The other day, House Speaker Mike Chenault talked up the idea of turning millions of acres of state land into piles of ready cash to help solve the state's financial crisis.
"You know, if we sold a million acres of land a year at $1,000 an acre, that's a billion dollars; that's a third of what our deficit is," Chenault told the Resource Development Council. "Some of it I'm sure we could sell for a lot more. It would open up Alaskans to be able to enjoy the land the state of Alaska owns."
This is a recurrent fantasy in Alaska, but we might as well plan to monetize the mosquito crop or sell the ice in the Yukon River.
That the leader of the state House would offer this as a $1 billion solution shows he has yet to take the fiscal crisis seriously. The same can be said of his counterpart in the Senate, Sen. Kevin Meyer, whose comments to the RDC Thursday also reflect the lack of a sense of urgency.
Meyer repeated the fiction that all the state has to do is cut the operating budget to about $4.5 billion and we will be out of the danger zone. That statement, echoed by many other GOP lawmakers, does not begin to describe the complex problem faced by Alaska — the result of dropping oil production, the crash in oil prices since 2014 and future economics that are anything but certain.
Our legislators, who worry day and night about getting re-elected, need to get over the idea that the challenge we face is subject to a quick and painless fix. There are many variations on this theme from members of both parties who are clinging like shipwreck survivors to comfortable positions.
Many Republicans are saying all they have to do in 2016 is cut the budget, which is pure gold with their constituents as long as programs popular with constituents are left alone. If the Republican-led coalitions can trim hundreds of millions more from the budget than proposed by Gov. Bill Walker, they will be ready for re-election, they hope and pray.
Focusing all energy on cuts means they would not give potential or real opponents ammunition in the form of unpopular votes on taxes and the Permanent Fund dividend. Under that approach, the state might have to use Permanent Fund earnings to pay for government, but not until 2018-19, which means clear sailing in 2016 unless someone points out the obvious.
Many Democrats are saying all they have to do in 2016 is raise oil taxes, preserve funding for education and protect the PFD. Higher oil taxes at these prices would do almost nothing to solve the immediate problem. If the Permanent Fund is not part of the solution, there is no solution, and the state will edge closer to the day of having no alternative but the Permanent Fund earnings.
Both the "cut the budget first" chorus and the "raise oil taxes first" crowd underestimate the depth and complexity of the financial hole we have dug for ourselves. They have staked out positions with the next election in mind, not the one after that or the one after that. They need to remember, however, that failing to develop a broader response could also lead to failure at the polls a year from now.
Neither of the competing themes in the simplistic sweepstakes would solve the two most immediate threats on the horizon — a reduction in the state's bond rating that could cause a crisis of confidence for businesses in Alaska, which could really knock the real estate market in the teeth, and the impending depletion of the Constitutional Budget Reserve.
A prolonged downturn in oil prices without a response would threaten the continuation of basic services and the survival of the PFD, though not in 2016 or 2018. The task is to craft a competent plan that doesn't cause havoc with the economy. We'll know a plan is balanced if it is attacked by all the special interests in Alaska.
Regarding budget cuts, those who want to cut hundreds of millions more have yet to come forward with details. In part, that is because they can't find programs and services to eliminate without creating a backlash. It's also because as soon as they identify programs and services to eliminate, there will be organized resistance. Legislators want to keep their comments about budget cuts vague for as long as possible.
On the other hand, legislators who want to preserve the current spending level need to be specific and realistic about where the money is coming from when oil is closer to $35 a barrel than $50 a barrel and the state is drawing on $10 million of savings every day.
There are excuses aplenty, but no good reasons for why the Legislature should not cut the budget and restructure state finances in 2016.
On the same day Chenault and Meyer spoke in Anchorage, I attended an economics class at West Valley High School in Fairbanks at which students taught by Joy Grubis offered their proposed solutions to the financial crisis.
After a week of study, the student groups recommended a mixture of spending cuts, use of the earnings of the Permanent Fund, tax increases and the imposition of new taxes to preserve the economy. They agreed it wasn't easy to find a balance, but they found room for compromise.
"For those of you that are staying here, this is going to be your problem essentially and it needs to be fixed now," said Gabriel Fisher, addressing his fellow students.
While some of the students offered wildly optimistic projections on what a marijuana tax might provide and others ventured a far-fetched claim or two, they seemed to grasp the idea that Alaska is facing difficult decisions and trade-offs that deserve immediate attention and careful consideration.
Our political leaders in Alaska, as well as those of us who write about this issue, would do well to learn from their example.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.