This editorial originally ran in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:
The state Department of Labor and Workforce Development recently issued a summary of federal spending in Alaska, based on data reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. It’s a sobering document.
During the decade between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, federal spending in Alaska more than doubled. It went from $6 billion in 2000 to $12.6 billion in 2010. That followed a near-doubling from the previous decade as well.
This rapid increase in spending has delivered economic prosperity to many sectors of the Alaska economy. With that prosperity has come a growing risk.
This spending was based on an unsustainable national model. Much of the money was simply borrowed. Now, a growing number of Americans demand the federal government blow up that model.
It’s easy to sympathize in the abstract with such a demand. The federal debt is an outrage. The financial mismanagement of our government during the past several decades is a national disgrace. The two main political factions like to blame each other, but they were complicit in ignoring the implications of their policies for the national debt. Now it’s so enormous it can’t be ignored.
What is the responsible path in the face of this financial disaster, though?
The federal spending figures for Alaska illustrate the difficulty. If Congress were to simply balance the budget with cuts, and if those cuts fell proportionately on Alaska, it would devastate the state’s economy.
“The U.S. government spent $17,762 for every man, woman and child in Alaska in 2010, putting the state at No. 1 for per capita federal expenditures — 69.8 percent above the national average,” according to the summary written by economist Neal Fried in the February 2012 edition of the state publication, Alaska Economic Trends.
One cannot spend money on this scale without inducing vast changes in the economy. And Alaska’s economy is not made of money alone. It’s made of people, families with kids and mortgages and cars and aging parents and debts. It’s made of businesses owned by people who have taken on obligations, because the money has been there.
What if the money weren’t there? Huge pieces of it would come crashing down, that’s what. That’s why our federal leaders must deal with the debt in a responsible fashion. The process will be painful — it must be painful to be meaningful — but we should try to avoid a sudden economic massacre. Alaskans, more than residents of any other state, should understand this.
Comments (22)
Add commentWelfare State...
I'm waiting to read Madison89's comment regarding this. I always enjoy the irony when Alaskans discuss welfare, social security, and entitlements while residing in the biggest 'welfare state' of them all (pun intended).
Socialism
“The U.S. government spent $17,762 for every man, woman and child in Alaska in 2010, putting the state at No. 1 for per capita federal expenditures — 69.8 percent above the national average,”
What a bunch of socialist, commy, pinkos. So much for the rugged AK individual.
Rough Cut ...
I do have a problem. I hate the fact that all Alaskans are Marxist, socialistic, commy, pinko, slacked jaw welfare dons. But together you and I can fight this pestilence on our free market pride. So when you get your next PFD check, just it sign over to me and I”ll make sure it gets back to oil company it rightfully belongs to. I promise!
Hey now, Mr. teabagger: Rough
Hey now, Mr. teabagger: Rough Cut is a true Alaskan! He routinely overpays for his groceries to offset federal subsidies, he hunts for most of his meat, gathers fruits and greens in the summers, built the log cabin he was born in with his own two hands, he doesn't use gasoline or other petroleum products (because of the subsidies, again), puts out forest fires up north with a two-gallon bucket and a shovel, and patrols all of Alaska's coast with his dinghy to make sure no illegal stuff is going on.
Or at least I assume he does. Otherwise he'd just be another wannabe libertarian who speaks not of what he knows.
Comrade Rough Cut
you should be laughing. without you there would be no punchline.
Comments
Many bloggers here believe there is no problem in the federal government borrowing so much of what it spends. They believe we borrow it from ourselves so there is no fiscal impact.
The feds spend money here because they control so much of Alaska. Over half of all Interior employees nationwide work and live in Alaska. Over half of all National Park acreage is here. The two largest national forests are here. Per capita defense spending is huge here. Native health care, all entirely paid by the federal government is the largest private employer in Alaska. Federal grants are a major part of every municipal budget and of the state budget. I noticed in the Empire that a local Native group that depends entirely upon federal funding is advertising to buy two dumptrucks - that will be part of the federal deficit.
People worry about the state and municipal PERS and TRS unfunded liabilities. The entire federal entitlement liabilities are unfunded. There are no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal retirement, military health care, Native health care trust funds - it's all an unfunded liability and for the most part there are no actuaries evaluating its impact.
Many Alaskans believe that reconciliation of the spending and entitlement deficits cannot be accomplished without some sort of cataclysm. They believe that there is no grown-up in the room to bring austerity the way Germany is trying to impose needed measures on Greece (with no success thus far of course); so the thinking is that the deficits will grow until the rubber band snaps. I really don't know. It's entirely possible that elected leaders in Washington would rather lead us to the brink of war with China than make the tough spending decisions that should be made today. FDR certainly realized his economic plan had failed and he needed to take advantage of a war already under way. In any event, having a little gold and 1,000 rounds of ammo on hand doesn't hurt anything.
glacierdogs
great rant. what is it about?
It's about mythology,
It's about mythology, apparently.
Gdog, only 1000 rounds? Get
Gdog, only 1000 rounds? Get to preppin' homeboy!
A Miracle:
" built the log cabin he was born in with his own two hands" Wonder how he did that?
Invisible Alaska...
There are people in Alaska who do not even understand what money is because of all the entitlements. Where do the entitlements end and where does the work begin? Seriously, if a person has simply accepted free money all their life, what is it to have goal in life? That is, a goal other than to spend entitlements.
Oooohhhh...I'm sorry, teabagger.
Your sentence, "So when you get your next PFD check, just it sign over to me and I”ll make sure it gets back to oil company it rightfully belongs to." is missing an article before oil, making it grammatically incorrect. To me, as an educated, liberal-minded intellectual who is better than you in every respect, that means you are a dufus and you don't deserve to have your voice heard. If you can't even construct a sentence, you don't get to weigh in on complex issues that affect us all. Now, return to your entirely self-sufficient shanty and leave the "debating" to the smart humans.
Milspec...
You have missed the boat completely, as usual. I'm not going to even try and explain it to you.
MC:
No I got it, you missed it as usual. Pay attention son. You might learn something.
Also:
Besides I believe you directed you’re comment to me by mistake.
@ Milspec
nice "you're" little buddy.
Good to Hear
Milspec, I'm glad I was able to educate you on PP's thinly-veiled humor. However, anybody with a 3rd grade education will certainly not be learning s*** from someone who is unaware that "you're" is a contraction of "you are" (that's you, in case you're still trying to put the pieces together). Taste me, succkkkaaaaaaaaaa.
Liberal fool:
Wow, typical liberal fool. Attack me on my grammar not the substance. Go Obama go! Idiot. Trey, little buddy that needs a boot up his/her back side.