Will Alaska do what Utah lacks the guts to do?

I see where the Tea Party favorite for Senator from Alaska seems to be winning the primary, story here (click).

What is fascinating me, and many commentors, is the statements by Joe Miller that he intends to take Alaska off the federal dole, let Alaskans stand on their own two feet, be free and independent and on and on and on.

As many commentor are saying, “free with what?”

Yes, Alaska has many natural resources, but may we humbly note that those natural resources do not belong to the State of Alaska. They belong to the companies that take them out of the ground and smelt and refine and ship them.

Oil?  I am betting that the oil companies will have a thing or two to say about taking over the federal job of building roads in Alaska.

The companies that produce Alaska’s wealth are privately owned. Unless Alaska taxes the crud out of them, or starts taxing their employees (Alaska has no income tax), or unless Mr. Miller has some plan to nationalize the oil companies on a state level, taking the federal dollars out of Alaska is going to leave a large dent in the Alaska budget.

A University of Alaska study shows that one third of all jobs in Alaska depend on federal spending, after all, and Alaska get more than $5 in road funds back for every dollar of road taxes it send to D.C.

As I’ve said before about Utah, which has more than 30,000 direct federal jobs and entire cities that depend on federal spending — Layton? — the Tea Party better be darn careful what it asks for.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Will Alaska do what Utah lacks the guts to do?

  1. Blue Sky says:

    Everyone is up in arms about pork and Federal spending, yet they are equally upset and vocal at the threat of ATK’s losing Federal contracts. You can’t have it both ways. Actually, Utah will get a taste of life without pork when our new Senator, with no influence and no seniority and no place on the Appropriations Committee heads to DC.

  2. Owain says:

    There is a difference between wasteful spending and useful spending.

    An example of wasteful spending, how about the John Murtha airport. I think anyone can agree that $150 million for an airport that averages 30 passengers a day is not the best use of taxpayers dollars.

    With respect to ATK, there are no other companies in the US that specialize in solid fuel rocket motors as they do, so that technology, once scrapped, will be hard to get back again. People like the satellite technology for things like communications, GPS, weather observations, and so forth. How are we supposed to put those salellites in orbit without boosters and launch vehicles? I’m not particularly comfortable with relying on the Russians to support the US space program. In case you haven’t noticed, our relations with them has started getting more than a little bit rocky. If they decide to cut us off at the knees, I guess Dish Network customers will all have to switch to Comcast. (That’s a joke, by the way.)

    It is a false economy to try to fund entitlement programs through foolish cuts in technology spending.

  3. Owain says:

    “As I’ve said before about Utah, which has more than 30,000 direct federal jobs and entire cities that depend on federal spending — Layton? — the Tea Party better be darn careful what it asks for.”

    The Tea Party, to my knowledge, isn’t asking for an elimination of Federal Spending, but rather a return to sensible Federal spending.

    For example, it seems to be an article of faith on the left that current deficit spending woes can be explained in large measure by spending that has been required for Iraq War. According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending on the Iraq War has been fairly constant since 2003, and since 2009 when President Obama too office, spending on the Iraq War represents only a minor componant of the deficit spending spree Obama and the Democrats have embarked upon. The chart in this article graphically shows how dramatically deficit spending has skyrocketed during the Obama administration. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html

    Sensible Federal spending. I don’t think the Tea Party is being unreasonable ask for that.

  4. ctrentelman says:

    owain, you are setting up a straw man and then setting it on fire. I know of nobody, liberal, conservative or Zuni, who thinks the Iraq/Afghan war is “in large measure” responsible for the current deficit spending.

    But you demolished that argument nicely, thanks.

    The current deficit spending is directly related to the previous deficit spending, which was a combination of massive tax cuts combined with massive growth in the federal budget for everything — military, social, education, transportation, the works.

    You need to define what you mean by “sensible” spending — sure, the Obama administration has had to continue the policies (including TARP) of the Bush Administration, but the Bush Administration had already blown the budget out of the water, as did the Reagan and Bush administrations before it.

    And, of course, “sensible” spending for a “sensible” budget has to include revenue increases — no matter how it got there, you can’t take a trillion dollars in government spending out of the budget without causing massive unemployment and total disruption of the economy.

    You are right, sensible spending is the way to go. But how?

  5. vinculis says:

    Most of Alaska’s real estate is owned by the federal government. We have much the same situation in Utah as well. In both states (and most of the rest of the western states), Uncle Sam is essentially the landlord and we are the renters. It’s hard to declare financial independence from someone who exercises so much power over our affairs.

  6. Neal Cassidy says:

    Let’s go one better than Alaska. Let Utah repay all of the federal money that has been appropriated to Utah over the years to pay for massive Utah water projects. After all it would seem that if accepting federal monies is wrong we should repay past expenditures as quickly as possible.

  7. Owain says:

    Neal Cassidy: “After all it would seem that if accepting federal monies is wrong we should repay past expenditures as quickly as possible.”

    Nice straw man, Neil. The Tea Party, to my knowledge, does not assert that accepting federal money is wrong. I think you’ll find a more factual take on their stand in the links I gave above to Joe Miller’s campaign web site.

    You are interested in learning the facts, aren’t you?

  8. Dovie says:

    Businesses and governments do not function like households. They borrow and they invest. As one example, I think the US would be far better off today if we had invested in alternative energy technologies instead of the Iraq war. The return would have been infinitely greater.

    The problem with Iraq, as with so many other projects, is that the money was thrown down the crap hole.

    My problem with the Tea Party is that all their pet projects, like building a barbed wire machine gun guarded wall between us and Mexico are not investments. They are costly and regressive and won’t work anyway.

  9. Realist says:

    Get rid of whining, liberal faggots like you and we could go with Alaska. Unfortunately, cry babies like still have a vote.

  10. Owain says:

    In late breaking news, Lisa Murkowski finally concedes in Alaska senate primary race, joins Bob Bennett in seeking private sector employment.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>