As the new year starts, Alaskans begin filing the paperwork to get their beloved Permanent Fund dividend. I hear lots of people talking about how large the Permanent Fund check will be this year and what they will spend it on. Never have I heard or read about not taking the dividend.
Don't get me wrong, I realize these checks factor into the economics of Alaskans, especially our families in remote areas where income can be more limited than in our cities. Having lived in the village, I know this money pays for new boots and coats, fuel and food. Also, the Permanent Fund as a way to spur economic growth and stability within the state I believe is quite a clever idea. And finally, as one may now opt to give a portion of the check to charity, plenty of worthy causes have a new and much needed funding source.
Living in Alaska some 20 years, I applied for my share of checks, accepted the income and even had a couple of Hawaiian winter vacations because of them. Several years ago, though, I found that I could no longer with good conscience apply for nor accept participation in this giveaway.
Here's why.
Eligibility criteria states that one will remain in Alaska. This is where I first started to question participation. I love Alaska and can't imagine ever living anywhere else, but I realize that as I grow older I may need to move somewhere much warmer (or somewhere more politically progressive).
I've heard of Alaskans who accept the dividend year after year while planning an out-of-state retirement. Some years ago, an acquaintance left midyear, having applied for the check, knowing she would leave. She said "I'm gonna keep my mailbox while I move. Don't wanna lose anything in the move (wink, wink)."
"But Maureen," you say, "it's free money!"
Well no, it's not.
The Permanent Fund comes from investments made with oil revenue. Accepting the Permanent Fund dividend is complacent support of Big Oil. We reap hefty checks year after year and we are sloppy drunk about oil because of it.
When I talk about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with folks Outside, they are surprised to understand that most Alaskans want ANWR open to drilling. Well, why not? More oil means more money into the Permanent Fund and bigger checks. I question if Alaskans would support opening ANWR if there were no Permanent Fund.
Again I hear, "But Maureen, oil built Alaska. It's the very understructure of our state, and it supports considerable arts and charitable concerns."
True, but because of how strong of a player oil has been, we've been stunted, even shut down (shut out?) from development of other energies. Goodness, I lived on a ridge above the Matanuska Valley for years where the wind blew during winter at about 70 miles an hour. We can't figure a way to harness that systematically? We can't figure a way to harness the Yukon River?
In a state with limited job and economic options, why haven't we developed, I mean REALLY developed, these options? Oil. It has a stranglehold on the state and with the Permanent fund we participate as if addicts waiting our next fix.
"But we own it!"
Look, I think we own the oil like we own our schools. I can't go to my local middle school's music room or computer lab and take what I can home. Why do we do that with oil?
Finally, over time, I've witnessed the voices of entitlement grow louder. It seems Alaska moved past the ideals of "live and let live," and stopping for the stranded driver, to "Mine, mine, mine!" Gimme. Gimme. Gimme.
No, thanks. The oil industry gets enough support from me with the car I drive. I don't need to support it any further by seeking its dividends.
Maureen Suttman is a recently retired professional counselor and longtime resident of Alaska.
By MAUREEN SUTTMAN