Last frontier, first boondoggle
One of the biggest tea party battles in the US is unfolding in Alaska, where Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller is taking a tough line on Federal spending.
The reason that this has national resonance is that Miller’s state is the biggest pork-devouring behemoth in the U.S., gobbling up roughly twice as much tax money per capita compared with the national average.
Here’s a shocking fact. If we simply cut Alaska’s feeding frenzy down to the amount that most states receive, it would save the Federal treasury $50,000,000,000 a year.
Yes, that’s roughly $50 billion dollars in annual savings.
Two things make this boondoggle more egregious.
First, Alaskans pay no income tax and in fact receive more than $1,000 a year in direct cash payments from the state.
Rather than pay for a fair share of their own government needs, they ask that taxpayers in other parts of the Union foot the bill.
But the other irritant is the fact that Alaskans still insist on describing themselves as libertarians and small-government champions.
Even as they hoover up the juiciest morsels from the national trough, they toss around Sarah Palin-style rhetoric about bootstraps and independence.
Normally, I would say that Joe Miller is the perfect antidote to this kind of over-reliance on Federal spending.
With the help of voters, he pushed aside Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the most accomplished pork-purveyors in Washington.
But Miller has now acknowledged that he, too, personally hoovered up more than $1,000 a year in Federal farm subsidies, for property he owns in his native state of Kansas.
One hopes that his rhetoric will be more telling than his behavior.
Unfortunately, his political champion’s behavior on this front isn’t very reassuring.
As the state’s Republican governor, Sarah Palin — who endorsed Miller — had the opportunity to begin paring back Alaska’s pork-addiction.
Instead, she first lobbied Washington for more pork as mayor of Wasilla and then as governor. Then she quit.
But in principle, Miller is certainly correct: Alaska’s gravy train has to shrink — and fast — for the good of his state’s people and the good of taxpayers nationwide.
Tags: election10
What type of aid does Alaska get from the Federal Government, what is driving that number?
Another question along the lines of Mervels, how much aid or pork or whatever does Alaska get compared to other states? I mean total, not per capita or anything, I mean total. Is it a drop in the bucket compared to say California or Florida or NY. Part 2 of that would be how much taxes are produced in Alaska? Certainly the oil companies must pay some big money, the mines, tourism, fishing. I can’t believe Alaska produces nothing.
Alaska receives back in spending roughly $1.84 for every $1 that the state’s taxpayers contribute to the Federal treasury.
Obviously, that additional $.84 comes from either taxpayers in other parts of the US, or from borrowed money.
The state ranks third in terms of the ratio of Federal dollars received back to the amount contributed in taxes.
New Mexico is first, receiving more than $2 for every $1 paid in taxes.
By contrast, New York state receives back only about $.80 for every $1 we pay in taxes.
So…a fifth of your Federal tax dollars are going to pay for programs and activities in other states…
–Brian, NCPR
Is a lot of that native money that goes to those villages, etc.?
Someone has to take a stand to change things. Since there is no “perfect” individual, who has never accepted one dime of government money, then we must accept the fact that reformation must start with a tarnished individual.
Taken to the extreme, one could argue that you have no right criticizing this guy, if you, yourself, ever accepted government money in your life.
No, that is not the standard we should apply.
We should acknowledge, as you did in a previous thread, that shrinking the government must be done of necessity, and the individual or individuals who are willing to do so, will be “tarnished” by their own past.
Okay, so I did a little research, and here are some answers:
-1 in 3 jobs in Alaska relies directly on Federal spending.
-Over the last 20 years, Federal spending in Alaska grew at twice the national average
-A lot of money goes to the state’s native community and to the state’s aging white community, but everybody gets a lot…
-In 2002, Federal spending in Alaska equaled all private industry wages paid in the state
–Brian, NCPR
Alaska ranks 47 re population.
I’d like to see a little more about this from the “lame stream media”…that so often seems to give such tidbits of information a pass.
North to A-las-ka, go north the rush is on.
How much of the Federal money is used to encourage the populace to keep an eye on Russia? You can see Russia from Alaska, right?
Okay thanks.
I think they have a population of of about 700,000 people and they have some good sized military bases plus throw in all of the federal lands etc and certainly the per-capita federal spending would zoom up.
1 in 3 jobs though that really is high for an entire state.
-1 in 3 jobs in Alaska relies directly on Federal spending.
Tough statistic to calculate or compare.
A good percentage of the North Country is influenced by Federal money coming into the Res.
A lot of Alaska is Native American as well.
Anyway. Your point is that a tea partier is taking on government spending.
Same thing is happening in New Jersery. Go Chris Christie!
Let see. I am looking at the individual federal tax burden for each state (2004). Alaska’s per captia burden was $2714 and New York’s was $3883. So obviously the per capita income in New York is higher which results in a higher tax burden (by about 1.43 times). Isn’t that the intent of a “progressive” tax system? “Rather than pay for a fair share of their own government needs, they ask that taxpayers in other parts of the Union foot the bill”?
Less than 1% of Alaska is privately owned lands. I wonder if that has something to do with it? 70% is Federally owned. Do they pay taxes on that land and is that part of figure Brian found?
Whatever the answer is, this idea that just because you live in a State that gets lots of Federal funding means you can’t talk about cutting costs and taxes and the size of gov’t is ridiculous. Using that logic John Kerry shouldn’t have been allowed to protest the VN war, any “whistleblower” should be silenced and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton should have kept their traps shut about Bush. The argument makes no sense. Alaskans and NYers pay income tax (no Alaskan state income tax, like several other states), they all see the drain on their pocket books, they all see the rising, completely unsustainable debt and ridiculous Federal spending. Don’t they have a right to voice their opinions if they’d like to see things change? It doesn’t make them hypocrites if they feel the system is screwed up- it makes them observant!
I hear a similar type of thought on some other sites I frequent, that since I’m from “New Yawk” I must be a city dweller with no clue as to what rural life is like or that everyone in NY is a Liberal Democrat so I shouldn’t even comment on things, NY is one big city/state. None of that is true and I don’t think simply dismissing anyone from any state because that state does or doesn’t get lots of pork is a valid idea.
But in a way it is beauty. You bring home free federal money you have very low state taxes, no income tax and you pay people to live there. In the state arena they are libertarian. But libertarian is not just about money it is about personal freedoms and very low government interference in your day to day life.
New York for example rates very low on measures of personal freedom due to our repressive and controlling state government. I mean we have the money to send state workers from Albany out to inspect and investigate a lions club cook out in Edwards. I mean have you guys been to Edwards?
Don’t Alaskan citizens get a yearly check from the oil companies?
“But in a way it is beauty. You bring home free federal money …”
And there is the giant disconnect that drives conservatives everywhere. It’s not free money. It belonged to someone else till the gov’t stole it from them and now they are buying your vote with that stolen money. You’re simply laundering it for them.
IMO paying taxes to support essential services, provide help to our needy, to fund necessary endeavors is one thing. Paying taxes so some guy in Washington can send it back to his people so they’ll keep him in office is entirely another. Paying taxes so we can build Mosques in foreign countries, buy “green” cook stoves for foreign countries or lend money to our enemies so they can drill for off shore oil is criminal.