Most Open Administration in History

AK couldn't provide services (like fuel, food, etc.) to a large percentage of their population without federal funds.

How do you figure?

TerryRC,

Just because Alaska is winning in the "pork barrel sweepstakes" does not mean that they could not provide services without federal funds. EVERY Governor likes federal funds they don't provide through state taxes.

If you want to limit federal spending, well and good, but ya can't fault Alaska for winning this foolish game......

Meanwhile, the people of Alaska reap the benefits from their natural resources while the people of West Virginia do not, and you've yet to speak to that matter.

Federal Spending vs. Federal Taxes Paid - FY 2005

New Mexico --- $2.03 ---- #1
Mississippi ---- $2.02 ---- #2
Alaska -------- $1.84 ---- #3
Louisiana ----- $1.78 ---- #4
West Virginia - $1.76 ---- #5

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

Alaska - Population - 663,661
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008 9.2% --- 64,259.5
Federal spending, 2008 - $9,422,709

West Virginia - Population - 1,816,856
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2008 17.4% --- 313,200
Federal spending, 2008 - $18,002,438

2004 - States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Meanwhile, the people of Alaska reap the benefits from their natural resources while the people of West Virginia do not, and you've yet to speak to that matter.

Why? How is it relevant? We were referring to Alaska's "self-sufficiency".

Resources that are held in public trust and then leased to private industry and then taxed in public trust sounds kind of socialist to me.

If one buys the argument that the cost of corporate taxes is borne by the consumer, AK is getting rich off of the backs of the rest of us.

Would I like to see bigger severance taxes on coal, gas and timber companies in WV? Oh, yes. Whenever that is proposed, conservatives scream about how the industry is being imposed upon and the government is anti-business and killing the state economy.

Sam, BTW, can't you provide a source a little more recent? I did. I see some lists that don't have AK on top for receivership of federal funds for 2010, but the state is STILL in the top three. Not really pulling their own weight, are they.

Fuel distribution to the northern communities is federally subsidized. Let AK secede and give up federal aid and we will see how fast those people freeze to death. Let us see how well shipping goes without Coast Guard icebreakers. AK needs the union far more than the union needs AK.

AK would be flush with cash for everything from icebreakers to roads and everything else you can think of if the federal government would stop preventing her from utilizing her natural resources.

AK would be flush with cash for everything from icebreakers to roads and everything else you can think of if the federal government would stop preventing her from utilizing her natural resources.

And you have some figures to back that up? AK can only sell their resources so fast or they will glut the market and seriously reduce profits.

AK LOVES the situation as it is. Keeps prices up.

Economics much?

AK would love to be able to drill more oil, Terry. They've been fighting the federal government on that for years. You tell yourself whatever fits your view on a given topic. That doesn't make it so.

The Union went to Alaska, they went for a reason and they went for well over a hundred years. If Alaskian fishing is for Alaskians, they don't need to fish year round. The fuel to the north slope is for those there raping Alaska's natural resources, not for Alaskians, they would either find a way to survive or move to an area where they could. Your notion that everyone needs the federal government to make decisions for them is garbage. There are those that can survive on their own.

TerryRC wrote: Fuel distribution to the northern communities is federally subsidized..

90% of the population lives on or near the coast, ...... dumb ass.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.the-automover.com/images/alaska_map.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.the-automover.com/ak.htm&h=404&w=500&sz=168&tbnid=FTSXpSC0U8rw7M:&tbnh=105&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalaska%2Bmap%2Bwith%2Bcities&zoom=1&q=alaska+map+with+cities&hl=en&usg=__MMsyGLDHaq07pfFs6Gt_H4YwDJw=&sa=X&ei=tphFTcmEA4zrOc6OzZMC&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAA

TerryRC wrote: Let AK secede and give up federal aid and we will see how fast those people freeze to death. Let us see how well shipping goes without Coast Guard icebreakers. AK needs the union far more than the union needs AK.

Now talk about aboral swine ignorance. You win all the Cupie Dolls.

Duh, ....... Alaska would control the most abundant fishing waters on the face of the earth ......... and they not only got plenty of oil on the North Slope .......... Alaska has never ever even punched a "hole" in their coastal waters.

There is undoubtably more than enough NG under their feet to keep all their asses warm .... without even closing the windows in winter time.

GEEEZUS, that proves you don't even have a clue how much NG is pumped out of WV each year. Or how much more is going to be pumped out of the Marcellus Shale to points north and east.

And to think, TRC, you wasted all that f'ing money going to school to try to get educated ...... and now you are finally getting that education ..... and getting it for FREE.

I don't mean to prolong this contentious thread beyond its peaceful death but can think of no better title for a new post:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/03/obama-administration-covering-up-abortion-data/

The most open administration in history has discontinued publishing abortion statistics and "sees no reason" to resume...

The CDC Coverup Now Turns to Bureaucratic Panic