If the Alaska Permanent Fund is good enough for Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters and Alaska’s libertarian population, why isn’t it good for the rest of America?
If we take Republican leaders at their word, the states are supposed to be laboratories of liberty, each trying their own strategies of improving the general welfare, with the most successful being adopted by the Federal government. Obama has urged Democratic leaders to adopt this Republican philosophy into the Health Care Reform bill.
For those unfamiliar with Alaska’s successful experiment with socialism, the Alaska Permanent Fund is rooted in the Alaska Constitution’s assertion that the natural resources of Alaska belong to all Alaskans, and it is the legislature’s responsibility to develop these resources for the “maximum benefit of its people.”
“The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.”
In 1976 Alaskans amended their constitution so that –
“At least twenty-five per cent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law.”
The money collected through the rentals, etc., is then managed and invested by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation and every year the earnings are split among the citizens of Alaska, providing just over $1,300 to each Alaskan last year.
Given that this policy is embraced by Republicans and Libertarians alike it should be easy to adopt something similar on a national scale. (I’m joking, of course. If Obama adopted the GOP platform wholesale, Republican leadership would continue to accuse him of being a craven Marxist.)
In addition to the 30+ years of experience we have to draw on in Alaska, we also have an endorsement from F. A. Hayek, a Nobel Prize winning economist and favorite among the Libertarian crowd. In The Road to Serfdom, at the beginning of the Security and Freedom chapter, he writes –
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which our has attained the first kind of security [the security of a minimum income] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom.”
Similarly, Nobel Prize winner and conservative favorite Milton Friedman argued for a negative income tax, where people whose annual salaries fall below a set minimum receive money from the government to bring their annual salary up to a minimum set by the legislature.
While this system might allow the more bohemian or lazy among us to lounge around all day watching television or blowing their government funds on cheap weed, it brings a lot more positives than negatives. People in abusive relationships would find it easier to move out on their own if they knew they’d be able to pay rent. If it’s applied to everyone, the stigma of being on the dole is removed. If the fund is sufficient then unemployment insurance becomes an issue of the past. In fact, a program like this could conceivably reduce taxes since many of the programs funded by tax dollars would be less necessary if everyone received a sufficiently large enough stipend.
But, where would this money come from?
It would be drawn from multiple sources; revenue from the spectrum auction, and from government-owned utilities; inheritance tax and partial repayment of the funding upon death; sin taxes and consumption taxes; as well as resource sharing from the 44 million acres of US public land currently leased for a pittance to oil and gas companies.
We know that there are some drawbacks. This is a disincentive to work. But, the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages. Research shows that improving income inequality reduces crime, improves health, increases access to education, reduces some taxes, reduces poverty, improves children’s health, and improves the general welfare.
So, if it’s good enough for Sarah Palin, Alaskan Republicans, and Libertarian economic philosophers, why isn’t it good enough for all Americans?
