I'm less than impressed, actually. Based on the article, at least, it seems like Palin's per diem charging and kids' travel expenses still were a significant saving over the private jet expenses that her predecessor used to get effectively the same perks - easy trips home and bringing family for free.
Adam, I don't see why the taxpayers should be forced to cover the Palins' kids' travel expenses. The Palins chose to have those kids, so why should the public have to cough up for them to travel?Whingers are constantly bitching and moaning about how the poor keep having kids and expecting everyone else to help support them. Yet those very same whingers seem more than happy to dip into the public purse to subsidize raising their squalling brats.Those folks are welcome to their "culture of life." But why should they expect others to help them afford it?
I don't deny that it's ridiculous for the state to pay so that she doesn't have to be separated from her several children. On the other hand, given her predecessor was provided the same service at several times the cost, then it seems that on a relative scale she has saved the state money for standard practice expenses.Her stated salary actually strikes me as rather low; I'm disappointed but not surprised that like many politicians everywhere it's typical for the governor to take advantage of supplemental perks.And when she continues to publicly lie over and over about the Bridge to Nowhere, it's difficult to get excited about questionable travel expenses.
A post at Firedoglake makes it clear that this not accepted practice in Alaska. In 1988, a Commerce Dept commissioner resigned after public outcry over him claiming a per diem for days at home. The governor of the time said it just didn't seem right to ask to be paid for staying at home.
Post a Comment