Posted on 09/05/2011 9:32:08 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
As Rick Perry's record is beginning to be scrutinized, the budget mess in Texas has started to receive national attention. Apparently, there is a $31 billion deficit in the current fiscal year that will necessitate drastic cuts. It has also come to light that Perry, rather than making the necessary cuts in 2009, took Obama stimulus funds and used over $6 billion of the stimulus to plug his deficit. The deficit has now exploded, as they tend to do when not addressed early, and the stimulus money has dried up and blown away like a tumbleweed, leaving the state awash in a sea of red ink. By contrast, in Alaska, Governor Palin in 2009 made a deep cuts cuts and refused most of Obama's stimulus money, accepting only 45%--that portion which did not grow the government, or have strings attached that would swell the budget in the out years. Perry, by contrast, took 95% of the stimulus funds he was offered, a cool $16.5 billion.
Consequently, Palin's Alaska currently sports a $3.4 billion surplus and $12 billion in reserves, while Perry's Texas has a yawning deficit and will likely have to raid its $9 billion "rainy day fund", in addition to instituting draconian cuts, to close it. It is no wonder, some of us have observed, that Perry has taken his traveling medicine show on the road. Things must be pretty hot in Austin right about now.
The comparison between Palin's record and Perry's is pretty damning by any objective standard. Palin left her state with a huge surplus and in the pink of fiscal health, even in the middle of a recession. Perry has doubled state spending and tripled state debt during his decade in Austin, and Texas currently faces a gigantic, unprecedented deficit. It is pretty hard to argue with the figures. So what has been the recourse of the Perry supporters? Well, as the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Let me explain.
Alaska, they observe, has the second highest federal tax allotment per capita in the nation. What this means is Alaska receives about $5,150 more per capita in federal spending than the US average. (DC is first in per capita spending, Virginia is third, Maryland is fourth). This statistic is meant to conjure up an image of the average Alaskan stuffing his mattress with all the federal largesse or getting in his Cadillac and driving over to the welfare office to pick up his check. It is intended to convey the image of a state that is "propped up" by federal government spending. These images are, however, false and the use of the "per capita" argument is a canard. This "per capita" figure does not mean that the federal spending goes to state government or even necessarily to the people. It just means that the federal government spends x amount of dollars (over and above what it collects in federal taxes) in the state, and when you divide that amount by the number of residents of the state, you arrive at the per capita figure.
D.C. is the federal city and produces nothing, so it surprises no one that it is number one, since its local government and most of its residents' salaries are publicly funded. Virginia and Maryland, which envelop the capital, have by far the most federal employees of any of the other states. Vast numbers of their citizens work for the federal government. Little wonder that their per capita federal spending is higher as well.
And what of Alaska? Well, two thirds of the state, an area considerably larger than the state of Texas, is actually owned by the federal government, and the owner has to take care of and manage its property, which costs money. 87 million acres--an area more than half the size of Texas--is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, which spends huge amounts of money to manage and superintend such vast tracts. Another 16 million acres comprise the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, the world's largest fish and wildlife refuge, which is managed by another federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Not surprisingly, the federal government spends a lot of money managing land it owns in Alaska.
Because of its strategic location, Alaska is home to nine large military bases and nearly 30,000 active duty troop, which is a number that is nearly 5% of its population. It has the largest number of bases per capita and the largest number of troops per capita of any state. The funds to maintain these bases and their operations, as well as the salaries and benefits for these troops, are part of the overall federal spending in the state. No doubt there is an indirect benefit for the state economy in this spending but it is far less direct than in Virginia and Maryland, which have state income taxes and tax the salaries of their federal employees (Alaska has no state income tax). The bottom line is that the federal government decided to put a lot of military bases in Alaska to protect the rest of us, not to help prop up Alaska. Yet these expenses, like the expenses to manage federal lands, are included in the phony "per capita" calculus.
And, on the other side of the equation, it is worth noting as well that the federal government doesn't just give money to Alaska. It costs Alaska money. A lot of it. Here's how. The Congress and the White House have taken unprecedented steps to impede Alaska's development of its natural resources, specifically its moratorium on exploration in the ANWR, and its many regulations and restrictions on exploration elsewhere in the state. Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope produces 400,000 barrels a day (8% of U.S. production), the largest field in the United States. It is suspected that ANWR has reserves comparable in size to the North Slope, but the federal government refuses to permit the exploration. It seems to me a bad bargain for Alaska to get a few measly federal dollars for military bases and federal land management, which benefit the entire country, only to have the same federal leviathan with its boot on the neck of Alaska's ability to develop its own God given natural wealth.
Imagine how devastating it would have been in the early part of the 20th Century, during the great Texas Oil boom, if the federal government had slapped a moratorium on drilling in East Texas, killing in their crib the great oil strikes at Spindletop, Humble, Goose Creek and Ranger. Texas would never have overtaken California and Oklahoma to become the largest oil producing state, and one of the richest, in the Union. Its booming economy would have been strangled and the cause of death would have been listed as federal regulation. I for one am thankful that Texas did not suffer this fate, and I am just as anxious that the boot of the Interior Department and the EPA be removed from Alaska's throat as well.
Incidentally, in spite of these large federal handcuffs Sarah Palin managed to do a remarkable job in spurring energy production, both oil and gas, in Alaska through ACES and AGIA. And these policies, coupled with her firm control of spending, have placed Alaska on a sound fiscal footing.
Context is everything. Statistics, particularly those as deceptive as per capita calculations, are generally a diversion tactic. But when one's record is as weak as Rick Perry's, it is preferable to divert attention from that record rather than than to try to defend it. As an old lawyer once said, if you have the facts on your side argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, confuse the issue.
And when the Salmon Run!! Yum.
Still looking for that source. This appears to be a vanity. Too bad it’s so inaccurate.
There’s Fred Mertz’ site, Liberty’s with “rules for Palin Postings” could that be the source? Doesn’t look like it.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20711
Found another possible source crediting “StaffWriter” - but it bounces back to FreeRepublic. So FR?
Starts here at Mike Pence for President 2012, http://pence4president.com/2011/09/palin-postings%E2%80%93the-phon/
Yeah. What you said. Fishing in Alaska is like fishing in Heaven.
As a resident of Alaska, knowing that everything has to be barged up here I can safely state that it would be impossible to “live of the funds that are taken from the oil companies”.
Things cost a lot less in the lower 48, yet could you live off of 1200 bucks for a year? I live in a fixed up one bedroom trailer out of town and its $1100 bucks a month for rent. Its pretty hard to eat for a year off of 100 bucks, specially when its 20 below zero and you have no place to live inside for the other 11 months a year.
As for the oil wealth, we pay a quarter more a gallon for gas here than down there. The oil companies get their cut just fine. They always do.
As for having it easy on the federal largess, they have not even built roads between all the towns up here. Most places you want to get to, you have to fly. Far as I know, there is a road from every town to everywhere down there. You want to argue what is fair, I would say, finish building the highways in Alaska so it can grow, before you fix up yours for the umpteenth time.
As an Alaskan, I would LOVE for the Feds to stop sending us money, and just go away. Heck, in a couple of years we would have a LOT more money than the Feds do. For that matter, we do right now.
This is the frontier, there is oil, and gold, and copper and fish and wood and land up here. You just can’t do anything with it because the Feds stole it all and won’t let you sneeze without an environmental report. I work in a mine, but unlike mining for the rest of history, now we have to mine without pumping the water out. Isn’t it amazing, that a hole in the ground that is 6 inches or less is a well and is good enough to drink, but a hole that is larger than six inches is a mine and is the water is “too poisonous” to put on the ground. Pretty hard to dig underwater ya know.
But then the government is not about helping America grow these days, its about shutting it down.
How about we do this calculation based on square miles serviced by those federal dollars? Suddenly Alaska is at the end of the list not the top. Lies, damned lies and statistics. In that order...
Alaska produces more money for the Feds and America per federal dollar at less cost per square mile than any other State in the union.
We only have 600,000 people up here! Its a pretty cheap shot to figure per capita. How many people in Texas? How much Oil and mineral production per capita there vs here? Hmmmm?
Now that is a bit more fair, not what we cost per capita, but what we produce.
The destiny that we see for Alaska is to support America, so get the Feds off of our back so we can balance the budget ok? We don’t need them to do their thing up here and spend their money on themselves and their projects. We need to do our thing and make money for us all. And the best half of alaska that they “manage”? Save them and you money, give it back to us. All they produce is poop on that land. We can produce something usable besides just poop and red tape.
Is this a two-year budget cycle? So the $31 billion is over two years?
-George
Yes though my main point was that the original poster quoted a figure from the current budget to rebut the thread starter’s facts about the new budget.
And yet the same article shows the thread starter was mostly correct about the new budget!
So what’s your issue, precisely? That Texas is facing a deficit?
So Texas will slash spending — because Texas won’t raise taxes.
If that’s the strategy, so what? Is there a problem with those two actions? Those both sound like GREAT decisions.
If you have a problem with cutting spending rather than raising taxes — mayhap you should also post this on DU? One might suspect you would have a greater comfort level with the DUmmies.
-George
Yes, here’s an article from March 2008 about her raising taxes, withdrawing a contract from Exxon, putting the contract out to bid - it eventually went to a Canadian oil company, which has since subcontracted with Exxon.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a13e84JyS2B8
“”Palin threatened to evict Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s biggest oil company, and partners BP Plc, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips from a state-owned gas field, winning their promise to increase Alaska’s natural-gas output 17 percent. She raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year and rejected industry ownership of a $25 billion pipeline. “”
Here’s an article with all sorts of numbers and statistics:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
“”Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state’s total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.””
I’m not saying she was wrong — it looked like the oil men were waiting for bigger profits.
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.