By MICHAEL KINSLEY

 Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you
 because she comes from a small town, and a superior
human being because she isn't a journalist and has
never lived in Washington and likes to watch her
 kids play hockey.

Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance
 speech as a man who puts the good of his country
ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved
 the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose
 main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars.

So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything
 that is good and fine about America, as she herself
 maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how
 she is a tough fiscal conservative.


Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie
that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere"
(McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending).

 In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a
 symbol and political albatross. Back to reality. Of the
50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and
 No. 1 in spending per resident.

Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national
average; its spending, more than double. The trick is
that Alaska's government spends money on its own
 citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it.

Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating
ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no
 evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would
be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

 Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC.
 It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more
than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average,
 three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by
the state government before that oil is permitted to leave
the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for
about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional
$1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage
 of rising oil prices.


Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks
 in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or
can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.
 As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1,
year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington.

In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax
Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid
 per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received
per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received
 to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in
 the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and
above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

 Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has
 unusually strong powers to shape the state budget.
 At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that
 she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during
 her two years as governor.

This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget.
That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it
(the government) could find in wasteful spending under
her control.

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is
 an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the
theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it
would discourage domestic production.
Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can
 make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they
 can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than
$100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads
the money around to those who are hurting from higher
oil prices.

 Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute,
 her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative
accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's
windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take.

 Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax.
 The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra
costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75%
of the difference between that and the sale price.

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not
 for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it?
People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of
the U.S. They're more American.
 Although there are small towns and farms and high school
hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here,
per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists
 and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who
 might benefit if every American had the same right to leech
off the government as do the good citizens
of Sarah Palin's Alaska.