Much of the discussion around the first article seemed to be whether or not these were "good" or "bad" executive decisions based on the veto reason listed on many of the line items mentioned, many of them stating "other funding options available". Keep in mind that these are line item vetos of things that made it through the legislature, so in a fair examination, one must consider what those "alternative sources" are, whether or not the items actually got funded and what kinds of implications this might have. It should be noted that Palin rode into office after NEA-Alaska and several school districts sued the State and that her campaign materials from that time specifically speak to the issue of better funding education. This whole discussion deserves its own article, so I will pause in this introduction to say that we will be dedicating a full post to that topic shortly in which I will (among other things)l chronicle my recent conversation with one member of the Anchorage School Board :)
In the article at hand, however, we will continue to stack things up on the balanace scales for people to examine more closely and hopefully continue to generate some intelligent discussion. On one side is $523,000 for shooting ranges and on the other is $522,534 for schools. Please note that in light of the things mentioned in the introduction, we have included the veto reason cited in this article.
These items took no cuts from Governor Palin (see the budget itself):
- Petersburgh Shooting Range
Budget Page 25 (PDF page 27), Line #30: Improvements
Total Cost: $25,000 - Juneau Hunter Education
Budget Page 67 (PDF page 69), Line #7: Indoor Shooting Range Completion (Cost: $338,000)
These items took partial cuts:
- Ketchikan Rod and Gun Club
Line Item #11: Facility improvements.
Total Cost: $25,000
Veto Reason: "Fund at reduced level" - Juneau Hunter Education
Line Item #46: Indoor Shooting Range Completion
Post-veto cost: $25,000
Veto Reason: "50% funding. One time only." - Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association
Line Item #114: Shooting Facility Replacement
Post-veto cost: $110,000
Veto Reason: "50% funding. One time only."
It would be easy to get sidetracked in this discussion as to whether or not these are important things for the State government to fund, and that is a fine discussion to have. However, all things being equal, we should be able to compare priorities. The following items, of approximately the same dollar value were vetoed by Governor Palin:
- Resource Center for Parents and Children
Line Item#105: Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program
Total Cost: $15,840
Veto Reason: "Lower funding priority" - Tenana City School District
Line Item #82: Repair School Bus
Total Cost: $36,000
Veto Reason: "Lower funding priority" - Copper River School District
Line Item #117: Glennallen High School - fire alarm and security system upgrade
Total Cost: $100,000
Veto Reason: "Other funding options available" - Valdez High School
Line Item #123: Fire alarm repair and completion (Cost: $15,000)
Veto Reason: "Other funding options available"
Line Item #124: Sprinkler design and repair ($18,0000)
Veto reason: "Other funding options available"
Total Cost: $33,000 - Big Lake Elementary School
Line Item #139: Boiler upgrades
Total Cost: $10,000
Veto reason: "Other funding options available" - Su Valley Jr/Sr High School
Line Item #144: Library technology upgrades
Total Cost: $7,500
Veto reason: "Other funding options available" - Creekside Park Elementary School
Line Item #162: New library books
Total Cost: $10,000
Veto reason: "Other funding options available" - Juno School District
Line Item #41: 2008 Southeast Alaska Regional Science Fair
Total Cost: $10,000
Veto reason: "Lower funding priority" - Campbell Elementary School
Line Item #248: Domestic hot water heater and hot water pumps and hot and cold water
Total Cost: $300,000
Veto Reason: "Other funding options available"
Posts
3 comments:
I think the question re: state funding of shooting ranges is valid; the elevation of guns over education suggests we may not have a clear understanding of the people of Alaska. Then again, I guess this is no longer just about the people of Alaska. When you project her veto choices onto the national stage, you really have to wonder what her priorities will be. You begin to get a sense of her world view, which is clearly rooted in the paranoia-friendly approach that has made the Republican party the refuge of gun owners. I am forced to wonder: couldn't those shooting ranges have been privately funded? Why did guns trump schools? McCain's choice of Palin has a Machiavellian (not in the pejorative sense) feel to it; it basically reassures the base that the new Republican regime will keeps things the same post-election, despite their insincere talk of "change" during the campaign. There is some irony in the Democratic slogan "McCain - More of the Same." Under the hood, that is exactly what the Republicans are promising by choosing Palin as a VP candidate. Her veto history is revelatory in this regard.
I think that whether or not _anything_ receives state funds could be presented in an intelligent way (pro or con). However, I really think that that is a larger, and separate debate. Once you _have_ allocated N dollars to one thing in the budget and not to another, I think that we can at least discuss whether the priorities are correct in a somewhat less partisan fashion.
I agree though that it is an interesting topic, and I think that any discussion of that would also have to address the larger question of whether that really is more Big Government which conservative minded people generally oppose. I would rather not get too sidetracked on those issues in this article though.
Not to get any further off topic (and certainly this is a bit further off than when we earlier chatted on this), but is it any real wonder why guns are being prioritized over education? Very cynical and partisan belief here, but doesn't pimping a policy of fear and gun ownership fly in the face of education and peace. Sure, we ought to provide for our defense, but we do little for our defense when we propagate the current foreign policy. That is what we will see under Palin and her righteous views on the war.
Look, if we (meaning government) are providing for people to hone their aim with a rifle and prioritizing that over helping hone young minds, we do ourselves no favors in winning peace and understanding history.
McCain/Palin will always support the Military Industrial Complex. They are part of that machine. So I'm making a stretch to correlate a small town state-sponsored shooting range to our flawed foreign policy, but I believe given time and energy, the argument can be made succinctly and supported by fact.
Maybe Greg Mortenson could have started here at home.
I guess, to tie it back to the original question as to why should the state spend money on shooting ranges while rejecting money for education, I once again answer with a question. To me, the real question is, at what cost?
Post a Comment