don't worry, normal programming to resume soon.
this is just a response i've written about sarah palin earmarking money for the state of alaska, which i read on d's blog:
before i begin, i would like to point out that i have no desire to see sarah palin as our country's vp--i have been excited about obama for months. nor do i agree with her earmarking* of money for wasilla ($500,000 for a youth center? that's not a bit excessive? i'd like to see the full list, and how much the city put in, if any), and definitely not the bridge to nowhere**. nor am i an expert on government or finances. if i were, i'd have far more money. i just get stuck on the part about her earmarking money for the state.
based on my experience and knowledge of alaska, a lot of the $198 million earmarked for the state would go to genuinely useful programs. rural sanitation probably does not need to be discussed, as it's a pretty self-explanatory. (do you want to try digging a septic system into the permafrost?) there are many programs having to do with fisheries which is a main industry in alaska, following oil drilling, and along with tourism. they've learned what overfishing can do, and have, from what i have seen, been doing a good job of regulating the industry in recent years, and i hope that they continue to do so. i would certainly support any efforts to be made to keep things that way, and to find newer and better ways to run a sustainable source of income for the state. along with that were programs like DARE, and things dealing with drugs and alcohol. a problem anywhere, they definitely have issues with it. a number of places have outlawed the import of alcohol altogether because of the effect it has had.
another note: according to wikipedia, "Federal subsidies are also an important part of the economy, allowing the state to keep taxes low." i should have a problem with this, because they do have such a huge income from oil. it funds a lot of state programs, including the permanent dividend fund. each alaskan resident, last year, received $1654. on the other hand, the per capita income from alaska in 2006 was $26,919 (higher than most states, also with a much higher unemployment rate than nationally), but consider the high cost of living in most rural communities: while living in naknek, i rarely saw fresh fruit or vegetables at the cannery, and the cost of those in the grocery store were, for example, between $2.50-$3.00 for a pound of bananas. the cost of other necessary items, like shampoo, is astounding in a place like that. i'm not even sure what housing costs. so $1600 can make a huge difference in the income for many alaskans. (a round trip plane ticket from king salmon to anchorage, the nearest major shopping center? at the moment, about $500 on travelocity.) you can see why a huge number of alaskans are for continuing with oil, and opening up anwr. that check, it's not just a plane ticket out of town, but an important source of income for some.
a lot of people seem to comment on that being a lot of money for so few people, but alaska being so VAST and so much of it being undeveloped/without infrastructure, and fewer natural resources/sources of income, it's not exactly a black and white issue. i think sarah palin is a hypocrite for calling herself a reformer and i don't agree with all of her decisions, but i can understand why she made them. and so going back to earmarking (and really in quite a lot of topics), i don't think that we can talk about alaska in the same way that we talk about other parts of the country.
i guess in the end, that is my point: politics as with many topics is a complicated issue to begin with, and we never really can see every point of view. especially in a country like the u.s., which being so large makes everything even more so. and it all gives me a headache. and i'm glad i'm not her daughter, how humiliated she must feel.
*in general i think the way earmarking is done is a crappy way to get money for programs, and that does need to change. but the end result is what i'm trying to focus on here.
**in talking about, some writers fail to omit the part about the airport being there, just a population of 50, making it sound even more laughable. *giggles*
info from:
http://projects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://stevens.senate.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://stevens.senate.gov/
addendum: i also cringed when i read jezebel calling palin a "moose murderer". um...a lot of alaskans hunt moose. as an affordable source of food. a moose can provide nearly all of the meat for a family for quite some time. i really just wish people would not make accusatory statements without a little basic research. although when i read about her being for hunting wolves by helicopter? that's not so much okay by me.
well said, boo. i appreciate your perspective. i agree that a small population in rather isolated places sometimes require a lot of money in order to move the community forward. i wonder, too, what alaska might do in ten years if all of these energy goals are (hopefully) accomplished. we need to give them a stepping stone at the very least to ensure they don't fall off the map entirely when their largest source of income slows and eventually stops.
ReplyDeletedefinitely. on wikipedia, i read that the oil and it's byproducts (natural gas, etc.) are 80% of the state's income. we need to make some investments there to keep things from falling apart should we meet those goals.
ReplyDeleteWell said! :)
ReplyDeleteI don't take issue with what those earmarks paid for. I'm perfectly willing to believe that a majority of those funds were genuinely useful.
But --
The problem is Palin that has been thrown out there as some sort of watchdog on federal earmarks and local/state pet projects. And THAT is what makes her funding requests an issue.
oh, i totally agree. i just feel like there has been so much focus on "why does alaska need so much money" etc. on discussion boards about palin, and less focus on the fact that she's basically made a liar of herself. i can't remember which article it was, but it was linked on your blog, but that the following discussion was like that and kind of made me want to *headdesk*. people aren't focusing.
ReplyDeleteOf course people aren't focusing. That's the hallmark of an election year!
ReplyDeletetrue.
ReplyDeletesadly.