10 ms·

Perhaps this makes me a terrible person, but I sometimes half hope to see things like this go through. The people of Alaska asked for this, and it will be inter

Perhaps this makes me a terrible person, but I sometimes half hope to see things like this go through. The people of Alaska asked for this, and it will be interesting to see if they like getting what they asked for. The main reason it's only "half-hope" rather than fully hoping is that the damage from this will still affect people who didn't vote in favor of it. Those kids at the university deserve a better education than they'll get presuming the cut is allowed to stand. Alternately, if I'm wrong about the value of austerity, and these deep cuts do allow the economy of Alaska to grow, that would also be interesting to learn. Previous recent experiments in this approach, particularly Kansas', don't seem to encourage much hope. But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that.

pavel_lishin 7y ago
> The people of Alaska asked for this Well, kind of. I know this is more of a meta-question about government and democracy, etc., but this was a unilateral action by one elected official: > Gov. Mike J. Dunleavy shocked the state last month by using a veto to cut much deeper, taking away $130 million more from the system that gave him his master’s degree.
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
  If you vote for a budget hawk, he wins, and then he does budget hawk things, in my book, that's getting what you asked for. It's true that you don't get to choose the exact shape of what you are getting, but you do get to choose the general direction. The people know or should know that, and vote accordingly. It would be different if, for example, they voted for a tax and spend Democrat and then, when elected, that official had made deep budget and tax cuts.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    There's "budget hawk things" and there's "burning down the university to make a point." He was offered deep cuts by the University itself: "Mr. Johnsen, fearing that the governor might not stomach the Legislature’s plan, met with Mr. Dunleavy in late May and quietly provided him with a written plan that he regarded as a drastic alternative: A $49 million reduction spread over several years, with significant cuts to personnel and “a reduced capacity to serve our students and our state.”" This was much more than the legislature passed and budget-hawkish enough for him to claim victory. Instead he just went nuclear and zeroed out $130 million with no warning. That's beyond ordinary budget hawkery and into batshit land.
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    145,000 people voted for this governor, 125,000 people voted for his opponent. Now all of those people are going to be impacted by these huge cuts to the university system. "They voted for this" ignores that many people voted against it and will be harmed nonetheless.
    - mcguire 7y ago
      On the other hand, the 230,000 that didn't vote....
    - magduf 7y ago
      Sorry, but that's how democracy works. Do you have any suggestions for a political system that somehow lets a minority of voters get the executive they want while the majority simultaneously gets the executive they want? It just isn't feasible to have different executives, with different agendas and budgetary goals, running the same region. Maybe if the two groups of people want to move to separate sides of the state and split the state, they could be happy, but that's not realistic; most likely the two different groups of voters are all living among each other.
- javagram 7y ago
  They elected him based on his promise to massively increase their dividend payments, major cuts were baked in from the beginning.
- mcguire 7y ago
  Will he get re-elected?
  - bunnyrooroo 7y ago
    He is just in his first year of office. 3 more years after this... yay!....
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hedora 7y ago
On problem with saying “that red state asked for it; let them see how they like it when their kids are starving on the streets (since they will also vote against welfare)” is that the US counts votes in a way that means, as more people flee your conservative hell-hole to find work, the remaining people’s votes count more and more. Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by < 20% of the US population later this century. Make no mistake about it, western democracy (and our economy / way of life) is under attack by an increasingly fringe minority.
- agarden 7y ago
  You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Ironically enough, rural areas in Alaska vote blue and its the urban areas that vote red. So in this case it’s the urban area majority imposing their will on the less dense areas.
    - bunnyrooroo 7y ago
      You realize that 90% of the population essentially lives in three towns in Alaska right? Ha! Imposing their will?
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Yes, and they are white (like my Ketchikan born/raised mom), while the Aleuts who we took the land and the resources from in the first place live in small villages and towns. At any rate, it is just ironic how rural over representation is a right to be granted only when it’s red.
  - 7y ago
velcrovan 7y ago
Whether or not this is a good strategy depends on how much damage will be caused and whether the subject is likely to actually make the connection between their choice and the harm it caused. A parenting analogy may be in order. Once I stopped my then 2yr old from walking over some broken glass, to her loud objection. It would have been stupid to allow even such impermanent injuries as bloody cuts on her feet in order to "teach her a lesson" that she would not actually have learned. In today’s economy, selling your university system for scrap is a horribly damaging move even for a well-populated state with a diverse economy. In Alaska it could be fatal.
- magduf 7y ago
  The problem with your parenting analogy is that we live under democratic systems, where the voters get to choose how to run things (indirectly, by electing representatives). The voters are all adults. If they want to do something utterly stupid, who's supposed to step in and stop them? Any person doing so would be acting in an anti-democratic manner; usually we deride such systems of government as "authoritarian". So unless there's some benevolent aliens that you're counting on to step in and save us from ourselves, it comes down to democracy vs. authoritarianism: do we let the voters choose to shoot themselves in the foot, or do we give all the power to some person or elite cabal and let them do what they think is best? I do agree that ruining your state university system is a bad move long-term, but if that's what the voters want, if you support democracy, you have to give it to them.
  - velcrovan 7y ago
    A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground. If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.
    - magduf 7y ago
      How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor. You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.
jccalhoun 7y ago
The problem is that the people who voted for this are adults, not the children who aren't old enough to vote but are the ones getting screwed by this.
jrumbut 7y ago
Unfortunately these institutions take a long time to build and a short time to destroy. How will we know what changes take place in the health of an individual working in the various dangerous occupations common in Alaska (logging, fishing, oil, and mining) over the course of 10 years. It takes 10 years to find out! How can workers demand payment for the true hazards they face if they don't know the hazards they face? Who benefits from ignorance?
DamnYuppie 7y ago
The one thing I have not seen mentioned here at all is that a great portion of the cost of Universities is now being consumed by administrative personnel. It is possible that this will force the university to be more cost conscious without a great decrease in the quality of their education offered. I get the sense that the comments here equate a reduction in budget to annihilation of higher education. I find this to be a bit extreme as there needs to be a reasonable conversation about the cost of that education and what resources and personnel are really required to deliver it and are the students/society really getting value for their money at current prices.
mlevental 7y ago
there are two countervailing forces to them "learning their lesson" : memory is short and this fact that you allude >But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that. is exploited by those with a vested interest to place blame elsewhere
analog31 7y ago
This would require more detailed analysis. Did the people really ask for it? Does the election system in Alaska result in a government with a connection to public sentiment? I live in a heavily gerrymandered state, so it's not even clear what it means to say that we have an elected government.
- bunnyrooroo 7y ago
  Huge state, less than a million people, 90% of the population is in 3 towns. Alaska is nothing like the rest of the country, that should be clear.

pavel_lishin 7y ago

> The people of Alaska asked for this Well, kind of. I know this is more of a meta-question about government and democracy, etc., but this was a unilateral action by one elected official: > Gov. Mike J. Dunleavy shocked the state last month by using a veto to cut much deeper, taking away $130 million more from the system that gave him his master’s degree.

ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
If you vote for a budget hawk, he wins, and then he does budget hawk things, in my book, that's getting what you asked for. It's true that you don't get to choose the exact shape of what you are getting, but you do get to choose the general direction. The people know or should know that, and vote accordingly. It would be different if, for example, they voted for a tax and spend Democrat and then, when elected, that official had made deep budget and tax cuts.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  There's "budget hawk things" and there's "burning down the university to make a point." He was offered deep cuts by the University itself: "Mr. Johnsen, fearing that the governor might not stomach the Legislature’s plan, met with Mr. Dunleavy in late May and quietly provided him with a written plan that he regarded as a drastic alternative: A $49 million reduction spread over several years, with significant cuts to personnel and “a reduced capacity to serve our students and our state.”" This was much more than the legislature passed and budget-hawkish enough for him to claim victory. Instead he just went nuclear and zeroed out $130 million with no warning. That's beyond ordinary budget hawkery and into batshit land.
- mikeyouse 7y ago
  145,000 people voted for this governor, 125,000 people voted for his opponent. Now all of those people are going to be impacted by these huge cuts to the university system. "They voted for this" ignores that many people voted against it and will be harmed nonetheless.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    On the other hand, the 230,000 that didn't vote....
  - magduf 7y ago
    Sorry, but that's how democracy works. Do you have any suggestions for a political system that somehow lets a minority of voters get the executive they want while the majority simultaneously gets the executive they want? It just isn't feasible to have different executives, with different agendas and budgetary goals, running the same region. Maybe if the two groups of people want to move to separate sides of the state and split the state, they could be happy, but that's not realistic; most likely the two different groups of voters are all living among each other.
javagram 7y ago
They elected him based on his promise to massively increase their dividend payments, major cuts were baked in from the beginning.
mcguire 7y ago
Will he get re-elected?
- bunnyrooroo 7y ago
  He is just in his first year of office. 3 more years after this... yay!....

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hedora 7y ago

On problem with saying “that red state asked for it; let them see how they like it when their kids are starving on the streets (since they will also vote against welfare)” is that the US counts votes in a way that means, as more people flee your conservative hell-hole to find work, the remaining people’s votes count more and more. Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by < 20% of the US population later this century. Make no mistake about it, western democracy (and our economy / way of life) is under attack by an increasingly fringe minority.

agarden 7y ago
You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Ironically enough, rural areas in Alaska vote blue and its the urban areas that vote red. So in this case it’s the urban area majority imposing their will on the less dense areas.
  - bunnyrooroo 7y ago
    You realize that 90% of the population essentially lives in three towns in Alaska right? Ha! Imposing their will?
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      Yes, and they are white (like my Ketchikan born/raised mom), while the Aleuts who we took the land and the resources from in the first place live in small villages and towns. At any rate, it is just ironic how rural over representation is a right to be granted only when it’s red.
- 7y ago

velcrovan 7y ago

Whether or not this is a good strategy depends on how much damage will be caused and whether the subject is likely to actually make the connection between their choice and the harm it caused. A parenting analogy may be in order. Once I stopped my then 2yr old from walking over some broken glass, to her loud objection. It would have been stupid to allow even such impermanent injuries as bloody cuts on her feet in order to "teach her a lesson" that she would not actually have learned. In today’s economy, selling your university system for scrap is a horribly damaging move even for a well-populated state with a diverse economy. In Alaska it could be fatal.

magduf 7y ago
The problem with your parenting analogy is that we live under democratic systems, where the voters get to choose how to run things (indirectly, by electing representatives). The voters are all adults. If they want to do something utterly stupid, who's supposed to step in and stop them? Any person doing so would be acting in an anti-democratic manner; usually we deride such systems of government as "authoritarian". So unless there's some benevolent aliens that you're counting on to step in and save us from ourselves, it comes down to democracy vs. authoritarianism: do we let the voters choose to shoot themselves in the foot, or do we give all the power to some person or elite cabal and let them do what they think is best? I do agree that ruining your state university system is a bad move long-term, but if that's what the voters want, if you support democracy, you have to give it to them.
- velcrovan 7y ago
  A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground. If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.
  - magduf 7y ago
    How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor. You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.

jccalhoun 7y ago

The problem is that the people who voted for this are adults, not the children who aren't old enough to vote but are the ones getting screwed by this.

jrumbut 7y ago

Unfortunately these institutions take a long time to build and a short time to destroy. How will we know what changes take place in the health of an individual working in the various dangerous occupations common in Alaska (logging, fishing, oil, and mining) over the course of 10 years. It takes 10 years to find out! How can workers demand payment for the true hazards they face if they don't know the hazards they face? Who benefits from ignorance?

DamnYuppie 7y ago

The one thing I have not seen mentioned here at all is that a great portion of the cost of Universities is now being consumed by administrative personnel. It is possible that this will force the university to be more cost conscious without a great decrease in the quality of their education offered. I get the sense that the comments here equate a reduction in budget to annihilation of higher education. I find this to be a bit extreme as there needs to be a reasonable conversation about the cost of that education and what resources and personnel are really required to deliver it and are the students/society really getting value for their money at current prices.

mlevental 7y ago

there are two countervailing forces to them "learning their lesson" : memory is short and this fact that you allude >But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that. is exploited by those with a vested interest to place blame elsewhere

analog31 7y ago

This would require more detailed analysis. Did the people really ask for it? Does the election system in Alaska result in a government with a connection to public sentiment? I live in a heavily gerrymandered state, so it's not even clear what it means to say that we have an elected government.

bunnyrooroo 7y ago
Huge state, less than a million people, 90% of the population is in 3 towns. Alaska is nothing like the rest of the country, that should be clear.