Palin will call special session on energy relief
Originally published Monday, May 12, 2008 at 6:48 p.m.
Updated Monday, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 p.m.
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sarah Palin will call lawmakers into a second special session this year to address energy cost relief for Alaskans.
Palin will unveil a plan from her energy coordinator, Steve Haagenson, on Thursday to address the short-term energy crisis caused by oil prices.
Her spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow, on Monday would not give details on the plan, but she told The Associated Press that it would require legislative support.
"Steve Haagenson just came on board in March. We are now at a point where we can unveil details on a short term plan. We just reached that point in the process," Leighow said.
Lawmakers will be in Juneau for a special session beginning June 3 on the natural gas pipeline.
House Speaker John Harris earlier Monday asked Palin to expand that special session to take up energy relief.
The Valdez Republican said Alaskans are being pinched to pay for gas, home heating fuel and electricity while state coffers are filling up with oil revenues.
Each month the price of Alaska crude oil remains over $120 a barrel, the state treasury will take in about $650 million more than what was forecast just last month, according to the state.
Lawmakers approved assistance to low income Alaskans to help with fuel and money for weatherization and energy conservation last session.
Harris said they may look again at options similar to legislation that did not pass the regular session.
"One of them is a cash payment to rate payers and or to people who buy gas and oil. The other is to help subsidize utility companies -- a good example is what happened in Juneau," Harris said. "Those are the kind of things we need to get down and discuss right away and figure out if there's support for doing that."
Palin's disaster cabinet earlier this month rejected declaring a disaster in Juneau after avalanches cut off its source of cheap hydropower. The declaration would have made state and federal assistance available to rate payers suddenly facing a nearly 450 percent hike in utility bills.
Leighow said Palin likely will keep lawmakers in Juneau to address energy relief when the first special session ends.
Harris said he would prefer the two issues be addressed at once so that lawmakers can return home to their jobs sooner.
Palin earlier rejected expanding the special session to include an in-state gas line as well as abortion bills that didn't pass in the regular session.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Thank you Governor Palin and Speaker Harris for recognizing the dire situation that Alaskan are facing. It is now time to put away partisan politics and address the needs of ALL ALASKANS as the first obligation of the State of Alaska.
Yea, thanks for attempting to fix the problems created by you politicans
I retired from the Army last year to live in Alaska. However, my retirement pay doesn't even come close to paying my mortgage. With the rise in fuel costs in the last six months we almost didn't make it through the winter. Fortunately, we qualify for the weatherization program this year. If costs keep rising, it will be time to move to the lower 48 and a warmer climate as many Fairbanksans have stated.
Now is when everyone needs to contact their legislators and let them know that we need affordable energy for all Alaskans. Renegotiating the contracts for the delivery price of royality oil to the refinery would be a good place to start. It's our oil folks, why should we be paying top dollar to heat our homes when we should be getting it at cost.
I was here in 1985 and years hence. My ex and I kept our house. This winter, it was a challenge to heat the house, and still have any money left to do anything. I have been here almost 3 decades. I have never claimed to be an "old timer" that went through REALLY hard times, but, times are times. I am not going to leave, cant afford to, but wow, looking at this story, we (Good Alaskans) are making $1083 dollars a month for every month that oil is above $120 a barrel. Well, I am for doing something that is for the good of ALL Alaskans, but dang, maybe every 6 months if they gave us 5 grand, I think I might make it OK. Again, I am not for govt. just giving away money, I am a Ron Paul libertarian, but dang, if I were getting an Alaskan share out of these State profits, I think I would make it just fine. Best wishes to all my friends out there...it aint easy, but we will survive.
Oh...by the way... Thanks Gov. Palin for your leadership. I feel sure you will not let us languish here in the interior. I support you and tell all my Friends, I support Sarah Palin!!! Please help us, there is no need for good Alaskans to be suffering, really suffering over energy prices when we hold all the cards. This Alaskan thanks you.
Poppa that sounds like a win win for the oil producers. Good PR, cheap fuel, and lower operating costs. It is odd to me since they are "partners" in Alaska's future, that none of the State's major industries are involved in the public debate or voicing concern over the costs, and helping to find solutions.
However, we can't afford not to try and fix it with a bandage in a special session using a percentage of the actual windfall profits. Lowering operating costs for the oil producers should produce more profit for them and the State. It can make it cheaper to explore here than in other parts of the world.
It will also keep the gas line construction estimates within a reasonable margin of error. Not to mention the fact that it will help other industries like commercial fishing, tourism, and transporters which can pass the savings on to their clients. Finally it will help the government, and the citizens by lowering our cost of living.
If they reduce the cost of royalty oil to the producers they need to have a clause the defines how much GROSS profit can be made off of the refined products
I don't know much about Ron Paul, other than he used to be a doctor. I don't agree that the Government knows better than I do about how to spend money. Sitting on it and waiting for something to get built isn't the answer to the immediate needs of the citizens. Invest some of it in infrastructure, keep some for the rainy day fund, but give the excess back to the people with interest.
The intent of the increased rates in the tax on oil during the last special session was to increase the return to the citizens not the State Government. It worked, the returns increased, so what should the State Government do with the money? Just keep it in Juneau where it may be raining in January, we will burn wood this winter in the interior until they ban that.
Governor Palin, don't fall victim to catastrophic success. You are doing a bang up job of leading, but hold the legislature to their promise to get more out of the high price of oil for the citizens. Hold your budget office accountable for the millions of dollars in interest that should be accumulating on those billions as well.
One and a quarter percent of a billion is twelve million five hundred thousand dollars times eight is one hundred million dollars. The current Federal Interest Rate for 90 day maturity is 1.25%. For four years three months it doubles to 2.5% and we should get at least that much return on our money. That would be an extra billion dollars added every fifteen months of interest on the current excess principle. If my calculations are close, the current excess would pay out over thirteen thousand dollars per person eligible for the PFD, which just may cover our added heating costs this year after the Feds take their cut.
We can't waste money on unecessary things like heating oil. Everyone needs to quit whining. We got fish hatcheries to build!
Hey Sarah, get with Gary Hutchinson. Love his play, true profit sharing at its best.. Let's not forget the hard working Alaskan that also deserve a break from the high cost of fuel oil and gas, not just the low income. But everyone deserves some help. I know I haven't received and extra income to compensate for these crazy fuel prices.
Hey Sarah, get with Gary Hutchinson. Love his plan, true profit sharing at its best.. Let's not forget the hard working Alaskan that also deserve a break from the high cost of fuel oil and gas, not just the low income. But everyone deserves some help. I know I haven't received and extra income to compensate for these crazy fuel prices.
Yea ... more free stuff for everyone to pound down a hole! Give me money ... please, please ... I really need it for gas as I spent all of mine going out to diner and for day care ..lol
Alaskaway ... if you were that marginal then you should not be here to start with. You need to be realistic and the 25% increase in energy cost should in no way put you under. You must have been maxed out to start with so you feel the pinch now .... move to cheaper hunting grounds.
It should be interesting to see what they will do, since they already stated that they are not interested in giving cash relief to the citizens. Per Anchorage Daily News, they don't want to place an IRS burden on the people. It looks more like relief to energy providers. Hey, I know a refinery that may be for sale.
The socialists are out in force this AM. Do folks think our state is the only one squeezed by energy prices? Yeah the govt needs to give us some more $$. Jeez, old time Alaskans are rolling over in their graves.
Alaska Constitution Article 8 - Natural Resources
§ 2. General Authority
"The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people."
You can call it socialism if you want to, but the Constitution clearly states the all resources are for the maximum benefit of Alaskans. Somewhere along the line the legislature took it upon themselves that this means they can spend all of our oil money at will. It's time to take back Alaska for the people and get OUR maximum benefit.
Do we pay the state market value for the salmon we catch in the river? Do we pay market value to the state for the meat that we get from hunting? Do we pay market value to the state for the berries that we pick from the land? Do we pay market value for the wood that we cut down for firewood?
Why the @!#$ do we have to pay market value to the state for OUR royalty oil that comes out of the ground?
CRY BABYS,,, My two cars, half million dollar home, two snow machines, two personal water craft, airplane, riding lawn mower, on and on,, need fuel too. If you cant afford to live here pack up and GO. What would have happened if the original gold minners would have asked the GOVERNMENT to help pay for the high cost of living, they payed two dollars per egg, back when gold was $32.00 per oz. Spoiled rotten with socialists elected officals that know how to take care of themselves,,, STEAL IT>:::::: wine=wine-wine
Thanks again Fairbanksgas.
When are you people going to get it through your head that Alaska's resources belong to Alaskans equally?
That doesn't necessarily mean that the resource wealth belongs exclusively to our fine friends in the legislature--or the executive branch--to spend for us.
Please read this discussion. gopking makes good points. I wanted clarification. He gave it. Turned out we agreed with eachother. It is not socialism.
Also note alaskastoryteller's point that we gave up our subsurface rights to be equal owners in the wealth created from subsurface resources.
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/may/03/wh......
After you read it, tell me skinfish, tell me Bugger;
exactly why do you want the government to spend ALL your share of the money instead of you?
The solution to our expensive fuel oil crisis is found within the Alaska Constitution.
"Article 8 - Natural Resources
§ 1. Statement of Policy
It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest."
The areas of Alaska that are hardest hit by this energy crisis are the ones that use Alaska's royalty oil for heating and electrical generation. Anchorage and most of Southeast Alaska are in pretty good shape as they have cheap hydroelectric power- or STATE SUBSIDIZED CHEAP NATURAL GAS.
So, the solution is simple. Sell Alaska's royalty oil that is to be used for heating and electrical generation at a BTU equivalent price for what Alaska is selling natural gas to Anchorage for.
A simple solution and what our Constitution requires. Why? The key sentence in the Constitution that prefaces the words about maximum benefit are "...the settlement of its land..." If Alaskans are having to move, or unsettle the land, due to Alaska selling royalty oil for exorbitant prices, then that proves that the Constitution is NOT, being followed.
Are Alaskans unsettling the land? The Fairbanks North Star Borough has declared an energy emergency- and the mayor has predicted a loss of thousands of residents before the next winter.
And Valdez is in the same situation, and may also declare an emergency.
Governor Palin and the legislature must act immediately on this- I am glad Sarah is calling a special session.
And lets get moving on this before oil hits $150- $200 per barrel as is predicted.
In fact- the special session is too late in the year- it should be held right now before the exodus of people begins. People are making decisions as to whether they will stay or not- right now.
(And how about a windfall profits tax on the multinational oil companies?)
ONAPA-
Thanks to you too.
You have it right.
Hopefully the Governor and the legislative majority can put aside their differences to address this. The manner in which the Fairbank's delegation has treated bush Alaska in the past makes it very hard for bush communities to join Fairbanks in forming a coalition that may have some clot against Anchorage, Southeast and Matsu. This second special session should be a very interesting political beast to watch. By the way, The Mayor declaring an energy "emergency" does one thing, it allows him to by pass the tax cap on this issue.
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/may/03/wh...
Someone told me it didn't work. Try this.
See IUR? I'm not too good at this stuff. Thanks for helping yesterday though...
I also want to thanks Fairbanks Gas for taking the time to inform us of our rights, and all the others that have taken the time to express there feelings. If certain people have sooo much money they do not need help, give it to the rest of us that do!!! Besides that the Alaska Constitution Article 8 - Natural Resources was created by us, for us. I need help as many do. I would just once love to see the "legislative Branch" do what we voted them into office for in the first place, to protect Alaskans interest, not big business interest.
When I get my State PFD money, I'll go down to Freddie's
or Sam's and get a prepaid debit card for that amount then
use it to purchase gas with until the next PFD arrives,
that will be bigger.
It would be nice if the State issued a PFD debit card for
the purchase of gas/home heating oil, to out State citizens
and not give them a PFD check.
Alaska is the only State that pays for gas and home
heating oil and it is just going to get bigger. If anything,
increase the PFD dividend and that will solve most of the
energy problems. They can work for their food.
Can't have it all. How about an early PFD debit card, to
help relieve the energy situation or a portion up front?
You’re good at it corrine… it’s all a learning process….
I know I'm cynical. I don't trust the majority of my fellow Alaskans to tighten their belts, forego the unnecessary things, and learn to conserve before they line up for a handout. I’m very afraid that a subsidy for fuel alone will continue to contribute to the overconsumption of oil. This plan should not go forward without an emphasis weatherization and conservation. Perhaps, a primary discount on weatherization products and services, free education on conservation, and a secondary subsidy for fuel, itself?
Someone, I’m sure, will try to set me straight on this.
corinne-- sorry for the misspell.
How about the money we save by not paying a State income tax. PFD and no state income tax can add up to a lot of disposable income.
You guys aren't getting it. It is not a handout.
It has nothing to do with income taxes.
It does have something to do with the PFD.
It has to do with collective ownership of resources, as Fairbanksgas states above.
Read the posts linked above! I'm sick of saying it over and over, and I imagine others are also. It is already explained there by several of us.
The PFD is based on investment from a percentage of wealth from OUR resources, subject to whims of the market.
It is very indirect. The cash windfall rolling into the state coffers is direct. And the legislature has no problem with spending our windfall for us.
We should have a direct share of the windfall. It's ours.
Of course a much better solution to reduce our State's energy
signature; would be to have the State deal directly with
Toyota Motors and implement a program to get rid of
our gas hogs, by given the citizens of Alaska a Choice.
To give them a new Toyota Prius and they will give up
their PFD for 10 years or the State will buy their gas
hog vehicles and deduct the purchase price of a Prius
from that. In the long run, this will save millions of
gallons of gas and make Alaska a more energy efficient
State. Why have $$$ BILLIONS $$ in out State treasury,l
if we aren't going to use it wisely? And this is a good
deal, for both the State and its citizens.
burke
How is it every major state newspaper has not quoted Speaker John Harris's outright endorsement of the All Alaska Gas Line?
It was on KTUU last night and there was no equivocating about it.
LNG to Valdez, people.
They just got back from China and our gas will be sold to the highest bidder on the world market and that means China and Japan who will take all we can produce at much higher rates than those who want to boil out the Alberta Tar Sands.
Rep Ralph Samuels made the comment about "not caring what happens to the gas once it leaves Alaska."
You used to have a political career ahead of you Ralphie, now too much time in the board rooms with Conoco Kevin is going to leave a stain.
Too bad, you showed promise when you started.
This stand by John Harris is huge and the special session is going to be a barn burner that makes history.
To Imusuallyright, I agree that there should be classes or whatever to teach those of us of a younger generation how to survive (or tighten our belts) here in Alaska.
I also agree with Corinne, its our money we should be able to say how its used and when it needs to come to us in times of serious need.
I've been here for 14 years and have been out on my own for the last 5 and have been successful with jobs, but my situation now dictates that my husband and I move in with my parents until our son is born and then look at either moving out of state or get additional jobs so that we can survive up here. We LOVE Alaska and the fact that it is a HECK of a lot safer than the Lower 48 and that its better for families up here as well. But the high cost of everything is causing some of us to re-evaluate our living situation and either tough it out or leave.
How long will this benefit Alaskans? Will it just be good for the short term or help us through the long term?
We are right now looking down on the Lower 48 while they go through a Regression (of sorts whether you agree or disagree). How long before it is truly our turn?
Gas hogs? Do you mean my F-150 with 4WD that I'll be using to transport the most precious cargo I have (my child) or my husbands 71 Monte Carlo that we use to transport our family?
I, personally, would not feel safe much less comfortable driving a "Toy Car" at 50 below with 2 WD. Thats nice that it gets a high MPG and is good for whatever. But where I'm moving, that wouldn't survive the summer much less the winter. Ever drive on one of the MANY roads that are prevalent in most neighborhoods?
I do view it as a handout--- just because of the fact that the only reason this is being discussed is because people are claiming hardship. I guess I view the PFD as a handout also (and to make sure it's not for me, I make sure to spend it wisely, invest and to NEVER count on it). Maybe that's my definition: Anything that's given to me that I haven't earned is icing on the cake, free money... a handout. (Who will be the first to offer to take my PFD off my hands?)
Regardless, I have an uneasy feeling that there are a lot of people (not everyone, by all means) who are in support of a fuel subsidy because it simply means more money in their pockets. I've seen enough to know that many, many will not think twice about cashing that check, but will stop short of making sure that they are doing everything they can to spend it first on things they truly need--- like fuel or methods to use less fuel?
I know a woman who complains every time she has fuel delivered. It's breaking her, she says. She is the same woman who complains about her husband turning down the thermostat. She is the same woman who won't think twice about spending $100 on a bottle of wine. There are a lot of people like her. Hard times call for a closer look at our spending habits before we ask for more money to spend frivolously.
... and, again, I consider myself a devout Liberal.
I agree Imusuallyright. Its time Alaskans look at going "Back to Basics", spending their PFDs and other income wisely, and educating ourselves on how to make what we have now more liveable.
As an additional note, we should make a deal with Japan to
supply them with a cheap source of oil and natural gas for the
foreseeable, if they give Alaska a good discount on Toyota Prius;
say MSRP of $15,000 or so. The State cuts out the middle man.
In addition, we should not build an LNG pipeline to Fairbanks
and the lower 48, but instead build a deep water port at
Prodhoe and have LNG tankers ship it down to the lower
48 and overseas. By not building a gas pipeline, it will
pay for the cost of building a deep water port and
Alaska owned LNG tankers.
And all future discoveries of oil resources in Alaska, should
be used IN ALASKA, to satisfy our energy need's and
then the lower 48's. Alaska should come first.
Well, it's too bad that it is just now being discussed, and as gopking points out in his postings on that link, only in terms of need.
That's part of the point he makes.
But, although the state has wasted a lot of money through the years, this unexpected windfall is why it's only being discussed now. Back when the oil money was flowing in the 80's, too many folks, including legislators, were naive and energy prices were relatively tolerable.
Now, we are "maturing" so to speak, and saying hey! why are we paying for OUR oil based on world speculative pricing, and we want some of our oil (and gas) at cost and our money directly!
As I said in that link, I can tell you a story about the Weatherization program, (I did on an article a few months ago), but I don't feel like it right now, and I have to get outta here.
IUR, it is not usually like you to want to decide how others spend their money.
I do not want the gov to institute another program to teach people the difference between necessity and want. That info is already available all over the place, as is info on conservation and battening down the hatches.
Corinne- I'm being careful to avoid saying that. I'm trying to point out my frustration with the unwise way people spend their money while asking for more to offset high energy prices. It simply does not make sense to me.
I do think that if the State decides to take measures to assist citizens with purchasing fuel, it has the responsibility to ensure that the money dispersed is spent intelligently. Otherwise, in ten months, a lot of people will be in the same boat they are now... still struggling to heat their homes and a lot of that money will be wasted.
What upsets me most is that the government is offering more and more money to the "low income families" and doesn't offer anything at all to those of us that make more than minimum wage. I believe that each and every Alaskan (and US citizen for that matter) are learning what it is like to pinch their pennies. Regardless of wage. Those of us that make more money than a minimum wage employee, most likely have a larger home, larger mortgage, and larger fuel bill. We need the relief too. Unforunately I don't believe issueing checks is the way. Issueing money is a free for all.
IMO, if they are going to resort to issueing money, they should issue credit for heating oil/fuel. It's a more reliable way of assuring that the credits are being used for what they were intended for, rather than "junk". Fortunately, I have mind enough to believe that, although free money is great, we need to find a more permanent solution rather than a temporary solution to shut the citizens up.
Some of us are going to have to take matters into our own hands. Driving less & riding bikes more; invest in a secondary source of heat like wood stoves, or a geo-thermal system.
Sacrifices are inevitable. We might as well start making them now, and make this decision for ourselves.... rather than waiting until the government is making it for us.
Exactly where do we get the Geo-Thermal supply from? And also the money to convert to this heating system? The last I checked it is very expensive to have any work done in Fairbanks, they need to eat too. Also, for the wood stoves, have you tried to find 8 - 10 cords of wood lately, a couple of thousand bucks by this heating season. Also the Borough several years back was thinking of banning fireplaces and wood stoves, the poluution coming from them was to bad. Now if everyone burnt wood, I'm sure we would be hearing from the local authorities! People don't have 20 - 30k (rough figure) to convert, if we did we would just pay the heating bill we now receive! I for one would like to pay no more than Anchorage pays for NG and food and I would be happy, but I'm not holding my breath of this one.
Imususallyright---
Believe me when I say that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind what a "devout liberal" that you are. You meet the #1 liberal criteria of arrogantly knowing, and not being shy in telling all, how to spend their money, even going so far as to telling people that you dont trust how they would spend their "potential" money. And you certainly aren't shy about the fine values that your own lifestyle has groomed, and how to share that knowledge with us peons. Please, enough with the arrogant advice to the unwashed. Personally, I do not want to be you (not that you're probably not a fine fellow).
Now that I got that off of my chest, to the point. I do not believe that the state of Alaska sharing the windfall with the citizens would be a "handout". There should be a simple formula, with a death sentence to the first lawyer that contests it, to share a billion or so dollars.
burke---
I dont want a prius. I dont want to be told what to drive. Sorry...I am proud to be a grumpy old conservative Alaskan American.
Imusuallyright,
We north of the Alaska Range already have the most weather tight building standards in America. The AHFC BEES book has the guidelines laid out clearly for anyone wanting to finance a home through one of their lending institutions. To imply that sending windfalls in the billions of dollars through three levels of government and contracted businesses as a condition for distribution is absurdly wasteful. If someone wants to use their windfall check to do home improvements then let them. Personally, I would like to use it for a vacation, setting up a business, and my kids' college fund.
I wrote my legislators last fall when the big debate was going on to encourage them to follow the Governor's lead and good for them that they did. I plan to do so again during this special session because I care about the State's future. I am not asking for a handout I want you and every Alaskan to know that the money is ours individually and collectively not some abstract group or the AHF (last name Corporation). I am a surprised that more people here think that there isn't a shell game being played out with this windfall.
I am very leery of the tendency of wasteful spending by governments at all levels including, individuals when it comes to having excess funds. It's not a conspiracy, it was politicians and big business that announced the energy crisis before the budget windfall numbers came in and then governments at all levels began lining up to spend it without our input. To be continued...
Had they announced the windfall projections and said it was going directly to the Alaska residents and should more than offset the increases in the cost of living for us; that would be government by of and for the people. That didn't happen. We don't have a housing crisis so why is AHFC more involved than the energy companies? Property values are going up according to the borough. We won't have an energy crisis if we get our oil profits and deal with the refinery paying what amounts to extortion.
The State Government led by Governor Palin took the measures last fall that should have been taken decades ago to correct problems with the oil royalties. Now they have the money and I don't hear any official saying let the people spend it to improve or preserve their own homes, land, families, residence, or living standard. It took a lot of financial discipline and hard work to be in a position where I now own my property and everything on it. I don't have television service but that's not a necessity.
I don't hear any more talk from Juneau or our legislators about financial discipline or hard work to take care of the necessities. They're all busy trying to figure out how to spend the profits that we demanded they write into law. I hear government program this government program that. So how about they provide satellite TV to everyone at the quoted to me price of only two thousand dollars. I am paying to get my legislative process televised, so doesn't every Alaskan deserve a satellite connection? (That's sarcasm!)
Our State budget process for this year was completed last year. The people want immediate relief and the state can and should provide it immediately and legally. I say we can and should negotiate with the producers to reduce the locally refined cost of oil used for everything from ATVs and long haul rigs to home and business heating oil. They can continue to charge the Feds and out of state entities full price for their needs because there is no sense in giving them a discount unless they reduce our tax burden. Besides, when they fill up the only gauges they use measure gallons or pounds not dollars. Give the people their windfall checks, and if necessary, hold some back to see how the process works itself out. More to follow...
Keep in mind also folks that the Federal government is still profiting from the massive increase in fuel prices due to highway taxes, windfall profits to the state and from the oil producers whether we see a dime or not. That was the argument between the legislature and Big Oil last fall before the price of oil hit $100; everyone was profiting except Alaskans. I don't hear Big Oil complaining now that it's over $120 or the Feds in a pinch because they can't afford to restock the strategic reserves. I hear now what I heard last fall, citizens complaining about not getting the revenue from our resources.
A simple analogy: If you charged people five dollars to cut down a tree in your yard to burn for heat this winter, they would owe the money to you, not your city mayor who could use it to start some tree planting program so your neighbor can get a free tree. He already burned his and yours and you saved some and have two left but since you have two, you don't qualify. Meanwhile the same mayor is raising your property taxes because your neighborhood has nice new landscaping. The price of fuel oil, sulfur free diesel, and gasoline has nothing to do with the fact that your trees are gone.
The oil that we profited from at the State level is gone. The price to be paid by the producers was set and agreed to by both the legislature and governor on behalf of the people of this state last year. I believe there are limits in that agreement defining what the government can do with the money. Returning the excess to the people with no strings attached is the right thing.
For the energy crisis, maybe we do need to do something as a state with a portion of future windfall profits or a portion of this one to be good neighbors in the future. Thinking about all the businesses that are going to be hit by high fuel prices got my attention. But I object to leaving a huge surplus in the State budget accounts or filtering money down for the few that are "needy" when it can stimulate our local economies from the bottom up and provide a stronger overall economy in EVERY Alaskan household. If you are not needy as defined by the government, and you choose to do so, then give your share to the local shelter or hire a needy kid to shovel your drive, but don't expect everyone else to donate to the same cause. Use it to give your employees a raise this year. Call it a cost of living increase or a winterization bonus if you use it to reduce heating cost at your business.
The bottom line is that it is your business what you do with your share of the profits from your oil. I implore you to write your legislators to first, follow through on their promises from last fall and then, diligently study the energy problem, so that when a viable solution is proposed in the special session, they are prepared to act on behalf of all and the support of most of the people.
I think I've taken the bait. Now I'm kinda pissed, and I don't get that way much, as those who know me are aware of and most who have regularly read this forum should recognize.
twingirl-
All these presumptive people apparently thinking that many or most or all of us need to "learn what it is like to pinch...pennies;"
don't already burn wood (geothermal is too expensive for me)(in fact, I have neither the know-how nor the money to convert to all these wonderful ideas that have been put forth in the various threads);
haven't been driving less , or in the alternative, are capable of transporting kids 35 miles to school every day (one way, and because the government schools that the busses go to from here suck), on a bike.
Or making sacrifices in general.
How in the heck do you know that a lot of people aren't already?
It's an elitist attitude.
My whole life has been lived like that. I'd be happy to charge minimal fees to teach you.
And my house, as is, can not be heated solely with wood, even though I cut from my yard and burn the crap out of it. I can't afford a Blaze King, much as I would live to have one.
No one can or should be entirely responsible for how others choose to spend their money. As far as I'm concerned, those who blow it can be told "Tough luck. Sleep under the bridge."
As for me, I would spend MY fair share of MY resource money far, far better and more wisely than any gov or gov program ever could.
And for the folks who say "you decided to live that far out," that's right. I had little to no choice at the time. Fuel was a good deal, and I couldn't have predicted the current situation--either in my life or in energy prices.
I also love where I live, but if anyone wants to buy my long time home, it's on the market--owner financed 'cause a bank won't.
Maybe I'll get back to this later. Probably. For now, I'm outta here again.
ONAPA, glacierles, and Alaskan59--
Right on.
I had to go for an hour or so while writing, so I missed all your comments.
Just so all you who won't read the links I posted earlier.
I am considered one of the needy, in financial terms.
Yet, I am a firm believer that we all should share in the resources equally.
WHY?
Because we are all equal shareholders. Plain and simple.
I know about Interior Weatherization.(The local agency who gets some of the $300 mil.) I have to live with the damage they caused to my home (in 2001, which increased my heating bills a whole lot ever since because of shoddy work, and later, red-tape. They acknowledged this, but it took multiple coming out here and over 3 years. They, though acknowledged, never corrected the damage. They eventually told me they'd pay for the materials, but I had to find my own contractor/roofer. I couldn't find one to work for free, obviously.)
Now, I can't get any more "help" because a home is only eligible after a ten year period. So, in 2011, I "might" be able to get my formerly excellent vapor barrier, and roof, but likely never the water damage, and condensation problems fixed.
Anyway, I don't want it. The damage is done. The red tape is crap. The process is insulting. I would rather do it myself somehow. And I would, if I could get some of my own money.
Glacierles-
I am not a fine fellow, rather an arrogant young lady who's seen far too much waste from some of my fellow Alaskans. I don't, by any means, think that everyone is terrible with their money, but do believe that we are all at least partially responsible for our own "energy crisis". I really don't care what people do with their paychecks or PFDs--- as long as their kids are taken care of and they aren't asking me for money. I do care about the state stepping in and handing out money and not making sure that it is spent on what it is intended. To do otherwise would be highly irresponsible, and as I said above, would leave a lot of folks in the same position next February--- wondering how to heat their homes while watching a new flat screen TV or reminiscing about their vacation to Hawaii. What do we say to them when they are still claiming hardship and are asking for more?
Imusuallyright, I agree there are two issues here. The surplus, and the energy problem. I don't think people with below average means can afford to upgrade or hire someone else to do it for them and those living paycheck to paycheck can't afford the increasingly higher fuel rates even by tightening their belts. Hastily spending big chunks of money to bail out a few people from the energy problem is a bandage that will need to be changed often and soon deplete our surplus making the fat cats fatter. My washer and dryer are old... if I replace them I will save some energy, but the new ones I can afford are just as inefficient and the cost of the energy efficient ones is more than the potential long term savings.
That is the decision everyone is responsible for making in their own household. Florescent or incandescent bulbs are also a tough choice. I am not sure having mercury to dispose of is such a good idea. When we start talking upgrades to heating systems it is in the tens of thousands of dollars, and even from my conservative point of view, that is a signifigant cost for a minimal gain. However, the state already decided to make that decision on behalf of us. Their knee jerk fixed AHFC's short term finances, but didn't do squat for those that are getting, should be getting, and need to be getting ready for winter. It only addressed home values through energy efficiency and it did not address those that rely on predictable costs to make a few weeks of seasonal work profitable enough to last the winter.
Bugger
So the cook that built the kitchen, owned the chicken, washed the dishes, and kept the miners fed should have let the miners starve, and packed up to leave instead of getting a fare rate because the gold was harder to mine than the wood was to chop? The oil companies and their modern day miners would love it if we all packed up and left. Then they could bring in foreign labor and keep all the profits.
Or did I read your analogy wrong in your implication that the windfall profits from the oil should be kept by the oil companies? Either way, your logic is flawed if you think the modern day cooks' labors are not worth every bit as much as the modern day miners'. The difference in the times is that we have government middle men that think they can spend the two dollars to buy more supplies for the cook.
Imusuallyright,
First, tell them to cut their expenses before we give them a cent of collective funding through state programs. Get rid of the cell phone, cable tv, pass a drug test, and sell non-essential possessions like that mythical new flat screen. Then we offer a part time job. Then when all else fails, a nice bunk in the local shelter. If I wanted or needed to I could work two jobs here because our economy is that good. The increased oil revenue to the state (citizens) was expected to prevent the hard times but it won't unless the government gives it back to the people they represent.
Let's what if the scenario: What if a family of four barely making ends meet living in an old rental took their checks and bought a new house. Their mortgage would be about a third lower with the down payment, so they gain independence, their home's energy efficiency would be higher and their overall bills would be lower. The same family doesn't qualify for the upgrades because they don't own the home. That's what happens when we don't let individuals spend their own money.
If the same family living in an apartment decides to buy a new flat screen and go to Hawaii for a vacation instead of buying a home or saving money to pay their bills, they are wasting out of pocket funds but maybe they needed the vacation to spend quality time together. That's called freedom. It's not very fiscally responsible, but there isn't anything illegal about it.
Like corrine said earlier, some homes don't qualify but the owners do. Some tennants qualify but their landlords don't. Unfortunately, the average rate for construction labor in this area is about two times the cost of materials because they can get it. Giving three hundred million dollars of Alaskan's money to a housing finance company to pass on to the construction industry without asking isn't very fiscally responsible and looks to me like political suicide.
ONAPA-
My main concern with unwise spending is with those of average income. From what I've seen, people who rely on a low income are already sacrificing, are very used to doing without and finding ways to do more with less. Of course, blanket statements cannot apply, as always. It is the mid-income folks who I hear complaining most often, and it is my fear that these are the people who would forsake upgrades in efficiency in leiu of the luxury items they are sure they deserve.
I'm not necessarily talking about upgrading heating systems, installing wood boilers or the like. I've seen the good new windows, extra insulation, turning down the thermostat, tuning up your boiler or furnace, driving less and being mindful of your consumption can do--- even with newer homes. Those are great places to start, even for the low income. If you have the money and motivation to work on the bigger stuff--- great, but why should the State hand out money to offset energy costs knowing that it is only a "bandage”? Why not be sure to invest some of that money in a cure— assisting folks to save money in the long run and making sure we don’t get caught up in a never ending cycle?
I think that renters can get gov weatherization on the rental units.
Interior Weatherization used their own gov crews, at least on my house. Maybe they contract out for some jobs, I don't know.
Wish they had for mine; it shouldn't have been that big a deal.
I found out later, when searching for a roofer or decent builder, that Inerior Weatherization's crew is considered a joke in the local real carpenter's world.
Imusuallyright-
The notorious "bandage" is the short term, immediate fix while we work on mid and long range fixes.
But you miss the point.
I think gopking made it very well in the posts I linked to earlier.
The state shouldn't be handing out money to offset energy costs.
It should be giving us checks as our share in the windfall of the profits from our resources.
In the immediate, as Fairbanksgas always says, the state should also let us have our own energy at cost.
So ... how many of you good people have put your child’s PFD away and are letting it grow ...lol. I bet the number is very small.
That's what I thought .. now you say please give me more ... gas is too expensive, I cant help myself.
You live here and get paid to do it. No income tax ... I think you would be in the same or worse shape anyplace you live. It is in your genes.
The PFD should be eliminated. YOU are stealing this and future generations wealth and spending it on yourself.
corinne-
I don't miss the point. I've avoided that debate with you because I don't think it applies here. I believe this issue is about energy costs. I also believe that if the State has too much money, it can do better things with it than hand out checks to it's citizens.
James and Imusuallyright,
Your posts suggest the following conclusions:
- Alaska State Governmnet exists in spite of the people.
- The people could not exist in this state without government to take care of them.
- Everyone getting the PFD is short sighted including those without kids.
- The people demanding government accountability to the people want a handout.
- Government selling our resources and spending the profits in the name of our collective best interest is the only way to solve a problem.
I have yet to hear a fair and equitable way for Government to do better things with the excess. I am all for collective bargaining by the government on behalf of every citizen for efficiency and long term planning, but hold the government accountable so that everyone benefits when the officials succeed.
It was brought to my attention today that not all Alaska residents file for the PFD. Therefore, it would be prudent to look at the application process for the PFD and do something similar prior to dividing and sharing the oil profits. If the situation was reversed and you as an individual were making $650 million a month over your projected income, you can count on the government to put their hands in your pocket. They are doing just that by hording the excess revenue. Instead of worrying about the way we spend our incomes on an individual basis we need to look carefully at what is happening at the State level to reduce the people's equal share in the profit from our natural resources.
The people in Juneau representing us are not the only citizens in Alaska that know how to waste money, however, they should not discount the rest of the population as unable to manage household finances just because the cost of living has doubled in the last five years due to corporate spending while their individual incomes remain the same. That is the reason for the uproar last fall and I plan to remind the legislature of that fact until they remember who they work for. More corporate spending by the government is not going to help every citizen get more out of the resources of the state. It will simply turn us into a welfare state dependant upon and controlled by the few people representing us in the government.
The excess that I am in favor of giving back to the citizens consists of the 8 billion over and above what the government projected they would have to secure our long term interest including building the natural gas line, repairing infrastructure, and fully funding all the pork barrel projects.
Whoa ONAPA-
I think you are taking liberties there--- and I thought you were playing fair. I really try hard not to put a negative spin on others' posts and don't use them to promote my own agenda (other than trying to get others to think.) I would very much appreciate it if you did the same.
The conclusion you can draw (without making assumptions and twisting words) from my posts is alomst correct when you say:
"- Government selling our resources and spending the profits in the name of our collective best interest is the only way to solve a problem."
You may replace the last few words with: "is often the best way to solve a problem."
I won't engage in conversation with you if you continue to use word-twisting and logic leaping. If you are truly trying to understand my position, then ask questions instead of making statements about my post.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.