Alaska Politics

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.


Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

2008 Election

At one point the races with Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young promised to be the highest-profile campaigns in Alaska history.

PHOTOS

The Photo Blog: From the RNC

Photographer Marc Lester is blogging on Sarah Palin and the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis this week.

SECTION

Gov. Sarah Palin

Get past and current coverage of Alaska's Governor as she battles to become the next vice president.

Photo galleries

Reader-submitted Palin photos

Archive

"I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change..." - 9/6/2008 6:55 pm

RNC Talking Points - 9/5/2008 12:06 pm

Palin won't be suboenaed but seven others will, say committee members - 9/5/2008 11:34 am

Spitting image - 9/5/2008 11:21 am

Coghill to Leg. Council chair: Remove French from 'troopergate' oversight - 9/5/2008 10:57 am

Split screen - 9/5/2008 10:53 am

Heart to Palin: Stop using our song. - 9/5/2008 8:10 am

'I saw you again today' - 9/4/2008 7:39 pm

Palin and earmarks - 9/4/2008 6:58 pm

Ivan Moore: Palin positive rating in Alaska is 82% - 9/4/2008 4:25 pm

Wally for Palin (Updated again, 9/5) - 9/4/2008 4:11 pm

A new day for Sarah Palin - 9/4/2008 2:43 pm

"Tenacious, tough, Alaskan woman" - 9/4/2008 2:19 pm

"I have known Sarah since 1992..." - 9/4/2008 12:11 pm

Morning after - 9/4/2008 6:51 am

An "apology" from the "elite media" - 9/4/2008 6:16 am

Overnight reviews - 9/3/2008 9:20 pm

"I was just your average hockey mom..." - 9/3/2008 7:31 pm

Obama campaign response - 9/3/2008 7:21 pm

The speech - 9/3/2008 7:15 pm

Excerpts from Palin speech - 9/3/2008 4:47 pm

Raw Feed: Stevens & Begich on Palin (UPDATED) - 9/3/2008 4:15 pm

full archive »

$1,200 rebate clears first committee

Posted by Wesley Loy

Posted: July 23, 2008 - 11:36 pm

From Wesley Loy in Juneau –

The bill that might hold the greatest interest for Alaskans during this special legislative session has nothing to do with the darned natural gas pipeline.

It’s House Bill 4002, which would give each resident $1,200 as a “resource rebate,” or share of the state’s extraordinary oil revenue surplus.

Lots of people are asking lawmakers to support the rebate as a way to help cope with the rising cost of heating oil and other energy, especially in rural Alaska.

The bill cleared its first hurdle today, winning passage out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.

But the committee made a big amendment. Instead of sending out the rebate as a separate payment, it would be tacked onto this fall’s Permanent Fund dividend.

That makes distributing rebates simpler, and means your dividend check could be “an amazingly big one,” said Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, the Kodiak Republican who co-chairs the committee.

Indeed, this year’s Permanent Fund dividend already figures to be the largest ever at more than $2,000.

Add the $1,200 resource rebate to that and we’re talking a cool $3,000-plus for every resident!

HB 4002 moves next to the House Finance Committee.


login or register to post comments

  2     July 25, 2008 - 4:39am | robak03

What is this...

...a rebate from, exactly? I believe the more accurate term is handout, or possibly welfare?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  1     July 24, 2008 - 8:48am | hitman

IT'S SOCIALISM

I'll take it.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 24, 2008 - 9:59am | Stags_Leap

It's poor strategic planning

why not use those funds to build the Delong Mountain Port Terminal, which will benefit all Alaskans for years to come?

From an individual citizen perspective -sure -the free cash is always nice. But from an organizational and government standpoint -it's a waste of money for very short-term gains...namely more support for Palin.

We need leadership that can think and plan strategically...long-term.....otherwise our kids and their kids will be screwed.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 9:40am | pete_moss

Build the bridge

Knik Bridge, timing is good, build the bridge so we can get to the prison and the new petro chemical plant at "the Point"

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 24, 2008 - 12:33pm | Emperor

I agree...

...about the need for long term planning, but there are people that need help now. The same high prices that have benefited the State are harming many Alaskans. It makes sense to me to take some of that windfall and give it back to Alaskans. I certainly like the one time shot over the monthly deal... that could add to the entitlement attitude.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 24, 2008 - 11:49pm | akmooster

I agree Emp...

This is such an election year BS bill. I get so tired of politicos insulting everyone's intelligence.
They are right to help. But is somebody in los anchorage is making $500k a year and their cost of energy is $2,000 does he/she NEED help?
On the other hand, if someone is in the Bush, making squat and their cost is $9,000 a year is it a help?
And how hard would it be to figure out who is who and give the help where the pain really is.
Otherwise, it is just a political game. Vote no. Figure out who is being devastated and who can sustain it and help those who need help.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 6:15am | Emperor

If you make it...

...a "means test" type of program then that just drives up the administrative costs. Somebody has to check all the applications to make sure nobody is lying.

The other alternative would be to handle it like the IRS does. They don't audit every file, they just do enough to keep most people at least hesitant to lie TOO much. Then you make the punishment much worse than what they gain by lying.

First cut would be the PFD. If they received the last PFD they are in the pool. Those that already receive means based support, would qualify.

Now is the tricky part. I think it should be a sliding scale based on family size, income and area which they live. In theory if we got the scale right, the subsidy would go to those that needed the most help and then scale back until the size-income-area meant zero benefit. I'm sure some whiz kid could work up an algorithm that would figure it all out, people could apply on line or at any state office.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 10:45am | rfn

Fairness suggests

these concepts are good.

The Alaska Constitution is not about fairness. It's about equality. To do a program based on region/need/whatever would be a nice attempt but the chronic complainers would have it in court for, what, 19 years?

Unfortunately it appears the only way to give anybody assistance is to give everybody assistance or go to court.

Meanwhile, the plan I'm surprised NOT to have heard is to offer $1,200 to everybody in rural Alaska to assist them in moving to the city formerly known as "Anchorage" where they can move in with the wonderfully generous folks who have offered them free housing until they can find jobs. It's double-edged, though, because moving assistance would have to be offered to everyone and some of those "generous" people might use it to run home to Texas and avoid making good on their offers.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 11:28am | akmooster

i don't think it would go to court...

to subsidize fuel costs in the bush. We subsidize electricity and the extreme cost of fuel is really going to be devestating to some. I also think the increased cost of meting it out would be more than offset by the savings of not giving to those who don't need it. Let people apply for it and have them send in proof of income.
Emp says it should be based on family size, why? Is it harder for a family of 10 to stay warm than a single person? We need to quit subsidizing and encouraging excessive breeding.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 10:08pm | mooseymoose

akmooster

Don't we already subsidize South-Central with teir Sweetheart deal on Natural Gas?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 12:07pm | Emperor

I'm just throwing...

...out ideas. Things that perhaps others haven't considered.

The reason I mention family size is that I know our utility bills go up and down with the number of people living here. That could also be weighted in a way that family size wouldn't make a significant amount of difference in the amount received. I think the two most critical factors should be income and location.

I think we spend way too much money on screening applicants and not enough on investigation and enforcement when it comes to public assistance. Penalties should include jail time and disqualification from the PFD and public assistance for life.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  July 25, 2008 - 12:49pm | rfn

Two comments in one....

The idea of subsidizing fuel costs selectively might pass constitutional muster though I'm not entirely convinced. Of course if fuel were equally subsidized city and rural those using less would benefit less. There's also a question of renters vs. owners. In rural areas it's pretty much customary for owners to pay for the heat in rental units. Reasoning is that renters who pay their own are more apt to run out and have very expensive freeze-ups. Rents have already gone up to compensate for the fuel hikes but it's unlikely rents would come down if the fuel bills were lowered.

Direct payment of any kind would introduce federal tax liabilities and would make the constitutional issues more likely to be chased after by the perpetually disgruntled. I can see one loser blogsite already mixing up a lather to spew!

Location is the biggest variable with family size right up there. One of the casualties of high fuel prices is a decline in personal cleanliness and that translates into more sickness and a heavier load on the already dangerously loaded rural health mechanisms. Income gets into the mix and it becomes a serious welfare giveaway talking point. Not that anybody would abuse the pain of others that way....... I think my nose just grew a half-inch on that one.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad