Think Progress

Sen. Stevens doesn’t have to retire.

By Nico Pitney on Oct 20th, 2005 at 7:09 pm

Sen. Stevens doesn’t have to retire.

Coburn amendment fails 15-82.

Comments
52

52 Responses to “Sen. Stevens doesn’t have to retire.”

Lesly says:

Son of a bitch.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Marie says:

So pork wins again.
The poor, the sick, the elderly and the children will all get the shaft while Ted gets his Bridge to Nowhere.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Brian says:

I have this feeling that bloggers are sitting around waiting for indictments, and in the meantime good topics for discussin are being passed on.
All things aside, the most important news article this week was about the CIA being in shambles. Noone has even mentioned this.
All this BS about Plame IS about the dysfunction at the CIA, yet everyone is obsessed with wanting the WH dismantled.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Andrew G. says:

So, when entitlements are cut, it is massive budget cuts, but when highways and bridges back in the district are on the chopping block, hooray! especially when they’re in republican districts.

Got to do better than this.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
ShamRockNRoll says:

It’s a multimillion dollar pork barrel project to build a bridge to an island with a handful of people on it, you jackass.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Ron says:

Porkbarrel politics leads to more porkbarrel politics.

Ever seen pigs eat? They’ll tear a chicken apart in seconds. If you put a dead horse in a hog pen, the hogs go nuts. That’s when hogs get greedy.

The political hogs in Warshington are much the same.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
Ryan Neat says:

Wow,

This is the most bipartisan failure we’ve seen in 5 years!
October 20th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
captain_menace says:

This isn’t a failure for the residents of Ketchikan, and Southeast Alaska. Why don’t you all take a look at the poor spending habits of your elected officials before you start bashing Representatives and Senators from other states? Don Young and Ted Stevens are doing what is in the best interest of Alaska, which is why they were elected. Building Alaska’s transportation infrastructure is very important to most Alaskans.
October 20th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
afterthought says:

That’s just stupid captain.
That attitude leads us to endless pork.
The country suffers from stupidity like this.
We don’t have the money for a boondoggle
bridge.
October 20th, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Lesly says:

captain_menace illustrates the paradoxical problem with voters. They hate pork, but goddamnit, they love the assholes that bring it home to the state.
October 20th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
Joe Sixpack says:

Captain, #9, I like your salt. Good old Don and Ted are still riding the gravy boat, huh? When I lived up there we called them the “two biscuits” on account of the way they sopped up all the gravy. I mean, like all good Republicans they are always ready to balance someone’s else’s budget, especially when a democratic president is in office.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but remember another pork project we had up there with a bridge back in the 1960’s? The Million Dollar Bridge. It was “essential” for Alaska to build a highway from Cordova and be able to connect to Anchorage. The “essential” project was destroyed before it was finished by the earthquake in 1964 and was abandoned.

Hey, Captain—-isn’t Cordova still land-locked to this day?
October 20th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
captain_menace says:

#11 “captain_menace illustrates the paradoxical problem with voters.”

It’s not a problem with voters. It’s a problem with human beings.

If you all want to bitch, why don’t you ask Kennedy and Kerry about the Big Dig?

These bridges in Alaska are not a new thing. The projects have been on the table for decades. I agree that the timing is unfortunate, but infrastructure development in Alaska is needed whether or not it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.
October 20th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Lesly says:

If it’s needed so badly, why don’t you part with that surplus check, C_M?
October 20th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
captain_menace says:

#13 “Hey, Captainâ€”-isnâ€™t Cordova still land-locked to this day?”

Yep, it is, and I think a quick poll would tell you that most folk in Cordova like it that way.

You could probably make the same argument for Ketchikan as well. But having been to Ketchikan I know that that community is in need of economic development as badly as any. That kind of cash infusion will be good for all of Southeast. If Stevens and Young have the juice to pull it off then so be it.

And there is a bright side for you liberal types… with the new bridge we can get some logging trucks into places we never dreamed of… joke ;)
October 20th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
captain_menace says:

#14 “If itâ€™s needed so badly, why donâ€™t you part with that surplus check, C_M?”

You’re kidding right? Hell, I’m gonna have 10 more kids and really cash in ;)
October 20th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Lesly says:

Ah, I see. You take after your Senators. No wonder they’re representing your state.

Oops, did I just bash Alaska, greedy voters, or pork?
October 20th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
thot's says:

We are going to see more homeless but it won’t be the 20 to 55 type its going to be those in the 60 to 80’s
when the poor have to chose between ,rent,utilities,food and med’s those are new homeless and we will see them dying on our streets.

I for one would love to jack slap the entire bunch in Washington into next year…Maybe that would wake them up. I am so pissed……

Our troops are burning dead mens bodies and Washington is in denial.Have they turned our troops in to Hitlers Army?
October 20th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Joe Sixpack says:

Well, Captain, I have to hand it to you. At least you are good natured about it. I mean the developement and logging and all. You may be laughing now, but be careful what you wish for.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but while Alaska might need some economic developement, there is a price to be paid for it. Guys like Ted Stevens and all his pork-barrel projects are destroying your lifestyle. Pretty soon you will no longer be the rugged individualists and adventurists the rest of us admire. You’ll end up behind some yuppie in an SUV on the way to his office, wondering, “what happened to Alaska?” How sad for you, my friend. Remember that as they cut down your trees in the Tongass and send them to computerized mills in Japan.

You don’t know it yet, but you have already lost. Stevens and the politicans down here sold you Alaksans out long ago—-for pork.
October 20th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Andrew G. says:

#5 Thanks, I AM a jackass, glad someone noticed.

If Irony or playing devil’s advocate makes me a jackass, I accept. To say that cuts to things progressives want are bad and cuts to things repugs. want are good sounds something like Rush Limbaugh would say…in reverse.

Just as everyone thinks their town’s project is justified, progressives can be guilty of being reactionary when their priorities are on the chopping block.
October 20th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
SallyW says:

#9: I lived in Ketchikan for 6 years, moved away in 1999. The idea of a bridge wasn’t really a great one back then because we could all think of better things to do with the money. Ketchikan survives on tourism, so improving the city to enhance that industry makes sense. The bridge doesn’t help. The bridge to Gravina helps when people fly in, but we never got many people into the city that way. I’d estimate 90-95% came in on the cruise ships. The bridge will also put ferry workers out of business while attracting no permanent jobs.

Captain, this bridge is “a failure for the residents of Ketchikan” because is doesn’t help! It helps Young and Stevens say that they’ve helped Alaska, and that is all. Let’s hope that it doesn’t prevent cruise ships from sailing in.
October 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Bowdler says:

Sally, apparently you are local to the bridge for no reson project. I have been wondering if Steven or his pals own much property, thus stand to profit, out that way. Would you know?
October 20th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Bowdler says:

Dang it. I have a hunch that Steve3ns and his pals stand to profit by this. Bur, honestly, I really don’t have the means to find out. Capt. M is of no help. Could Nico of Judd find out? I could be wrong and therer could be a non-profit motivated reason for Stevens being so adamant.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
The Working Families Party Man says:

On the Coburn Amendment

Feingold did the right thing and voted Yes on this.
October 20th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
lazarhat says:

Here’s a story from our local free press weekly…. the first paragraph says it all:

The governor’s wife, Nancy Murkowski, was born and raised in Ketchikan, Alaska. That being said, she does own property….

http://www.anchoragepress.com/archives-2005/flashlightvol14ed21.shtml

or

http://tinyurl.com/d8wcx

At one time I had a link to the scanned PDF of her disclosure form and sure enough I cannot find it again. I did verify that it DID NOT include disclosure of the real estae she owns on Gravina Island.
October 21st, 2005 at 12:04 am
captain_menace says:

#23 ‘I have a hunch that Steve3ns and his pals stand to profit by this. ‘

So freakin what? A lot of people will profit from this, even some progressives. Every politician has his/her fingers in some cookie jar. Don’t like it? Vote, Revolt, Perform a hostile takeover of a contributing corporation.

#21 ‘we could all think of better things to do with the money.’

Yeah, I’m sure I could too. And I’m sure that my neighbor has a few ideas too. This is transportation money earmarked for this project. You want to change the way money is doled out? Fine, figure it out and lobby for transportation (or all project) funding reform. Once you start loosening up funding requirements that’s just one more loophole for beaureaucrats and politicians to commit fraud (hey, they’re human!) If you had to spend the money on a transportation project what would you spend it on in Ketchikan?
October 21st, 2005 at 12:40 am
Ryan Neat says:

The captain is like most republicans. It’s more important for them to ‘win’, than it is for them to get something useful as part of the victory. They’re just happy to have a republican president, who cares if he devastates the economy, drags us into a bad war, allows an entire american city to be lost from incompetence. Who cares ‘we won’. They’re all whack jobs!
October 21st, 2005 at 12:53 am
Ryan Neat says:

And for those that want to bitch about the big dig, at least that was trying to solve some very real urban and traffic issues, and wasn’t a bridge to no where.
October 21st, 2005 at 12:55 am
captain_menace says:

Ryan Neat

I’m fairly far from being a Republican. You’re mixing issues. You won’t find me defending Bush in any way whatsover. Didn’t vote for him, and don’t think he’s terribly bright, or qualified to lead any nation much less the most dangerous and powerful nation on the planet. I’m not terribly fond of Stevens either, but Stevens is Stevens. He’s part of the Alaskan political landscape.

And it is not a single bridge. They are two completely separate projects. One is a bridge from Anchorage to the Mat-Su Valley. The other is a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravena Island. The only airport in Ketchikan is on Gravena Island. If Ketchikan and Southeast Alaska is not interested in this project then so be it. I’m not sure what procedural hoops they can jump through to reject this funding, but I’m sure it could be done.

As for the Anchorage to Mat-Su bridge. It is not a bridge to nowhere. It is a bridge from Anchorage, a city of roughly 260,000 to a relatively undeveloped region of Alaska that is home to roughly 90,000. I’m one of those 90,000. It’s not a bridge to nowhere. Me and my family, my friends, my coworkers all live here. I’m sorry you don’t see any value in that.

It’s good to know that federal dollars can be spent to fix Boston’s “very real” issues. Let me know when you feel like maybe Alaska could get some help solving some of our very not-so-real issues.
October 21st, 2005 at 1:19 am
Ryan Neat says:

CM,

Thanks for clarifying. As I understand it the Ketchikan project is the one that looks like utter pork.
October 21st, 2005 at 1:39 am
ShamRockNRoll says:

Why do the facists always have to generalize everything? This project was going to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to build a bridge that would connect to an island with (i believe, correct me if I’m wrong) under 100 inhabitants?

You’re right, I think this republican spending is bullshit.

And I still love my progressive desire to spend millions of dollars on say… education, to benefit all of our citizens, increase the intelligence of the electorate, fuel industry, etc. and I loooove to waste money on healthcare for lazy ass children who should just learn to freaking walk faster so they can go out and get a job.

Ya know, wasteful spending like that.
October 21st, 2005 at 2:27 am
Keith H. says:

“And there is a bright side for you liberal types, with the new bridge we can get some logging trucks into places we never dreamed of”

Comment by captain_menace â€” October 20, 2005 @ 9:06 pm

“Me and my family, my friends, my coworkers all live here“.

Comment by captain_menace â€” October 21, 2005 @ 1:19 am

The Captain’s full of shit.
Anyone that lives in Alaska would not be calling them “logging trucks”.
What a boner.
October 21st, 2005 at 9:44 am
N. Cognito says:

The trolls love to take a page from their right wing radio heroes who play “badboy”, but are in reality cowardly fudge packers that can’t even accept a mere unscrened phone call from someone who disagrees with them.
Hey Menace, maybe we can hang your charred body on that bridge when it’s finished. HAN HAh Haaa
October 21st, 2005 at 9:57 am
lazarhat says:

I’m going to have to side with Cap’n Menace on this one… the money for the bridges comes from a tax on oil. That stuff that Alaska pumps millions of gallons of out of its ground and sends to you SUV driving maniacs in the contiguous states. The proceeds of that tax are designated BY LAW to only be spent on DOT road projects and infrastructure improvements. Period. Without changing the law, you cannot re-direct the money. Period.

The other issue is that Alaska has very little real infrastructure. I’ve lived here since 1981 and the largest roads lead into and out of Anchorage. These are just about the only ones that exceed two lanes in the entire state, mostly because of the traffic between Anchorage (where I live) and the Mat-Su valley (where the c’apn lives). We have no interstates. Most ‘major highways’ in this state are two lanes — and that’s not two lanes on each side — that’s two lanes total! The road to Denali Park is two lanes. The road leading north from Fairbanks to north slope oilfields is DIRT and is mostly closed to public access!

The bridge between Point MacKenzie and Anchorage will offer a second route into the heart of downtown Anchorage. Presently only one road leads south and one leads north into this growing city of almost 300,000 people. As a city larger than places like Riverside, California, we both need and deserve the upgrades to our infrastructure. Anchorage has grown from about 40,000 in the mid 70’s — less than 40 years ago, to almost 300,000! Try THAT in your small hometown and see if you couldn’t use some roads and improvements to infrastructure.

Secondly, the issue of the bridge to Gravina Island. The Ketchikan airport is on that island. As it is now, people have to take a ferry to get there. So why didn’t they build the airport closer to Ketchikan? Have you ever actually been to Ketchikan or even see a picture of it? (I’ll wait while you google it up….) — it’s trapped between the ocean and mountains. There’s no other place for an airport, geniuses.

Before you say — “Well what a stupid place to build a city!”, we didn’t — the Russians did. We inherited it from them when we bought the land from Russia in the mid-1800s. You remember, right? “Seward’s Folly”? Having supplied multiple millions of dollars worth of recources and oil to the US, it doesn’t seem like such a folly now, does it?

Ketchikan is a port city with limited land, so thus they have had to build their airport on adjacent land, much like Hong Kong had to do with their new airport, except we used an existing island rather than building one from scratch. So yes, Ketchikan needs and deserves a bridge to their airport.

Lastly, it was me who posted the links to the Anchorage Press which disclosed that the Governor’s wife owns land in the area, and that she didn’t disclose it on her financial disclosure form. She claims it was an oversite. That was wrong. However, her owning the land is not wrong.

She is a lifelong Alaskan resident, born and raised in Ketchikan. Her parents were prominent within the community as both public servants and private citizens and they happened to buy investment property in their hometown. Just as thousands of other Americans do when they work hard and prosper. This isn’t wrong unless you identify as a Marxist. Since she did not declare the land in her disclosure (and the idea that SHE has to declare anything is almost absurd in my mind, since SHE isn’t a public official, but is rather MARRIED to one), perhaps she should divest herself of the land or donate the money. She has a history of doing that sort of thing — donating to important public causes. Look it up on google. Her name is Nancy Murkowski. Her maiden name is Gore, btw.

BTW – flame away if it makes you feel better. I am NOT a republican, nor am I right wing…. I am a published journalist who writes for insurgent49.com in Alaska — a progressive website and monthly newspaper. I’m just attempting to set some facts straight so I can see some intelligent discussion of this issue on thinkprogress, as opposed to some of the less than adult trolling, ad hominem attacks and threats of violence (N. Cognito) against someone (Captain_Menace) looking for reasonable debate from people who don’t live here, perhaps never have (nor ever will) and who possibly have no idea about the importance of building the infrastructure within Alaska. A state LESS THAN 50 YEARS OLD.

If you don’t like it, we can always leave the union and keep our beautiful land and resources for ourselves….

-Lazarhat
(excuse any misspellings, this window doesn’t spell check and being a journalist doesn’t mean having perfect spelling…)
October 21st, 2005 at 1:01 pm
SallyW says:

#34: First, the principal issue here is the Ketchikan- Gravina bridge, not the Anchorage project. Second, no one here is advocating moving Ketchikan because it’s a lousy place to build a city. Third, you make a significant leap in logic when you say “Ketchikan is a port city with limited land, so thus they have had to build their airport on adjacent land…So yes, Ketchikan needs and deserves a bridge to their airport.” As a resident of AK, you must know how much that airport is used. There is one airline with three flights a day. The Hong Kong airport likely gets 3 flights per minute, making such a bridge cost-effective. As expensive as the bridge is, it would be better to improve access and infrastructure in Ketchikan and use the $4 ferry. Ketchikan does not “deserve” a bridge over the Tongass simply because they were forced to build the airport there.
October 21st, 2005 at 2:02 pm
lazarhat says:

I grant you the benefit of more experience in this matter since I’ve read earlier that you used to live in Ketchikan. I have not.

Certainly you are aware that their industry has been gutted in recent years? Their primary industry used to be logging. It no longer is. Their mill and other wood related product processing plants are now all shut down. While, as a former resident of Oregon, I am certainly NOT an advocate of clear-cut logging, I do think it is possible to responsibly harvet timber for human usage. Especially diseased trees for pulp. See:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/spf/fhp/condrpt04/2004condrpt_status-declines-abiotics.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/9hfuq

for more information on this and who owns what acreage on Gravina island.

This bridge would help to facilitate responsible logging, not of the old growth forrest, but of the smaller trees and those stunted by disease. Having access to this resource would help to rebuild the economy of Ketchican — an economy permanently damaged by unreasonable laws that don’t allow for responsible timber harvesting.

By now, you’re probably screaming bloody murder, but I would argue that if we don’t have the laws in place to allow sustainable logging practices, we get worse laws like those promoted by the current administration and Alaska’s Republican Governor which allow bad logging practices. It is far better to have good laws in place to protect resources from over consumption rather than to live with the slash and burn policies of a wrongheaded administration. Without proper culling of diseased trees and forest canopy undergrowth, ALL of those trees risk being lost either through wildfires or spreading disease. The same problem exists on Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula with diseased spruce trees afflicted with spruce bark beetles, an invasive species introduced from overseas.

SallyW’s view that this bridge doesn’t need to be built because of limited airport usage or because, as others have stated, the bridge will ruin cruise ship access to the waterway are simply non sequiturs. With controlled growth, comes additional tourism, new residents and other enhancements to the infrastructure. New industry and the rebuilding of old ones. In addition, bridges can be and are built that allow even the largest of cruise ships to pass underneath. Has anyone considered that this is in fact the reason why it is as expensive as it is expect to be? More expensive than the Golden Gate bridge? Not in 2005 dollars. Compare the money it cost back then for San Francisco’s bridge and adjust it to the value of 2005 dollars. I’d imagine you’d see more parity of costs. Taller than the Brooklyn Bridge? How many cruise ships have to pass under the Brooklyn Bridge? It’s like some of you are only reading the soundbites rather than REALLY looking into the issues.

As a progressive I have an idea that we can help shape the development of this state by passing responsible laws that allow for responsible resource harvesting. Alaska and Alaskans cannont survive merely upon the dollars brought to this state by tourists once the oil runs out. Instead of the rest of the states picking on us for trying to responsibly grow our young and mostly undeveloped infrastructure, it is my wish that people actually do their homework and find out about Alaska and it’s history before taking stances against progressive laws that allow us to diversify our job base and grow into a 21st century state. Without such a heavy reliance upon a non-renewable resource, namely, OIL.

The way some people here are talking, you treat us more like a colony, or territory, when in fact we can and should be treated as an equal partner in this union of states, with enough talent and progressive thinking individuals living here to keep care of the wilderness we do have without wrecking it. To continue to treat us like petulant children who don’t know what we’re doing is to allow the Federal government to run roughshod over our ability to pass responsible laws concerning the responsible harvesting of OUR resources.

Please learn about the issues before going off half cocked and critisizing us for things you don’t fully understand and I promise to do the same for you and where YOU live.

BTW, once again, I am not Republican. I have lived in Anchorage since 1981. I am a paralegal and journalist that writes for insurgent49.com — so lest you think me right-wing, I disclose the above. I should also state that I am not now nor ever have been employed directly by any oil company or logging interest.

-Lazarhat
October 21st, 2005 at 3:04 pm
SallyW says:

Lazarhat,

Yes, I was aware that Ketchikan’s economy has been struggling mightily. We left, in part, because we could see where things were going in state politics and the economy. Anchorage is thriving while cities like Ketchikan slowly wither. But I digress.

Bringing back logging would most definitely help Ketchikan’s economy and plug millions into local businesses. The housing that could be built on Gravina would help as well. However, as you note, logging is legally difficult. In addition, it is only a short-term fix. When the area cannot be logged any more- 5 years, 25 years, we’ll have the same problem, though it will affect more people due to the population increase.

I, like many in the city (at least in ‘99) am in favor of turning Ketchikan into a service-based economy based largely on tourism. That way, our tax base grows and we can afford to build some of the minor improvements that Ketchikan needs so badly. It is a solution that offers long-term growth potential and encourages businesses to relocate and establish ties to the community. Logging does none of those things.

My argument rests on the fact that such a bridge would not help as much as a myriad of other projects. There are more impactive ways to improve Ketchikan.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:36 pm
JimB says:

Um, should this be paid for with state money? Alaska has a budget surplus of 1.5 billion dollars. Also, http://www.uschamber.com/publications/weekly/regional/050927.htm#west.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pm
lazarhat says:

SallyW — I said sustainable logging. Unlike oil, trees can regrow if managed properly. Oil is a finite resource, whereas trees are not unless one persues a slash and burn, clearcut methods of harvesting that resource. The latter is NOT what I support.

Simalarly, tourism is a growth industry, but what do you do when the service industry is no longer large enough to handle the influx? Grow the service sector, of course. Land on the Ketchikan side of the waterway is however, a finite resource. Because of its unique geography, you can only develop the Ketchikan side so much before you run out of useable land.

I suggest that growth for the service sector in Ketchikan will eventually expand to Gravina Island as well. Hotels can be built there, close to the airport to handle business travelers. While airport traffic at this point isn’t that heavy, when infrastracture grows, so does those available to use it, often times at an exponential pace. What about people who visit Ketchikan, fall in love with the place and it’s lifestyle and decide to move there? Where will they live once all the space is used up on the city side of the waterway?

Why must we restrict Ketchikan to sole dependence upon tourism for its job base? That’s not progressive thinking, but rather its opposite. Communities grow and adapt to their surroundings. Are you suggesting we put Ketchikan (or perhaps even all of Alaska) in stasis, wrapped in plastic like a sandwich so that only tourists can enjoy it? People live here, and they have for many, many years. They need jobs. Jobs that allow for reasonable growth and jobs that depend upon economic diversity for future income.

If that is not allowed (ironically, mostly by people who don’t live here), then stagnation and entropy will occur. People will leave. Eventually even the service industries would die under the weight of their own hubris because of a lack of employees able to make a decent living wage. Thus, placing all of one’s eggs and future interests entirely in the ‘tourism’ basket is just as potentially destructive as placing them within the ‘oil’ basket.

I find it ironic that people are anti-growth and development for Alaska when if the same was applied to past projects, people would be unable, as tourists, to get to visit Denali National Park and similar sites. Only the rich would be able to afford the enormous airfair from Anchorage or Seattle to get to remote wilderness sites. Eco-tourism of its own accord cannot sustain a growing population base or a service economy necessary to serve those and other tourists.

To address JimB’s issue, Alaska is not the only state to have a surplus. New Mexico also has one this year because of enormously inflated oil, gas and natural gas prices. In fact, Governor Bill Richardson(D) of NM has expressed admiration for Alaska’s Permanent Fund program, saying that he is considering using the same methods of reinvesting windfall profit taxes from those industries into a fund to finance state projects and spending.

Which is exactly what Alaska does. We tax the companies who remove resources from this state and who resell them for profit. That tax is reinvested into a growth fund made up of stock, bonds and real estate investments worldwide, but primarily in America and American companies. That re-investment and laws that plow the majority of the intrest back into the principle of the fund has made it grow to almost $30 billion over the last 20+ years of it’s existence. Part of it is funneled into the state’s general fund — for financing local and state government as well as schools statewide. A smaller part of it is payed out to citizens of the state as an offset to the higher cost of living in Alaska. The majority however, BY LAW, is reinvested back into the fund to promote future growth.

This system was established by the voters of Alaska and some past Governors with enough foresight to see that tourism and oil could not sustain a viable population and future jobs for the people who live here year round. It was created so that we COULD continue to pay for government services and infrastructure building.

And before you start yelling about people in Alaska getting rich off of Permanent Fund Dividend checks (as some are wont to do), I’d invite you to move here. Most Alaskans fall below the median income level of the rest of America. I myself make ‘5 figures’ per year. Also below the median American income, in fact almost exactly half of that. But I’m happy because Anchorage is only a short drive away from Alaska proper (the beautiful wilderness and outdoor recreation).

Our gasoline costs about the same as yours, in spite of the fact that we have fairly large reserves of oil, our housing and food cost are about the same — perhaps slightly more expensive for foor and othe goods because we have virtually no manufacturing infrastructure. Almost everything here, with the exception of tchotkes made for visiting tourists to buy, are shipped or flown in from out of state. Jobs in the tourism service industry do not pay enough to allow people here enough money to survive, let alone flourish. Which is why often many tourism jobs are worked by college students during the summer. Thus the need to grow a diverse economic base.

Another factor that most people don’t understand is twofold — the physical size of this state and the long distances one must travel between many cities. Alaska is 2/3rds the land mass of the rest of America combined. You could put Texas inside the borders of Alaska and STILL have room for 20 or more states. We’re large enough to be our own country and we’re larger than a lot of actual countries. Half of our population lives outside of Anchorage and at least half of those locations (perhaps even more in number rather than size) ARE NOT REACHABLE BY ROADS, paved or otherwise.

It’s not like if you live in Bethel, Alaska, you can hop in the car and drive to Anchorage. No. You have to fly. Or you could use an ATV or dogsled for the 505 mile trip. So when you live in Bethel, you pay the $5.00+ a gallon for your gas and the extra expensive prices for heating oil and food. Then you say — well it’s just stupid to live there then! Wrong. Native Alaskans have been living there for thousands of years. Who are we to tell them they cannot? Who are we to tell them they can’t have access to the advantages of modern American society? They’ve existed in the past off of subsistence hunting and fishing and many still do, but with growth, even slow and responsible growth, comes certain societal pressures. Like maybe a guy in Bethel, white native or otherwise, might like some pretzels once in awhile. So they order them shipped in from Anchorage or Fairbanks. As is their right. In America, you can live wherever you want on private land and one pays the costs accordingly. We’re not asking for the rest of Americans to subsidize this lifestyle (although you might think otherwise if you’ve ever been a tourist trying to get to Bethel), we’re asking the rest of America to GIVE ALASKA IT’S FAIR SHARE OF TARRIFS ON FOREIGN OIL IMPORTS IMPOSED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN ALL STATES. Even Alaska.

Villages need schools. The state pays for them. Villages need sewage systems, state or local governments pay for them. Would the rest of America insist we not allow that sort of growth when these Americans ask for them? Are you wishing to restrict where people decide to live within this country, while in persuit of ther own personal happiness? This is not a reservation. This is a state, just like the other states within this union. Only bigger with bigger problems and the matching complexity that comes alongside our size.

To answer JimB more specifically, whatever surplus we may have had this year is used up immediately to finance much needed village schools and infrastructure, a marine highway (ferry based) system so that we can actually get to our own capital and yes, including these two bridges “to nowhere”. What you apparently have failed to understand about the original emarked funds is this: they are taxes on imported foreign oil that can only be spent, by law, on DOT projects and building infrastructure within ALL 50 states, not just Alaska. I’d be surprised if your home state wasn’t the beneficiary of this so-called ‘pork’. Also, these funds are federal MATCHING FUNDS, so that means that Alaska is ALREADY putting up the other part of the money necessary to build these bridges. Why so expensive? A LACK OF PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE. It’s not like we’re Arizona and can just go out and buy the odd pre-built bridge from London.

-Lazarhat
October 21st, 2005 at 6:10 pm
lazarhat says:

Bottom line? Repeal the corporate welfare for big pharma as it relates to the medicare perscription drug benefits for seniors and the nation would have MORE than enough money to begin fixing all the problems related to natural disasters this year.

Presently the administration has spent just under $17 billion of the nearly $70 billion that congress appropriated for the task of rebuilding New Orleans and the gulf coast. We need no poach vital money from building Alaska’s much needed infrastructure in order to solve the problem.

-Lazarhat
October 25th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
seattle to alaska cruise says:

seattle to alaska cruise

Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Gay Sailing says:

Gay Sailing

I can’t wait to get back to Grand Cayman for my next vacation but I don’t think the current dollar exchange rate will hold up for long.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
California Real Estate Bankruptcy Laws says:

California Real Estate Bankruptcy Laws

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Young Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple says:

Young Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Accounting Financial Financial Success says:

Accounting Financial Financial Success

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
airline reservation says:

airline reservation

This type of ticket would allow someone to do other things and then return for a roller-coaster ride, say, without having to actually
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Melaine says:

Melaine

What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Vacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel says:

Vacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 6:29 am
account recreation says:

account recreation

Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok. do you know what is the first? i`ve the new album at my blog http://sumpit.info
April 11th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Jessie says:

Jessie

Thanks for the post. I couldn’t agree with you more.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
where to retire taxes says:

where to retire taxes

Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Digimon adventure online games says:

All about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….

…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 14th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
shag Haircut and styles says:

Shag Hairstyles and Haircuts…

shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am

Sen. Stevens doesn’t have to retire.

Sen. Stevens doesn’t have to retire.

52 Responses to “Sen. Stevens doesn’t have to retire.”

Blogroll