Sarah Palin's 'Bridge to Nowhere', and other Palin nonsense

Now come on Sarah, get educated and then maybe you will have a chance to run the National Garbage Association. And now she is siding with Dr.Laura,advising her not to retreat, but to reload..... she seems to be digging herself deeper into the "Ignorance hole of no return". Give us a break, go do what you do best, go fish, and lie about the size of the fish you caught for supper.


"She said she "championed reform of earmark spending by Congress, and I told the Congress thanks but no thanks on that 'Bridge to Nowhere'", she said, ommiting that she'd campaigned for governor supporting the bridge."

I take it most readers of this blog will know that this is a flat-out lie.

When politicians lie -- and here I mean not just putting the best spin on things, but out and out lying -- they might as well walk up to each and every one of us and say: Hello! I have no respect for the value of your time! You might have other things to do -- work, playing with your kids, taking a long hike in the mountains, whatever -- but I don't care. I'm going to put you in a position where you're going to have to research everything I say, or else just give up on your civic duty. You don't get to assume that my words are, if not exactly true, at least somewhere in the general vicinity of the truth, and decide whether or not to vote for me. If you want to be an informed citizen, you'll have to become obsessive, like hilzoy.

They might as well add: I have no respect for democracy. In a democracy, citizens listen to what each side has to say and decide who to vote for. To work, it requires that what each side says bears some resemblance to the truth. If I cared about democracy, I'd respect those limits -- maybe stretching the truth every now and then, but generally maintaining some sort of relationship between what I say and reality. But guess what? I don't care about democracy! If winning requires that I make things up out of whole cloth and hope that I'm successful enough to frustrate the popular will, then that's what I'll do. Don't like it? Think democracy is a good system, one that we should cherish? That's just too bad.

But Palin has gone beyond this. She is not just telling lies; she's telling lies that have been exposed as lies, and that have gotten a lot of attention. Assuming she does not actually want to lose, she must assume that her audience either doesn't know that she's lying, or doesn't care. In either case, it's deeply cynical, and deeply insulting.
I just hope she isn't right.


Sarah Palin a "Pants on Fire" liar for her claim that "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." (As it turns out, that's just one of the 10 Republican lies about the Bush tax cuts.) Now, the half-term Alaska Governor is protesting, claiming on Facebook that "no such proposal exists" to "keep the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who make less than $250,000." Sadly for Sarah Palin, President Obama not only made that pledge both before and after his inauguration. He also put it in his proposed fiscal year 2011 budget. She dosen't listen....lol.

Former Governor Palin would have been served to read the budget document or, say, the New York Times, before claiming and issuing her challenge:

"Mr. President, publish your proposals, and we’ll duke it out."

As the record shows, he already did. On February 1, 2010, the White House issued the "Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011." On page 39 of that 192 page document, the proposal states:

Allow the Bush Tax Cuts for Households Earning More Than $250,000 to Expire. In the last Administration, those at the very top enjoyed large tax breaks and income gains while almost everyone else struggled and real income for the middle class declined. Our Nation cannot afford to continue these tax cuts, which is why the President supports allowing those tax cuts that affect families earning more than $250,000 a year to expire and committing these resources to reducing the deficit instead. This step will have no effect on the 98 percent of all households who make less than $250,000.

When asked in September 2008 then vice presidential candidate what newspapers she read, then candidate Palin answered, "all of them." Except, apparently, the New York Times. If she had, Palin would have seen this summary of the President's FY 2011 budget proposal:

Over 10 years, according to the administration, the budget would save an estimated $1.2 trillion, mainly by ending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans and freezing some domestic spending for three years.

Even the clowns at Fox News, Sarah Palin's own network, got the message:

The budget proposal released Monday would extend Obama's signature Making Work Pay tax credit -- $400 for individuals, $800 for a couple filing jointly -- through 2011. But it would also impose nearly $1 trillion in higher taxes on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 by not renewing tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush. Obama would extend Bush-era tax cuts for families and individuals making less.

If nothing else, Republicans like Sarah Palin deserve a hand for having the chutzpah to pretend Democrats want a $3.8 trillion tax increase over the next decade.
Palin literally wrote that talking point on her hand in an appearance with Chris Wallace of Fox Clown News:

"My palm isn't large enough to have written all my notes down on what this tax increase, what it will result in.... Democrats are poised to cause the largest tax increase in U.S. history, it's a tax increase of $3.8 trillion in the next ten years and it will have an effect on every single American who pays an income tax."

Restoring upper bracket tax rates to their Clinton-era levels will impact only a sliver of American taxpayers.

For one thing, according to the Pew Economic Policy Group, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts will cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, once the costs of servicing the debt are factored in. But no one has proposed allowing them all expire, and it's incredibly disingenuous of Republicans to claim otherwise, especially since it was a budget gimmick by former President George W. Bush to include the ten-year sunset at all.

Extending just the cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans will cost $830 billion over ten years.

So,in rejecting Palin's myth restated today about "a multi-trillion dollar tax hike":

ABC's Mike Wallace's question was about letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. President Barack Obama's plan would increase income taxes for individuals making more than $200,000 and for couples making more than $250,000, with indexing for inflation. Wallace mentions that the Republican proposal to retain the tax cuts for the wealthy is "$678 billion you're not going to pay for." That's a reasonable estimate of how much increasing taxes on top earners would generate over 10 years.

Palin, however, responded as if the Democrats intend to allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone. If that were to happen, it would increase tax revenues by approximately $3.8 trillion over ten years.

But that's not what Democrats are proposing; they want to leave tax rates untouched for people who make less.

As for Sarah Palin, her pants are still on fire. And unless you're Rich Lowry, that's not a not a good thing


Going back to 2008, below are some observations of the then McCain/Palin Campaign history.

The Senate has voted only once that year on legislation that would change bankruptcy laws to help distressed homeowners. John McCain was absent for that vote. Contrary to what Palin says, the McCain campaign acknowledges that he does not support those changes to bankruptcy laws.

Palin on Troop Levels in Iraq

During an exchange on Iraq, Palin erroneously claimed the United States is down to presurge levels in Iraq. Palin said, "We have got to win Iraq. And with the surge that has worked we're now down to presurge numbers in Iraq. That's where we could be." Palin is incorrect.

FACT: The Alaska governor is wrong because the number of troops on the ground is still higher and the number of combat brigades is the same as at the start of the surge in January 2007, according to Pentagon figures. Iraq troop levels before the surge were at 133,500. While U.S. troop levels in Iraq have been in the 142,000 range recently, today they are at around 150,000 because of an ongoing troop rotation.
Palin misidentified Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, as "McClellan" several times during the debate.

Claims made by the candidates during the vice presidential debate.
At one point Palin said, "First, McClellan did not say definitively that the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certain accounting for different conditions in that country and conditions are certainly different."

FACT: The general commanding troops in Afghanistan is McKiernan.

Obama's Statements About Meeting President of Iran

When Palin criticized Barack Obama for saying he would be willing to meet with the president of Iran, a nation with whom the United States does not currently have formal diplomatic relations, Biden reacted and said, "Can, can I clarify this? That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad."

FACT: While the Illinois senator has clarified this statement several times with further explanation about the conditions that would have to be met before a presidential-level meeting, Biden is incorrect that Obama "did not say" it. let's tell it like it is.