Winky is a lying sack of conservative shiat.

SmackDaddy

Duke status
Feb 12, 2002
18,919
0
0
San Diego, CA
AP: Palin children traveled on state


Save This Email This Print This Most Popular


By Brett J. Blackledge, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:06 p.m. October 21, 2008

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.
The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.



AdvertisementIn all, Palin has charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters' 64 one-way and 12 round-trip commercial flights since she took office in December 2006. In some other cases, she has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.
Alaska law does not specifically address expenses for a governor's children. The law allows for payment of expenses for anyone conducting official state business.

As governor, Palin justified having the state pay for the travel of her daughters – Bristol, 17; Willow, 14; and Piper, 7 – by noting on travel forms that the girls had been invited to attend or participate in events on the governor's schedule.

But some organizers of these events said they were surprised when the Palin children showed up uninvited, or said they agreed to a request by the governor to allow the children to attend.

Several other organizers said the children merely accompanied their mother and did not participate. The trips enabled Palin, whose main state office is in the capital of Juneau, to spend more time with her children.

“She said any event she can take her kids to is an event she tries to attend,” said Jennifer McCarthy, who helped organize the June 2007 Family Day Celebration picnic in Ketchikan that Piper attended with her parents.

State Finance Director Kim Garnero told The Associated Press she has not reviewed the Palins' travel expense forms, so she could not say whether the daughters' travel with their mother would meet the definition of official business.

After Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain chose Palin his running mate and reporters asked for the records, Palin ordered changes to previously filed expense reports for her daughters' travel.

In the amended reports, Palin added phrases such as “First Family attending” and “First Family invited” to explain the girls' attendance.

“The governor said, 'I want the purpose and the reason for this travel to be clear,'” said Linda Perez, state director of administrative services.

When Palin released her family's tax records as part of her vice presidential campaign, some tax experts questioned why she did not report the children's state travel reimbursements as income.

The Palins released a review by a Washington attorney who said state law allows the children's travel expenses to be reimbursed and not taxed when they conduct official state business.

Taylor Griffin, a McCain-Palin campaign spokesman, said Palin followed state policy allowing governors to charge for their children's travel. He said the governor's office has invitations requesting the family to attend some events, but he said he did not have them to provide.

In October 2007, Palin brought daughter Bristol along on a trip to New York for a women's leadership conference. Plane tickets from Anchorage to La Guardia Airport for $1,385.11 were billed to the state, records show, and mother and daughter shared a room for four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House hotel, which overlooks Central Park.

The event's organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter.

Alexis Gelber, who organized Newsweek's Third Annual Women & Leadership Conference, said she does not know how Bristol ended up attending. Gelber said invitees usually attend alone, but some ask if they can bring a relative or friend.

Griffin, the campaign spokesman, said he believes someone with the event personally sent an e-mail to Bristol inviting her, but he did not have it to provide. Records show Palin also met with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs representatives and visited the New York Stock Exchange.

In January, the governor, Willow and Piper showed up at the Alaska Symphony of Seafood Buffet, an Anchorage gala to announce winners of an earlier seafood competition.

“She was just there,” said James Browning, executive director of Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, which runs the event. Griffin said the governor's office received an invitation that was not specifically addressed to anyone.

When Palin amended her children's expense reports, she listed a role for the two girls at the function – “to draw two separate raffle tickets.”

In the original travel form, Palin listed a number of events that her children attended and said they were there “in official capacity helping.” She did not identify any specific roles for the girls.

In July, the governor charged the state $2,741.26 to take Bristol and Piper to Philadelphia for a meeting of the National Governors Association. The girls had their own room for five nights at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for $215.46 a night, expense records show.

Expense forms describe the girls' official purpose as “NGA Governor's Youth Programs and family activities.” But those programs were activities designed to keep children busy, a service provided by the NGA

to accommodate governors and their families, NGA spokeswoman Jodi Omear said.

In addition to the commercial flights, the children have traveled dozens of times with Palin on a state plane. For these flights, the total cost of operating the plane, at $971 an hour, was about $55,000, according to state flight logs. The cost of operating the state plane does not increase when the children join their mother.

The organizer of an American Heart Association luncheon on Feb. 15 in Fairbanks said Palin asked to bring daughter Piper to the event, and the organizer said she was surprised when Palin showed up with daughter Willow and Bristol as well.

The three Palin daughters shared a room separate from their mother at the Princess Lodge in Fairbanks for two nights, at a cost to the state of $129 per night.

The luncheon took place before Palin's husband, Todd, finished fourth in the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snowmobile race, also in Fairbanks. The family greeted him at the finish line.

When Palin showed up at the luncheon with not just Piper but also Willow and Bristol, organizers had to scramble to make room at the main table, said Janet Bartels, who set up the event.

“When it's the governor, you just make it happen,” she said.

The state is already reviewing nearly $17,000 in per diem payments to Palin for more than 300 nights she slept at her own home, 40 miles from her satellite office in Anchorage.

Tony Knowles, a Democratic former governor of Alaska who lost to Palin in a 2006 bid to reclaim the job, said he never charged the state for his three children's commercial flights or claimed their travel as official state business.

Knowles, who was governor from 1994 to 2002, is the only other recent Alaska governor who had school-age children while in office.

“There was no valid reason for the children to be along on state business,” said Knowles, a supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. “I cannot recall any instance during my eight years as governor where it would have been appropriate to claim they performed state business.”

Knowles said he brought his children to one NGA event while in office but didn't charge the state for their trip.

In February 2007, the three girls flew from Juneau to Anchorage on Alaska Airlines. Palin charged the state for the $519.30 round-trip ticket for each girl, and noted on the expense form that the daughters accompanied her to “open the start of the Iron Dog race.”

The children and their mother then watched as Todd Palin and other racers started the competition, which Todd won that year. Palin later had the relevant expense forms changed to describe the girls' business as “First Family official starter for the start of the Iron Dog race.”

The Palins began charging the state for commercial flights after the governor kept a 2006 campaign promise to sell a jet bought by her predecessor.

Palin put the jet up for sale on eBay, a move she later trumpeted in her star-making speech at the Republican National Convention, and it was ultimately sold by the state at a loss.

That left only one high-performance aircraft deemed safe enough for her to use – a 1980 twin-engine King Air assigned to the public safety agency but, according to flight logs, out of service for maintenance and repairs about a third of the time Palin has been governor.

Meanwhile

 

SmackDaddy

Duke status
Feb 12, 2002
18,919
0
0
San Diego, CA
What a crack up, not one nutjob to defend this crap. Hey maybe Obama's intelligence is starting to rub off on you.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
OK, I'd like to see a anal probe breakdown of all other Governor's, Senator's, Congressmen's extra-curricular expenses, family AND non-family related. I would bet most all others make Palin's look like chump change, even in the county size states of the Northeast.

The other issue is that Alaska is a huge state to get around in. Anchorage is a long ways (almost 500 miles) from very isolated Juneau. The only way into Juneau is by boat or plane. If you had to commute that much, would you leave your kids behind every single time?

By the way, I wonder how much Bill and Hillary spent taking Chelsea on world adventures during thier terms as governor and president? Like I said, Palin's is chump change in conparison. But hey, keep on digging. At least she's willing to expose her records from her past, as opposed to that other dem candidate that is above all scrutiny, because after all, he is "The One". I wonder how much Obama has spent tooling his kids around on the campaign trail the last 18+ months? Like I said, Palin's in chump change in comparison.
 

SmackDaddy

Duke status
Feb 12, 2002
18,919
0
0
San Diego, CA
Well then by all means it's okay. BTW, how many others went back and changed their expense reports with lies once they knew reporters would be looking at them? You'll crucify Clinton over lying about a bj, but stealing $21K from the gov't is okay with you.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,620
23,240
113
was that supposed to be a substantiated rebuttal?

at least mention "travelgate" to reinforce your point.
 

Surfdog

Duke status
Apr 22, 2001
21,768
1,988
113
South coast OR
Travelgate, Troopergate. The dems and their gates. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> Every Repub is another Nixon, I guess. Even though those acronyms were used for Billary first, and they were legitimate, though not persued by the adoring media. These for Palin will prove toothless, typical overhype and grandstanding by the media. All the while overlooking the Obama issues that really matter to the future of the USA.

I just read that Obama spent $105 MILLION in the FIRST 2 WEEKS of October. He's getting money from all sorts of unregulated sources, even out of the country. But nobody cares. McCain is stuck using regulated sources, since he was one of the Senators that initiated campaign finance reform, he's sticking to his word.

Obama is setting a new precedent and a all time high (low) for campaign financing reform needs. If Repubs were pulling in the coin the way he is for this election, it would HUGE hyped up news in the media. There would be calls for all kinds of investigations. But not for "The One". Oh no, he's is above all scrutiny. He is pure as the Chicago wind driven snow. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />

But hey, he's setting all kinds of new lower standards in campaign ethics, too. It will break all records when everything is said and done. I know, the ends justifies the means, so it's perfectly fine and acceptable for the libby dems. Typical dem/libby-left socialist standards. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />

Like the media anal-probed Joe the Plumber, I fear for this country. We are going down the road to more government control, and Obamas supporters either don't care, or think it's perfectly OK, since it will be the dems doing the controlling. There will be al kinds of "emergencies" to take more controls. It's already happening with the financial industry.

It shows what blinding, foaming at the mouth hate for a certain person can do to people. They throw aside all sense, objectivity, and reasoning.

They better look at who got us into this financial mess. In Nov 2006, the Dems took control of Congress (and also controlled Fannie and Freddie well before then), which passes all legislation. We've gone downhill ever since.

Get ready for the 70's and it's inflation, high interest rates, high unemeployment, stagnant growth and economy. We will need another Reagan again in 2012, if we make it that fair with our wallets intact. Many too young to remember or too easy to forget what it was like before the 80's. We haven't seen real inflation for 30-35 years. How would you like to see price increases on everything 10-20% A YEAR. We had a taste of it when oil spiked last summer, but take that on a annual basis for years at a stretch. A $20K house in 1970 was worth $100K+ in 1980. A 400% increase in 10 years. Gas and food pretty much the same increases. Wages went up, but not by those percentages, by any means. During the Carter years inflation was spiraling out of control.

But if government gets more control of our daily lives, we may not have much say in anything, anyway. We will all be finally equal. Equally poor with just enough to get by, depending on the government for our standard of living. Hey, they do that in Cuba, and they're fine right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />. They did that in the U.S.S.R. and other communist block countries. If you didn't agree, you just kinda.....go away. They just didn't do it right, though. Obama will do socialism the right way (or is it the left way?), but you better agree or......? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />
 

blakestah

Phil Edwards status
Sep 10, 2002
6,139
0
0
Obama is setting a new precedent and a all time high (low) for campaign financing reform needs. If Repubs were pulling in the coin the way he is for this election, it would HUGE hyped up news in the media. There would be calls for all kinds of investigations. But not for "The One". Oh no, he's is above all scrutiny. He is pure as the Chicago wind driven snow. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />
Obama set records for the NUMBER of people donating as well as overall fundraising. People are fed up. Deal.

The only reason McCain accepted public financing is because he could not raise enough money to make it worthwhile to discard it.

But hey, he's setting all kinds of new lower standards in campaign ethics, too. It will break all records when everything is said and done. I know, the ends justifies the means, so it's perfectly fine and acceptable for the libby dems. Typical dem/libby-left socialist standards. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" />
You did just say "campaign ethics", didn't you?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" /><img src="/forum/images/graemlins/roflmao.gif" alt="" />

Someone is a little bitter.

Like the media anal-probed Joe the Plumber, I fear for this country. We are going down the road to more government control, and Obamas supporters either don't care, or think it's perfectly OK, since it will be the dems doing the controlling. There will be al kinds of "emergencies" to take more controls. It's already happening with the financial industry.
Where the lack of controls led to a complete trainwreck and retirees losing half their net worth in the last six months!

They better look at who got us into this financial mess. In Nov 2006, the Dems took control of Congress (and also controlled Fannie and Freddie well before then), which passes all legislation. We've gone downhill ever since.
Pass the bowl. That's some good sh1t you are smoking. To think that this financial crisis is or ever will be owned principally by the democrats.

The economy was in bad shape going into the 2000 election. Many people said publicly it would be better for the other candidate to win, because of the coming recession. But GLB99 passed to "reform" the banking system. It alone enabled the entire mortgage-re-packaging industry, and simultaneously crippled banking regulation by allowing banks to invest reserves. That way when the market turns down, bank leverage turns up without the bank doing anything new!

Get ready for the 70's and it's inflation, high interest rates, high unemeployment, stagnant growth and economy. We will need another Reagan again in 2012, if we make it that fair with our wallets intact. Many too young to remember or too easy to forget what it was like before the 80's. We haven't seen real inflation for 30-35 years. How would you like to see price increases on everything 10-20% A YEAR. We had a taste of it when oil spiked last summer, but take that on a annual basis for years at a stretch. A $20K house in 1970 was worth $100K+ in 1980. A 400% increase in 10 years. Gas and food pretty much the same increases. Wages went up, but not by those percentages, by any means. During the Carter years inflation was spiraling out of control.
There were two years of high inflation. It is driven by economic policy - it does not spiral out of control unless you put an idiot in charge of the Fed. In both 1980/81 and our current situation, they loosened monetary policy to prevent economic contraction. Stagflation as opposed to contraction.

In fact, Helicopter Ben Bernanke has some pretty famous quotes about that.

The thought of inflation going in double digits for 5 or 10 years is pretty scary. But not very realistic in the USA. The problems today are that business was running on record debts. There was a huge financial contraction. Now business has to contract to match available funds. Or, we can print more money until there is enough which will lead to inflation.

The inflation from the actions of the treasury and fed will be added to by a currency adjustment which will make imports cost substantially more. The trade deficit has been running rampant for years, and it has been offset by outsourcing of jobs (deflating labor costs). However, that little party comes to an end when there are no more jobs to outsource and there is nothing to offset the trade deficit. Then, you get inflation from the trade deficit, as well as "catch up" inflation from all the years of outsourcing jobs. It ain't gonna be pretty for the next 2-3 years.

The REPUBLICANS in charge of the treasury and the Fed have already decided to do everything they can to cause inflation by printing about 2 trillion dollars more money. It will be a substantial correction, and inflation (and unemployment) are unavoidable. But they feel it is better than economic contraction and much greater unemployment.

But if government gets more control of our daily lives, we may not have much say in anything, anyway. We will all be finally equal. Equally poor with just enough to get by, depending on the government for our standard of living. Hey, they do that in Cuba, and they're fine right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />. They did that in the U.S.S.R. and other communist block countries. If you didn't agree, you just kinda.....go away. They just didn't do it right, though. Obama will do socialism the right way (or is it the left way?), but you better agree or......? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" />
Oooohhh...I am scared of the nasty communists.

Now, which political party was it that just federalized the banking system?

Did John McCain vote to do that?

And you are calling the other party commies because it wants to levy a 3% increase on people making over $250k/yr (who also represent half the income base) ?

That's the funny thing. Politicians say "middle class" to mean everyone who makes money but is less than the top 5%. Upper class is the top 5%.

The upper class has MORE than half the money and income. And they will funnel money to anyone who will increase their money and power.

A funny statistic is that the top 5% do a little better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. However, the lower 95% do MUCH better under Democrats. So it is less about economic growth, and more about separating the have's from the have not's. You are clearly in the "have" camp.

You do know that Bush will be the first president SINCE HOOVER to leave office with fewer American jobs than there were when he entered office, don't you? I suppose that from the "have" camp it doesn't matter much if you gain in population and lose in jobs, but to the other 95% of the country it matters a lot.

How anyone could think the Republican political party is appropriate to work out of the current mess our national gov't is in is beyond me. For 6 years, Bush had Republican House and Senate and unfettered control. If you go back historically, the same party has controlled congress and the White House for two years under Clinton (the first two), and six years under Bush. Other than that, you have to go back to Carter to find a single party controlling the White House, Senate, and House.

Bush and his Republican Congress for six years did nothing positive that any conservative thought government should do. And now, conservative minded people like you are lobbying against Obama AND PRE-BLAMING OBAMA FOR ALL THE THINGS BUSH JUST DID!!! Huge spending. Taking control of people's lives and reducing their liberties.

Like I said, pass that sh1t over, it must be good. The Republicans had TOTAL CONTROL, and they screwed up BIG TIME. The current election is less about who is more capable of getting the USA out of this mess and more about getting the neocons out of office. They were given the ball, and they fumbled. Repeatedly.

The current election is JUST LIKE the 1980 election, only with the parties reversed. In 1980, the Democrats had screwed up the economy and foreign policy badly over the previous 4 years with total control. We waited in line for gas. There were Middle East problems and incompetence in dealing with it. And America responded, resoundingly, by moving to the other party. Today the exact same dynamic is happening, only it is in reverse with respect to parties.

Or, as the John McCain commercial goes, "The past 8 years haven't been very good, have they?"

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/socrazy.gif" alt="" />