cool, but taxing the wealthiest Americans a bit more so we can all enjoy the benefits of basic services without further compromising the ability of the middle and lower classes to contribute to the economic engine of this country is not okay?
The article goes on to say
Much as Obama explains his tax hike on the rich as a way to help people who are struggling, Palin's statement talked about the energy costs burdening Alaskans:
"While the unique fiscal circumstances the state finds itself in at the end of this fiscal year warrant a special one-time payment to share some of the state's wealth, the payment comes at a time when Alaskans are facing rising energy prices. High prices for oil are a double-edged sword for Alaskans. While public coffers fill, prices for heating fuel and gasoline have skyrocketed over the last six months and are now running into the $5- to $9-a-gallon range for heating fuel and gasoline across several areas of the state."
Zing.
Yeah, I realize it's not exactly the same thing, but it's pretty damn close: tax the oil companies because they can afford it so you can 'spread the wealth' to your state residents who are struggling with high energy costs. I don't disagree with that concept at all. The problem I have is that the media lets Palin off the hook for her repeated criticisms of Obama's tax plan when, in fact, she's taxing the "rich" to help the less-fortunate in her own state.
Most of these "fact check" articles have needed fact checking themselves lately. It's nice to finally see one that's doing what it actually purports to do.