Crawford's vision of Alaska is nearsighted…

A Spectrum, by Deborah B. Sedwick

Until I read Jim Crawford's piece, "State already has fiscal plan," in the April 26 Frontiersman, I hadn't thought of Michael Beasley in years. Many older Alaskans may remember Michael as one of several entertaining candidates for governor in 1982, whose catchy response to every question on an important or controversial issue facing the state was, "What's the problem?" I've lost track of Beasley, but know he'd be impressed with Crawford's analysis.

Mr. Crawford claims the legislature's republican majority is operating under a fiscal plan already. Other than their annual indiscriminate budget-cutting it's hard to see any organized plan with a vision for Alaska's future.

Fortunately, this year for the first time in a long time, there are several legislators from both parties willing to craft a fiscal plan with a positive vision for Alaska's future. We can only hope they can succeed in their efforts.

Let's look more closely at some of Crawford's claims:

He claims growth in tourism, housing and air freight "all add to our growing economy." True, but remember such growth also places more demands on public services, such as public safety and education, while paying little for these services. This is why the legislature and the governor have had such a difficult time cutting the budget.

He claims ANWR, NPRA and the natural gas pipeline brighten our future. True, but ANWR and NPRA are federal leases, which are worth less to the state, and the gas line is still years away, long after the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) is gone.

He claims Alaska has run a budget surplus in five of the last ten years. Wrong. We've run a deficit in eight of the last 10 years.

He claims the CBR grew last year. True, but it will drop more than $800 million in the fiscal year ending this coming June, and we've drawn down about $4.5 billion from the CBR over the years, with just $2.5 billion left -- and no replenishments on the way.

He claims there is $2.4 billion in uncommitted funds in the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve. Wrong. We will need about $1 billion of that money to pay dividends this year, and another $700 million to inflation proof the fund. That doesn't leave much left over.

Crawford asks if AIDEA or AHFC could "spare a billion or so for the CBR." No. The assets of these corporations are all pledged for bonds and are not available without destroying the corporations' credit ratings, which would in turn shut down these essential programs. Is that what he is advocating?

I have to give Crawford credit for creative thinking. I can't think of anyone else who follows Alaska government -- legislators, the press, the governor, political pundits -- who would even attempt to argue that we already have a stable state fiscal situation. Since virtually everyone agrees that our traditional revenue sources are producing almost $1 billion less each year than is needed to pay for state programs, Crawford must be advocating the use of at least that much in permanent fund earnings to balance the budget. That's a pretty big draw on the permanent fund that will definitely impact our dividends, and I seem to recall a vote of the people a couple years ago in which this very plan was overwhelmingly rejected. I doubt any current legislators would want to step forward and take credit for a fiscal plan that might include such a huge tap on the permanent fund.

And if Crawford is not advocating plumbing a spigot onto the permanent fund, then the only other possible conclusion is that he has an incredible faith in the powers of positive thinking. But as anyone from north Chicago could tell you, just wishing the Cubs will win the pennant won't make it so.

Sorry Jim, but just wishing the fiscal gap were gone won't make it disappear. And just wishing we don't need additional revenue doesn't mean we won't run out of money in a couple of years. Of course we can continue to do nothing, as the more conservative republicans in the legislature continue to advocate, and we can face the inevitable music when our savings run dry. Or we can try to do something now, to make the crash landing a little smoother. The choice is ours.

Crawford says we need a governor who can read a balance sheet. Fortunately for Alaskans, if his analysis is any indication, I would have to say he's disqualified for the job.

Deborah B. Sedwick, commissioner, Alaska Department of Community & Economic Development.