Letter to the Editor
Where’s the money?
Published Saturday, May 3, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!April 16, 2008
To the editor:
Maybe I’m becoming slightly discouraged with our system of government, and possibly the examples I cite are out of context, but when I read the paper at the end of the legislative session, I couldn’t help but wonder why our Legislature can find the time to pass bills that appear to help few people and fail to pass those that given our deteriorating economic environment may help the majority of Alaskans.
For example, under the category of Energy: HB 396 “provides $500 to every Alaskan to help with energy costs — died in committee.” Under Commerce: SB 305 “allows diners to take half-empty bottles of wine home with them from a restaurant — passed the Legislature.”
There are other examples of what seem to be odd priorities by our leaders, but these two stood out as I’m sitting at my table wondering how to pay my fuel bills that have gone up more than 40 percent in one year.
Somehow it seems that Alaskans should be benefiting more from our billion-dollar Permanent Fund and windfall oil profits. I keep thinking to myself that we have a population of only about 600,000 people — yet where does the money go?
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
We will happily toil and save all summer loathing our lot in dark winter. But come harvest, knowing that at least the wine won't be wasted in Juneau, we shall pleasure in some salt away.
Bluestocking Highbrow Patricians, those are the people benefiting from current passed bills.
Another government hand-out should not have been on the list of priorities. The idea to give away money to weatherize homes was bad enough. It is the duty of the people the maintain their own homes, not the duty of the government. It's a slippery slope.
Tis true, Gopking, and I agree totally -
But is the wine issue really more important than others facing our state? Why is there a law against the wine in the first place - unless it is some open container thing - seems like more wasted time this session IMO -
maybe they could start meeting every two years instead of the current plan - that...or start over fresh with just the constitution and maybe we can get it right this time.
gopking-
I know where you're coming from. I used to think just like that.
I still appreciate much of what you have to say here, and the ways you say it.
But I see contradictions.
Alaskans own the resources collectively.
The peoples' "share" comes from the PFD.
A certain amount of the resource money goes into the PFD principal.
The PFD is based on investments subject to the whims of the market. It really isn't direct.
That's all well and good.
But what's happening now is a huge cash windfall going directly into the state's piggy bank.
The legislature has decided to spend much it on a lot of unnecessary, apparently reelection based items. A lot of wish items coming from institutions, organizations, and the like.
Meanwhile, many of us are hurting--and badly. We see our money being spent on these things that, given a choice, we would instead be using to help ourselves get through these difficult times.
You are an advocate of lesser government and independent responsibility. So am I. Because I am, I would prefer to have more of my money--from my share of the resource windfall--in my own pocket to use as I see fit.
Most of us--those who believe as you and I--lament that "government" feels they know better how to spend our money than we do. That is the contradiction.
This is unexpected, above and beyond, cash from our collectively owned resources. The money is ours. Why would you rather have the government spend all of it? I know I can spend some of my money to better help myself than the gov.
Those guys in Juneau won't even pass a bill allowing local government to increase the home owners' property tax exemption. Not required--just allowing.
Why? Because of organizations like the Chambers of Commerce.
They seem to want to do nothing to actually help Alaskans keep more of our own money in our own pockets.
How is it you can be gopking, yet advocate for government to spend your money rather than you?
And, since someone will say to vote, as if that is the cure-all, I am a super-voter. Doesn't do much good though. This whole fiasco is making me an advocate of term limits.
If I had an oil well on my property, and I owned the sub-surface rights, getting cash profit from it is not a hand-out. It's business.
The legislature's priorities might be shaped by the shorter, 90-day session in which they have to do their work. The half-empty bottle bill was easy to pass. The energy rebate bill involves an issue much more complex and time-consuming. Apparently the legislature did not have enough time to draft legislation that would pass.
This past session was too short. Considering how energy costs are impacting all Alaskans, I can't imagine how any legislators could continue to ignore the issue yet hope to get re-elected to office.
Talk more about that slippery slope, gopking. You make strong arguments against people becoming dependent on government, and against the development of a "nanny state." You seem clear about what the government *shouldn't* do in support of its citizens, yet, at what point does interference turn into intervention? At what point does a handout become, instead, a government's investment in its people?
You wrote that it's not the government's duty to maintain individuals' homes. I say that the government's primary duty is to protect its people, and when, en masse, people's ability to maintain their homes is threatened - by wild fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and rising energy costs - it is the government's absolute responsibility to help remedy the situation.
The energy rebate concept is a step in the right direction, but at best, it's only a bandage, and not a cure. The home weatherization program isn't a money giveaway, it's an investment since it lowers both dependence on, and demand for fuel. The program, however, only applies to low-income residents, whereas all Alaskan residents are impacted by energy costs. Many Alaskans are in, or near, financial crisis because of the spike in energy costs within the last year. Because of the magnitude and ubiquity of this problem, the government is the entity to best address it.
From a conservative perspective, any manner in which a government assists its citizens is necessarily a handout. So what? That's the whole point in having a government. For a government to do otherwise, to not assist its people, would be a dereliction of duty. Many Alaskans, besides low income residents, need some kind of assistance with soaring energy costs, and need it now or in the near future. This state has so much wealth, and I'm all in favor of having a small part of that wealth redistributed to provide relief to the many Alaskans who need it.
I agree with the fact that it is a handout, but certainly my own business is suffering because people are cutting back. So I had looked forward to a "second permanent fund check" for myself and my customers!
One thing is for sure though, there will be fewer Alaskans who will be able to afford to go out to dinner, let alone buy a bottle of price inflated wine at said resturant!
In Australia, you may bring your own wine to a resturant.... That would be cool.
Will someone please explain to me why and how getting some of one's own money in cash is a handout?
The state has more than enough to fund necessities and then some at this time. I have a preference for gov spending that I--and many others--consider a necessity that doesn't even get discussed.
It is lawful enforcement of child support. Not anything extra, just for the state to enforce adequately the laws that already exist. But the state doesn't wish to put money into enforcing its own law in this area.
Just so you all know, welfare is full of people who wouldn't qualify or be on it if the state would enforce child support law. I am not a recipient of cash welfare. But I would qualify.
I realize that the culbability lies (lays? There it is again?!) with the loser parent that doesn't pay. But that is the reason all states are required under federal law to have child support agencies. And the reason was supposed to be to keep custodial parents off the public dime.
But anyway, one earns or otherwise accumulates (say, investment) money.
Some is socked away (investment-PFD), some is used for required necessities (gov responsibilities), and the rest one is free to do with as one wishes.
How is getting some of our own windfall back in our own pockets a handout?
Well, if you want something for nothing I guess you have to go work at a restaurant & take home that 1/2 bottle of wine.
At least there will be free booze while we are freezing in our houses with the heat turned down to 50 thi coming winter. Ha ha.....
corinne: DEAD CENTER OF THE BULL'S EYE. The money is ALL ALASKANS and we are merely getting a rebate of OUR MONEY from the sale on OUR RESOURCE. The oil companies get a rebate for producing OUR RESOURCE. Why shouldn't ALASKANS get a portion of the windfall profits to be spent as each individual ALASKAN sees fit.
allybrat: In Alaska you can bring your own (unopened) bottle of wine to a restaurant. There is a cork fee from the restaurant for opening and presentation.
So get them Boones' and head to Pikes!!!
First, let me say that I agree that the revenues generated from the sale of OUR oil is OUR money. Second, let me also say that the money should be spent on government operations first, and the people, second. This is how we keep our taxes low/nonexistent. Third, I also agree that the leftover (minus someamount set aside in reserve) should be given back to the people in EQUAL amounts, because we all own equal shares in the OIL our state sells. Therefore, I don't believe this is the State giving us back our own money. It is another handout. It is people complaining to the government that they can't make ends meets without governemnt help, without government intervention. What these people fail to see is that the problem isn't a lack of government intervention, it's government intervention that causes the problem. If the State simply gave us back our leftover revenues every year, we'd have more than enough money to spend on energy. Simply giving us back $500 a piece in the name of an "energy crisis" is nothing more than the nanny state playing its game of social planning. I hope I'm articulating myself clearly. Even if the government gave back the $500, they're still holding all the cards. They're still measuring up the damage and "allowing" us to have some of our own money back. It's not a refund - it's welfare. Through this type of program, every new generation looks to the government for more and more answers, instead of looking to themselves. Should the government give us back our unused money? - Yes. But should it be through a government program because we're strapped for cash because of energy prices? - No. That's a government hand-out. It's not a refund simply because it's our money. I see a difference between the two.
Additionally, I agree with the wine legislation because it never should have been against the law to begin with to go home with alcohol that you've paid for. I think it's far for asinine to encourage customers to finish a bottle of wine they don't necessarily want at the time and then tell them to get in their cars and drive home.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more with LadyNYC about the proper role of government. The government is not here to save us from ourselves. The government does not know any better how to run my life than I do. After all, the government is made up of fallible people, just like you and me. Therefore, I don't think the government ought to be disproportionately spending collective money. What I mean by that is, if all of OUR equal shares of oil revenue goes to fund the state, that money should not be spent on some classes of society, but not others (if it should even be "spent" on people at all). That's nothing but stealing. As far as I can remember, I didn't vote at the last election with the intent of having my senator or representative take my share and give it to somebody else. The governmnet's duty is not to play Robin Hood. It's inequitbale. That's one of the reasons I disagree with the home weatherization project. It discriminates against people who make "too much." As if getting an education and working hard your whole life to get ahead is some sort of conduct that is punishable.
The other reason I disagree with the weatherization project is that, again, it is not the government's duty to take care of us and maintain our personal property - especially not at the expense of other citizens. The argument in favor of the weatherization is that it benefits all of us by conserving our resources. But the same would be true if the govenrment decided to pay for low-income family's car repairs. One could argue that it benefits all of us because it keeps the roads safer by having well-maintained vehicles on the road.
Where's the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY???? Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish ring a bell??? If you can't afford to properly maintain a house, DON'T BUY ONE! The cost of a group of people's home maintenance should not be society's burden. I know how to spend my own money better than the government does. Stop the handouts! Give us back whatever money is left over at the end of the year (minus a percentage for reserve funds) and let us run our own lives, instead of having the government run them for us.
gopking: (unrelated to current discussion) I think that you should change your name. If personal responsibility is your cause (which I think is great), then I think invoking the GOP is hardly the way to do it. Our CURRENT police-state has been developed by the GOP. I understand fully your charge, but aligning yourself with the party of government track-able passports, US ID's, wireless phone taps, citizen spying, (the entire Patriot Act!) and worldwide banks appeasement seems inconsistent.
Perhaps just the "king" or "no handouts king"...
...your enemy is within.
Let me see if I have this right:
1. Vote party politics so your vote 'counts'
2. Vote incumbency so they gain 'power'
3. Send them to a remote location with no access by citizens
4. Complain when they dont operate rationally or consistently.
Did I miss anything?
As for home heating, this is Alaska; until global warming gives us the climate so many seem to desire, perhaps a smaller home is more appropriate. The big problem with our economy today is most people do their best to live above their means; I was taught "Quality before quantity", with the result of choosing otherwise being eventual bankruptcy. We build bigger and bigger homes, just so we have room for all the cheap Chinese goods available at Wal-mart...Hmmm, mabey its time to get back to our roots, people, and remember where we are (for those still confused, another reminder from mother nature is coming in just a few months).
The wine issue reminds me of a few years ago when we all stood idly by while they fired a janitor for turning in legislators who kept liquor cabinets in their offices against state law banning alchohol from public buildings. Anyone remember the outcome of that?
gopking-
Thank you for responding.
Then it looks as if we are aligned in our beliefs.
I agree that as equal shareholders we should all get our shares in equal amounts.
It's true: $500 is a pittance in the amount of our leftover money that should be returned to us after government operations and our reserves. An insult, really.
I agree also that returning our excess money to us in the name of some program may create an entitlement mentality for those who do not understand the mechanics of why it's ours and all that. And there are far too many out there.
The excess cash should just be returned to us in equal measures because it's ours. Period.
Semantics are important. Words mean things. Through a program, I can see how you could call it welfare.
But as a refund, not for energy or whatever, just a shareholder's refund, then it is simply a return to us of our money.
Because the state is the central collection point. Certainly, it wouldn't be feasible for the money from our resources to be sent to each of us in individual checks by the various payers at the various times.
So, what we all should be advocating for is truly limited gov spending and the excess return to each of us, as shareholders, of our money. That way, those who want bucks for all their pet projects could contribute some of their share to support those projects.
Therein lies the problem. These people, institutions, organizations, so-called non-profits, etc., don't want to contribute their money for those things they claim to be so passionate about. They want to use everyone elses or the public's money to do it.
I wonder if it worked as I suggest, would their passion be so great?
I'll tell you a story about the weatherization program, but gotta watch the horse race...
Corrine, My turn to say it: I think I love you.
Thanks for reminding all what is actually going on here.
Ya done good!
The money to help relieve costs is not a government "handout" it is ours. Since Alaskans were not given mineral rights the agreement for us to become a state was for us to receive royalties from the oil. So Dwight is not asking for handouts just for what is rightfully the citizens of Alaska, not the Alaskan government.
I'll vote for whoever gives me money. After all, our legislators vote for whoever gives them money. And I try to follow the example my leaders set.
Corinne - Yes, you and I are on the exact same page. Thanks for listening.
Your money well it where it needed to be right in my pocket so happy i bought the BP stock I'll try hard to take very good care of it as I'm spending id plus many more dollars I've made. Your money was burned just like mine and many others that keep losing money in Alaska.
Time to close that nightshade and sleep it off, buddy.
The city of Anchorage put in weatherization program while Mayor Tom Fink was in office. A giant boon to Mayor Tom Fink that goes on to this day. At that time he owned 1200 properties in the city of Anchorage. Most of them substandard rental properties. The city taxpayers are still paying to upgrade his properties. Great scam from a loud and convincing "conservative" that went into office slashing jobs
and hollering "pork."
He got away with it!!
A scam like that - so successful, deserves to live again. So here it is again bigger and better. Lets see
who benefits- it will take a while for it to shake out. I figure there will be a contractor or two in the Matanuska valley that will make a few million fixing up there own real estate empire.
corinne
gopking---
Excellent posts. Sign me up.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.