Miami — In an interview after her speech at the Republican Governors’ Association meetings here today, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin criticized the Bush administration for exacerbating voter “distrust” by shifting money from the $700 billion bailout from buying bad bank assets to purchasing additional stock in banks. In response to the proposed changes, announced yesterday by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Palin expressed frustration on behalf of a weary electorate and offered a stern warning. “No more surprises,” she said. “I think the surprises make the electorate distrust elected officials and their ability to appoint people who are to be looking out for the public’s interest.” The brief interview took place in a meeting room at the Miami Intercontinental Hotel. I asked her the question today because when Wolf Blitzer asked her a similar question yesterday, she struggled to give him an answer. She initially told him that “there is going to come a point here where absolutely the federal government must play an appropriate role in shoring up some of these industries that are hurting and will ultimately hurt our entire economy and the world’s economy if there aren’t some better decisions being made.” But then she spoke of the need for “personal responsibility” and worried about setting a bad precedent. Blitzer pressed her:
Blitzer: So, sorry, I’m still waiting for the answer, should the government bail out the big three automakers? SP: Well, that — it’s in debate right now and I’m listening closely to the debate and there is a lot of information that even you and I certainly aren’t privy to, to understand all of the ramifications if federal government were going to step in and bail out. But we do know that the auto industry is that important that certainly it needs to be considered. But, you know, I’m not getting to ignore the debate again that I think needs to lead to the personal responsibility, the management decisions that have been made in some of these companies and corporations that have also led us to where we are. Blitzer: So I hear you saying you need more information right now. SP: Yes, I do. Yes.
In her speech this morning, Palin alluded to the bailout and voiced her growing concerns about Washington’s addiction to, as she put it, “opium” — O.P.M. – other people’s money. During a panel discussion following her speech, TWS editor Bill Kristol lamented the fact that there had not been a serious alternative to the $700 billion bailout and Congressman Mike Pence explained his opposition to the bailout. In her interview with TWS, Palin seemed more skeptical of the a potential bailout of the automakers than she had been yesterday. The exchange with Palin follows.
TWS: Where are you on the possible bailout of the automakers? SP: Not real enthused about looking at this next package if this entails additional dollars – beyond the $700 billion – and if it at all would suggest in this new proposal that these would be grants, not loans. And because Paulson just came out yesterday and again this morning kind of shifting gears on Americans in terms of what had just been proposed in the first bailout. It kind of lends to some distrust to the solution here that’s being proposed. So we all need more information on what exactly is it this time – the second bailout package that would evidently be very beneficial for manufacturing, for the auto industry. If that’s important we have to consider it. But no more surprises. I think the surprises make the electorate distrust elected officials and their ability to appoint people who are to be looking out for the public’s interest. TWS: Given that reality… SP: And the other Republican governors, too. I don’t hear a whole lot of them real enthused about the second idea. TWS: Given the changes – and the fact that they’re suddenly shifting – do you have any regrets for supporting the initial bailout? SP: No, because I think that we had to do something there. And Bill Kristol and others up there were saying also there had to be action taken by the federal government to start shoring up some of the elements here of the economic collapse – especially in the housing market. But now, with talk of a second, a third, a fourth stimulus or bailout package that’s being considered right now without all of the details – and was suggested up there also, all three pages of the $700 billion bailout. Well, not regret for the action that was taken. But certainly Americans need to know what we’re talking about when we’re talking about these solutions that aren’t obviously solely based on free enterprise solutions. We need more information. And we also need to get to the point where we’re not reacting in crisis mode but we can be proactive here. That entails of course greater oversight of the entities and the players involved in all this. But with this second bailout plan that would evidently exclusively assist one segment of the manufacturing industry we want to know – Americans want to know that there is accountability here also. And if there were poor management practices and actions taken by the corporations and companies themselves that led to this collapse – it shouldn’t be about a blank check handed to them as a reward for perhaps some poor judgment and poor decisions made. There’s got to be accountability, otherwise, you know, there’s going to be a line of entities, states, people with their hands out sayin’: ‘I want some of that, too.’ And what about those who have been wise and made sound decisions based on the circumstances that they were in?
