Palinonmics

I disagree with Jed -- I don't see this WaPo story about Sarah Palin gaining that much traction.

The gist of the story is this: Palin billed the state of Alaska for per diem expenses on days while she stayed at home on 312 different occasions, for a total of $16,951. She also billed the state $43,490 for travel expenses incurred by her husband and children, most of it to do with them accompanying her to various gubernatorial appearances.

I could let most of the first part slide. Presumably, she actually did do some traveling on official business during the day on those occasions when she billed for per diem expenses, and the WaPo story indicates that, in principle, being reimbursed for this is not out of line under Alaska law. Even if she padded her expense account, I expect most people to react with a collective shrug.

The travel expenses for her husband and children is more troubling to me. This example jumped out:

Asked Monday about the official policy on charging for children's travel expenses, [state finance director Kim] Garnero said: "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that."

But [gubernatorial spokeswoman Sharon] Leighow said many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, placing the definition of "state business" with the party extending the invitation.

One such invitation came in October 2007, when Willow flew to Juneau to join the Palin family on a tour of the Hub Juneau Christian Teen Center, where Palin and her family worship when they are in Juneau. The state gave the center $25,000, according to a May 2008 memo.

It has irritated me since the day she was announced how gratuitously she uses her kids as campaign props, to build the "hockey mom" image. This particular episode seems doubly shaky, since it involves taxpayers' money going to a church, and specifically, hers.

Still, as much as I'd like to be proved wrong about this story not going anywhere, I have the feeling that most people will react with a yawn. Either they'll see it as the typical beak-dipping politician -- "they all do it" -- and not really involving that much money, or, especially among those who like her, they'll see it as more "family values." The fundamentalists' ability to rationalize misbehavior on the part of one of their own knows no bounds.