Did she actually charge for lodging? I didn’t see where she did that. Can you point it out?
Be careful - this can easily be played in her favor. If she were forced to give a statement about this, she could say,
"You know, my travel expenses are about 20% of my predecessor’s. Why? because I decided I didn’t need to be flown around like some queen of the realm, but could drive myself or fly commercial if I had to. That saved the taxpayers about $350,000 per year.
Do I collect per-diems for my travel? Absolutely. My family is not rich, and I can not afford to soak up all the costs of travel across this great state. I’m a working mom with five kids. An average person. I support average citizens getting involved in politics, and that means they have to be able to draw a fair wage and be compensated for their expenses.
Any examination of my expense claims will show that I don’t claim everything I’m entitled to. I try to be as frugal as I can. But I simply can’t afford to take all these expenses on the chin. My family doesn’t have the money."
If she said something like that, it would be dynamite. First, it would get her lots of sympathy, and make her more in touch with the average voter. It would reinforce her ‘outsider’ status, and make her opponents look petty for going after her over this. It would play great in the heartland. And what’s even better, it’s true. Step away from your side’s talking points and think about it. Sarah Palin is clearly not about milking the job for personal financial benefit. She hasn’t written a million-dollar book about her life. She turned down a personal jet and a personal chef. Her predecessor was driven around in a limo with an entourage. She drives herself around in a Volkswagen. Despite being allowed (and encouraged) to fly first class, when she travels commercial she flies coach. As Mayor, she cut her own salary even though her and her husband’s combined salaries only put them in the middle of the middle class.
This dog simply won’t hunt. You’re not going to get her on this, because everything else she’s done contradicts the narrative you’re trying to build. So you’re wasting your time and would be better off looking elsewhere for your dirt.
Fantastic. She should give that little speech. Well done.
Right, when she was travelling. It didn’t say that the per diem claims were only when she was travelling, in fact, it sounded like she took the meal per diem even when she was at home and commuting to Anchorage office
Here: “Ms. Palin was able to receive the allotment while she was at home because her official “duty station” is listed as Juneau, the state capital, aides said. That allowed Ms. Palin to file for per diems while she was working out of her Anchorage office and commuting from her home about 45 miles away in Wasilla. Juneau is nearly 600 miles away.”
Now, to me, that sounds like Ms. Palin had, as a great many Americans do, a commute and that she lived at home. Yet, because her “duty station” was Juneau, she took advantage of the per diem and got paid for “travel expenses” when she was, in fact, simply commuting to work and back. I think it’s … suspect… that she would get comped meals for a commute.
If the claims she made are all while she was travelling, good for her. But if she’s taking $60 a day for what the rest of us working schlubs call living life, I find that a bit troubling coming from a maverick reformer.
And I’m still …leery about taking your family on boondoggles while proclaiming yourself a maverick money saver, but that’s just me.
Palin deserves kudos for not taking advantage of ALL the benefits she could have. Good for her.
I would expect nothing but from you.
She isn’t charging lodging. She entered “lodging – own residence” to indicate why the “lodging” column is left empty. What she charged is in the column for “Meals & Incidental Expenses.” Reimbursment for meals is perfectly normal when traveling a distance from one’s home or office for work purposes, even if one returns home the same day.
Which makes the Post article’s headline complete BS, as it reads “Palin Billed State for Nights Spent at Home,” which is not in the least indicated by their evidence.
What I am suggesting is that it is absurd for Non-governors and non-residents of Alaska to automatically assume corruption simply because they are unwilling or unable to bill for expenses in their own lines of work. This is another ridiculous “scandal” that has no legs other than those given to it by self proclaimed Obama fans looking for an angle.
Ethics are a personal decision. If what she did is within the law, as confirmed by the state finance director, I have no problem with it. Were I in a similar position, and I knew that I saved the state significantly more money in other areas, I would have no problem sleeping at night due to my decision to file expenses while I traveled on behalf of the State.
Can you please show where she claimed lodging expenses?
Came back to add that the insinuations the Post was making are really annoying. They imply that she was charging for lodging herself in her own home (actually, in the headline they state it outright), which she didn’t (as anyone who took 2 seconds to look at her expense report could see…for one thing, there’s nothing in the “lodging” column, and for another, clearly $60 would not be meant to cover lodging AND meals on a trip). They go on to say that she “deleted the phrase but still charged the per diem,” which also implies something shady, as if she was now trying to HIDE that she charegd for lodging herself in her own home. That phrase, as I said before, was obviously meant to explain why she was charging the meal portion of the per diem but NOT the lodging part, and when people started getting “confused” about her meaning, she took it off, hoping that THEN they would get that she wasn’t charging for lodging in her own home. Nice reporting, there, Washington Post. And doesn’t show your bias at all.
Most of them have to have 2 homes and that is expensive. Then when they get kids in college they experience real world money crunches. I have heard of them staying in the office for years.
Palin collected 319 days per diem in 19 months. I need to know how she jusifies that or charging her state for her kids going on trips. Can you twist into a way to justify it? Sure if you toss out the ethics and principles. It is taking advantage of the system . She claims to be different. Wrong.
Come on, people. I’m an Obama voter who is horrified at the prospect of this wacko getting into national office, but these issues constitute some very thin beer indeed. You want to go after her record of governance, you should look at how she fucked up the sports-complex land acquisition when she was mayor, and saddled her city with millions of dollars in needless debt. That’s a juicy, juicy target, and I’m amazed more isn’t being made of it. This expense report stuff, by contrast, is a dead end. So what if she checked the wrong box or filed the wrong form or didn’t observe some finicky regulation or whatever the hell it is she’s being accused of doing; the bottom line numbers are an ambiguous wash. It ain’t got no legs. Let it go. There’s ample grounds on which to attack her as unfit for national leadership without having to trump up some bureaucratic arglebargle.
Right. There are some serious problems with Palin, but this crap and the “bookbanning” bullshit ain’t it. Harping on such obvious swiftboating attempts reflects badly on you guys, not Palin. This sort of bullshit makes it more likely for dudes to vote McCain, not less.
If someone could answer my concerns, I would never raise it again. I just don’t know enough about it to simply dismiss it. But, from what I gather, she was taking $60 a day per diem for her commute to work, something that, while apparently allowed because her “office” was in Juneau, I find to be … troubling when she touts herself as a crusader against government waste and political corruption. Add in her claims about being against earmarks and the bridge when she was requesting the largest per capita earmarks request in the nation is, to me, … not the best.
See, there is a difference between wanting information and vetting and political attacks. Especially when she is surprisingly (or not) unavailable to answer these questions.
Can anybody come up with a reason for not claiming everything she’s entitled to? I get that her family isn’t rich (well off, sure, but not rich). Everyone I’ve ever met who isn’t rich, including myself, takes all that they can from their per diem. Why wouldn’t you? Why isn’t Gov. Palin? If it’s because she wants to save the taxpayers money, why claim a per diem at all? I just don’t get the calculus that says, “I’m not rich, so I’ll take some per diem, even though it looks fishy, but I’m a cost-cutter, so I won’t take it all.” Does not compute.
Additionally, it does sound like she’s gaming the system. Her “duty station” is in Juneau, but she lives over 600 miles away from it. That’s fine, it’s her prerogative not to move to her “duty station,” but she is the one who made that choice. I don’t see how she can then claim travel expenses and M&IE for going to Anchorage simply because she’s chosen NOT to base herself out of her duty station.
And, on top of that, it seems that when she DOES travel to Juneau, she gets it paid for. Isn’t that ENTIRELY analogous to a normal, everyday worker attempting to get reimbursed for her morning commute? It’s not the state of Alaska’s fault that she’s chosen to have a 600+ mile morning commute. Why should they have to foot the bill?
Definitely a case of trying to have her cake (i.e., not moving to where her job is based) and eating it too (but still claiming travel and per diem because she didn’t move to where her job is based). Either she should get paid for traveling to Anchorage or she should get paid for traveling to Juneau, but I can’t see the logic where one of these doesn’t count as a standard, nonreimbursable commute to work.
Lastly, there are of course greater controversies wrt Gov. Palin. She’s gaming the per diem system, like most govt employees do (although it seems she’s doing it a little more egregiously than most). But one would at least hope that she isn’t allowed to claim EXTRA street cred as a “cost cutting reformer” for playing the per diem game!
Are you forgetting one little fact? All she had to do was keep the damned jet, and she could have flown her entire family wherever she wanted to in the style of the rich and famous.
I wonder how many times she thought about that private jet and the chauffeured limo while dragging her bags out of the trunk of her WV and across the tarmac at the Juneau airport on a January night when it was -40 outside?
As for why she didn’t claim the kid, maybe she went down the list of expenses and just thought, “oh, that one’s a bit much.”
Really, this line of attack you’re on is ridiculous. I understand the strategy - hit her where she’s strong. Take away her edge. She does something good and honorable, and the voters like it? Well, let’s see if we just can’t throw a little slime on that.
I mean, I understand what the Democrat’s operatives are up to. I would hope free-thinking people on this board wouldn’t just lap up their kool-aid, though.
That’s a total non sequitir. What you’re saying, if I may paraphrase, is that because she got rid of the jet, she’s allowed to abuse the per diem system? By that logic, if President McCain were to eschew living in the White House in favor of taking residence in some of his other houses, he’d be allowed to bill the mortgages as taxpayer expenses.
Probably a lot. What’s your point here? I absolutely don’t follow.
I’d agree with this. I’d also think that claiming meal expenses while staying at home is “a bit much,” but you’d disagree, it seems.
Look, you can slime me as a Democrat [sic] operative all you want, but it’s really simple. She lived at her house but claimed thousands of dollars worth of per diems. There may be some reason why this is kosher – and we’re delving into it with technicalities about duty stations and whatnot – but, at a glance, claiming many per diems while staying at home seems fishy. I don’t know why you have to smear those of us who are simply asking, “Wait, what’s going on there?”
For fuck’s sake, it was FLAVOR-AID! I’m getting really tired of seeing that.
Oh, and by the way, being less extravagant than the former governor famed practically nationwide for his corruption is not exactly something to brag about.
She makes a 125 a year and hubby is at 92. Toss in their per diem and expense accounts ,they are doing well. In Alaska is 250 just getting by?
She’s only been making that for a couple of years. Before that, her salary was $64,000.
And no, in Alaska that’s not as much as you’d think. Everything is hella expensive up there.
Becuase that’s how the law works for politicians. Just now, Californian Assemblymen/Sentators are also getting their per diem. It’s common, legal and acceptable.
Again, Politicians get special tax breaks on this and special per diem as they are required to maintain a home in both their district and the Capital (well, they don;t have to have a home there, they can get a hotel room, but…). Their “job” is also of a limited term, so no one expects them to move to where their job is.
If you had a similar job, you could claim per diem also.
Yes, but not all politicians are required to maintain a home in their district and also have somewhere to stay in the capital. Governors don’t have districts.
I don’t have a problem with people receiving a per diem while staying in a home that they own. I’m a state employee, and I can do that. I live and work in NYC. If my employer sends me to Lake George, I am eligible for a per diem even if I stay at another home that I own in Lake George.
However-
1) I cannot collect the per diem for staying at my actual residence. My coworkers who live halfway between Albany & NYC don’t get a per diem for working in either office as long as they go home each night. They could get a per diem and lodging if they stayed a hotel when working at the non-official station.
2) If I work in multiple locations ( and I have), my official station is set based on benefit to my employer, and I will receive neither per diems nor mileage reimbursements when working there. That basically means whichever location I work at most frequently will be my official station. If I work three days a week in NYC , and two days a week in Albany (with unpredictable travel elsewhere) , I will not get the per diem when I am working in NYC , but I will be reimbursed for mileage between Albany and NYC.
and 3) I must be working in the non-duty station for my employer’s convenience, not my own.
Alaska has similar requirements for run-of-the mill state workers.
Here is their manual. The pertinent parts are
and
It seems that the Governor’s office is exempt from the standard travel regulations, and it may be perfectly legal for Palin to claim a per diem when working in the area where she spent more than 50% of her time - but it still seems sleazy for her to do what ordinary state workers are not permitted to do , and it certainly detracts from claims that she is a reformer.
[QUOTE=doreen;10181389 Alaska has similar requirements for run-of-the mill state workers.
[Here is their manual]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10181064). The pertinent parts are
and
It seems that the Governor’s office is exempt from the standard travel regulations, and it may be perfectly legal for Palin to claim a per diem when working in the area where she spent more than 50% of her time - but it still seems sleazy for her to do what ordinary state workers are not permitted to do , and it certainly detracts from claims that she is a reformer.
[/QUOTE]
Again, you can’t compare a Civil servant position to an elected official. Whe you took your job, did they say you only had two (or 4 ) years in it? If you come back and show that only the Office of the Gov in AK gets those special per deim (and not regaular members of the state legislature) , great. But you won’t.