Posted on 10/01/2005 9:59:21 PM PDT by akdonn
Alaska can help finance the recovery from recent hurricanes. It also can secure an energy supply and generate future revenue, thus avoiding tax increases.
But first, Americans have to get the facts straight about Alaska. The misinformation is atrocious. For example, Steve Doocy of Fox and Friends reported Tuesday that the 2005 highway legislation appropriated $223 million for a bridge (at Ketchikan) to serve 50 people, or about $4.5 million per person. That is ridiculous and exhibits the sloppy reporting costing major media their viewers and readers.
The bridge would replace an expensive and inadequate shuttle ferry to a regional airport used by civilian and military aircraft. Ketchikan lies at the south end of the 500-mile-long Alaska Panhandle. The only roads into the Panhandle are at the extreme north end. Ketchikan's closest access to the continental highway system entails a six-hour ferry ride to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, plus a two-day drive to the nearest state.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
I didn't mean the "give" part in a negative way; rather I should have said the claims were recognized as a condition of purchase from Russia. However you say it, the net result is a dramatic change from the way the federal government has done business in every other frontier. Now everybody wants to know why we get so much? HA, because we've earned it!
Good point, tongass kid.
"My spouse and I are retired and considering moving to Alaska."
The normal recommendation to people thinking of moving to Alaska is to have a job lined up first...but since you are retired I would suggest you visit and see if it would be economically feasible. The cost of living here is pretty high...
If it wasn't for brave, hardy, and determined pioneers (past and present), Alaska wouldn't be "Alaska" today. It likely would have been given back to the Russians. LOL Those who choose to insult and complain about Alaskans don't have a clue as to what it takes to live up here.
I also would like to point out that many, many Alaskans use their Permanent Fund checks to pay for their trips Outside to visit family and friends. This puts money into the airline industry as well as whatever city, or town they travel to.
That it is, and looks like it will be climbing fast in the near future. I don't know what minimum annual income is needed, although the neighbor down the street is apparently trying to find that point. He is a teamster and goes on callout two months a year. The other ten months is his own.
Alaska was purchased, the funding came from the treasury.
I share your conflicted view of the potential good of the PFD. On the one hand, I sure take it when it comes but on the other I wonder about the policy because it encourages dead-beats to come to Alaska and have babies so they can get more annual checks.
Generally, I think the PFD creates an artificial economy; car sales go almost year 'round with offerings of using your (upcoming) PFD for a down-payment. And you are correct that our consumer-based economy means people buy a lot of stuff they don't need.
Very thin beginnings. Kind of like the Big Bang. First there was nothing, and suddenly there was an argument.
The opinion on encouraging dead-beats to come to Alaska by offering the PFD is widely shared. If they took a poll it would show that belief is common, probably even among dead-beats. I don't believe the PFD has done any actual good overall, although in particular cases it is being used wisely.
$200 million is a lot for 14,000 people too. And they can already get to the airport by taking a ferry. It's amazing the number of big government types on FR.
Anyone who comes to Alaska just for the PF usually leaves a.s.a.p. It takes a heck-of-a lot more to live in Alaska than one measly check. LOL The idea for the PFD wasn't so it would do some "actual good overall", it was just a brilliant idea of Alaskans at the time who knew that the "boom and bust" phase of the pipeline would eventually go away. Maybe I'm hanging with the right crowd, but every single person I know in Alaska uses their PF in a way that benefits Alaskan businesses AND Outside businesses, including the airlines. That money is spent, it goes into the economy. :)
I've used my checks for education or tools. I have a master's degree, I've taken many classes in vocational and technical trades, and I have an Alaska k-8 teaching certificate. It has been a good investment, and I know it has helped the University of Alaska. That's the best use I can think of for the PFD.
I lived in Juneau for 20 years, and during that time my best friend besides my wife was Hugh Malone. He is considered one of the key persons who helped make the PFD possible as Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives when the bill was passed.
Hugh and I had many discussions about the Permanent Fund before he died suddenly in March of 2001. He STILL wasn't sure it was a good thing...
Also, an interesting idea he had about elected officials: He proposed that they should be chosen the way we choose juriors; one day you get a letter in the mail informing you that on a date certain you are to show up at the capital and serve as a representative from the district where you live. House member, Senator--you were chosen by lot and given notice that you would be serving, and had 120 days to do the people's work. What do you think about that?????
Now THAT is an interesting idea. Then again, I have seen some of the potential "jurors" so....hmmmmmmm.....LOL
As for Hugh Malone...you mentioned that he still wasn't sure the PF was a good thing. I wonder why? I can't see any harm to it at all. Seems to me that if the PF was given back to our state government (or gasp, FEDs), it would likely be spent like a credit card thief on a holiday. I prefer that it is doled out to your every-day Alaskan if for nothing else than a testament to the fact that sometimes, just sometimes, the citizens do have some control over state and federal government. LOL
You know, like the Louisiana Land Purchase.
The difference being of course that deveoping that land was undisputed and many outsiders want to keep Alaska as some giant park.
If they can pay the inflated prices and raise a child on $845.76, then bring them on. Alaska needs those type of financially responsible people.
Interesting. I didn't know anything about his proposed bridge except the snippets I'd heard on TV and in the news. I'd NEVER heard what this writer is saying. Sounds like it is a good investment; better than anything Bobbie Byrd is likely to request in W. Virginia.
In Juneau I worked two years for a lady who had been Commissioner of Administration under Jay Hammond. She signed the first PFD checks. When they first came out, Gov. Hammond wasn't too sure how they would be received and didn't want to sign them himself.
We've been doing this OFD experiment for quite a while, but I don't think we still know what the long-term consequences of this program will be. Remember, they also started the Longevity Bonus for Senior Alaskans; it started as a way to provide support for people who helped make Alaska what it is, but the courts ruled that it had to be for everybody over a certain age who lived in-state one year. It, too, caused alot of older folks to move to Alaska, and stay in the Alaska Pioneer Homes, etc. Well, when push came to shove that program had to go, and it pissed off all the old-timers when Gov. Murkowski gave it the axe.
Government doesn't usually give away money. Is it really just a subsidy to keep people here who should leave???
Correction to last post: OFD = PFD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.