Jumping off the fiscal cliff notes

Maybe the Mayans had it right, but were just off a few days. The end of the world is coming, but we have to push it back by 11 days to Jan. 1. That’s the day we all hold hands and drive over the fiscal cliff. Of course, unlike “Thelma and Louise,” we do have a pretty reasonable alternative. All we have to do is get Congress and the White House to come to an agreement. Buckle your seat belts, everyone.

In 2011, the president and Congress were arguing over whether or not we should pay the bill on money we had already spent. This is called raising the debt ceiling, which is, again, allowing us the means to pay a bill we have all ready run up. The Republican-controlled House was loath to do this. I suppose they considered it rewarding bad behavior. I don’t know. What I do know is the rest of us considered it defaulting on a debt, which is usually considered worse behavior. A deadline was reached, but an agreement wasn’t and for the first time in our history the credit rating of the United States was downgraded. In order to stop the bleeding from this self-inflicted wound, the House and White House had to come to an agreement and part of that agreement was the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The teeth of the BCA is a 10 percent across-the-board cut in federal spending next year. That, coupled with tax cuts that are due to expire, gives us a $700 billion cliff. The idea was to set up a scenario that nobody wanted and in turn would force the two sides to come together during the next budget talks and find consensus. Well, it appears this default budget wasn’t quite harsh enough because, guess what folks, the two sides are at it again with no agreement in sight. Maybe if their salaries were getting cut by the same 10 percent they’re going to inflict on the rest of the country we’d be getting somewhere, but no such luck. After all, this cliff is not supposed to be a plunge for our heroic legislators, just the rest of us.

Let’s see what is in store for us if our unflinching leaders elect to have us pay the bill for their integrity. According to Wonkblog, going past the Jan. 1 deadline will result in a $500 billion tax hike for all of us. Add $200 billion in spending cuts and this painfully slow recovery becomes a painfully slow recession.

So what does this mean for us in the Great White (actually this year it’s more of a great brown) North? ABC News reports Alaska receives more than $15,000 per person in federal money. That’s after you take into account the income taxes we send to Washington. That obviously doesn’t mean that we each get $15,000 from good old Uncle Sam. What it does mean is that for every man, woman and child in the state, the rest of the country, states like California and New York that pay more then they receive, gives us more than $15,000 for schools, roads, defense, etc. Wow. Thanks, blue states.

Now imagine a 10 percent cut. How will we deal with that? Will we fill potholes just 90 percent full? How about filling in every other pothole. We could make a contest out of it and set up a slalom course on the Glenn and Parks highways. The first car to get from the Valley to Anchorage with both bumpers wins.

We can also trim a lot of fat from schools. How about putting the kids in tents? When the temperature drops, books and pencils will freeze to their little fingers so they will be less apt to loose them (the books and pencils, that is). We could now turn the vacant school buildings into low-rent apartments for everyone who was laid off their federally funded jobs. This could be a real win/win situation.

Of course, along with the good there also has to be the bad. A University of Alaska Anchorage study found that military spending in Alaska in 2010 amounted to $3.42 billion. If we take a 10 percent cut in military spending, those $700 toilet seats will now be slashed to $630. I’m not sure what kind of wood they were using before, but now splinters will be a definite possibility.

Alaska has fared relatively well in the Great Recession. Our resource-based economy may have its drawbacks, but it kept us from feeling the worst of this economic downturn. That, along with the massive infusion of government money, kept the state moderately healthy. That could all change come Jan. 1.

The aforementioned UAA study also found that total federal spending in Alaska amounted to $12.6 billion in 2010. Cutting that by 10 percent equals a $1.26 billion loss in state income. Combine the increased taxes that are due to be implemented after the first of the year, and Alaskans start to feel the wind in their hair just before that sudden stop at the bottom of the cliff.

Chuck Legge is a freelance political cartoonist and community columnist who lives in Sutton.