EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the U.S. Senate

point taken... one i met when i lived there in 1968. she was not born there. was a military brat like me. we were classmates. she is still there, never left. not a native but her kids are.

most of the people i know from there are ex military, and few of them have lived there less than 20 years...

 

My point is, we hear from many Alaskans about how the federal (and the state for that matter) Takes away their rights, takes their money etc. The fact is that by any metric Alaskans get far more direct financial benefit from government they they pay in. (Both federally and State).

It is irrelevant that the state has a small population and a large area and ergo is expensive to manage. If you provide services then they have to be paid for someway or another. All I am suggesting is that it is disingenuous to suggest that Alaskans are hard pressed by government.

Like I said, I applaud the concept of the Permanent fund, but unless Alaskans are covering their costs themselves, it is just a hand out, and like other handouts clouds the reality. How can a "conservative" Alaskan take a "permanent fund" check on the one hand, and then rail against "welfare queens" on the other. And please don't suggest that it doesn't happen.

In my opinion, every dollar of royalties from Petro should be INVESTED in the future, principal and interest, both federally and state. There will come a time when that money is more important than a new snow machine or pickup truck.

And if one doesn't think that paying out the dividend equates in some measure to a "buy off" then I don't think you have a very good grasp of human nature.

 

then your point about alaska getting more support per capita is also just as irrelevant. there are several fixed costs associated with area, size, and what have you which can not be ignored in any discussion that involves a state that is 3 times the size of Texas.

so even if distance was not a factor (it actually is a very significant cost factor) it simply costs more to do stuff there.

should alaskans shoulder a greater burden for their federal highways than other states like us?? you live in WA state. we Washingtonians could not even come close to paying for or maintaining our two major highways without help and neither can any other state.

 

It is only relevant because there were people defending the Permanent fund pay outs. I have a fairly close connection to Alaska and Alaskans and there is a considerable portion of that population that complains about "taxes from Juneau, or taxes from DC" I am merely making the observation that regardless of percapita costs or per mile costs of any government services, these costs must be paid. I understand that it is more expensive to do nearly everything in AK and that is why it receives more back from DC than it sends. To be clear, to go back in this thread, I have contended that the dividend payouts to AK residents merely because they live in AK is a mistake. As I suggested early on, if Ak was a leader in providing services, and the end of the oil was not in sight, then perhaps a dividend would be in order. I also contended (and still do) that the potential for the dividend money to influence the politics of the state is considerable, hence my earliest comment "that petro dollars are corrupting".

Dave, please help me out here, what is it you are suggesting? I am not clear.

 

And that being the case in a very large way (especially in the bush), I still wouldn't have advocated the pork dollars that were coming into the state over the years. It is just wrong how our money is handled in DC. But for Alaska that era has come to an end not so long ago. But it will just pass on to some other state(s)... perhaps California (bailout)? Only that names have changed.

 

Spider,

I'm pleased to know that you wouldn't support the pork that has come north from the feds. That said, I am unclear what you mean by "But for "Alaska that era has come to an end not so long ago." Can you please explain?

The bigger question is, can AK sustain itself AFTER the oil and the oil money peter out? If not, has the permanent fund been handled well (on balance) and should it be paying cash dividends?

 

I think his comment is based on the fact that some states do better at getting pork than other states. Alaska was pretty good at it for quite a period, but they lost their champion so the gravy train is now reduced at least a bit.

Tom

 

Duplicate,, sorry

 

Right, our Senator Ted Stevens was implicated (later overturned) in a debacle in which he lost his seat. I think Montana now in the chair of Senate Finance.

 

ok, let me be clearer; i agree with everything you say. but per capita spending is a non factor in the discussion because the amount of per capita spending is due to the special circumstances of the state in its enormous size, remote location and severe weather conditions.

that is all i am saying. as far as the oil dividend being a huge factor in any thing any politician does, well of course it is. Alaskans would be very upset if they lost their payout. for the most part, the payout does not even come close to balancing out the extra expenses of living there. it costs 25 to 75% more to live there and granted, most jobs pay more, but not all so every little bit helps. WA State has a higher minimum wage (we lead the nation in that regard)

another thing about the money the state gets, a huge part of that is involved with natural resources management, military, border defense, etc. some of that money benefits the residents, but a huge portion of that money does not.

also, a lot of people go to Alaska to work. they dont live there. they go up, make the big bucks, then take it south to spend leaving the residents high and dry, so a TON of money passes thru the state, but very little stays so its easy for me to see how Alaskans feel slighted. we do take a HUGE advantage of the resources the area provides, so its easy to see why the Feds are a bit more generous to the state, but the state is still getting the shaft