This editorial first appeared in the Ketchikan Daily News:
The state Senate gets it.
Fuel prices are out of this world in Alaska, and for the time being, this is where we live. If we want to keep on living, we need to be able to pay our fuel bills.
While the prices are high in our communities, the state is making money — $1.2 billion more than it expected. It is making this money because Alaskans pay more for fuel.
It only makes sense in this situation that the state reduce the financial strain on Alaskans. We help each other when we can; it might not always be that we can assist. But it won’t mean we won’t try.
The Senate passed a bill that would give every adult recipient of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend this fall a voucher to help pay for fuel.
This is expected to be a fix for this year; with prices what they are, we’ll figure out next year later. But the bill also calls on Gov. Sean Parnell to look at other ways to assist Alaskans.
The bill is expected to cost between $328 million and $465 million. Looking at the revenue above what the state anticipated, that is available two or three times over.
This has been done once before. Alaskans appreciated it at the time. It hasn’t been done in the past couple of years, however, and Alaskans didn’t act as if they weren’t getting a voucher they were owed and weren’t paid. We simply were thankful the state helped when it had the funds to do so.
The high fuel costs affect all Alaskans. Certainly, the northern-most villages where prices are upward of $6 per gallon suffer the most, but in the southern cities like Ketchikan, there has been a run on electrical heaters as residents try to reduce their home-fuel consumption.
Whether poor or wealthy, everyone’s home-heating fuel and automobile gasoline prices are high. Some might be able to bear it better than others, but no one has escaped the high cost of energy.
If the energy voucher were to be given to one Alaskan and not another, it would be difficult to draw the line. An individual with an annual income of $30,000 might receive the voucher, while a couple with a combined income of $50,000 and raising three children might not.
The best way to deal with the vouchers is as the Senate laid out — help all Alaska households. Homes with two adults often also house children. Their fuel consumption increases with each one.
It is best to provide for all.
The bill is bound for the House before it can be sent to Parnell for his signature.
Comments (17)
Add commentWhat about...
Students or military who are living out of state? Why should they get it?
More importantly, what's the long term energy strategy?
Good question, Lat58
also, as I recall, the last time Alaskans got an energy rebate in '08 Congress moved swiftly to single out Alaskan kids and tax their rebate and PFD combined.
No good deed goes unpunished.
I like that it is heating
I like that it is heating vouchers, not cash.. That way it goes to its intended purpose, not a big screen tv or trip to mexico. Hopefully the house moves it through. Lots of folks could really use the help.
we already get a 'voucher'
it's called the PFD. The state should pay down it's debts and focus on a long-term plan instead of more handouts. (Kpawsuh, I'm surprised you're on the 'government bailout' bandwagon....)
The reality is that many of these villages with high heating costs are artificially sustained. There simply isn't enough employment for people to live. For how long, and at what cost, are we going to continue subsidizing entire towns all across rural Alaska?
Agree KP:
I don’t believe students or military who are living out of state qualify for a PFD, therefore would not receive a voucher. I agree with you KP on the purpose. Also after the oil truck paid a visit to my home yesterday $2200.00 and change everything will help. Not sure how a single mother with children makes it. At least warmer weather is on its way.
now I'm confused...
Milspec - a government handout, bailout, whatever - that will leave our children with higher debt - - - aren't you typically against that kind of thing? How is this different, except that you might personally benefit?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, just asking a question.
"While the prices are high in
"While the prices are high in our communities, the state is making money — $1.2 billion more than it expected. It is making this money because Alaskans pay more for fuel."
I say it's ok to give some of it back to us - this doesn't feel so much like a handout as it does a refund.
I don't see this as a handout
I don't see this as a handout because this is a resource that is owned by all of us. It will lower the amount the State gets to keep but will be a good way to spread around the benefits of this resource Better than paying for more government bureaucracy and flying 'experts' around to 'study' the problem.
I see it as getting less
I see it as getting less screwed. Its our oil. Instead of royally screwing us, they are giving us a little perk. Think of it as a kiss on the cheek as they are screwing you. Its the little things, you know... This isnt coming from the hard eatned tax dollars Joe and mary were robbed of by govt. This is a rebate if anything. Plus its different on many different levels. Welfare takes money earned by Joe and Mary, removed by force, and gives it to someone to not work. This is giving oil to people so they don't freeze. It helps all, wealthy and poor, native and white, single mom and AEL&P exec. No special preferences. No strings.
kpawsuh - ok
ok - I get the rebate part, that's a decent point. I do feel like the state, when it has "extra" funds, should pay down indebtedness, like the rest of us at home do, (well, me anyway) before going on vacation or buying a new couch.
It's interesting to see how
It's interesting to see how all the anti-handout folks spin this so they don't have to call it a handout.
It's definitely a handout.
Last time we got this, it was disguised. It was actually Sarah Palin buying votes for her VP bid.
Also, this is seriously flawed and discriminatory for several reasons:
1. It assumes everyone buys fuel. What about homeowners with electric heat? What about those who heat with wood?
2. It assumes that the high price of fuel impacts everyone, including the wealthy who can afford it. Why give cash to those who don't need it?
3. It discriminates and only rewards those who file for PFDs. What about felons? Are they not worthy of relief?
But, I'm not opposed to handouts when the state finds itself in windfall surplus situations. I am a socialist. I believe in sharing the wealth -- with everyone -- in the form of cash, not vouchers.
Or....pay off the state debts.
I am cool with either scenario.
Milspec
Full time Alaska students attending college out of state and military who claim Alaska as their home of record and are deployed elsewhere are all entitled to a PFD. A guy calling himself "Milspec" didn't know that?
So that means that someone going to college or on a military base in Hawaii gets this handout?
This handout should only go to people below the poverty line.
This program will do nothing about next year when energy costs are even higher. Where is the leadership in our state government to treat the disease, not the symptom?
Gee Lat, "Well, I see your
Gee Lat, "Well, I see your mailing adress is Miami, but you claim Alaskan residency for the PFD. This program is to subsidize the cost of heating a home in Alaska due to the recent extremely cold winters and the extremely high cost of heating oil. If you can show that you have been burdened by the cost of heating a home in Alaska in the past year, we will give you a voucher. Otherwise you are not eligible."
There. Was that so hard?
So how many of you have
So how many of you have protested that socialist giveaway program of the USFS that allows residents to go cut a certain amount of fire wood?
Good start, KP
But that's still not a strategy.
Yeah i agree.I dont think it
Yeah i agree.I dont think it would be of much help to people above poverty line.