Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Al B.
I happen to think it is politically shrewd of her to submit an optimistic price forecast ($74.41) while showing a moderate amount of belt-tightening on the expense side.

I disagree. Alaska has normally based their budgets on numbers far more conservative basis.

Graph of previous numbers and estimates.
http://www.legfin.state.ak.us/Charts/Matterhorn_OIL_Forecast_vs_Actual_11-26-08.pdf

This is (in my opinion) over the top optimistic and not supported by number out of any analysis (IEA or EIA for example.

If the $74 number stays in and the actual price comes in much lower, she's going to have to slash expenses anyway or borrow from the CBR

To look at the data of today and pretend you won't have to do that is poor planing. Cutting government spending should always be done when it is first reconquest, not based upon the numbers might get better later.

With no appreciable movement towards the gasline being a reality for the last 30 years

There was an agreement by the producers signed just before she came into office. She threw it out. In my opinion, she set the process back 2 years. The current plan still requires those same producers to build the gathering facilities and Natural Gas Treatment plant and has no agreement with them.

The lady's got a ton of guts

Agreed. I believe she holds to principled conservative values on most issues. But not quite enough on some, in my opinion.

97 posted on 12/18/2008 7:39:58 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: thackney
This is (in my opinion) over the top optimistic and not supported by number out of any analysis (IEA or EIA for example.
.
.
To look at the data of today and pretend you won't have to do that is poor planing.

You can make the case for or against the $74 price. We'll see what happens. Do I think it's optimistic? Yes. Do I think she won't hesitate to chop expenses further if necessary. Yes. Is that poor planning? Probably not if there is a good enough rationale behind the revenue forecast. I'm certainly not smart enough to know what the price of oil will be from mid-2009 through mid-2010. The Alaska budget will be balanced one way or the other. They have no choice. I will say this, my opinion of Gov. Palin's fiscal responsibility will certainly change if she ever entertains the notion of dipping into the Permanent Fund.

There was an agreement by the producers signed just before she came into office. She threw it out. In my opinion, she set the process back 2 years.

There have been lots of promises made over 30 years that haven't materialized. She felt Alaska was out of time to harbor more broken promises. In light of the immediate prospect of declining oil production, she made a tough choice. I happen to agree with it.

98 posted on 12/18/2008 8:07:03 AM PST by Al B.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson