Will Alaska pay a price for ousting Stevens?
Published Sunday, November 30, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- What happens to Alaska's notorious dependence on federal spending now that Ted Stevens' 40-year Senate career has come to an end? Without an "Uncle Ted" to redistribute America's wealth north and with an "Aunt Lisa" or "Uncle Mark" lacking his longevity and clout, will the state's economy come crashing down?
No, say some of the academic experts and critics who have studied the Alaska-federal relationship, though there's liable to be some hurt spread around. In interviews over the last week, representatives from a sample of agencies and nonprofits that have benefited from Stevens' earmarks and legislation expressed a mixture of hope, caution and concern.
Adding to some of the insecurity over Stevens' departure is the condition of the overall economy and how that might affect grants from corporations and foundations.
"So what happens now? It's a real timely question," said George Cannelos, federal co-chair of the Denali Commission, an agency that has parceled out about a billion dollars for infrastructure projects in the Bush since its creation by Stevens a decade ago.
"If this were five years ago and Sen. Stevens left the stage, I think the commission would've been in great jeopardy," said Cannelos, one of the hopeful.
Federal spending has enormous impact in Alaska, and Stevens had an enormous impact on federal spending, according to Scott Goldsmith, an economist with the Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska Anchorage.
"About one-third of the jobs and household income can be ultimately traced back to federal dollars that come into the economy each year," Goldsmith said.
Goldsmith was able to correlate Stevens' rise to the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee in 1998 with an increase in the shipment of money to Alaska.
"It's a pretty dramatic jump," he said.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, Alaska generally got 30 to 40 percent more money per capita than the nation as a whole.
"Then we pretty quickly jumped up to 70 percent above the U.S. average," Goldsmith said, a leap of about $2 billion in real terms.
When term limits forced Stevens out of the appropriations chairmanship in 2004, he held on to the defense appropriations subcommittee and took over as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. Appropriations to Alaska remained high, Goldsmith said.
Now, if Alaska must return to 40 percent above average, about $900 million would be lost to the economy, Goldsmith said.
"That would be a significant drop - that would be like losing 10 percent of our federal dollars." Most at risk, Goldsmith said, would be grants to state and local governments and to nonprofits, including Native nonprofits that provide health, social services and housing.
"If I were someone depending on earmarks year after year, I'd be nervous about it too," said Diane Kaplan, president and chief executive of the Rasmusen Foundation in Anchorage. She said the situation in Alaska is reminiscent of Oregon when Sen. Mark Hatfield left office in 1997 after 30 years, including two stints as appropriations chair.
"Oregon really got whacked," she said.
If Alaska nonprofits hope to make up any shortfalls by applying to foundations or big corporations, they might be disappointed, Kaplan said. With oil prices in steep decline, the producers are unlikely to be feeling generous, while her foundation and others have been hurt by falling stock prices and are scaling back. Individuals seeing their retirement funds evaporate are also less likely to make charitable donations, she said.
Dennis McMillan of the Foraker Group, which provides support services to nonprofit organizations, said he's been warning charitable groups about the future. In Alaska, they tend to be much more dependent on state and federal money than the rest of the country - 57 percent versus 35 percent.
While federal grants to Native health corporations are likely to continue unabated, others are less safe, he said.
"We've been trying to help people be aware this was inevitable and the consequences would be fairly significant," McMillan said.
On the plus side, Alaska has an old friend taking over the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawaii. Inouye was Stevens' best friend in the Senate and is a frequent visitor to Alaska.
"He really understands Alaska issues," Kaplan said. "He's been everywhere in Alaska, he's been in the small villages, and he has a particular affinity for Native issues."
Much of the military infrastructure in Alaska will continue to receive federal money simply because it exists and is necessary, said Keith Ashdown of the Washington budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
But that doesn't mean all Alaska's defense-related earmarks will continue, he said, pointing in particular to a $20 million earmark Stevens placed in a defense spending bill to help pay for an experimental, U.S. Navy-designed vessel that will serve as a ferry from Anchorage to Point MacKenzie.
"Maybe something like the high-speed ferry gets hit, but things that are related to major infrastructure, or things relative to those bases ... or to the operations of the teams based up there ... I don't see that going away," Ashdown said.
The executives who run two of Stevens' projects that have struggled economically - the state-owned Kodiak rocket launch facility and the nonprofit Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward - say they anticipated the day Stevens would leave the scene and are prepared.
Dale Nash, the new chief executive of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corp., said the Kodiak launch facility has some special advantages that make it competitive: it's the only new launch facility in the United States, and it has a wide downrange area with a good shot for polar orbits.
"Sen. Stevens has always been a friend and we wouldn't be what we are without him," Nash said. But Nash said he deliberately avoided using Stevens' office to press for military contracts with the missile defense program, the Kodiak facility's bread and butter. He wanted to prove the facility can stand on its own.
"We have continued to win contracts based on lower cost, lower risk to come here," Nash said.
In Seward, Ned Smith, interim chief executive of the SeaLife Center, said the research and visitor center conducted a search for a new top official with the idea that it would have to do without Stevens' subsidies.
"I don't want to say that we can foretell the future, but it did occur to us over the past few years that we might face a situation where Ted Stevens was no longer going to be able to funnel some research money to the SeaLife Center, and research is a very big part of our operating plan. Our strategy is to diversify our research interests and therefore diversify our funding sources for research," Smith said.
Stevens' support for water, sewer, energy and health projects in the Bush, and his assistance to Native corporations, usually assured him bipartisan support among voters in villages and the off-road regional centers.
Not this time. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich did well among Bush voters in his victory over Stevens.
That's not surprising, said Albert Kookesh, chairman of the Sealaska Native Corp., co-chair of the Alaska Federation of Natives and a Democratic state senator from Angoon. Kookesh was one of a number of Native leaders who supported Begich.
It wasn't that people disliked Stevens, Kookesh said - "this guy was a god to us" - but Natives took a very pragmatic approach, risking short-term losses for long-term gains.
"I think most of the people that I've talked to, especially those in rural Alaska, or Natives, were looking at Sen. Stevens' age, and not so much worried about what we were going to lose," Kookesh said. "Those of us who supported Mr. Begich were looking at his age, at 45. In 20 years he'll be 65 and he'll have developed his seniority."
___
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
We didn't oust Ted, Ted ousted himself by being convicted of 7 felonies.
R E T R O B U T I O N ! ! ! All those other states that wanted the dollars coming to Alaska now have their own seniority with which to divert dollars that would have come to Alaska for their own states. And it isn't that Senator Inouye is Alaska's friend . . . he was Senator Stevens' friend. They took care of each other no matter which party was in power. That won't happen with Begich. And each of those federal dollars had jobs attached to them. So, when I hear from the "tough" guys that we don't need those Federal dollars, I'll scratch my head and figure its another state of federal retiree spouting off again.
Hello, He was going to die eventually anyways. The natives lived here for thousands of years before Uncle Ted. I think we will survive.
chewtoy,
I generally don't agree with you but in this case, I'm reminded of something G. Gordon Liddy used to say, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
I agree with you, "We didn't oust Ted. Ted ousted himself by being convicted of 7 felonies."
But...according to so many posters in here that I've seen comment through the months we Alaskans are an independent breed that don't need the federal government interfering with us. In fact, we are so able to do without their presence that apparently we can do without their money, too, that is the price of this "interference." Should be interesting to see what song they sing when that money finally dries up and we actually have to support ourselves. I'll bet Miss Celebrity, our gov, will also sing a different song about the federal presence when she actually has to start earning a living doing some real governing and finds it means making some tough economic decisions sans federal dollars.
NOW, the News-Miner runs this story?
It's a bit too late.
No. He wouldn't have lasted more than another term anyway. The sooner we got someone new building seniority the better.
Remember, as Republicans we hate pork and government waste. We also hate free handouts and socialist redistribution of wealth. All of that money will not be missed.
Right??
Bet all those liberals working up at the university will be crying when grant money is not so easily obtained.
Anyone who thinks the federal government still has a lot of money to throw our way obviously doesn't know what is going on in the world. We should be more worried about paying off our ten trillion dollar debt, than worrying about how much more free money we can get.
Doug, I generally don't agree with myself because what is right for me isn't necessarily right. For instance I would vote against legalizing gambling because I don't want it around, but I also don't think it is right for me to take your right to gamble away from "you" just because I have moral issues with it.
Gordon Liddy? The domestic terrorist? Did ya see him when he came to town with Timothy Leary? What a shlock show.
That'll show those darn libs, sourdoughdiablo!
Chewtoy,
You'd better stop that; I don't want to find myself agreeing with you too often (twice in one day that is). I don't agree with gambling either - I think the ones who would be primarily supporting it by buying tickets would be the ones least able to afford it (and I won't bore you with the religious aspects of my objections).
As regards G. Gordon Liddy, no, I didn't get to go hear him when he was here. I was about ready to stop listening about the time he went off the air anyway. The "flirting" was a bit over the top for me (especially when he professed to be happily married and monogamous)...
There is some peculiar math in this article. If we were 30-40% above average in government spending pre-1998, then jumped $2B to get to 70% above average, then estimate new drop to be $900M when we drop back to 40% above average, which would be like losing 10%. Huh?
It is usually government speak that money is of less value, the more of it that is spent, and cut spending dollars are amplified.
I guess that a person cant believe much of what they read in the paper, but I state the obvious.
chewtoy---
If you don't think that it is right to take the right to gamble away from me, how can you vote against it? You don't want me to have that right because you don't care for gambling? Would that also apply to gay marriage? I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I don't want to participate. I would vote in favor of it. As I would gambling (although I would gamble).
"We didn't oust Ted, Ted ousted himself by being convicted of 7 felonies."
this is true; if alaska had voted him in the senate would have voted him out anyway
Well as with everything it is complicated. If I was an elected official I would vote to legalize gambling if the vote came before me because I don't feel it is right in the "general sense" to dictate laws based on ones personal view of what is morally right or wrong. As an elected offical one should leave their personal tastes at home and vote what is best and fair for all citizens. Laws should be based on what is beneficial to society, i.e. what causes harm. Nevada has proven that gambling can be legal without causing great harm.
But as a citizen I don't want gambling around me. I wish I could lie to you and say that everything is clearly wrong and right, but it is grey on so many issues. For instance if gambling was legal, but whites weren’t allowed to gamble I would vote so everyone could have the equal right to gamble (even if I thought gambling was “bad”). In the above case, equal rights trumps my personal distaste for legalized gambling. Like I said it is complicated. Always is.
Oh and sorry to get all philosophical on ya. I think ‘this”, so am right is so much easier.
I wouldn't be surprised if less federal money flowed to Alaska, but that needed to happen anyway. An economy that is based on redistributing tax dollars isn't sustainable in the long run. I'm sure Senator Stevens had the best intentions, but the depency economy that he created wasn't good for Alaskans. We'll make the adjustment.
he was framed
by a framer? or perhaps a roofer?
neither, it was a photographer
We will survive that's a given. In FACT D.C. should be told: Keep your dang money....just unlock the land and keep out of what we do with it. They've been paying us off for years even as a territory because we're denied full use of our state...HUSH MONEY so we don't go griping to the U.N. asking for our own sovereignty. Vogler had them thinkin' on that one. (hear tell we supposedly have a terrorist organization up here...called the Alaska Independence party) Now 48ers think WE'RE the greedy ones....you all should tell the stories of how all the land gets locked up, claims taken away, etc and how businesses and Feds alike have ridden rough shot over us here forever.
I'm more likely to agree with you benji. I'm still holding back on judgement until the appeal and stuff works out. It's been amazing to me how the liberal media has portrayed Ted as a crook from the get-go and how willingly so many Alaskan folks have bought it hook, line, and sinker. If he is innocent then I'd really like to know who sold Ted (and us) out and why.....
I was hoping for just one more term of Uncle Ted until we could get the natural gas line built and then that could help alleviate the big drop-off when he finally stepped down. Foraker group and other leaders in the state are also working at trying to develop an independent/strategic economy.
I hear folks on here calling us a welfare state all the time because of the federal money that comes this way, but what about all the money and resources that have been carted out of here by the boatload over the decades? I'm pretty sure we're still pretty deep in the hole if you were to balance resources taken out compared to the resources that have been redirected back in...... I'm assuming the derogatory term of "welfare state" is similar to the stereotype of the unemployed "welfare mom" who cranks out babies to get more welfare and does nothing for the economy. Alaska's resources have helped keep the west-coast going for years and most of our wealthy folks take their stockpile of resources with them to Arizona and Florida when they're done here.....we're far from being a welfare leach on the federal system.
I do agree 100% with the idea that we need to stop being federal-spending dependent and start developing our own economy more. That's going to require stopping the bleeding of our resources constantly leaving and developing the infrastructure to maintain our own industries and economy.
It will be interesting to see if we are included in Obama's plans to jump-start the economy and what his administration will facilitate (or block) with resource development and renewable resource development up here.
tektonicsfan, please explain to me how the massage chair was not a gift. No one has yet, but since you feel that Steven's is innocent of all charges I would like your explanation for this unreported gift in particular that Steven's himself could not defend.
oh and how old is the eastern Alaska Range?
you wanted a man out of office, arrested and thrown in prison because he got a massage chair as a gift? i question either your sanity or veracity. how many alaskans are going to lose their jobs now that ted is gone? how does that stack up against a free massage chair and an under valued job done on his house?
when is chris dodd of CT going to be indicted for that sweetheart mortgage deal he got?
i agree those here who have said we should ween ourselves off the federal money. but the feds need to give the land back to alaska so we can make a buck. and some one needs to put a muzzle on the real domestic terrorists, the armchair environmentalists from the big cities down south (and maybe a few from anchorage and fairbanks).
Our state is going to have to make up for the earmark money somehow. I wonder if the government will state dipping into the PFD fund?
And Polarmark, it wasn't the massage chair that did it, it was that sled dog. Besides, who needs jobs anyway?
We grow up as a State is what we do. Instead of relying on "Uncle Ted", we have to make this state have a more viable economy, and Oil/Mineral resources isn't the only thing.
Wow
If the citizens don't expect their elected officals to follow the law how can we expect our children to? Reading the paper lately, I guess we don't.
What happened to my last post? About the Iroquois/Lenapes curse that D.C. is under?
I think Ted Stevens is innocent. Bad indictment, false witnesses, false evidence, I'm not surprised the Feds would frame Ted Stevens. Just failed to realize they're untouchable...the FBI can make Whistler's Mother, a painting look like a serial killer given the order.
Perhaps we should have all our congressional members exorcised by our local Shamen or Priests.
Actual Factual - Washington D.C is built over sacred burial and hunting grounds.
According to my mixed tribe, Iroquois Godmother (related most strongly I think as Mohawk) told to me some 40 yrs ago, the story or Urban or Indian Legend? Her story was this:
Before Washington D.C. became the capital of the USA. There were a people known within the Iroquois as Lenapes, who were river people. Their town was along the banks of their river named Lenapeh-ittuk which meant Grandfather of Lenapes.
A white man came along, and named the river after himself- Delaware. Thus the Lenapes were known to white man as the Delaware Indians.
One day the Chief of all the Iroquois declared after making treatise with the US Army that the Lenapes must move. The Lenape Chiefs struggled and argued for months about this but finally relented.
When told they did have to leave for good, the Lenapes who had Christian friends & contacts were seen and heard to wail, weep and pray for days. But the day they left they danced and prayed, taking off their shoes, slapping them together and shaking them for the Lord to see what was done to them. (Biblically this is a powerful curse!)
Lenapeh-ittuk was coveted by all. Many tribes fought for it amongst themselves, many struggles has Lenapeh-ittuk seen. So it's not surprising white man would also want Lenapeh-ittuk.
It was also told to me of another tribe who's name I don't remember today, who were murdered on the banks of the Lenapeh-ittuk aka the Delaware River by the U.S. Army...the last to die was the tribe's Shaman. He died at the feet of the Army's General. As he died the Shaman said to the General...Lenapeh-ittuk has seen what you've done. You killed us for land and our river who is our grandfather, they will always remember who stole what was not theirs to take...
This place will own you and your people, Lenapeh-ittuk will treat you very badly, and this place will be a curse upon your people for ever more.
Behold today it is so....
Perhaps we should scrap moving Juneau and petition to move Washington D.C.?
It's all about money. Hell with morality, just send me some money. Or as my kids always say,..."What's in it for me".
I'm not quite getting this. It's an Indian curse that caused Uncle Ted to befriend Veco's CEO?
I too am at odds with the title.
How about, Did Stevens screw up Alaska as well as his legacy in office? Alaska didn't "oust" him for the great job he was doing.
Is the newsminer implying that Alaska can only function with corrupt political figures in office?
Great Job daily news minus.
If it's any consolation, the millitary retirees and disabled veterans are still bringing federal dollars into the state ... and spending most of them on the local economy.
Of course, I understand some Fairbanks and Alaska residents want us to leave ... and take those dollars with us.
well, looking to find my comment deleted means that somebody just don't get it, The man has appealed, and may prevail, so, whether thay like it or not, innocent until proven guilty, means by law until all appeals are exhausted....
and that [I]s the [F]act of the matter!!!
Dondi,,, why are their so many inocent people on death row? If you are inocent untill all appeals are exhausted there would be lots of CONVICTED people walking the streets. Once you are fouund gulity by a jury you are GUILTY untill you prove you are inocent. Any one that can read knows Uncle Ted has been on the take for years, he just got cought on this very small tip of the iceburg,, good by to a CROOK...
I have only four letters to remind everyone come the next go around.....B.R.A.C. If anyone thinks that it was a fluke that Eielson survived last time without Senator Stevens, they are sorely misinformed and highly dilusional. North Pole...enjoy the airmen and women while they are there...I hope you have a fiscal plan for the post-Eielson era.
I'm confused at what a earmark is. I do know what a skidmark is though,Thank you.
Truth in news, I don't know why but everytime I see or hear a statement beginning with "Hello," I know it's not going to be something that I agree with. We will lose a lot for many years and it's just crass to say that Ted is going to die. I believe we will all die but that's not justification to brush us off. Yes, the natives have been here for sometime, but their lifestyles were much different. I don't think we want to go back to surviving in skin boats with harpoons.
Sorry to state the obvious, but the guy is 85 years old. Why wasn't someone being groomed to succeed him anyway?
That was Ben....need I say more.
Serious question. Can Stevens be pardoned by Bush if he hasn't been "convicted?"
I mean ya can't pardon someone for crimes they haven't commited can you?
Bush can give a sweeping pardon. It is what Gerald Ford did for Nixon. All crimes committed and any that he wasn't charged with yet.
truthinnews - There are many things we here in the physical plane cannot explained....Like how an exemplary individual who's life work is undone by a mistake...be it error or deceit, his own or another's. There are factors at work here that may not be seen or proven that shouldn't be ignored. Such as the FACT, the FBI can make anyone look guilty as sin given the order to do so. If such was ordered, we don't know who did it. Bush? Chaney? Pelosi? The possibilities are endless. The court itself still can't get a complete straight story from the prosecution, which has offered faulty indictments, false evidence, and lying witnesses out to cover kin and skin...any other case would have been thrown out before trial! I do think Stevens was framed...If anyone followed the court case, they'd know that the charge was reduced from $250 thousand to $70 thousand (and is still going down as certain contractors admit to possibly padded expenses)...a sum that the courts might not have pursued if it wasn't exaggerated. Certainly the news wouldn't have bit so hard on it if the actual questionable figure was factual. So, you tell me....is it a curse or not? It certainly is an ugly nightmare. But compared to the corruption surrounding D.C, itself from even BEFORE its inception....Ted Stevens level of wrong looks like papa smurf up next to the Exorcist's opponent.
Doug: Legalized gambling? Isn't that what voting is?
And marriage?
And religion?
From the article:
"Without an "Uncle Ted" to redistribute America's wealth north..."
Wait, I thought you Republicans were 100% against wealth redistribution?
O... That's right, when it benefits you, you're all for it. But man, if anyone else is gaining from it, you must be a Socialist.
"""Will Alaska pay a price for ousting Stevens?"""
Actually this could be a wonderful opportunity to learn to how to fend for ourselves and lessen our reputation as federally dependent gov-addicts.
Hahahahahaha! Oh well. It was a nice thought while it lasted.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.