What do you think of the energy plan? (costs, military)

[akck]

This seems to be a solution to help most Alaskans:

Palin wants to give residents $100 a month to use on energy: Politics | adn.com

Do you think it will pass?

[rotorhead]

I'd be shocked if it didn't, giving away "free money" to their constituents is the ultimate political benny for the legislators. The voices of fiscal conservatism will be few and faint on this one, and the cry for "free" fuel will be loud, longlasting, and omnipresent.

I only hope they'll include a clause for active duty military families stationed in Alaska to be included as well. The way I heard it, only those who have recieved the 2007 PFD will be eligable, and since most military families move so often many of them won't qualify. The PFD takes quite a while to kick in, especially if you move in-state just after the qualifying period.

[Alaskagrl]

This is a great plan. Normally I'm not for giving away money, but she's right on so many levels; look at the pump prices we pay, and WE are producing a lot of oil!

Also, we have a big surplus in the state. It makes more sense to give money to folks for a certain purpose than to give it away "no strings attached" in a bigger PFD check.

Another reason I really like this lady.

[Barkingowl]

Its too bad that it couldn't be more.
Some rural communities pushed to the edge by high cost of fuel: Top Stories | adn.com

[Alaskagrl]

The costs are extremely high in some of those places, for sure. But they also get more aid, overall. Makes me wonder a little bit what their lifestyles are like and what they spend money on besides fuel. I'm not accusing here, because I don't know enough about it...merely curious.

Perhaps a return to some real traditional ways may be the answer. I don't know what some of the Native villages used to use for fuel; if it was whale oil, perhaps we should consider allowing for more whale harvest to supplement fuel supplies. If it was wood, perhaps they need to pool community resources to transport wood (not in tundra, I realize). Perhaps peat could be harvested? I'm just throwing ideas about. I don't think their population has increased THAT much in the most remote areas so I think some of these alternatives might still be possible.

Bottom line for me still is, I like Palin and she makes good decisions. I'm sure she is wrestling with rural problems. However, aren't those villages still soveriegn nations, at least some of them? There may be a limit on what help we CAN give.

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Does anyone else see the discrepancy in this statement?

"The money would come out of the huge budget surplus the state government is enjoying because of the same high oil prices afflicting consumers at the pump."

Ummmm, instead of giving us back "free money" from your "huge bidget surplus" why don't you just charge less at the pump so we can save the $100 and you aren't burdened with the surplus??

[Alaskagrl]

They can't do much about this at the state level, Missing. It has to do with the convoluted laws involving oil production, transport, and distribution. I know it doesn't make sense, but Palin doesn't have control over what we pay at the pump...only OPEC/feds can really do much about that.

[akck]

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

Does anyone else see the discrepancy in this statement?

"The money would come out of the huge budget surplus the state government is enjoying because of the same high oil prices afflicting consumers at the pump."

Ummmm, instead of giving us back "free money" from your "huge bidget surplus" why don't you just charge less at the pump so we can save the $100 and you aren't burdened with the surplus??

Too many other people involved. If the state cut their royalty, it would just mean more profit for the oil companies as they would still receive the same $$ while paying out less. Also, if it did reduce the price of crude, the benefit would be spread out to the whole world at the cost of our resources.

[Xa'at]

God, I hate Palin. Like, detest her. She's never, ever done anything I approve of and this is no exception.

1.) How is she going to insure that people are going to use the money for energy? There are a lot of people out there that are now going to have state-sponsored alcoholism.

2.) How in god's name are we supposed to wean ourselves OFF fossil fuels when it's not financially responsible to do so?

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Yes, I understand that the price of crude is fixed at the global/national level. But what I'm saying is that wouldn't it be more effective to subsidize the Alaskan businesses sell gas, diesel and other fossil fuels - including power plants whose energy production is fuel-based. That way the pump price and power price in Alaska could remain reasonable for the average consumer, and the state's crude-price surplus would be reinvested into the local businesses, not the entire nation/world, and possibly improving the state and local economy.