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 »

  January 19, 2009 - 9:34pm | u111u

Mod Converter*Mod to AVI

Mod Converter*Mod to AVI Converter*Mod to WMV Converter*Mod to VOB Converter*Mod to MPG Converter*Mod to MP4 Converter*Mod to FLV Converter*Mod to Xvid Converter*Mod to 3GP Converter*Mod Editor

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 »