Senate candidate Miller explains views on federal spending

In interviews before the Aug. 24 primary, and in the one brief televised debate held between him and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, his emphasis was that the nation is in financial jeopardy and is headed toward insolvency. He warned of a "sovereign debt crisis" and said the economic riots and street deaths that rocked Greece could be coming to the U.S.

Miller is now the Republican nominee and talking to a broader electorate that includes people nervous about a loss of federal money that supports Alaska's economy. After he won the primary, Miller's campaign issued a statement emphasizing that he would fight for federal dollars for Alaska. He uses words such as "gradual" and "long term" when talking about giving up federal money and shifting programs to the states.

The spokesman for Murkowski, who is now running a write-in campaign to keep her seat, suggested Miller's advisers told him to moderate his "radical" message, given the importance of federal programs to Alaska. Miller says he's just setting the record straight and "the press has completely misconstrued our position on funding."

Miller's opponents, including supporters of Democrat Scott McAdams, are combing through his position statements to use in the campaign. The Alaska Democratic Party last week sent out a statement saying that "last year alone, more than $360 million was invested in Alaska's schools by the Department of Education. If Miller had his way, not a cent of that money would have come to Alaska."

Miller said that's not so. Asked about his statement in the Aug. 4 Project Vote Smart candidate survey that he favors eliminating federal funding for education, his response this week was that he does not mean no more federal dollars for the states.

Miller said he wants Alaska in the near-term to get the same $360 million in federal education money -- just not to be told by the federal government how to spend it and not to have to follow requirements such as No Child Left Behind.

"We aren't saying that we're cutting off funding; we're saying that the money the taxpayers pay ought to be spent by the state government under state mandate rather than federal mandate," he said in an interview. He did not explain that on the Vote Smart survey. Miller has been supportive of education funding in the past. When he was running for state House in 2004, Miller listed education and public health as his top two priorities on a University of Alaska candidate survey, saying he favored using state funds to increase the university budget 5 percent a year.

Over the long term, a period his campaign has defined as "over the course of the next several years," Miller believes federal funding for education and everything else is going to have to be reduced, he said in an interview this week.

"We do know that money is going to be limited long-term, as is all funding. Not as a consequence of Joe Miller going to D.C. and saying that cutting off funding is the only way but because of the fiscal state that we're in as a nation. No one can argue with the fact that we're broke," he said in the interview.

Miller described it as a "slow ratcheting down of federal expenditures, and I think that's across the board in most programs. ... if we're bankrupt, the consequence is far worse."

How about his statement on the candidate survey that he did not support the federal government providing college students with financial aid? Miller, whose West Point education was paid for by the federal government -- he subsequently was awarded a Bronze Star in the first Gulf War -- said what he means is that student loans should be administered by the state and not the federal government.

'NECESSARY FEDERAL DOLLARS'

The Miller campaign sent out a statement on Sept. 10 under the heading "Miller Sets Record Straight on Federal Spending." The statement said his position is that "the federal government needs to honor the promises made at statehood, and transfer control of our land and resources to the people of Alaska. Until that process is complete, I will fight for Alaska to get necessary federal dollars."

What land is he talking about? And how does that fit with the Alaska Constitution's provision that the state will "forever disclaim" title to federal property not provided in the statehood act?

In the interview, Miller said that taking control of federal lands is a long-term goal. He said, more immediately and practically, he is talking about lessening regulations and being aggressively involved in the long effort to finish the title transfer of submerged lands that were conveyed at statehood. He also suggested there could be a chance to secure some Southeast Alaska timber land.

Miller, as do most Alaska political figures of both major parties, is talking up how he would advocate for fewer federal regulations, more offshore oil and gas development and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Miller said he won't concede that the state can't someday own most of its lands, though. "There are all sorts of arguments as to whether the federal government even has the right to be in control and administration of vast swaths of federal land ... where is Congress authorized to act outside of military posts, embassies, post offices, etc."

The U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed with that narrow view of federal government authority, something Miller attributed to "activist judges that don't really have much to say or much to think about the original construction of the Constitution."

'SOCIALIST ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT'

Miller has been most vocal about wanting to reverse the new federal health care law. But he also said on Fox News on Aug. 26 that he wanted to "get rid of the socialist aspects of government, not just in health care but the other entitlement areas that are driving us into insolvency." Another Fox host asked him last weekend about his view that federal unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. Miller said the nation suffers from an "entitlement mentality."

The Alaska Democratic Party highlights a Miller quote in the Homer Tribune about unemployment benefits. "I have a problem with an entitlement program that doesn't motivate a job search," he told the newspaper. But Miller also says people who pay into unemployment ought to be able to collect when they are out of work, although he doesn't want the federal government saying how the program works.

The states know better what they need and could apply the unemployment benefits with less "largesse" and lobbyist influence, Miller said in the interview with the Daily News this week.

"To suggest that all at once you gut the program, that's just ridiculous," Miller said. "The idea is we transition to the state administration of the program, and that's going to have to be created through dialogue and through basically smart heads getting together and figuring out how we do this in a way that there's not disruption to economies, not disruption to those really in need."

Alaska, like the other states, has its own unemployment insurance program and the first 26 weeks of benefits are paid from state taxes. The federal government pays the cost to administer the program. In return, the state has to follow federal employment law, like rules on when people can get benefits after quitting a job for cause and making sure they're available for full-time work.

Find Sean Cockerham online at adn.com/contact/scockerham or call him at 257-4344.