I will not posted a picture of the salmon I caught, don't want to stir up feeling of jealousy.
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 ...
It's actually more money and fewer people. $315,000,000 is the recent official estimate and the 2004 Census Bureau estimate is under 13,300 people.
You put a couple of interesting conditions on that; the reality is that anybody who would split from someplace else and "move" more than 1,500 miles on the basis of a one-time $800 check per year, is more likely to require government assistance than be "financially responsible."
Lots of criminals come to Alaska thinking they will get away from a crime and find out it is easier to find them here than anyplace in the country!!!
Thank you for the information, akdonn. I remember the Longevity Bonus and felt bad for those long-time Alaskans who lost it. It is a shame that the program ended because of the "newcomer" issue. Many elder Alaskans depended on that program, and IMO, they earned it. Without them, Alaska wouldn't be what it is today.
The Permanent Fund was not established to keep people here who should leave. Those who come to Alaska for the PF are delusional. It takes hard work, determination, and a tightening of the "belt" to live in Alaska. As you know, our cost of living is very high and whatever they may gain through a PF check is quickly lost in the upcoming month.
You are right as rain about that! We had a rapist from Outside come through our town and he was gravely mistaken when he thought he could remain anonymous. He attacked a young woman here (not successfully, thank God), and within an hour, every man and woman knew about it via phone calls from one person to the next....we knew what he looked like, which way he headed and catching him was easier than catching rain in a barrel under a downspout.
I mentioned the Longevity Bonus as an example of a similar program. I think if it were "needs-based" instead of every person getting the LB, it might be different. But a multi-million dollar guy like Wally Hickel got the same monthly stipend as people who were counting on it for food. So, I think it became an issue of equity. There are other ways to provide for needy elderly persons...
Remember when the PFD program first was proposed, it was supposed to only be for Alaskans who had lived here a number of years. Ron Zeigler sued and said it had to go to every Johnny-come-lately who showed up with his palms turned up. The result was the 1-year requirement. And, as a businessman I like the PFD because it means you can sue dead-beats in small claims and count on getting their PFD!
$315,000 is the project cost. It represents what is in the transportation bill and what Alaska must pay to complete the project. The amount in the bill has not increased.
I understand your points. However, if, for example, the Longevity Bonus or the PF were based on "need", THEN it could then and only then be classified as "socialism". What I appreciated about the theory behind the LB and the PF was that it was based on the population in general. I'm not sure if I've worded that correctly, but you prolly get the gist of it. A vote and program supported by Alaskans FOR Alaskans.
As for the "dead beats" and being a business owner.....you bet, it's probably the only opportunity some business owners in Alaska have to be paid back.
We LOVE Alaska, and PF or not, we will remain here until our dying day. :)
That was Ron Zobel, and he's deceased.
Web posted January 27, 2005 Alaska Digest Staff and Wire reports Attorney who shaped PFD distribution dies ANCHORAGE - Anchorage attorney Ron Zobel, whose lawsuit shaped the delivery of Alaska Permanent Fund dividends, died Wednesday. He was 60. Zobel died of pneumonia brought on by complications of cancer, said his wife, Penny. He had retired in May. The Zobels came to prominence in the late 1970s when they sued over the original configuration of the permanent fund dividends. The Alaska Permanent Fund was created in 1976 by an amendment to the state constitution as a means of preserving part of the vast North Slope petroleum wealth that was to become available to state government. The amendment required the dedication of 25 percent of mineral bonuses, royalties and related income to a special fund to be put into income-producing investments. The value of the fund as of Wednesday stood at nearly $29.3 billion. Then Gov. Jay Hammond and state legislators devised a law to distribute a percentage of earnings to residents in dividends. As originally conceived, the amount of each dividend would have depended on how long the recipient had lived in Alaska. Hammond said the plan would discourage the "rip off and run" syndrome among people receiving the dividend. The Zobels, lawyers who were then newcomers to Alaska, filed a lawsuit saying the concept was unconstitutional.(from the Juneau Empire)
Uh, no...
I'd say that Alaskans are even due more than there per capita share... a lot more. It's a big state, and it needs a road infrastructure to connect people who live far apart. What I question is twenty times more per capita, and the idiocy of these arguments that the money "belongs" to the residents of Alaska.
"That was Ron Zobel, and he's deceased."
Nice catch, you are right. Thanks.
>> Aw common, you are now making a case for a different standard for Alaska than every other state; mineral rights in any other state are the state's. <<
Mineral rights belong to whoever owns the land (although the states do have the prerogartive to regulate such rights as they do many other possessions, like in Virginia, cars are taxed :^( ). Especially in many Western states, the land either belongs to the state, or the state permitted the transfer of the land to the federal government with the proviso that they retain mineral rights. In some cases (i don't know whether this is the norm or the exception), the territorial government was considered the owner of the land when the territory was organized. In very famous Clinton-era struggles, certain states (Vermont? West Virginia? Nevada? I'm not sure which ones) tried to increase mineral rights' costs when the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's attempts to do so.
In fact, while I would consider it corrupt, I can't even think of any way to block the federal government from taking state land for "national parks," and then selling mineral rights (aside from the obvious, very severe political consequences of such an act, which in the case of Alaska would be a far less heinious act, since the federal government paid for Alaska precisely because of the promise of natural resources and key geographic positioning.)
But even so, I would agree with you that it would be heinious if the federal government did indeed sieze the land and then either developed the oil fields themselves, or sold it to parties to whom the state would not have permitted to acquire the land. (There are some situations I could foresee where I would approve of this Congres authorized the purchase and sale of the land precisely to permit its development, as a way of helping Alaska be exempted from some other law...)
As it stands, as far as I know, in many cases, it is the oil and gas companies who own, or lease, or make other arrangements to control the land. In other cases, it is the federal government which owns land, although I'll admit I don't know if federal lands generate a substantial amount of oil or gas.
Now, what Ive written so far is a rebuttal of your notion that other states automatically own mineral rights. And even if Alaska does own its', big deal: the tax in question is paid by consumers. I never claimed to be an expert on Alaska in specific, and I can easily imagine that there are laws and conditions unique to Alaska. I don't know if you are asserting that the federal government siezed land which it had not previously owned, or was recognized as already privately owned previous to the purchase of Alaska from Russia, or was the legally recognized communal land of indigenous peoples, and that the land had been seized for the purpose of developing oil or gas rights (as opposed to say, legitimate military purposes). If you are asserting these things which were not previously part of the discussion, than I'd be glad to hear the state of Alaska's side. But what I was confronted with was the apparant assertion that the gas tax represented the federal government taking Alaska's property away from her, when plainly it is the consumers whose money is being taken.
The fact that a given state produces a disproportionate share of a commodity which is taxed does not demonstrate that the state has been unfairly taxed. Lots of trans-Atlantic flights come from Newark, while few come from Kansas... should Newark get more federal money? And sure Alaska produces a lot of fuel... but so do Texas and Louisia ... OK... well, Louisiana recently did.
So, in summary, if you have an argument to make that the feds siezed something unfairly from Alaska which they were not entitled to, make your case. But don't whine at me that somehow Alaska deserves more pork because New Yorkers pay gas taxes.
>> Aw common, you are now making a case for a different standard for Alaska than every other state; mineral rights in any other state are the state's. <<
Mineral rights belong to whoever owns the land (although the states do have the prerogartive to regulate such rights as they do many other possessions, like in Virginia, cars are taxed :^( ). Especially in many Western states, the land either belongs to the state, or the state permitted the transfer of the land to the federal government with the proviso that they retain mineral rights. In some cases (i don't know whether this is the norm or the exception), the territorial government was considered the owner of the land when the territory was organized. In very famous Clinton-era struggles, certain states (Vermont? West Virginia? Nevada? I'm not sure which ones) tried to increase mineral rights' costs when the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's attempts to do so.
In fact, while I would consider it corrupt, I can't even think of any way to block the federal government from taking state land for "national parks," and then selling mineral rights (aside from the obvious, very severe political consequences of such an act, which in the case of Alaska would be a far less heinious act, since the federal government paid for Alaska precisely because of the promise of natural resources and key geographic positioning.)
But even so, I would agree with you that it would be heinious if the federal government did indeed sieze the land and then either developed the oil fields themselves, or sold it to parties to whom the state would not have permitted to acquire the land. (There are some situations I could foresee where I would approve of this Congres authorized the purchase and sale of the land precisely to permit its development, as a way of helping Alaska be exempted from some other law...)
As it stands, as far as I know, in many cases, it is the oil and gas companies who own, or lease, or make other arrangements to control the land. In other cases, it is the federal government which owns land, although I'll admit I don't know if federal lands generate a substantial amount of oil or gas.
Now, what Ive written so far is a rebuttal of your notion that other states automatically own mineral rights. And even if Alaska does own its', big deal: the tax in question is paid by consumers. I never claimed to be an expert on Alaska in specific, and I can easily imagine that there are laws and conditions unique to Alaska. I don't know if you are asserting that the federal government siezed land which it had not previously owned, or was recognized as already privately owned previous to the purchase of Alaska from Russia, or was the legally recognized communal land of indigenous peoples, and that the land had been seized for the purpose of developing oil or gas rights (as opposed to say, legitimate military purposes). If you are asserting these things which were not previously part of the discussion, than I'd be glad to hear the state of Alaska's side. But what I was confronted with was the apparant assertion that the gas tax represented the federal government taking Alaska's property away from her, when plainly it is the consumers whose money is being taken.
The fact that a given state produces a disproportionate share of a commodity which is taxed does not demonstrate that the state has been unfairly taxed. Lots of trans-Atlantic flights come from Newark, while few come from Kansas... should Newark get more federal money? And sure Alaska produces a lot of fuel... but so do Texas and Louisia ... OK... well, Louisiana recently did.
So, in summary, if you have an argument to make that the feds siezed something unfairly from Alaska which they were not entitled to, make your case. But don't whine at me that somehow Alaska deserves more pork because New Yorkers pay gas taxes.
If you don't think the money is best invested in Alaska and among the residents of Alaska, who do you think should get it--the Federal Government? Should it go the the empire down south like the Sea Otters did when Russia controlled Alaska?
That's the kind of thinking that has been keeping Alaska as a 3rd world nation. Fish resources were controlled by Outside canneries on the west coast. Timber was cut and shipped out instead of turned into products. Few industries have been established in Alaska to provide value-added products. The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay and the lease sale of 1969 changed all of that. Before that every Alaskan's first paycheck of the year got $20 taken out of it for a "school tax" that really went into the General Fund.
In fact there are quite a few examples of places in the world where the government owns the oil resources and the people live in squalor. Alaska is a military strategic stronghold for the United States. Our natural resources are providing the possibilities for the United States to have a natural link to the Pacific Rim. This is a very important development that requires some imagination to understand if you live someplace where there is a state income tax...
What they really would like is to be a free and independent country. I would be their first illegal immigrant.
"So, in summary, if you have an argument to make that the feds siezed something unfairly from Alaska which they were not entitled to, make your case. But don't whine at me that somehow Alaska deserves more pork because New Yorkers pay gas taxes."
I have never asserted that. The "feds" purchased Alaska to serve as a resource warehouse back when Lincoln was president, but times have changed. Under federal domination Alaska experienced many indignities because so few people live here. With statehood we were required to make good on the U.S. Government's agreement to provide for aboridiginal people--which happened in a collaborative way with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971--but to provide any kind of civilized society has required a lot of very amazing people to do what sometimes has appeared to be damn near impossible.
I'm not whining, Pal, I'm just pointing out the obvious. The fact Alaska represents the hope of the future for the Unites States means whatever is spent here for infrastructure--regardless of how outrageous the cost may seem to Outsiders--is really a hell of a deal!!! We Alaskans live with our inflated economy and don't whine about it at all because it keeps the cheap skates and dead-beats from leaving their comfort zones in "nowheresville."
There are those Alaskans who think we should be an independent nation, but I'm not one of them. Heaven forbid that we would be anything like Canada!
There was a time when the British Empire had an interest in owning Alaska, but we dodged that bullet...
So ya missed the air show ?!?!?!?
One friend told me that winters were the very best, with the Northern Lights' shows, a hangered Cessna 185, an uncracked windshield, new tires and chains, oak for the wood stove and sapling walnut and apple for the smokers, a freezer locker full of packaged moose, a basement full of smoked salmon, your well used .375 H&H on the wall, your Freedom Arms .475 Linebaugh in its holster, and your woman with her 38s in bed.
Ahhhhhhh, to be a romantic building an R-48 log cabin with the little woman tinkering with the Briggs&Stratton under the washer so she can do laundry. {8^)
Your posting doesn't deserve a response.
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.