Longevity bonus is non-essential … unless you need it

Frontiersman Editorial Board

When Gov. Frank Murkowski kept his promise to cut the cost of state government, some of the cheers heard during the campaign turned to gasps, and others turned to outrage. While some of his campaign rhetoric has proven to be little more than smoke and mirrors, he has certainly remained true to his promise to cut what he perceives as non-essential programs and expenses. It's true that some streamlining is in order, and it's also true that some programs outgrow their usefulness -- and still others never do work the way they were intended. However, the litmus test for cutting programs must weigh the potential consequences along with the intended benefits.

When the governor announced that he'd cut the longevity bonus, he talked about dollars and cents -- when you're goal is to shrink the fiscal gap, every cent counts. At nearly $50 million a year, the program is a noticeable expense. Is it an essential one? Many say it is not -- claiming that some senior Alaskans don't need the money -- and those who agree with the governor point to his assurances that there is an adequate safety net in place for those in need. One problem with safety nets is that they cost money, too. Another is that some people invariably fall through. For 18,000 seniors who depend upon the bonus as a practical part of their budget, the loss of the $100 to $250 each month could force them to make some difficult decisions -- choices between heat and medicine, for instance.

Why is the longevity bonus non-essential while the Permanent Fund Dividend remains a sacred cow? To be honest, the PFD pay out averages out to around $100 per month some years, too -- and a lot of people who cash those checks and buy TVs and camping gear don't really need that money, either.

There has been an argument for some time that the longevity bonus should be targeted at need, and that does seem a fair compromise.

We'd go one unpopular step further and suggest the same for the PFD. If we're serious about shrinking the fiscal gap -- while maintaining essential services, maybe it's time for everyone to recognize that times are lean in Alaska -- just like everywhere else -- and we all may have to do some belt tightening in response to our slimming waistlines. But then, maybe it's only non-essential when it pertains to someone else.