6 ms·

On the flip side if they just continue to run at a deficit for extended periods then they have to cut even more as they will no longer be able to fund what they

by hpoe 7y ago

On the flip side if they just continue to run at a deficit for extended periods then they have to cut even more as they will no longer be able to fund what they have. I get that this isn't an ideal situation but it seems like so often whenever anyone wants to cut anything its the end of the world. I mean what would you cut in order to reduce the deficit? Welfare services? Health services? Emergency services? It may not be a particularly popular move but I imagine this was part of people evaluating all the places the cuts could come from trying to figure out how to cut things to minimize disruption to existing services and then taking action consistent with a plan. But I could be wrong, maybe internet commentators that read a 10 minute article actually have a much deeper and penetrating insight into the finances of the state of Alaska then the accountants and budget people that spend their lives doing this? Maybe it is part of an evil plan by the governor to do.... something nefarious. Or maybe it is part of a widespread governmental budget cuts throughout Alaska designed to try and minimize impact while still trying to allow them most essential services to remain intact.

Jtsummers 7y ago
They need to raise taxes. Alaska has been riding the oil money for a long time, but that's being reduced every year. Since they didn't invest it wisely, they have nothing to fall back on. The only way to reduce the deficit is a combination of eliminating government services and raising taxes.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  If/when oil is done, Alaska will probably depopulate rapidly; they will have much larger problems than needing to raise taxes. The governor is doing this not to fill in gaps in the budget, but to increase the Alaskan dividend all residents get every year. Crazy stuff.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    It's very possible that the majority of Alaskans support the governor's plan.
    - kindatrue 7y ago
      I'm not sure about Alaska, but if you look at voter turn out demographics in California - it's very skewed by senior citizens. Who, unsurprisingly, aren't that excited about education or higher taxes.
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        We have systems that give equal weight to a vote made by somebody with 5 years left on the planet and somebody with 50 years left. That's a huge incentive divide and it favors short term thinking. In many ways it's unfair and sub-optimal, but I don't foresee it changing.
        sweetcherrypie 7y ago
        Indeed, a teenager should have triple the voting power of a 40 year old
        darkpuma 7y ago
        Perhaps, perhaps not. But I see little reason that somebody over 70 at the oldest should be allowed to vote at all (let alone do something even more serious like hold public office!) If you and your friends were trying to decide what to do next weekend, would you give a vote to the friend who was going to be out of town that weekend? People should not have a say in matters they won't be around for. I'm not allowed to vote in Canada, nor should I be, because I don't live there. Similarly if I am near death, I should not be allowed to cast a vote on matters pertaining to the future because I won't be there.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Somebody over 70 has seen some things in their life. For a concrete example: There are people alive who experienced the Great Depression. Should none of them be allowed to vote? Is that really a good idea? Should people who lived through World War II not be allowed to vote? Or would it be better to have some of those people, as voters, to be able to say "wait a minute" to some stuff that sounds good to people who haven't been through similar things?
- cybersnowflake 7y ago
  There are several reasons why alaska wants badly to maintain low taxes and it's not entirely because the leaders are all fiscally conservative ideologues.
  - emiliobumachar 7y ago
    Please list some of them. We're not all well-versed in US politics.
    - cybersnowflake 7y ago
      Well for one thing its not like people are already dying to move there. You're not going to help that with California style taxes.
- Thrymr 7y ago
  Raise taxes? They need to stop giving free money to residents first, that is the direct cause of this budget crisis.
iscrewyou 7y ago
Nobody needs a “deeper and penetrating insight into the finances of state of Alaska” to see the problem here. Cutting a stem program should not be on the top of any budget cut proposal. That’s the problem.
- basementcat 7y ago
  A big chunk of this problem can be solved by eliminating the oil dividend given to all residents.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Imagine the benefits if they'd done that from the beginning. (We don't even have to imagine. There's an existing example: Norway's socked away $200k per citizen for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...)
  - thehappypm 7y ago
    Many people would probably leave Alaska altogether if that was the case, which would be much worse for the tax base. The subsidy is crucial to keeping Alaska populated at all. They still collect various other taxes despite the subsidy.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      They'd leave over the removal of a $1-2k subsidy?
- DuskStar 7y ago
  I'd love to see a comparison of the sizes of cuts across the UA system - if STEM is being cut disproportionately that's really messed up. But as far as I can tell, it's the UA administration choosing what to cut, and I wouldn't put it past people choosing the worst places to cut in order to score political points.
  - 7y ago
wolco 7y ago
"I mean what would you cut in order to reduce the deficit? Welfare services? Health services? Emergency services?" Why would those be untouchable"
Malician 7y ago
I talked with one of the people who's job it is to forecast the effects of cuts. The new administration's response was basically "we don't wanna hear about it and don't want to know, prepare to be reassigned." This is not driven by accountants and budget people. This is driven by politics. Feel free to read Dunleavy's promises and budgets before election, and what he's doing now. He claimed there was hundreds of millions of easy money to be reclaimed without cutting important services. Turns out he was wrong, so he's going back on everything he said about the University and the ferry system. He even cut funding to the courts because he didn't like one of their decisions.

by hpoe 7y ago

Jtsummers 7y ago

They need to raise taxes. Alaska has been riding the oil money for a long time, but that's being reduced every year. Since they didn't invest it wisely, they have nothing to fall back on. The only way to reduce the deficit is a combination of eliminating government services and raising taxes.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
If/when oil is done, Alaska will probably depopulate rapidly; they will have much larger problems than needing to raise taxes. The governor is doing this not to fill in gaps in the budget, but to increase the Alaskan dividend all residents get every year. Crazy stuff.
- mywittyname 7y ago
  It's very possible that the majority of Alaskans support the governor's plan.
  - kindatrue 7y ago
    I'm not sure about Alaska, but if you look at voter turn out demographics in California - it's very skewed by senior citizens. Who, unsurprisingly, aren't that excited about education or higher taxes.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      We have systems that give equal weight to a vote made by somebody with 5 years left on the planet and somebody with 50 years left. That's a huge incentive divide and it favors short term thinking. In many ways it's unfair and sub-optimal, but I don't foresee it changing.
      - sweetcherrypie 7y ago
        Indeed, a teenager should have triple the voting power of a 40 year old
        darkpuma 7y ago
        Perhaps, perhaps not. But I see little reason that somebody over 70 at the oldest should be allowed to vote at all (let alone do something even more serious like hold public office!) If you and your friends were trying to decide what to do next weekend, would you give a vote to the friend who was going to be out of town that weekend? People should not have a say in matters they won't be around for. I'm not allowed to vote in Canada, nor should I be, because I don't live there. Similarly if I am near death, I should not be allowed to cast a vote on matters pertaining to the future because I won't be there.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Somebody over 70 has seen some things in their life. For a concrete example: There are people alive who experienced the Great Depression. Should none of them be allowed to vote? Is that really a good idea? Should people who lived through World War II not be allowed to vote? Or would it be better to have some of those people, as voters, to be able to say "wait a minute" to some stuff that sounds good to people who haven't been through similar things?
cybersnowflake 7y ago
There are several reasons why alaska wants badly to maintain low taxes and it's not entirely because the leaders are all fiscally conservative ideologues.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  Please list some of them. We're not all well-versed in US politics.
  - cybersnowflake 7y ago
    Well for one thing its not like people are already dying to move there. You're not going to help that with California style taxes.
Thrymr 7y ago
Raise taxes? They need to stop giving free money to residents first, that is the direct cause of this budget crisis.

iscrewyou 7y ago

Nobody needs a “deeper and penetrating insight into the finances of state of Alaska” to see the problem here. Cutting a stem program should not be on the top of any budget cut proposal. That’s the problem.

basementcat 7y ago
A big chunk of this problem can be solved by eliminating the oil dividend given to all residents.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Imagine the benefits if they'd done that from the beginning. (We don't even have to imagine. There's an existing example: Norway's socked away $200k per citizen for a rainy day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...)
- thehappypm 7y ago
  Many people would probably leave Alaska altogether if that was the case, which would be much worse for the tax base. The subsidy is crucial to keeping Alaska populated at all. They still collect various other taxes despite the subsidy.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    They'd leave over the removal of a $1-2k subsidy?
DuskStar 7y ago
I'd love to see a comparison of the sizes of cuts across the UA system - if STEM is being cut disproportionately that's really messed up. But as far as I can tell, it's the UA administration choosing what to cut, and I wouldn't put it past people choosing the worst places to cut in order to score political points.
- 7y ago

wolco 7y ago

"I mean what would you cut in order to reduce the deficit? Welfare services? Health services? Emergency services?" Why would those be untouchable"

Malician 7y ago

I talked with one of the people who's job it is to forecast the effects of cuts. The new administration's response was basically "we don't wanna hear about it and don't want to know, prepare to be reassigned." This is not driven by accountants and budget people. This is driven by politics. Feel free to read Dunleavy's promises and budgets before election, and what he's doing now. He claimed there was hundreds of millions of easy money to be reclaimed without cutting important services. Turns out he was wrong, so he's going back on everything he said about the University and the ferry system. He even cut funding to the courts because he didn't like one of their decisions.