I've chuckled and grimaced over how Alaska, Alaskans and our Governor have been represented in the media and by fellow bloggers. It’s evident to those of us who live here that ‘outsiders’ knowing not of what they speak, should refrain from talking or writing about us and ours until they can support their statements with facts, not fallacy.

    That said, I acknowledge that reality is seldom one dimensional. For example: Alaska, while sporting ice glaciers also hosts hot springs. Our locale has long, dark days and nights of light. Just as all other states within our nation, we too are a land of contradictions…. 

    Much like our Governor! She asserts she doesn’t blink, but if you pay attention, you’ll note the sly wink of a practiced and ruthless politico. Our Sarah touts her feminist and Christian tenets, yet her actions belie her affirmations.

    The quality of Sarah’s leadership and compatriotism cannot be found in her self-proclamations or another’s political speak. Just as with the prospectors in the Klondike Gold Rush, we must carefully sift through all the grit if we are to expose those nuggets of truth.

 TODAY’S TOPIC:  ALASKA 2008 ENERGY REBATE - CAMPAIGN STRATEGY 101?

     In May of this year, Governor Palin proposed disbursing an energy rebate of $1200 to residents of Alaska, asserting this was to reimburse Alaskans for the hefty increase in all fuel prices. Ironically, her ability to offer this largesse is the result of the rising prices of oil, et al.

(Reports from June 2008 verify our fuel prices across the state rose 28%. Alaskans, on the average, have always paid between 10% to 20% more for transportation and home heating costs than most in the lower 48.)

     Palin first proposed a twelve month debit card for each eligible Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend* applicant. This card, with a $100 monthly limit, would be valid only at Alaskan utility providers, gas stations and home fuel suppliers. However, because she proffered this concept without doing due diligence on the associated costs to the state (purchase of cards, distribution, oversight, fraud safeguards, record keeping, etc.) this plan was discarded as too cumbersome and expensive to implement and maintain.

    Subsequently, in lieu of the debit cards, she mandated that applicable residents receive one gift of $1200.

    According to our state’s calculations, 610,768 residents was the estimated figure used to calculate dividend amounts for the PFD stipend. Thus, the payout for the energy rebate alone was projected to be $732,921,600.00. The following identifies some of the flaws in Palin’s ‘energy rebate’ ploy:

1. Remember, the $1200 is not per household, but per individuals of all ages. Ergo, a family of 6 (Palin’s for example: two adults, four children) will realize a net $7200.00 (equivalent to $600.00 per month) for ‘energy rebate’. (Note: In Palin’s family, the baby is not eligible as he was not born until this year. The qualifications are based on residency in 2007.) The theory that a household of six members would consume five times the energy as a one member unit is not validated by any factual study or issued report. While the equivalent of $100 a month would cover the average increase to a one member household, the $600 a month ‘gift’ for a family of six far exceeds the actual reimbursement per stated intent of these funds.

2. The checks that include the ‘energy rebate’ can be cashed and spent anywhere, for anything, without restriction.

The energy rebate program does include additional Power Cost Equalization** credits for rural areas, but it does not apply to commercial business accounts. Yet, the increased cost of energy for businesses such as grocery stores (lots of refrigeration), Laundromats and yes, service stations is passed on to all consumers. Those who understand the economics and nuances involved, confirm that IF Palin’s intent was indeed to put forth a prudent means to address rising energy costs, the plan would have provided the means to provide equal relief for the total populace.

    Thus, it would encompass the ability to:

a.) Ensure funds were targeted to Alaska energy providers in a manner that would reduce direct (per gallon) costs to consumers.

b.) Deliver to the low income, rural areas who pay an average of over $6.50 - $8.50 for their fuel (transportation and home heating) a package that included a greater per gallon subsidy (with set limit) to help offset their greater costs. (Some pay $10.00 and more per gallon of gas and/or heating fuel.)

c.) Supply businesses too with the equivalent of a PCE credit to help reduce their costs and thus reducing the expense of the services and products passed on to all consumers in Alaska.

There are these and other concepts that could and would have culminated in a much greater fiscally responsible and equitable process to deliver energy relief in a more viable and prudent manner. But, perhaps the time, expertise and energy (pun intended) needed to secure the better program, couldn’t be achieved because of Palin’s personal time line and goal. 

     Some will proffer her rush to action was based on the timetable of the legislator’s special session and because, only a few months away, was the promise of a frigid winter. 

   But the truth, as whispered by those within the Palin Administration, is this:

    Sarah became aware a few weeks before her proposal that she was indeed being considered as a viable VP candidate for McCain. Aware of her favorable first impression upon McCain in February, she had no doubt if she could lure him closer, she would seal the deal! (And she knew he was aware of the need to curry favor with those female voters!) 

   Palin's approval numbers were still above average, but if they were to increase, well, so would her odds of being on the national ticket. How could she nudge it higher? She knew all too well there was going to soon be less than positive news published about her personal and professional worlds. Therefore, she needed to minimize the negatives, while maximizing her appeal to Alaskans!

    Snap. Money always works! By linking the $$$$$$ with one of the biggest issues of the day, ‘increased energy costs’, her popularity soared and she secured her claim as, ‘The Nation’s Most Popular Governor!”

   Although Sarah has never been considered to be a great intellect, she is known to be a force to be reckoned with when she wants something. She’s a big picture kind of gal, and has little patience with those who point out any negatives in her processes. Those pesky little things like fiscally irresponsibility, inequitable processes, short-term flim-flam and pandering to the masses v. positive leadership don’t concern her. Usually her actions prove the veracity of the old adage, ‘the devil is in the details’! (And so is the truth.)

   The end result is every man, woman and child who met the criteria now are $1200.00 richer. Sarah Palin got what she wanted and we got what she wanted. Her rise in approval ratings didn’t cost her a thing. In fact, both her family’s bank accounts as well as her ambitions, got a big bump up! And to her, that’s priceless.

    Even if you don’t believe this was a craftily managed ‘campaign’ strategy, the reality is that Palin’s energy rebate ‘program’ was not the product of someone proclaimed to be an ‘energy expert’ and ‘fiscally conservative’ and ‘a leader who exercises good judgment’.

*http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/fyi-alaska-permanent-fund-divi.php 

**The goal of Alaska Energy Authority's (AEA) Power Cost Equalization program is to provide economic assistance to customers in rural areas of Alaska where the kilowatt-hour charge for electricity can be three to five times higher than the charge in more urban areas of the state. PCE only pays a portion of approximately 30% of all kilowatt hour’s sold by the participating utilities.
PCE fundamentally improves Alaska’s standard of living by helping small rural areas maintain the availability of communications and the operation of basic infrastructure and systems, including water and sewer, incinerators, heat and light. PCE is a core element underlying the financial viability of centralized power generation in rural communities.

http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programspce.html