Our view: Bypass mail, defense cuts may hit Alaska hard

These aren't abstractions. Bypass mail allows shipping and package service throughout Bush Alaska that individuals and small companies could never afford if they had to pay the freight. And the military has long been a vital part of Alaska life and livelihoods.

Alaskans long wondered what would happen after the late Sen. Ted Stevens left office. We took it for granted that the departure of the most powerful Alaskan in our short state history would have economic aftershocks. What most Alaskans didn't foresee was that when Stevens left the Senate, the nation would be in the first rounds of an economic crisis and a federal deficit around $15 trillion -- and mostly bereft of the across-the-aisle Senate dealing that Stevens knew for so long.

So while the Alaska delegation in D.C. has been fighting to maintain Alaska programs -- there will be a battle over bypass mail -- both Sens. Begich and Murkowski have been warning Alaskans to brace for cuts.

Just how tough a reckoning this will be is uncertain. Bypass mail is under ever-tighter scrutiny, and the USPS inspector general simply says the mailman can't afford to pick up a $70-million-a-year loss on the service.

Murkowski and Begich can argue for the principle of universal service, and it's a good argument. But if the inspector general can make the case that the system as it stands is more sweet deal for commercial interests than square deal for individual citizens, then Murkowski, Begich and Young will have a tough sell. At the very least, the postal service and supporters in Congress will want a way to deliver to village Alaska for less. We'd still point out, however, that the onerous requirement to fund retiree health benefits for 75 years into the future is a burden counted in the billions, shared by no other outfit private or public and far costlier to the postal service than Alaska's bypass mail.

Military cuts are another matter, because while politics always plays a role, the criteria for cutting personnel or closing bases should be less a question of equity among states than national security. What does the military need to do its worldwide job of defending the United States?

Right now, with so many Alaska-based forces deployed in Afghanistan and other overseas locations, with plenty of country for training, and a prime logistical location, Alaska remains one of America's fortresses.

But we can count on less from Uncle Sam, and the need to do more with our own treasury.

BOTTOM LINE: One way or another, Alaska will face some tough cuts.