Why Alaska Sucks

[shrumpage]

The dividend has been around a lot longer then Palin. It was originally set up in the early 80's when Alaska was swimming in money, basically it is the interest off of investments from that chunk of money. It was also set up so it can't be changed very easily. A governor just can't say i abolish the pfd, and its gone.

Most of alaska's state stuff is paid through oil money, one form or another, income taxes aren't needed.

Whozyerdaddy did a copy and paste a week or two ago on the arrangement between alaska and the fed, if i could find it I would repost. Basically the fed instead of taking a 90/10 split for the state's resources (10% to the fed, rest to the state) it takes a 50/50. They get a good chunk of money they wouldn't normally get from a state.

Now if you can convince the federal government to let us keep that 90% from the oil lease's, I would be more then willing to let go of the extra 'earmarks' we get.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't know, I read your bold and in a way it seems like I want politicians from there. Doesn't it benefit a state to grab as much federal cash as possible, like kids trying to get money from mom? To them, the more the better. No, I'm not being facetious.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
nice link
ALASKA
Sales Taxes
State Sales Tax: The state currently does not have a sales and use tax. However, some jurisdictions impose local sales taxes that range up to 7%. Anchorage does not have a sales tax.
Gasoline Tax: 8 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: 8 cents/gallon
Cigarette Tax: $2.00/pack of 20 (Anchorage - add $1.32)

Personal Income Taxes
No state income tax
Retirement Income: Not taxed.

No sales tax and no income tax!!!
Let's compare that to Illinois.

State Sales Tax: 6.25% (1% on qualifying food, prescription & non-prescription drugs, medical appliances). Local government taxes can raise the total to a high of 8.5%.

Income Tax Rate Range: Flat rate of 3% of federal adjusted gross income

Which state is taxed more?

you don't have to be taxed much locally when the federal government picks up the tab.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The larger more unpopulated states will always have a number that can be skewed.

Realize that the US also leeches off of Alaska. It is Alaska's wealth & natural resources that are being taken from them and in return they get higher fuel prices that is not even from their own raw crude. It was their shorelines that are damaged so the rest of the US can have oil.

You have military bases up there.
Much of Alaska is Federal government land.

It also costs more to live up there.

huh i thought alaska sold its oil on the open market, silly me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The larger more unpopulated states will always have a number that can be skewed.

Realize that the US also leeches off of Alaska. It is Alaska's wealth & natural resources that are being taken from them and in return they get higher fuel prices that is not even from their own raw crude. It was their shorelines that are damaged so the rest of the US can have oil.

You have military bases up there.
Much of Alaska is Federal government land.

It also costs more to live up there.

huh i thought alaska sold its oil on the open market, silly me.

Alaska gets royalties from the oil companies that pump the oil. Where the compaines sell their oil is inmaterial. It does not get refined in Alaska.

The issue is that the Feds grab much more than their share (compared to other states) of the royalties.

 

[DealMonkey]

More earmark and wasteful spending data from Alaska:

Just this year, she [Gov. Palin] sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million ? more, per person, than any other state.

[...]

Before she [Mayor Palin] left office, Wasilla, with aid of the lobbyist and the blessing of Stevens and Rep. Don Young, got $27 million in earmarks, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

During her fall 2006 campaign for governor, Palin appeared to embrace the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," even after Alaska had been held up for ridicule by McCain and others for what was seen as a wasteful boondoggle, a $233 million bridge that would replace ferry service connecting Gravina Island and its Ketchikan airport to mainland Ketchikan.

In a debate, Palin said she would fight for the earmark to build the bridge. McCain and others sought to divert those funds to help fund Hurricane Katrina recovery. That prompted a threat from Stevens to resign from the Senate for such discrimination against his state.

A year later, as criticism of earmarks mounted, Palin began to speak out against earmarks. Though she took the federal money to fund Alaska earmarks, she diverted the money for the Ketchikan bridge to other projects. She also issued a news release to alert the national press to her action.

[...]

This year, in addition to the 31 submitted by Palin's office, there were dozens submitted by smaller communities and borough governments.

[...]

She also said in the News-Miner that she had slashed the state's earmark requests by nearly two-thirds, down from $550 million in 2007 to just under $200 million.

Palin's earmarks request came just days after President Bush promised in his State of the Union address to veto any spending bills from Congress unless lawmakers cut earmarks in half.

Yet documents Palin's office released to The Seattle Times on Tuesday show her cuts in earmarks were far more modest than she claimed. Last year, Palin requested $254 million in earmarks, not $550 million, so her cuts this year were only 22 percent, not the 63 percent she claimed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...54532_webpalin02m.html

Palin, along with the rest of Alaska's politicians have never met an earmark they didn't like. So long as the rest of the country foots the bill, I guess it's okay in their book.

:thumbsdown: for fiscal irresponsibility. Tell you what, if Alaska is so awash in oil revenues through their massive taxation, let THEM pay for their own idiotic pork-laden projects. I'm sick of paying for greedy states like Alaska to study the mating habits of halibut, or to build bridges where there are unneeded. F Alaska! F them in their greedy asses!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Very few politicians have met an earmark they did not like.

Their job is to represent and assist their constituents.

How many earmakrs have Biden, Obama or McCain rejected.

Many projects cost the same per mile/sq ft within the states. A bridge in Deleware will cost slightly less than one in Alaska/Hawaii (because of logistics).

Yet because Deleware has a higher population the cost per person is much less.

Look at how much earmark $$s went to the four states (in total) rather than per person.
That generates a different picture.

Yet each three of the four states have much less Congressinal representation than the fourth. so are the Congressional representives from the three states not doing their jobs because the total earmark $$s are not all the same.

Or are they doing their jobs better because the $% is higher.
And it is the STATE that REQUESTS funds. It is CONGRESS that GRANTS the funds.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
-snip-
Many projects cost the same per mile/sq ft within the states. A bridge in Deleware will cost slightly less than one in Alaska/Hawaii (because of logistics).

Yet because Deleware has a higher population the cost per person is much less.

Yup.

So we've seen the statistics done on a per capita basis (as if that has any d@mn thing to with the cost highways or bridges etc); When are we gonna see the stat done a sq mile basis?

Oh, and building roads or anything else through (rocky) mountanous terrain is far more expensive than flat lands.

Why is that the money Alaska *donates* to the federal government via shared oil royalties etc is never mentioned in these type articles/threads?

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Very few politicians have met an earmark they did not like.

Their job is to represent and assist their constituents.

How many earmakrs have Biden, Obama or McCain rejected.

Many projects cost the same per mile/sq ft within the states. A bridge in Deleware will cost slightly less than one in Alaska/Hawaii (because of logistics).

Yet because Deleware has a higher population the cost per person is much less.

Look at how much earmark $$s went to the four states (in total) rather than per person.
That generates a different picture.

Yet each three of the four states have much less Congressinal representation than the fourth. so are the Congressional representives from the three states not doing their jobs because the total earmark $$s are not all the same.

Or are they doing their jobs better because the $% is higher.
And it is the STATE that REQUESTS funds. It is CONGRESS that GRANTS the funds.

Concur completely.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
More earmark and wasteful spending data from Alaska:

Just this year, she [Gov. Palin] sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million ? more, per person, than any other state.

[...]

Before she [Mayor Palin] left office, Wasilla, with aid of the lobbyist and the blessing of Stevens and Rep. Don Young, got $27 million in earmarks, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

During her fall 2006 campaign for governor, Palin appeared to embrace the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," even after Alaska had been held up for ridicule by McCain and others for what was seen as a wasteful boondoggle, a $233 million bridge that would replace ferry service connecting Gravina Island and its Ketchikan airport to mainland Ketchikan.

In a debate, Palin said she would fight for the earmark to build the bridge. McCain and others sought to divert those funds to help fund Hurricane Katrina recovery. That prompted a threat from Stevens to resign from the Senate for such discrimination against his state.

A year later, as criticism of earmarks mounted, Palin began to speak out against earmarks. Though she took the federal money to fund Alaska earmarks, she diverted the money for the Ketchikan bridge to other projects. She also issued a news release to alert the national press to her action.

[...]

This year, in addition to the 31 submitted by Palin's office, there were dozens submitted by smaller communities and borough governments.

[...]

She also said in the News-Miner that she had slashed the state's earmark requests by nearly two-thirds, down from $550 million in 2007 to just under $200 million.

Palin's earmarks request came just days after President Bush promised in his State of the Union address to veto any spending bills from Congress unless lawmakers cut earmarks in half.

Yet documents Palin's office released to The Seattle Times on Tuesday show her cuts in earmarks were far more modest than she claimed. Last year, Palin requested $254 million in earmarks, not $550 million, so her cuts this year were only 22 percent, not the 63 percent she claimed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.c...54532_webpalin02m.html

Palin, along with the rest of Alaska's politicians have never met an earmark they didn't like. So long as the rest of the country foots the bill, I guess it's okay in their book.

:thumbsdown: for fiscal irresponsibility. Tell you what, if Alaska is so awash in oil revenues through their massive taxation, let THEM pay for their own idiotic pork-laden projects. I'm sick of paying for greedy states like Alaska to study the mating habits of halibut, or to build bridges where there are unneeded. F Alaska! F them in their greedy asses!

Like i said...let us keep 90% of the revenue, instead of 50% - oh and can Alaskans stop paying all those federal taxes too?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the idea that some states get to get away with having no income tax and/or no sales tax while leaching off the rest of us who are getting slammed by taxes really makes me want to kick an Alaskan in the nuts.

Alaska has 1/2 the population of Maine and has over 18 times the amount of land. The entire state is 1/4 of the population of Houston alone. It is also some of the roughest terrain this country has.


Alaska is of huge importance for both economic reasons and national security. If you are tired of footing the bill I am sure the Ruskies would love to buy it back.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
nice link
ALASKA
Sales Taxes
State Sales Tax: The state currently does not have a sales and use tax. However, some jurisdictions impose local sales taxes that range up to 7%. Anchorage does not have a sales tax.
Gasoline Tax: 8 cents/gallon
Diesel Fuel Tax: 8 cents/gallon
Cigarette Tax: $2.00/pack of 20 (Anchorage - add $1.32)

Personal Income Taxes
No state income tax
Retirement Income: Not taxed.

No sales tax and no income tax!!!
Let's compare that to Illinois.

State Sales Tax: 6.25% (1% on qualifying food, prescription & non-prescription drugs, medical appliances). Local government taxes can raise the total to a high of 8.5%.

Income Tax Rate Range: Flat rate of 3% of federal adjusted gross income

Which state is taxed more?

you don't have to be taxed much locally when the federal government picks up the tab.

Let's back up a bit here... Once again, people aren't getting the full story. I copied this from another Palin/Alaska bashing thread.

FWIW...

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

I've explained the reasoning for why Alaska gets back so much federal money. Obviously it's a big state with a very spread out and growing population. Highways, bridges and other infrastructure normally paid for by federal dollars in other states are expensive to build in Alaska. And that's if you want to look at the bridges and roads and pork. By far the greatest percentage of federal dollars sent to Alaska are paid out to individuals in the form of social security and medicare.

And for what it's worth, Alaska only got back about $4.4 billion more than it paid out in 2005. (The latest I could find info for) Per capita return it was #3. For some reason everyone wants to get their panties in a wad over .0016% of the federal budget. (Assuming a $3 trillion budget) Of course it sounds great to say it in terms of 'per capita' but in all reality Alaska gets very little in terms of actual dollars from the fed compared to many other states.

But... digging a little deeper... as part of the Statehood Compact with the US, Alaska is supposed to get 90% of all the revenue it generates through natural resource development on federal lands and the Federal Govnt should get 10%. The Fed has never held up their end of the bargain, choosing to ignore the statehood agreement and split revenues 50/50. That's billions and billions and billions of dollars owed to Alaska over the last 50 years that were never paid out.

Some see what you call 'pork' as simply getting back what was rightfully theirs in the first place.

http://www.usembassy.at/en/dow...d/pdf/anwr_revenue.pdf 10th page

The manner is which royalties are split between other states and the federal government
differs. For all states except Alaska, direct royalties under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA)
are divided equally (50-50) between the state in which the deposits are located and the
federal government. The MLA also provides that all states except Alaska also get back 40%
from the Reclamation Fund (established by the Reclamation Act of 1902), in effect giving
each state 90% of the royalties and the federal government 10%. Alaska does not receive
allocations from the Reclamation Fund, so to equalize royalty treatment among the states,
the Alaska Statehood Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act provide that
Alaska?s royalty share is 90% of the direct royalties (rather than 50%).

This is from an ANWR report. Alaska is routinely squeezed for a 50/50 split. If ANWR were opened, oil remained at its current levels and the Fed took 50% instead of 10%, Alaska would stand to lose around $70 billion over the life of that field. (About $3.5 billion per year) And that is just one field. That doesn't count Prudhoe (which is bigger than ANWR), Kuparuk, Alpine, Nikiski and all the other fields that they didn't get full value on over the last 20-30 years. And THAT'S just oil... Add in coal, gas, gold, copper, tin... It adds up.

So don't worry! The Fed is still ahead in the who-owes-who game by about $1-2 billion per year.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
The numbers don't lie. In 2005 Alaska got back $4.4 billion more than they paid in.

Alabama got a little less than $18 billion more.
Arizona got $9 billion more.
Arkansas got $6.5 billion more.
California got screwed hard....
Georgia got $4 billion more.
Hawaii got $4 billion more.
Kentucky got $12 billion more... good grief.
Lousinana got $19 billion more!!! (Katrina)
Maryland got almost $17 billion more.

Etc etc etc...

And as before, the numbers relating to taxes paid in don't reflect the amount that the Fed withholds from Ak in revenue sharing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The issue is not about Alaska.

It is about the fact that a person from Alaska was selected to run for a position of political power.

And that as much dirt that can be dug up is being thrown, without even looking at the dirt itself.

The truth behind a smear is inconsequential.

Let the politicians go at it; but at least tell the WHOLE truth with the numbers instead of cherry picking one line out of context to justify one's fear.

And it is fear that is driving the smears, not pride.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here are some reasons why Alaska sucks and by extension, why any politician from Alaska shouldn't be trusted to be a fiscal conservative
...

One could also say that about California - they can not balance their books and suck all the water from other states rahter than footing the bill for their own waste.

They screw up their energy policy and then go crying for help from others.

Now for the cherry picking which you like so well:

Look at the way they treat their employees.
Politicians draw full pay, but they layoff workers because of their own petty squabbles.
And they will only pay their state employees minimum wage.

 

[DealMonkey]

Last I checked, no one from California is running for the presidency, but please bleat on.

Meanwhile, Palin continues her lies about supposed "earmark reform" in campaign stops today:

The GOP ticket spent another day on the trail together and Sarah Palin again attacked Barack Obama on earmark requests. This time her hit was harder and she compared it to what she was doing to fight pork barrel spending in Alaska:

?In just three years our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks. That?s nearly a million dollars for every working day,? Palin told the cheering crowd, ?So as we reform the abusive earmarks in our state our opponent was requesting nearly a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege as I was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.?

She again failed to mention the earmarks she has accepted for Alaska which amounted to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in her first year and 31 earmarks valued at $197 million this year

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.co...cks-obama-on-earmarks/

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: loki8481
the idea that some states get to get away with having no income tax and/or no sales tax while leaching off the rest of us who are getting slammed by taxes really makes me want to kick an Alaskan in the nuts.

That's the ticket! Let's have the central government tell the states what their tax rates will be.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Last I checked, no one from California is running for the presidency, but please bleat on.

Meanwhile, Palin continues her lies about supposed "earmark reform" in campaign stops today:

The GOP ticket spent another day on the trail together and Sarah Palin again attacked Barack Obama on earmark requests. This time her hit was harder and she compared it to what she was doing to fight pork barrel spending in Alaska:

?In just three years our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks. That?s nearly a million dollars for every working day,? Palin told the cheering crowd, ?So as we reform the abusive earmarks in our state our opponent was requesting nearly a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege as I was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.?

She again failed to mention the earmarks she has accepted for Alaska which amounted to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in her first year and 31 earmarks valued at $197 million this year

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.co...cks-obama-on-earmarks/

Note to DealMonkey: Not all earmarks are evil....

The whole point of an earmark is to make sure the money that was allocated goes to its intended use instead of just being lumped into a state's general fund and spent on whatever. There's a purpose for earmarking the money.

Kind of dumb to just make a blanket attack on earmarks.

If you want to differentiate between wasteful earmarks and necessary ones, by all means, have at it. If you can prove that those earmarked funds were specifically for pork projects, by all means have your way with it. But the mere fact that she accepted earmarked money is not by itself a bad thing. Actually, since that money has to be spent on what it was allocated for, I guess that kind of makes it a good thing... assuming the spending was necessary.

BTW... Look up a few posts. Any comment to my rebuttal that Alaska is a black hole of federal spending?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Last I checked, no one from California is running for the presidency, but please bleat on.

I believe in your Title

Why Alaska Sucks

and your first post

Here are some reasons why Alaska sucks and by extension, why any politician from Alaska shouldn't be trusted to be a fiscal conservative

All I pointed out was that by your standards, CA would also suck. It can not keep it's house in order.

One can cherry pick all sorts of numbers to make something look bad or good.

You pull up a number by population, yet it looks good when based on area.

You pull up a total number, then do not like the fact that Obama has an even larger number.

Convienently ignoring that it is the Congress that allocates the funds, not the state. the states receive as DICTATED by Congress.

Ill obtained 4-6 times the amount than the Alaska received. That seems to be fiscally irresponsible.

How much was obtained by Delaware?

It would seem that the Dems many be more fically irresponsible as a group than the Republicans.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: loki8481
the idea that some states get to get away with having no income tax and/or no sales tax while leaching off the rest of us who are getting slammed by taxes really makes me want to kick an Alaskan in the nuts.

That's the ticket! Let's have the central government tell the states what their tax rates will be.

or cap federal money to states with no state income or sales taxes.

 

[ProfJohn]

You people going after Palin for earmarks need to remember that Obama asked for $330 million in earmarks this year.

That is over a $100 million more than Palin, and Obama isn't even the governor of a state.
NY Times
$740 in earmarks over the last three years.
complete list of Obama earmarks for this year.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You people going after Palin for earmarks need to remember that Obama asked for $330 million in earmarks this year.

That is over a $100 million more than Palin, and Obama isn't even the governor of a state.
NY Times
$740 in earmarks over the last three years.
complete list of Obama earmarks for this year.

I thinks it's crystal clear now...most of the the Dems here don't really care about earmarks...they're just brain dead drones driven by a highly partisan agenda.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You people going after Palin for earmarks need to remember that Obama asked for $330 million in earmarks this year.

That is over a $100 million more than Palin, and Obama isn't even the governor of a state.
NY Times
$740 in earmarks over the last three years.
complete list of Obama earmarks for this year.

I thinks it's crystal clear now...most of the the Dems here don't really care about earmarks...they're just brain dead drones driven by a highly partisan agenda.

If you were not being so sarcastic, it would be true.

The next two months are going to be nasty, driven by partisanship and mud sligning, not debating the virtues.

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Druidx
It must really suck to be wrong so often.

It never seemed to slow down the Bush fan boys. ProfJohn lasted 9000 posts and JS80 almost 13k so far.

Bush was a failure as a president, not my fault the Dem's couldn't beat someone as bad as Bush. What really amazes me is they still haven't learned from their mistake in 2004.
Kerry ran on little more than "I'm not Bush", he failed. Just my opinion but the Dems aren't doing much better this year. Now the Dems are running on "Change & Hope". Which to me is little more than a new version of "I'm not Bush" while desperately trying to tie McCain to Bush. Maybe it's a winning strategy this time, I don't know. I just think all these attacks make them appear desperate an will turn off the independent voters.