The Concerned: What's so 'permanent' about Alaska Permanent Fund?
Scott Woodham |
Sep 23, 2011
TO: The Alaska Permanent Fund
SUBJECT: Permanence
Dear Big Pile of Awesome, First off, thanks for sticking around so long and doing so much good for Alaskans. Since you started, you’ve put kids through college, paid off credit card bills, helped launch small businesses, and allowed Alaskans to purchase luxuries and necessities otherwise too costly. Plus, during lean times your political entertainment value often outstrips your actual value. You were created in part as a way to fairly distribute and save Alaska’s oil wealth for citizens, but we’re concerned that you’re not being used to your full advantage. This year you’re providing $1,174 checks to every qualifying Alaskan, and we The Concerned think that’s awesome. The Alaska Constitution provides that Alaska’s resources must be developed for the “maximum benefit” of Alaskans, who own the bounty, and you’re a big part of the reason that the state looks to be fulfilling its obligation. We’re sure you know it, but every year when your checks go out, businesses start to offer deals to soak up all that extra liquidity. Dividend time means screaming deals on airfare, furniture, electronics, vehicles, and all manner of other large consumer goods. Many Alaskans jump at the chance to upgrade their material circumstances. Who can blame them? Snowmachines that can go 70 mph or faster totally rule. As do flat-screen televisions and movies on Blu-ray. Unfortunately, consumer goods start to lose value immediately after leaving the store. And in the case of electronics, as few as six months can mean the difference between ‘wired’ and ‘tired’. We’re not sure what “maximum benefit” means exactly (it seems intentionally and reasonably vague), but we do know that consumer goods, while beneficial, are not good investments. It seems to us that Alaska has suffered because its constitution lacks a clear distinction between individual benefit and community or statewide benefit, and of course, also lacks a clear idea over which one should be the state's priority. That about sums up our main concern every time your yearly pie is sliced up and handed out. For instance, every year, some of The Concerned cross their fingers that certain neighbors will finally hire a semi to haul away all the old industrial junk in their yards, or at least build a taller, less transparent fence. And every year, they’re mostly disappointed. Usually, the check results in more junk. But not all Alaskans use you to buy more stuff to litter up the yard or clog the rec room. Many Alaskans use your yearly payout to get some relief from debt accrued by normal living over the previous year. Fuel, energy, travel, housing, health care and food are costly across basically all of Alaska, and it’s great that you’re there to cushion the blow for Alaskans who need it every year. But it seems to us that in that regard, you’re acting like half a life-vest thrown to people trying just to keep their heads above water. You are called "permanent," after all. We’re not sure, but don’t you get tired of not being used for as much lasting good as you could be? Does your name refer to your intended longevity or to the type of contributions you hope to make to Alaska? Not all of your yearly payout is squandered, though. Some wise Alaskans, probably the minority, sock their free money away into various appreciating real assets and interest-bearing financial accounts, and despite the uncertainty of investing, that money often leads to things way more permanent than a copy of the latest Gears of War sequel for Playstation3. Other wise Alaskans didn’t have to take out massive student loans to pay for college or technical school because they saved your yearly gifts. Unfortunately, with education’s costs rising and its public funding declining -- with the economy dragging -- using you to improve oneself isn’t as easy as it once was.
by jimbehlke | September 26, 2011 - 3:24pm
I worked hard for Jay Hammond in 1978 when his campaign barely beat Hickel in the primary election. At that time Jay Hammond was a razor sharp guy. Smart, fast thinking, well spoken, extremely literate and creative. Hammond was a visionary. Perhaps the best governor Alaska has seen. The only other governor after statehood who might have come close to Hammond was Bill Egan. (Ernest Gruening was perhaps Alaska's greatest territorial governor before statehood). Jay Hammond envisioned a Permanent Fund. He wasn't just selfishly thinking about his contemporary times or his personal political ambitions and opportunities; he was also trying to plan for Alaska's future after the spending spree ended and the oil money ran out. Norway successfully planned for its future. Alaska hasn't matched Norway. Although Jay Hammond did envision a permanent fund, even Jay couldn't figure out how to mitigate for Alaska's never ending greed or our parasitic relationship with government funds.
by thulefoth | September 25, 2011 - 1:15pm
The problem that We The Concerned is inviting upon himself with this PFD-tampering suggestion, is that noble & courageous innovators have already experimented with PFD-tampering. Although urban-oriented southcentral Alaska deviates from classic rural Last Frontier norms, a long series of ballot experiences has shown that Anchorage sympathy with traditional Alaskan attitudes can be surprisingly ... troublesome. Several political vignettes centered around the Permanent Fund have reaffirmed just how hazardous it came be to one's political health, to take Anchorage for a typical (small) Big City electorate. Alaska - including Anchorage - would as soon have you makin' eyes at their Significant Other, as winkin' n blinkin' at their Permanent Fund. "Buzz off, buster!", would be the polite & restrained response.
by El Bob | September 25, 2011 - 9:50am
Okay, This Concerned has got a project for you - one which seems horribly provincial amidst all the talk of flat screen TV's, 70 mph snow machines, "Pick, Click, Give", college student loans, Alaska Airlines, etc. Heating fuel - figure out how to pay for it. Yep, boring old heating fuel. We use it in the bush; we use lots of it. Since there just aren't a lot of non-seasonal jobs available to people in the Bush who aren't somehow allied with the social service industry (and use the PFD to pay off their college loans, or don't get one because we have to import them from Outside) many here have to pay for it some other way than by working for a living. Given the loudly trumpeted imperative that rural Alaska must refrain from any significant development, and that it remain a museum piece for the benefit of Alaska Magazine articles (and the peace of mind vast tracts of land not desecrated by evil humans bring to many) it seems reasonable to believe that we'll need the PFD for some time to come. Have fun at Darwin's.
by Frumious | September 24, 2011 - 4:57pm
Norway has a fund that is more permanent - and much bigger - than ours. Their fund is about $550 billion compared to our $40 billion. They started theirs in 1996. We started ours in 1977. It has taken 19 billion barrels of oil for ours to reach $40B and only 12 billion for Norway's to exceed half a trillion. Ours spins off about $2 billion a year for the dividend. Norway's spins off $22 billion and helps pay for every Norwegian's healthcare, college education and retirement. Just sayin......
by LibertyBlogger | September 24, 2011 - 3:29pm
People like the writer will not be envying the Permanent Fund for their own spending ideas for long. Fund managers have made a 99% bet on Wall Street and Washington, D.C. paper. The Fund does not own an ounce of gold or an acre of farmland. So, when the mighty US bond market implosion and default comes sometime soon, expect the Alaska Permanent Fund to suffer losses of over 80% of the fund's value.
by zidar | September 24, 2011 - 9:38am
Your check should be mailed to you one week before your birthday. By spreading the checks out around the year much evil would be mitigated. The cops would breathe a sigh of relief that the annual two-week crime-fest would end. The mass hysteria of compulsive spending would be calmed. Let's do it.
by eriv | September 24, 2011 - 1:15pm
Retailers and Alaska Airlines would never support your idea because the slug of cash all at once results in a better return on advertising and promotions. Less would be spent with your approach.
by kenryan | September 24, 2011 - 7:21am
No amount of hand wringing will ever change the PFD law. The genie is out of the bottle. Next subject?
by eriv | September 23, 2011 - 9:15pm
The Permanent Fund is a public resource that should be used for public purposes. The dividend is horrible public policy. Two changes would make it less horrible. First, it should be needs-based. Second, dividends for minors should be re-invested and not distributed until adulthood (chronologically that is, as these days emotional adulthood averages about age 50). The dividend was a creation of a political opportunist (Gov. Hammond). That's why it is paid out just before the general election (and the same reason most people who pay taxes do so as far away from voting day as possible). |













Comments