My Turn:Longevity bonus revisited
Speaking to the Pioneers recently, I wondered what remarks might be most appropriate. Coming up with none, I chose the least appropriate.
Crusty old cowboy artist Charlie Russell was introduced at a Chamber of Commerce as "one of Montana's foremost pioneers." His response was: "I ain't no pioneer. A pioneer's a feller who comes into the country, traps off all the fur, kills off all the game, cuts down all the trees, plows up all the ground, strings a million miles of bob wire and calls it civilization. I ain't no pioneer and I much preferred this country before all you Pioneers came out here and wish you'd all go back where ya come from." I suspect old Charlie was not accorded a standing ovation.
Upon delivery of his comments I noted shellshock in some. So to disassociate myself before the affronted started hurling canes and cutlery, I hastily added: "However, like most you pioneers, I too came from elsewhere and, sorry Charlie, I ain't going back."
As expected, they asked about the Longevity Bonus. I said that by corrupting intent - creating the magnetic attraction for luring folk up here who would not have qualified originally and ballooning costs - I saw why the governor whacked it. However, instead of an ax, I wish he had used a scalpel. Most warts could have been removed without beheading.
The original intent was to reward territorial pioneers for their contributions to statehood. Sure, many should be penalized for their contributions instead of rewarded, but that was its purpose. Had we made pre-statehood presence the only qualification at age 65, no problem. Intent would have been met, there'd be no magnetic attraction and costs would be modest and fast declining. After all, we old-timers are dying off as fast as we can.
However, another provision requiring 25 years residency was struck down by the court. That corrupted the first dividend program and the bonus. Some say it should then have been killed. I suggested we retain original intent by calling it a "territorial pioneer service award" for those here before statehood. That not only would have meet intent, but no one who would not have originally qualified would have later depended upon it. Costs would be minimal.
As a lousy "soap salesman" (it took over 15 years to sell dividends), I could not sell that either. However, at Governor Sheffield's request, I chaired a committee proposing an annuity for those willing to relinquish dividends.
Voters approved overwhelmingly. To my dismay, Governor Cowper vetoed it, saying it would be of special disservice to Natives: "many of whom could not afford to give up dividends." Huh? He, like many politicians, hated dividends and would rather spend them than let you do so. Certainly, he knew if the annuity was coupled to dividends, the latter would never be killed.
So we continued bonuses for all residents age 65 or older. This, no doubt, lured some up here. Costs skyrocketed.
To stem costs, a phase-out was adopted, reducing by $50 per year what one would be entitled to, depending on when eligible. In five years, no more would qualify. While starting the program's demise, it could hardly have been a more unfair distortion of original intent. Non-residents coming here at age 64 in one year qualified for the full bonus, while a native-born Alaskan, 59 years old in the same year, received nothing. I was astounded when the Legislature passed this abortion. I should not have been. Never underestimate the ability of us politicians to scale the spires of stupidity. Added to this absurdity was the final $47 million cost.
How might the program be resurrected? Perhaps by changing it to that "territorial pioneer service award," where only those 65 or older, here before statehood, would qualify for the full $250. This would comply with original intent and keep the commitment that most felt was a promise. For those who were receiving the bonus but who hadn't qualified under the original program, perhaps a needs-based "Senior Supplement."
Costs? Millions less. Moreover, costs would rapidly decline. But don't expect the Legislature to pay for it from the general fund. They shouldn't. Instead it should be funded from Permanent Fund earnings; but only if approved by the fund's owners, the people. Would they approve? Only if they felt old-timers had been treated unfairly. Unfairly? You bet. Unlike all those who came later, they were denied dividends for their first 21 years of residency and resource "ownership," while every newcomers got one for each year of theirs - paid for from Permanent Fund earnings.
Win or lose, anyone introducing such a bill will be a hero to many old-timers. I suspect they might even have a co-sponsor or two.
• Jay Hammond is a former governor of Alaska.