Palin has it
Published Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!To the editor:
Governor Palin has just proposed a payment of $1,200 to all who qualify for a 2008 Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. This money is to come from our windfall oil sale revenue and is being offered to help Alaska residents cope with skyrocketing energy prices.
She has also worked diligently in trying to move forward with a new gas line and expansion of the flow of oil through our existing oil line. I do not know enough about the particulars of these issues, but I have observed the actions of the players in this drama.
Exxon promised repeatedly to develop the oil and gas from Point Thomson. BP slacked off on its required maintenance of its feeder lines and caused a major incident that helped fuel the anti-development camp. VECO bought off our politicians with flagrant disregard for Alaska’s interests. Alyeska, controlled by the two oil companies who now want to develop the Denali gas line project, was just found guilty of inflating shipping rates through the oil pipeline and cheating other producers and Alaska out of billions of dollars.
Quite frankly, I would not let these people fill my gas tank at the pump let alone let them operate any more new ventures in our state than we absolutely have to.
If they were wanting to work with the state in a cooperative manor, they would have met the states AGIA requirements or at least joined with other interested parties to find a compromise that was agreeable.
I am putting my money with the governor. If you think these other guys are your friends, I have some oceanfront property I want to sell you in Arizona. Perhaps Rep. Jay Ramras, or the members of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce board would be interested in buying it.
Edward L. Linkous
Fairbanks
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Well said Mr Linkous I agree completely. MRD
We must stand with the GOV!
She has made great changes for
Alaskans! We need 100 similar
GOVs in Juneau!
Who be the woman?
I echo the writer's view. Lets pass AGIA and get moving!
Too bad our legislators aren't listening. If they were the checks would be in the mail already. Most of them are loaded with cash and aren't feeling the pain, that the average Alaskan is enduring.
I agree. I for one voted for her and I think she has been on the right track since day one.
If the politicians will pass and forward "before" the weather calls for increase in thermostats.
HHHmmm, I wonder did she get the "private" jet sold?
Sorry, we are a middle class family of 4 and still do not see this as the answer. There still is no accountability, especially for those claiming the dividend that live out of state. Personally, I get tired of hearing, "We love Alaska, so we are going to retire up here in ten years when my spouse gets out of the military." These folks maintain the minimum and still get dividends...and now energy help. The state should at least mail an application for verification of current instate status. There should be some sort of formula that does not reward waste and promote inefficiency. They should also start teaching, "shut the lights off" and "walk instead of asking mommy/daddy" to kids.
Although, yes, $1200 would do a lot for my family, I do not think a blanket program is the best use of funds. This is nothing more than the band aid for this winter. There has to be a cheaper way to add accountability into the system beside the debit card system.
I will say that I am very impressed with Palin's Energy audit programs!
Lets stick with the Gov. No matter what the DNM and big oil tells us we need to do, we need to stick with her!!
so what your saying is that cause we have no choice but to leave that state we shouldnt get the dividends. They give those in the military certain guildlines to follow if they choose to still get that check every year. And some dont do it cause if we dont plan on coming back they can turn around and make us pay back ALL of the dividends we got. And its just not alaskans who are having energy problems, ppl in the states are having just has much problems then you guys. Dont get me wrong I lived there for 9 years and I know how expensive things are up there.
And just cause we dont live there doesnt mean we arent residents, and if we got approved for the dividend then we must of done what we needed to do to still be qualified for it.
The snow machine dealers are already licking their chops over this additional "dividend". Also, if the money is for the states energy needs, why should the state send the money to North Carolina, Texas, etc. where these "residents" live. If I plan on spending the winter in Hawaii, I can still get my heating oil paid for down there? How cool is that!
I know that the DNM is often accused of being a propaganda rag for "Big Oil". . .when did it change hands and become the official newsletter of the Sarah Palin fan club (AKA Palinistas)?
This obsequious adoration is a little nauseating.
It looks like Edward L. Linkous gets it, the Gov gets it, but the legislators due not have a clue. I know i this years election I will vote for whoever votes for AGIA, the others can suck wind. Case closed!
Heath, since when did publishing a letter to the editor mean the editor agrees with the letter?
Heath- This is not an article by the DNM but a letter to the editor. If you want you can write a letter criticizing Gov. Palin and the DNM is likely to publish it.
Agamemnon said, "This [$1200 per resident plan] is nothing more than the band aid for this winter."
I don't think anyone, including Palin, is claiming otherwise. It's temporary, limited, and inaccurate, but also (hopefully) speedy, like government aid in a natural disaster. So it kind of makes sense to just mail out the money without additional complications.
It's also sensible that the amount isn't huge-- I agree with Steve Estes' well written letter today (http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jun/25/fu...) that the state should use most of its windfall revenue on medium and long term energy solutions.
Since anytime the DNM editors publish a letter or guest opinion piece criticizing the Governor or sympathetic to the industry they're accused of being shills for big oil.
Mr. Linkous is entitled to his opinion, without question.
Ah, right, sarcasm. Ahah. I understand now, after re-reading your post. Must need more coffee this morning.
afmommy- No, I do not feel that anyone who does not spend more than 6 months a year here should get the dividend. I think it is important to try to keep the money the state pays people in the state. In the military you have no control of where and when you are going to go somewhere and until you can, you should not collect it. I also feel that if this State spent more time getting this money back from people that left then we would have less people trying to cheat the State and it's people!
Shy - are you saying that an Alaskan resident who goes and defends their country looses their right to the benefits of being an Alaskan resident? There are cheaters everywhere in society, not just the military. Those who are deceivers should be caught within the application process of applying for a dividend. The money is for those who are approved for the dividend. I think this is a sad statement to those men and women - encluding my husband - that they do not deserve the benefits of being Alaskan because they are defending our country. We have high energy costs too.
I think that the military that enlist while residents of the state of Alaska should get a dividend until they are through with service. I dont think that a military member who moves up here and is here for a tour and leaves should be able to claim residency as Alaska unless they have purchased property and currently pay property taxes.
I also agree with the letter from Mr. Linkous.
Interesting afmommy, shy and JB...we are not military, we dont live in AK any longer; HOWEVER, we own property in Fairbanks (and rent it out) therefore we pay taxes. The reason we still own property up there is because we really are going to retire to Fairbanks,and we vacation there each year. I agree we DO NOT deserve the PFD but as landlords paying for fuel we either "deserve" the $1200 that will be going to our tenants to offset the cost of fuel, or we will have to raise the rent. The $1200 should be given to property owners directly, not the PFD list. If the money is given to those who do not directly pay the fuel bill (property owners), you are going to probably see rental costs soar - not good for the economy. We are looking at about $400-$500 per month coming out of our pocket to pay for fuel this winter for our tenants - over and above the rent. $1200 is so much better than nothing but it isnt going to touch the amount we will be losing monthly. Sounds like a good time to sell your house and rent - my guess is that most landlords will never be able to recoup the costs for fuel this winter.
I would rather they keep it simple and just pay the money to Alaskan citizens. Most states have the same policy on their taxes. When I was a Virginia citizen I had to pay their income taxes even when I no longer lived or worked there.
Akmom3, that plan would work for you but not me, which of course means I'm not crazy about it. I have lived continuously in Ak for over 30 yrs, however I won't be purchasing a home until the college loans are at a more manageable number.
I really am going to purchase a home as soon as I can & I vacation... (no wait, I don't. A yearly vacation in my house is driving to ANC to see the parents for the holidays).
Are you seeing the inequity of your plan here? You may not care, but I do. I can't afford to be cut out of the state plan because I can't afford to buy a house yet. (Really, you have NO idea of how badly I am sick of renting, I dream of not sharing a washing machine...)
I am not saying that the best plan is going by who received a dividend, but it is more fair than others. I was actually okay with the original plan, it would've ensured that it was only used for heat/fuel/electric purposes. Well, that one sailed. I realize the owner of my apartment rents out units as a business, not a community service. However if he & you want those rental units to remain full then the relief has to go to all Alaskans, not just the property owner I wish I was.
Also as MEL1776 pointed out, simplicity is often best.
akprincess72, I understand completely what you are saying but the money is for fuel, not to help pay for other things (theoretically). I bet lots of landlords will be raising the rent to recoup that "fuel relief" money. This crisis hurts the landlord too - at $5 gallon, fuel will cost the same amount for January 2009 as I paid for the entire year of 2004. If the money went to the person who pays for fuel directly (usually the landlord in rental situations) then maybe they wouldnt have to raise the rent. If landlords do raise the rent to recoup that money to help pay for fuel, I highly doubt they would lower it back down if that money doesnt come through in upcoming years. You are right though...imagine how much an owner of a huge complex would get if they got the money for everyone living in the building - WOW! I am just thinking of my little 2 unit property. I know the answer is that we either raise the rent to recoup the money to help pay for fuel or it will be a "community service" and it will come out of my pocket. No answer is perfect I guess!
afmommy, sorry but I have to disagree. I served for 21 years. When we were here the first time, we did not apply for or get the PFD. No one could convince me that we deserved it. we were here because I was told to be here. I lived on post and didn't have to worry about how much the electric or heat was. We are now retired, live here and are residents. There are many currently serving that are doing the same thing we did because it's the ethical thing to do. They aren't permanent residents and have no intent of staying here. There are some that don't live here, visit once a year for a few days, only to meet the minimum requirements of drawing the PFD. Those are the ones I get frustrated with.
The supplement is to offset the energy needs of the Alaska residents who pay for the energy costs of living in Alaska. Not to offset the costs of those living in the lower 48's energy costs. It's a matter of intent and ethics.
I, as well as many others, get frustrated when we hear people on the radio bashing the military because of unethical applications for the PFD. It's a touchy subject for many in this state. I can't say that I blame them and again is the reason we didn't apply or get the PFD until we came back, bought a house and knew we were going to stay (well - the wife said we were staying so we stayed).
Where in the world did "I think this is a sad statement to those men and women - encluding my husband - that they do not deserve the benefits of being Alaskan because they are defending our country" come from? I, just like your husband, volunteered to serve our country. That has nothing to do with the PFD and needs to stop being a justification. If you're living here, paying for the costs of living in Alaska, with full intention of residing here, apply for the PFD. If not, then don't apply. It's that simple.
Shy (and others) lose sight of the fact that there are more than just service members involved. For instance, I was born and raised here in Fairbanks, and my children were born here and I married a man in the Army. We have every intention of returning to Alaska (if indeed we finally end up having to move somewhere else, which thankfully, we have managed to avoid thus far) to spend the remainder of our lives - and purchase a home at that point in time. Purchasing property and/or a home is often not feasible for military families until their service has ended for many reasons, regardless of the State they claim residency in. To require home-ownership is ridiculous.
By your logic, a life-long Alaskan would and should lose something guaranteed residents in the Alaska Constitution because a family member serves his or her country. Since military members still have to meet basic requirements, this seems rather unnecessarily punitive and biased. Should students who choose an out-of-state college with the intention of returning to Alaska when completed lose their PFD?
Once the requirements are not met, then absolutely the benefit of the PFD should be unavailable, however, as long as they are met, I see nothing wrong with it.
Dana - you're point is a great one and there will be caveats to everything, but you have to admit that there are some that hurt the many. There are some that come here for a short time, like getting the PFD, have no intent of staying or coming back but will work the system just to continue getting it. That's the part that's wrong and tough to swallow. I just wish the rules could catch the unethical ones. That's probably too tough of a nut to crack.
Akmom3, in your last paragraph you voiced my biggest concern. Thank you for reading & looking through another viewpoint, it is very appreciated. While I am sure it will be abused by some regardless of how it is paid out, I just feel this one will put the onus on people to send it properly or hurt themselves by not. If this does go through, I can guarantee it is going to be going a chunk at a time to GVEA & Fred Meyer Fuel stations. It is honestly too good of an opportunity to waste by being irresponsible with it.
I agree that something must be done to help offset the huge increase in heating costs for the Alaskan resident but I do not agree with the method that has been proposed. I and my family of four have only lived here since 1/15/2007 but intend to stay here at least until I retire, about 8 more years. If these assistive funds are distributed based on 2008 PFD recipients then my family and I will be left out in the cold (no pun intended) because by moving here just 15 days after the beginning of the year we do not qualify for the 2008 PFD. It is my position that the heating oil and electricity providers should be polled and the assistive funds should be distributed based on the roles of people paying out money for heating oil and electricity. With today's technology it would be no big deal to create a data base with those individual's names in order to establish eligibility for the funds and for the distribution of the funds.
akracefan - I hear you. As with many systems, the PFD one has those who will try to cheat it to benefit. It's sad, but accurate. Perhaps I'm seeing it through them rose-colored specs (always a possibility), but I'm pretty sure that the cheaters are not numerous or frequently successful (stats or facts anyone? I know I don't have any). I see this issue similarly to the alcohol area-ban - punishing the many for the actions of a few just doesn't make sense. Punishing the guilty and attempting to guard against fraud just seems more realistic.
Using the PFD information also seems like the quickest way to get this proposed money to people. As to whether it's the best idea, the most "fair" or too much/not enough money, I'm still on the fence about. If this package is solely to help with fuel costs, then some sort of fuel credit seems to be the logical choice - although this opens the door to yet more government. If it's meant to offset some of the costs incurred because of fuel costs (higher groceries for example) then cash based on PFD eligibility makes more sense than a fuel credit. And I'm frankly, still not sure how I feel about it.
a lot of people leave here to work or follow the demands regimented by a career, they lose the PFD pretty quick, and people come here to work and they pick it up pretty quick, but most of them dont stay too long.
i was born and raised here but i plan to move on to north carolina near my daughter this year, i love it there and it is very affordable.
i will give the PFD up once i am not a real resident. i got it each year since it began but if i dont plan to come back to live permanently (which i dont) why should i continue to get it? people who are from here are planning to come back should keep getting the PFD because this is there home no matter when their family moved up here.
i hope the PFD helps folks out after i am gone from here, i never really thought it was a lot of money and still dont but with the heating fuel costs like they are maybe it will help folks who move up here. it has changed so much in the last 50 years and i figure it will keep changing, probably be a big city here someday the way it is going and I dont want to see that happen.
i am not so sure that oil has been good to my state.
bye the way, i am not communist like some of you people emailed, che is my initials not like people are thinking. C.H.E. my daughter and grand-daughter explained it to me.
i believe that if you live here enlist and get sent somewhere else due to military reasoning and your family is left behind then yes you should qualify cause you are gone, however you get people who enlist, have a wife and 3 kids, come here for a year get deployed and there wife and kids go back to there home town outta alaska but all recieve dividends cause they are military. i think thats not right at all. or you get people who are enlisted and leave to other bases and there wifes and kids go with them on a transfer, they are technically civilians since they arent enlisted. they should not qualify for dividends but they do. or kids that are born after military familys get transfered. somehow or another kids qualify for the dividend and have never ever been in alaska. and the fuel problem i think should be simple, should be done by fuel companys, and should be a percentage of the fuel delivered up to a certain amount to each fuel tank, that would be the easiest thing possible.
In my opinion, if you're military and qualify, the state should hold that check until such time as your return and become a permanent resident. I've seen far too many people cheat the system by returning for the few days that are required, turn around and go right back from whence they came all the while waiting for the state to give them "their" share. I think that it would be pretty easy for the PFD computer system to flag all out of state addresses, put that money into an account to be "pended" until the eligible recipient returns to AK and can prove residency for the full time that the first time recipient has to wait. At the end of that period, all of the checks that have been held waiting for their return can than be paid out. This could be done for all that are eligible, military, college students, people seeking medical care and so on.
Made-In-Alaska - I guess I'm happy that you aren't the one in control... This seems like a good idea, but to what purpose? There is no guarantee/requirement that PFD monies will remain in the State and each PFD recipient gets to do with that money as they see fit - whether they are in Alaska at the time or will return later (as already required in the eligibility guidelines). If the current requirements are met, then they are met. Without changing the guidelines or the Constitution, the government has no right to "hold" or "pend" an individual's PFD, unless they have forfeited the PFD through fraud.
akmom3, I own many properties here, however, its been my experience over 52 year here that the tenants usually pay the rent and utilities. So how do we determine who gets the money, myself as the landlord or the tenants that pay the fuel bill? I'm not against it. I just just know how to make this fair. I would would like to think that most landlords are honest, but I think that would make me pretty naive.
made in ak, i sort of agree with you.
there are people in Ne., Az, Ha.,people I know,( maybe you know as well) that return here here each year just long enough to grab the money,(sleazy worthless types), greedy people!!!! Most are not even from here but just worked here for a few years 20-30 yrs in a cushy job, and became a "part" of the community (where are they now?). They fly in and grab the money,fly out, why should these sleaze-bags get the money and those that work here all year long have to wait a year(is it a year?). our heating bills are more important than some (*#@!) bad word, that wants it all and is probably an underachiever where they currently live.
though I am leaving here this fall after some 58 yrs. of residency (born here as well), i hope that those that remain will tell these out-of-state parasites where to go.
cranking my lawnmower!
i know people that are in the states in vegas right now that get a pfd and there 2 kids do also and the kids have NEVER been to alaska, they left cause of the airforce and dont intend on coming back
DVD - that's my point "or will return later (as already required in the eligibility guidelines" - the guidelines state you have to return for what 72 hours or some such nonsense to be eligible? So, pend those checks as incentive to return here to stay, and not just come back to grab the money and run. If they come back, great, welcome home and glad to have you but on the other hand, if they don't want to make it through a winter like the rest of us do...
Akmom3,
Please go to the below link and visit America's Hottest Governor's official web page. I posted the link to her revised plan in an earlier comment. Here it is again:
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?i...
The proposed rebate is for all Alaska residents not just land owners. You are allowed to own property in other states without becoming a citizen of the state where the property is located. You are allowed to serve in the military and work other jobs outside of the state and retain your Alaska residency. Otherwise we need to get uncle Ted to repay his dividends.
I agree that the state needs to put some teeth into tracking down the fraudulent claims. Although we have to weigh the cost of tracking them down and court fees against cutting our losses. Those Alaskans abroad who are still voting, claiming only Alaska as home, and actually return here at their next opportunity should not be excluded from the state tax refund. If you are not eligible for the PFD, then you are not eligible to exclusively call Alaska your home. There is a provision for those that are eligible but did not apply for the PFD to apply for the rebate.
The Governor is studying long term solutions and has proposed two short term plans, (the fuel debit card is off the table). While our state legislators have yet to publicly put forward any formal plan to help their constituency. That is telling enough to me for the fall election. I have heard a lot of tin cans rattling from coorporate Alaska since the announcement of full coffers in the state bank. One bad program for them will net more wasted money for the state than the entire payout of the proposed windfall, including fraudulent claims.
If you own property and rent it out including utilities but are not a resident, consider your tennants situation carefully before raising your rent. They may be on the verge of throwing in the towel. If you don't include utilities in the rental price, the fuel costs aren't affecting your wallet. The oil prices aren't increasing a mortgage payment, but they are increasing the Permanent Fund Balance and creating opportunity for our state to permanently fund it's long term programs with enough remaining to make good infrastructure investments for future energy projects.
Regardless of how some of us feel about the military, students attending the University from the lower-48, people who work in Alaska during the summer months, etc.: By law those who qualify for receiving a PDF check can. No ifs, no buts about it.
Some students become residents of Alaska and stay here, some leave. Some native-born Alaskans stay here, some leave. In other words, civilians and GI's come here and stay, while some leave. It still does not matter, since there are set guidelines to qualify for a PDF check. Sooo, why not put our emotions aside and stop complaining about military members when these are not the only ones who may stay or leave? Military members are a minority compared to the hordes of civilians and their families who arrive to Alaska each day to collect Welfare, and eventually PDF checks. A good portion of the local economies depend on the cash spent by the military, and its members and dependents.
Don't believe me? Look around the shopping malls, supermarkets, car dealers, etc.
Made-in-Alaska - I respectfully disagree. Myself and my children, Alaska residents all, need not be punished because of the digressions of the few. Punish law-breakers and cheaters, not those who are attending school out-of-state temporarily, and not those of us who are serving, or are married to those serving, their country. There are all sorts of "red-flags" that the PFD folks look for as far as fraud goes and to safeguard against the types of problems you mention. I agree wholeheartedly with Ray on this one; military personnel are not the only guilty parties (and I don't think there are that many anyway).
If anyone personally KNOWS people who are defrauding the PFD system, may I suggest you do everyone else a favor and turn them in. Here's the link: https://www.pfd.state.ak.us/fraud/index....
Bottom Line: Tighten up the PFD Rules to weed out fraud. Hopefully, since it cost so much to fly back up here, the dishonest ones will drop off th roles.
Thanks for the link ONAPA. Reading the "Alaska Resource Rebate Program" proposal puts it more in perspective - nice that it includes suspension of the fuel tax as well. Practical - of course we pay for the fuel for our properties. Otherwise I would not be worried about it so much. And yes we are very honest, just trying to pay the bills. I know how Alaskans feel about nonresidents (and we dont nor do we think we should collect the PFD) but the bottom line is that a landlord (no matter where they live) is going to feel this huge increase in fuel costs which will in turn increase the already high rental costs in Fairbanks. The cost of living increases with the price of fuel. Hold on tight because we havent seen anything yet! An unrelated but interesting fact is that we pay income taxes to the state that we live for the rent we collect in AK.
my comment is not aimed at those from here that are in the military not those who go off to school, we need these folks back here to keep the community strong. but those who grab their pension or whatever they get and leave for greener pastures, why should they be allowed to return here for some many days each year to qualify for this littl ebit of money that is need by those who are "the" community? thats right they come back (usually on paper) for just long enough to qualify.
DVD and kids should be allowed safe passage to other military postings and return with no problem keeping their pfd and so should people who go off to school.
this state has had more than its share of corruption (i was born here so relax). it kepps on going, probably worse now than any other time, thats right, those we have elected to watch over us arent always looking out for us but are looking out for their own interests. the pfd was a good thing, maybe still is but it has been abused and milked by those who will never return here to live. makes me mad.
I wonder if all of those military members living on FT. Wainwright and Eielson who don't pay for heating fuel will receive the same $1,200.00 that those of us who have to pay for heating fuel and gasoline? For that matter, I wonder if those who pay rent that includes heat instead of a mortgage and seperate heating costs will get the same amount.
The governor is doing her best and I support her and this proposal, but not everybody benefits equally here. Maybe this is just nitpicking.
BenEFits - That's the question isn't it? If this money is SOLELY for heating costs, then a credit to fuel sources makes sense, which would help those who pay actual fuel costs (in this case, to ensure "fairness", I suggest a gallon/cord/etc. limit rather than a price limit, that way higher prices in other areas aren't a factor). IF this package is designed to help with all costs associated with fuel (like rising grocery prices, for example), then your point is moot.
I'm sure that if this idea goes through, no one will be happy anyway. Some will be angry that those they think don't deserve it got it for whatever reason (e.g. the military), some will be angry because they didn't get enough, some will be angry that the family of 4 got more than the single person and some will be angry that anyone got anything at all. Can't make everyone happy.
Dana VanDam - I read the proposal via the website that ONAPA posted and the proposal is called the "Alaska Resource Rebate". After reading it my interpretation is that the $1200 is more aimed at being sort of a "bonus" benefit for residents from all of the extra money the state is making from the increased cost of the oil being pulled out of AK - initiated to help offset the cost of heating fuel. I could be completely wrong but as a nonresident landlord, I now personally feel that it should go to the residents, not necessarily the person paying for fuel (in a rental situation). Inevitably the whole "oil crisis" is probably going to increase rental costs just like it is increasing the cost everything else regardless of the $1200 rebate.
So if I read the proposal correctly, it is not only to those who receive the PFD, but also those who have lived in the state for more than 180 days and plan to stay for the next 12 months.
That should solve some of the debate above.
BenEFits: Is is possible that those GIs living in military housing will receive the $1,200? I don't really know. But I also don't know about the following:
-AK residents (students) living in the dormitories at UAA and UAF
-Residents in assisted living
-Residents who pay rent from Welfare money
-Residents who just pay rent
-Residents who own homes
-Legal residents receiving unemployment compessation
-Folks other States who just became legal residents of AK
-Dependents of military members
My point is as follows: why to pick only on the military? There are all sorts of people living in housing for the poor, and most don't pay for heating, since their rent is highly reduced and paid by the State.
By the way, I do agree with the following: rebates upon proof of heating-fuel purchase (s). That would end all the arguments and the complains about military members.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.