Conservative Congressional leaders and pundits Outside say that with Joe Miller as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, it could be a new era in the way Alaska deals with the federal government.
"Once unthinkable, Alaska will soon have a Senator who will refuse pork projects," said Andy Roth, vice president of the Club for Growth in Washington, D.C., quoted in The Hill newspaper about Miller's primary win.
Miller has said, "This concept that we have of senators and representatives being elected to bring back the pork is the reason that we're at the point we're at."
Miller has signed the pledge by Citizens Against Government Waste saying that he will not request any earmarks if he is elected. That would basically limit Alaska funding to projects requested by the president.
"This will be the biggest change Alaska will ever see in terms of earmarking," said Tom Schatz, president of CAGW, quoted by The National Journal. CAGW says Alaska in 2009, for the 11th year in a row, had the highest per capita earmark spending level in the country.
But in 2010 Alaska dropped to 4th place on Schatz's list, as the delegation managed to only get about $100 more per capita for Alaskans than the national average, as compared to nearly $300 more per capita the previous year.
Under the Schatz definition of pork, Alaska took home $221 million in 2009 and $92 million in 2010, according to his website.
Schatz continually attacked Sen. Ted Stevens over the years as irresponsible and gave him the "Porker of the Month" award on more than one occasion. He criticized Stevens for projects ranging from the Anchorage airport to the supercomputer in Fairbanks and North Pole recreation facilities.
Schatz said Alaska secured 1,452 pork-barrel projects worth $3.4 billion between 1995 and 2008. In 2008, Schatz gave Stevens the "Cold Hard Cash" Oinker Award for getting $165.7 million in military pork-barrel projects.
For his part, Stevens always said that Schatz didn't know what he was talking about. "No one has ever been able to substantiate any claim that funds I have secured for Alaska are wasteful," he said, "and these funds have come to us within the budget established by the Congress. These funds are not 'excessive spending,'" Stevens once told an interviewer.
But Stevens never managed to convince the anti-earmark crowd, which includes the Alaska GOP nominee, that the money would have been spent somewhere else if not in Alaska.
If Miller is elected over Democrat Scott McAdams of Sitka, the Alaska congressional delegation would be divided over the idea of inserting projects into the federal budget for Alaska for the first time. Sen. Mark Begich and Rep. Don Young have defended the practice as the only way of getting the needs of Alaska recognized.
McAdams is going to make the level of federal spending in Alaska an issue.
“One-third of our state’s economy is based on federal spending. To say we're going to do away with that, I don't think is in the interest of Alaska. In fact, I think it would bankrupt our state,” McAdams told KTUU in Anchorage.
In addition to earmarks, Alaska also gets the most federal money per capita from the federal government, a statistic that Alaska politicians of both parties have always tried to downplay, arguing that because it's a young state, Alaska has a lot of catching up to do with the Lower 48.
But budget hawks Outside don't see it that way.
"It's encouraging to me what happened in Alaska with Miller," South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint told The Wall Street Journal. "It should be a wake-up call to Republicans that politicians who go to Washington to bring home the bacon aren't wanted — even in a state like Alaska that has gotten so much pork under senators like Ted Stevens. Voters are saying 'We're not willing to bankrupt the country to benefit ourselves.'"
An editorial by the Scripps Howard News Service says that if Miller gets to Washington, he should start trimming federal spending at home.
"Assuming he gets to Washington, we will have an early gauge of how serious he is about this issue -- because if you're going to attack federal spending, there's no better place to start than his home state of Alaska," wrote Dale McFeatters. "Forget cutting off funds to the United Nations. You can do that later. Let's start off cutting the river of federal cash flowing to Alaska."
"For all that talk of frugality and self-reliance, Alaska is happily awash in federal largesse," he said.
I've felt like Murkowski, Stevens, Young and Begich all understand this. If Murkowski is labeled a RINO by one extreme side, then, by golly, I think she's probably serving the interests of the state.
I would have easily voted for Murkowski, but I can't vote for Miller *as he stands now.* I suspect that the extremist position attached to him will either need to moderate, or he ain't going to find himself in the Senate seat. Pure logic and politics suggests to me (by no means a political expert) that he's going to have to back off some of his extremist positions if he wants to be elected. It'll be interesting to see if he can and will do that - it seems like he's already drawn the line in the sand and may find it hard to do so. If this is the case, I'm with McAdams, and sorry we let a good, wise Senator go.
To those of you practicing good discourse in here - thank you! I just don't see as much "name calling" and ignorance as I often do.
1. Alaska's unique role in the defense of the nation;
2. The fact that more than 2/3 of the state is owned and/or controlled by the federal gov't.
3. Alaska became a state in January of 1959, more than a century and a half after some of the other states, and Alaskan infrastructure and social services lag far, far behind what these other states enjoy.
There are other good reasons--
We could elect a US Senator who could state our case and teach the rest of the US about what Alaska is really like, or we can elect Joe Miller, who will keep the rest of the country in the dark and feed into this growing perception we're a bunch of lazy ignorant welfare queens and hypocrites who lap up these funds undeservedly and give nothing in return.
Hey friends, remember when you were crying " Put up or shut up ! " about not receiving money for this state in order to be consistent in a anti-government intrusiveness stance ? Guess what ? We put up. Now it time for you to shut up. You bluffed, we called.
"I dare any of you Tea Party Republicans to answer my questions."
Well, I am conservative and I am not a Tea Party member. In common discourse, it is customary for one side to provide proof of their assertions before demanding the other side provide proof of theirs.
So, how about providing us with some proof of your assertions?
No offense intended but you remind me of my sister. When she is on her medication she is just fine but when she stops taking it she simply cannot be reasoned with. No amount of logic can dissuade her from finding conspiracies everywhere.
I'm not saying you are on medication but if you are please consider talking to your doctor about changing the dosage.
**
AlaskaSmiles
And what does Mayor McAdams stand for? Do you know?
My point was to counter previous posts that said that the Alaskan military bases were at risk of closure if Joe Miller were elected. The fact of the matter is that the defense appropriations bill is the vehicle, by and large, that determines the major funding. They usually palm off the decision of base closures to select committees, but nevertheless the money mostly originates in those committees and those bills. Amendments germane to defense are appropriate on those bills.
That the late Senator Stevens was able to use his expertise to further some individual military projects in no way changes the fact that Joe Miller will not be a determining factor that would cause the Alaskan bases to be closed. The fact remains that earmarks do not make the pivotal difference to military spending.