The Mudflats

Budget cuts.  That’s where the rubber meets the road for fiscal conservatives.  Sarah Palin’s been talking a big game about fiscal conservatism.  Alaskans adored Ted Stevens and Don Young  and re-elected them for term after term after term (etc.) because they could bring home the pork, baby.  Don Young’s well-attended annual fundraiser is actually a pig roast.  On purpose.  And Alaskan pork isn’t all horrible and unfair.  We have challenges in transportation, scattered rural populations, and building infrastructure that other states cannot even fathom.  And we give a lot back to the nation in terms of mineral resources, awesome fish, and a great place to come for a vacation.  So, all that said, we’ve unabashedly and justifiably sought the federal dollar since statehood.

So, when Sarah Palin stepped her red high heels on to the national stage and started talking about how she said “Thanks but no thanks” to that bridge to nowhere (which of course, she didn’t, but that’s another story…) and how she didn’t need no stinking federal money, we all sort of stared with our little chins slack.  And this new-found fiscal conservatism played quite well with members of the GOP’s rapidly shrinking “base” who don’t actually live here. 

And she kept it up by thumbing her nose at the stimulus money.  She rejected 30%, right off the bat – education, weatherization, special needs kids, social programs – they all fell victim to the slashing red pen.  “To me, it’s a bribe,” Palin said.  You feds can just take your money and stick it.  And some of the Republicans in the state actually got on board with this new meme.  But most did not.

Had she taken these “dollars,” she reasoned, it would add to the federal budget deficit, it would create “strings” which would require the perception of further commitment from the state, and dang it, it just didn’t square with her new talking points.  Keep in mind that the rejected money wouldn’t go back to federal coffers.  It would most likely fly south to California, and land in the open and waiting moneybag of Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger.  And also keep in mind that the “strings” did not exist according to those in the legislators who actually checked.  Sounds like a physics experiment, but Palin’s “string theory” is actually much easier to comprehend.  If you create something imaginary and then reject it, it looks like you’re taking a stand.   We don’t want to contribute to the deficit!  We don’t want strings!  Add a couple bullet points to the Palin resume for 2012.

So while the governor is busy tilting at her own windmills of fiscal recklessness, something happened.  That something is the proposed federal budget.  And some of the things in the proposed federal budget affect…. Alaska.  We would assume that this wouldn’t be a problem for the governor.  But wait…

The Obama administration … proposes to cut $524 million from the ground-based missile defense program, saying there are problems about the effectiveness of the system. Alaska-based missile interceptors will remain in place, but the program will not expand; no additional missile interceptors will be added.

What does the governor think about this proposed non-expansion of Alaska-based missilie interceptors and its associated cost?   Looks like taking federal money is all the rage again.  It’s an “outrageous move,” according to Palin to cut these funds.  Now mind you, nothing is being removed.  It’s just not being added to, or expanded.  Cutting money for special needs kids, teachers and schools,  the unemployed, energy efficiency….that’s OK.  But not building more ineffective missile interceptors?  Let the outrage begin.

Still today the governor is refusing $29 million of the stimulus money which would go to weatherization programs. The situation this past winter in which rural Alaskans running out of heating fuel and having to be cold in order to feed their families, or having to be hungry to keep them warm, didn’t seem to penetrate the thinking of the current administration.  The concept may have been lost on them, but weatherization and energy efficiency in Alaska is pretty much a no-brainer for residents who aren’t trying to run for president in 2012.  And when someone offers to help with this, saying “thank you” would generally be considered an appropriate response.  As anyone who’s gone through weatherizing their home knows, it saves money.  It’s what they call “an investment.”  But Palin’s fears are that if we accept this money, we will actually have to build energy efficient buildings in the future… (Oh, the horror!)

Rep. Les Gara puts it well.

To accept these funds we would have to certify that by 2017 Alaska would have an energy efficiency plan that reduces the amount of energy we use in new buildings and homes. We’d have been asked to join the many states that have adopted an energy efficiency code for new construction. The Governor said that was onerous.

The reason most states are doing this, AND that the Alaska Homebuilders Association supports adopting an energy efficiency code, AND that the state’s housing agency, AHFC, has already adopted it for new construction, AND that the President wants Americans to do this is simple. Energy Efficiency is referred to by experts as “negawatts.” The cheapest way to reduce our reliance on high cost energy and foreign oil isn’t to build renewable energy. It isn’t to build wind and solar farms. It’s to increase the energy efficiency of our homes, buildings and lighting. Smart energy efficiency plans will normally pay themselves off in less than 10 years and vastly reduce our reliance on fossil fuel energy. It will make American less reliant on foreign oil (less of a concern in Alaska, where most of our energy is produced locally). It will SAVE US MONEY. And we can exempt ourselves from those code provisions that don’t make sense under Alaska’s climate conditions.

Remember how the GOP mocked President Obama’s statement about how keeping car tires inflated is the best way to save money, and gas?  They were even sending donors to the RNC little tire gauges that said “Obama’s Energy Plan”, as concrete and irrefutable proof that yes, they were mocking energy efficiency.  Perhaps we can expect SaraPAC donors to get little “haha” pieces of weather stripping, or “aren’t they idiots?” LED lightbulbs.

There are other budget items that impact Alaska, as well.  Some of the proposed $17 billion in budget cuts proposed by the White House would affect residents of rural Alaska, including cuts to the Alaska Native Villages program, and the Denali Commission, which would impact grants to improve drinking water and wastewater facilities in villages, health clinics and other infrastructure projects.  The current administration cited management problems, and a desire to use different but more effective programs.

There promises to be much wrangling over this as the weeks go by.  The entire Alaskan congressional delegation (Murkowski, Begich and Young) and the governor are protesting these cuts, with Murkowski once more using the now-hackneyed “that’s not change we can believe in,” chant. 

[Ted] Stevens is no longer around to influence the budget process as a senior appropriator, but it looks like the delegation will step in to take his place. Thursday evening, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich and Republican Rep. Don Young chimed in with a joint statement opposing the Alaska cuts.

“I want to reassure Alaskans that these are just proposals and not the law and I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our great state is taken care of,” Congressman Don Young said. Senator Mark Begich has already inserted an amendment into the budget that reinstitutes the 2006 funding levels.

But Palin and crew are left running in circles crying “fiscal conservatism” one minute, and “show me the money” the next.  It’s OK to cut budgets as long as you’re the one doing the cutting, apparently.  And of course, it helps if you have your priorities straight.  Missiles, good – energy efficiency, bad.