FAIRBANKS -- From reading the Christmas letter six legislative leaders presented to Gov. Bill Walker, you get the sense that the authors had nothing to do with the state budget they put the wraps on last spring.
If you didn't know better, you would have guessed that the Ghost of Budgets Past forced this burden upon them.
I can understand why Sens. Pete Kelly, Anna MacKinnon and Kevin Meyer and Reps. Mike Chenault, Steve Thompson and Mark Newman want to distance themselves from the state deficit.
But this is a problem that majority Republicans share with minority Democrats, along with the members of the Unity Ticket and anyone who lives in Alaska.
Rather than try to score points against Walker, it's time for legislative leaders to recognize that with a deficit now estimated at about $5,000 for every man, woman and child in Alaska, nothing short of a restructuring of state government is needed.
"We encourage you to take immediate action to reduce both FY 2015 and FY 2016 government expenditure levels," the six lectured Walker in their letter.
"Both Houses of the Legislature consider the fiscal crisis as our top priority. Your submission of an amended operating budget as soon as possible will be critical in finishing our business on time."
Walker, who has been in office for less than a month, did not serve on the finance committees that reviewed all aspects of state spending early this year, and it's not his signature on the budget bills. You'll recall that last spring, some of these same legislators said they were being fiscally responsible.
They expected a deficit of $1.3 billion when they approved the spending plan for this fiscal year -- about $2,000 for every Alaskan -- but the collapse in oil prices has reduced expected revenue by about $2 billion more. The state has to change its habits sooner than anyone thought six months ago when $100 oil was the norm.
The six lawmakers called for limiting travel and putting a freeze on hiring for "all departmental vacancies." Limiting the amount spent on travel, which runs about $40 million a year, is always a good idea. But putting a freeze on filling all vacancies is not. For instance, the state probably doesn't want to leave the Alaska State Troopers short-handed. The administration ought to make hiring decisions on a case-by-case basis, not by following a blanket ban.
The legislators also said the governor should preserve funding for "all ongoing gas line and other statewide projects critical to education, energy security, infrastructure and the public safety of Alaskans ... " In other words, they asked Walker to endorse the critical construction projects they have favored in recent times, a fallback position that postpones difficult debate.
Walker took a more practical approach, calling a temporary halt to spending on a half-dozen big state projects that ought to be looked at again in light of the fiscal crisis. The major road and bridge projects, the in-state gas pipeline, the rocket company, the Susitna Dam and many more pet projects have to be weighed against financial reality.
How real is the problem?
The state could lay off every employee, including those at the University of Alaska, and still have an enormous deficit. You could just about balance the budget by eliminating all general funds for public schools and the University of Alaska, as well as for the departments dealing with administration, commerce, corrections, environmental conservation, fish and game, law, labor, natural resources, revenue and transportation.
That's not going happen, as the state has funds in reserve, built up during the period of high oil prices, that can keep government functioning for the next few years without dipping into the earnings of the Alaska Permanent Fund. This is about trade-offs.
Planning for the future has never been a hallmark of state government, but this is the time to begin again. It will require an enlightened and cooperative approach by legislators and the governor, along with a willingness to be clear with the public. Saying "no" is not a task that is going to win popular acclaim.
The governor has instructed agencies to show what a 5 percent budget cut and an 8 percent budget cut would do. He is also surveying Alaskans for ideas on cutting the budget. That's a start. To make this work, the Legislature and the Walker administration are going to have to review all aspects of state spending and taxation and explain the trade-offs to the public.
Anything less won't cut it, though the temptation to put off a solution until the last dollar disappears will be a strong one.
The discussion in 2015 ought to include the identification of services that are to be eliminated or cut back, new taxes and the use of some Permanent Fund earnings to pay for government. Elected officials have avoided discussion of these issues with the public for many years, blinded by high oil prices.
Rather than hope for an international catastrophe that might send oil prices back up quickly, the state should use this opportunity to act responsibly. Legislative leaders and the governor have the chance to lead Alaskans in a clear discussion that breaks with the past—acknowledging the folly of a spending plan built on $100 oil and declining oil production.
Dermot Cole is a reporter and columnist for Alaska Dispatch News based in Fairbanks. Over the last 35 years he has written extensively about Alaska and Alaska history.
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.