July 2: Palin's budget and her widening leadership gap. Does it really matter?
A little more than fifteen months ago I was given a glimpse of Alaska's future. What was posed as an innocent question from one candidate to the another over coffee on the campaign trail, has quickly become the hallmark of our current Governor's leadership and decision making process.
“Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers and yet when asked questions you spout off facts, figures and policies and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, does any of this really matter.”
Apparently, today for now Governor Palin, the importance of having a grasp of facts, figures and policies continues to be the same as when she was on the campaign trail: No it doesn't really matter, just smile and talk about trust and transparency.
Enjoying approval ratings in the eighties and winning the hearts and minds of Alaskans has become the primary goal of this administration. Holding pep rallies, attending popular events and photo ops have taken the place of actual leadership and forging a vision for Alaska's future.
In fact the only stand Governor Palin has taken and actually fulfilled, was her desire to exclude North Slope producers from her proposed natural gas pipeline plan (AGIA).
Unfortunately within the next year, Alaskans will come to realize that this stand has put both the gas pipeline as well as Alaska's economy at risk.
But for now, she seems content to take the accolades from those who understand less about the economic and legal realities as she does.
This week, Governor Palin capped a six month budget process of adopting an operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2008. And although most of the press focused on the $231 million she vetoed from the capital budget, the fact is both the operating and the capital budgets came in at a combined $350 million higher than what she promised.
Along those same failed promises came the rate of savings. While saving for the future was the clarion call in justifying cuts to the capital budget, the $127 million she had promised to save ended up being just $5.6 million according to the Office of Management and Budget.
That is a far cry from what she originally promised. But then again, out of the nine budget goals she highlighted back in December, she only accomplished three.
In her transmittal letter dated January 17 for the operating budget to Senate President Lyda Green, Palin wrote, “One of my goals is to have State Government live within its means. To that end, the budget bill includes an unallocated reduction of $150 million in general funds”. On March 1, the date the Governor's final budget amendments are due, she lowered the proposed operating cuts to $124 million due to unexpected increases in government health care programs.
However, not only did she fail to cut the operating budget $124 million as promised, it actually increased by more than a hundred million and that doesn't include the recent $20 million entitlement program for senior benefits recently passed by the legislature.
Her initial capital budget proposal faired equally as poorly. Her amended proposal was roughly $190 million in general funds, but even after the vetoes it still increased by more than $220 million. But the bigger news and largely unreported was the very clear inconsistencies when it came to capital budget cuts.
In press interviews while announcing the vetoes, the governor cited three criteria that she used to determine what projects got cut, “Education, public safety and transportation”. Those sound like reasonable requirements, especially if you are telling the public this is all about saving for the future. The problem is Palin didn't even follow her own criteria.
She vetoed money to fix the roof at the Sullivan Arena, saying it wasn't a state's responsibility while approving money to fix the roof at the Nome Recreation Center.
She vetoed numerous appropriations to fix Anchorage area high school sports facilities, including $500,000 to install turf at Dimond High where boosters had privately raised the balance. However she turned around and approved similar sports facility projects for high schools in her back yard, and shockingly approved $1 million dollars to replace the turf at Chugiak High School.
Not surprisingly, Representative Bill Stoltz whose district includes Chugiak, was one of Palin's biggest cheerleaders.
She vetoed $1 million for the University of Alaska to design a new sports complex saying the should pay for it themselves, while approving $3 million for a meeting hall in Fairbanks and $630,000 for a new kitchen at the Wasilla Sports complex. She vetoed $1.5 million for deferred maintenance for Anchorage public facilities because it wasn't a state's responsibility, while approving $3.8 million for a new kitchen for the Fairbanks North Star Borough. If Palin would have stuck to her professed word and remained consistent, she could have easily shaved another $100 million off of the capital budget.
The most comical comment came directly from Palin while explaining the benefits of the cuts she made. She claims her cuts have now shown legislators what to expect over the next three years. What? What does she mean? It's okay to fund some non-profits but not all. It's okay to fund some repairs to some private facilities but not all. It's okay to fund some education requests but not all?
Not only did her actions fail to accomplish what she claimed they did (establishing guidelines for future capital budgets) but because of her willy nilly cuts she has created a real fog as to what is acceptable and what isn't.
But the biggest concern isn't about the amount of cuts, because for some they were too much, for others they were too little. The biggest concern is about the total and unmitigated lack of leadership surrounding the budgeting process and how once again raises questions about this governor's ability to lead.
On June 27th the day after the special session on Senior Benefits, former Speaker of the House and now respected co-author of Bradners' Alaska Legislative Digest, Mike Bradner, wrote a stinging analysis of the lack of leadership Palin has shown since she has been on the job.
“Palin likes to play with issues publicly, but not work at them”, Bradner writes. “Palin likes to just sort of muse about issues. But she seems unwilling to get down and dirty in a dogfight. She did nothing when she could have to salvage senior care, when it would have been easy and cost less. She “seems, at least so far, unwilling to become involved in legislative issues that are in process (at a time when they can be changed, limited or even stopped). She took a walk in the 2007 session on the budget.”
In fact, while criticizing the legislature for being spending too much on one time expenditures, Palin has yet to say how she intends to pay for new $20 million reoccurring entitlement program she supports. When asked by Bradner if she intended to introduce legislation to fund the program during a fall special session or during next years legislative session, she refused to commit.
This is as Bradner points out, has become a hallmark of Sarah Palin. Wait until everything is said and done, and then take a stand. For the last few weeks, Palin has been wont to say that “there needs to be an adult in the house”. I agree. But having an adult in the house doesn't mean showing up at 1am and yelling at your kids for throwing a party.
During the media circus regarding the closure of Matanuska Maid, Palin didn't pass up one opportunity to stand before the media and proclaim outrage.
However not once did Palin ever pick up the phone or speak directly to the CEO of Mat-Maid to get answers to her questions that she seemingly had no problem voicing everytime the television cameras were rolling or while talk radio listeners were hanging on her every word.
In fact, the only direct contact anyone named Palin had with dairy representatives is when her husband apparently called the Teamsters Union and yelled at the Mat-Maid representative for publicly announcing on KTUU News that the closure of the dairy was for the best.
Bradner also points out what many of us who pay way too much attention to administrations actions, witnessed during the legislative session. “Palin, as seems to be her pattern, waited until the closing days, virtually until after adjournment. The, she did her musing thing in a press conference, safely surrounded by the crutch of her staff”.
One of the items that Palin vetoed because it wasn't the state's responsibility was a $10 million appropriation for expansion at the Port of Anchorage. But this appropriation was well known a full five days before the legislature adjourned. In a press release dated May 11, the Senate Majority Working Group promoted the inclusion of the money in its list of budget highlights. Why didn't the governor or her staff say anything then?
In fact many of the items vetoed by Palin were in the capital budget when it was passed to the House on May 10.
If the governor was really interested in an open and transparent process she would have immediately sat down with legislators and outlined her opposition.
When the capital budget passed from the Senate to the House the proposed general fund spending was already roughly $270 million above what Palin had proposed. And although the governor issued thirteen press releases between the time the capital budget passed the Senate to the time it passed the House, not one of them mentioned any warnings to lawmakers that size of the budget was unacceptable.
This is a governor who seems to have endless time to make public appearances. As the Alaskan Ear quipped in a recent column, it was fairly ridiculous for the governor's staff to refuse to reveal the where abouts of Governor Palin for security reasons when she seems to be anywhere there is a crowd or a television camera.
In his closing comments in the Alaska Legislative Digest, Mike Bradner wrote about Palin's leadership on communicating with legislators in the days leading up to the vetoes.
"Interestingly, she is reportedly refusing to see legislators to discuss items in their districts. She says she has to talk to commissioners. However in reality they don't know much about a lot of these items because they are functionally “local”. This also seems to be passing the buck politically”.
Maybe this is what leadership has come to in Alaska. I mentioned more than once last year towards the end of the campaign that is was growing clear that Alaskans wanted someone to cheer lead not lead.
In a recent public opinion poll, over 70% of Alaskans supported AGIA but less than a third of those who said they supported AGIA actually understand the legislation.
So as it turns out maybe Sarah was right on that April morning of 2006 when we shared conversation and a cup of coffee as a couple of young Alaskans running to be governor.
Today, when she looks out into the audience as the Governor of the State of Alaska and asks, would having a grasp of facts, figures and policies really matter? The obvious answer from her approval ratings is a resounding no.
