ALASKA’S MILITARY ASSETS COULD BE ON CHOPPING BLOCK

By  CRAIG CAMPBELL

I’m not ready to accept that President Donald Trump did not win re-election.

I just can’t face what our state and nation will be like if Trump does not get another four years to crush the swamp and bring back that booming economy we all had just 10 months ago.

However, if I end up being wrong, Alaska is in for one hell of a bad time. 

A Harris/Biden administration — my mistake, a Biden/Harris administration — will present historic challenges to Alaska. From working every angle to shut down petroleum exploration and development in Alaska, to hollowing out our military, our future does not bode well under Joe Biden’s “leadership.”

There is historical precedent. Jimmie Carter’s election in 1976 was a backlash against the Nixon/Ford presidencies. The nation was split and mad about almost everything. America wanted a period of peace and harmony.  Jimmie Carter, a quiet Georgia Democrat governor with U.S. Navy experience, was the answer. Or so it seemed at the time. 

During Carter’s one term in office, Americas faltered. Inflation spiraled out of control. A stagnant economy dragged down the middle class and increased poverty. An energy crisis hit in 1979 as foreign oil squeezed the U.S. market.  Some readers remember those long lines at gas stations.

While Carter strived for détente with the Soviet Union, he was stupefied by their invasion into Afghanistan. He had no credible response to the Soviet Union’s expanded global sphere of influence.

In November of 1979, 66 Americans were taken hostage by radicals in Iran. Carter ordered the military to conduct a covert operation to rescue the hostages. 

Called Operations Eagle Claw, it was a miserable failure, resulting in eight dead Americans in the Iranian desert, never reaching their intended objective to liberate the hostages.  

With that segue, let’s consider some potential national defense impacts to Alaska under presumably (or at least as declared by the mainstream media) President-elect Biden.  

I have met Joe Biden. I met him at the funeral for Senator Ted Stevens.  He was a very likable guy, kind of shallow, but likable. He was a typical politician, with a big smile, lots of handshakes, and he just seemed friendly.  That was then, this is now.  

The Joe Biden of 2020 has been coopted by socialist progressives. His presidency will be a return to the Carter years. In Alaska, we should be prepared for an overt frontal attack on our state.  

I’m not kidding. This is a Code Red Alert. We are about to face the biggest challenges to our prosperity and liberties in over 40 years.

One of the sectors of government to-be hit the hardest will be national defense. The Biden administration will use military funding to pay for new and expanded social programs and the Green New Deal.

How do I know this? Because that is exactly what the Obama/Biden administration did during their destructive years occupying the White House.  

My critics will be quick to point out that the defense budget increased during the Obama era. They are partially correct. In 2010 and 2011 the defense budget increased; however it decreased every year thereafter. 

The principle reason was the implementation of sequestration. Sequestration resulted from President Obama’s inability to reach budget agreements with the Republican Senate and Democrat House. Basically, Obama wanted to implement new taxes to pay for more government and was rebutted by Congress.  

Sequestration was a bad idea that had terrible impacts on America. It arbitrarily cut the budgets across all discretionary accounts. The problem is, the military, homeland defense, and NASA budgets are discretionary; while Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and national health programs are non-discretionary funds (code for entitlements). Almost two-thirds of the federal budget is non-discretionary.

The military budget makes up approximately one half of all discretionary funds in the federal budget. Under Obama, the military took massive budget reductions while funding for social programs was preserved. 

That was no accident; it was by design, and Joe Biden was part of the Obama Administration’s strategy team.  

Biden has stated he will reduce the military budget. “The real question is not how much we invest — it’s how we invest,” he said, quoted by Military.com on Nov. 7, 2020.  

Now, I do not expect another round of sequestration. That’s way too painful. Biden will simply cut the military budget to pay the entitlement bills. 

Alaska has tremendous military assets, comprised of active duty, reserves, and the Alaska National Guard. They have some of the most modern equipment. F-22’s, C-17’s and combat search and rescue assets at JBER; F-35’s at Eielson Air Force Base; the nation’s Missile Defense System at Ft. Greely; Surveillance, tracking and early warning at Clear Air Force Base; and a mission-ready U.S Army Alaska that includes a Stryker Brigade, Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, and General Support Airborne Battalion. We also have Coast Guard Base Kodiak, which supports both the maritime cutter and airborne operations across the North Pacific Region.  

With our strategic location, Alaska can ill-afford to undergo any military reductions.  On the contrary, I would argue that the military presence in Alaska should be expanded.  

As Billy Mitchell once said, “whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic place in the world.”  That statement is truer today than ever before with our nuclear-powered adversaries Russia, China, and North Korea all in close proximity to our state posing significant tactical and strategic threats to America.

So back to the question, what will the impact be of a Biden administration cut to the military budget?  Here is my prediction:

• Ft. Greely missile defense expansion will be reduced.
• U.S. Army Alaska will experience up to a 25% reduction in soldier strength.
• No additional U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers will be built.
• No upgraded air refueling tankers at Eielson AFB.
• Reduction of half the F-35’s programmed for Eielson AFB.

This would not be good for Alaska.  It would cause further damage to our state’s economy.  But more importantly, it would be terrible for America.

Joe Biden does not like Alaska.  He is going to shut-down North Slope oil leases, he will enact strict environmental policies that punish mining development in our state, and he will look to Alaska as a bill payer for funding his progressive social programs. The current military structure in Alaska will just be too tempting for Joe to ignore. 

We do have some leverage.  With Sen. Dan Sullivan on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Sen. Lisa Murkowski on the Senate Appropriations Committee and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we have the best shot at stopping, or at least mitigating these damaging actions. 

But America can ill-afford to have a misguided, progressive president cause damage to our nation’s defense simply to appease the socialist democrats’ quest to Make America Weak Again (MAWA). 

Craig E. Campbell served on the Anchorage Assembly between 1986 and 1995 and later as Alaska’s Tenth Lieutenant Governor.  He was the previous Chief Executive Officer and President for Alaska Aerospace Corporation.  He retired from the Alaska National Guard as Lieutenant General (AKNG) and holds the concurrent retired Federal rank of Major General (USAF).

By JIM CRAWFORD

“Defunding power cost equalization would gut a lifeline for rural Alaska” was published by the Anchorage Daily News on Nov. 10.  Meera Kohler (chief executive officer of Alaska Village Electric Cooperative) expertly laid out the history and purpose of the Power Cost Equalization Program.  

The op-ed was beautifully written and very persuasive. But it missed the point of advocates to end the unconstitutional appropriations of dedicated funds.  

No one is attempting to stop the appropriation of funds for Power Cost Equalization. Those of us advocating consolidation of agency funds to the Constitutional Budget Reserve want to solve the current fiscal crisis by using unspent, appropriated funds that are currently restricted by the Legislature. These appropriations exceed the needs of their programs and earn huge profits for their agencies.  

The Power Cost Equalization Fund was established by the Legislature in 1981 as a fund of the Alaska Energy Authority.  The AEA audited financial statement lists the balance of the fund, $1.06 billion, as restricted. But Article 9 of our Alaska Constitution bans restricted or dedicated funds. No appropriation except those specifically authorized by an Amendment to the Alaska Constitution, federal appropriations or funds existing prior to statehood are allowed by the Alaska Constitution. No other appropriations can be restricted to a special interest. 

Dedicated funds are, per the Alaska Constitution, illegal.  

PCE has not been approved by the people at a statewide vote as an Amendment to the Constitution, is not a federal appropriation, nor did it exist prior to statehood.  Last year, PCE earned $74 million dollars.  And it paid recipients throughout Alaska $30 million.  And made a profit of $44 million to grow more agency. 

I have no objection to the appropriation and payment of funds to help equalize costs of power in villages throughout Alaska.  During the Palin Administration, my Fairbanks friend and I convinced the governor to add $1,000 to each Alaska Permanent Fund dividend for power cost equalization.  

The equitable argument of urban areas having access to cheap hydro power through construction of dams throughout Southcentral and Southeast is persuasive.  But should a needed appropriation of $30 million for a worthy purpose like PCE hold hostage over $1 billion dollars owned by all Alaskans?  I think not.

That billion dollars and other excess capital should be transferred to the Constitutional Budget Reserve as required by the Constitution and the statute which created the CBR.  

All dedicated funds not in compliance should be liquidated and saved to the Constitutional Budget Reserve.  The CBR requires a 75% vote of each house to use so the money can be protected from wild spenders.  With those funds, the budget deficit disappears.  And the regional internecine wars in the Legislature can end.

We can bridge the fiscal gap by using the available assets of the State and push for new production in the oil, gas, mining, and investment sectors.  The crude producers, old and new, have identified over 1 million barrels per day of new production which can add to the production of existing legacy fields.  

The producers and the State must realign their interests and advocacy for new production for the health of the state.  With nearly 60% of Alaskan voters defeating the tax increase in Prop 1, the decks are clear to resume the Renaissance of the North Slope.  Let us accelerate our production.  

My mother taught me that if I got in trouble, I had to work my out of it.   “Produce your solution, son.”  Good advice. My family has been here since 1898. We’ve all worked through worst crises than we now face.  We can rebuild our economy and protect our familys’ health.  

Power Cost Equalization is an honest and honorable goal.  We can support annual appropriations for the costs of the program.  We, however, cannot set aside all Alaskan’s money for one region’s benefit. 

Advocacy for preserving PCE is now an organizing call for the next Legislature. It should not be. Republicans and Democrats and independents, conservatives, and liberals understand that the crushing cost of energy must and should be addressed annually.  

Different approaches are all open to discussion. Some believe that new roads or expansion of major projects can solve the regional high cost through industry. Some believe that subsidizing power cost is currently insufficient. 

These matters can be reconciled with good will in an open discussion of the state’s priorities.  But first, we must follow the Constitution and not restrict appropriated money for special needs.   

Alaskans can pull back from the brink of fiscal instability. We just need to use our assets wisely, not squirrel away money we need today as illegal dedicated funds.   

Jim Crawford is a third-generation Alaskan entrepreneur who resides in Anchorage with his bride of 37 years, Terri.  The Alaska Institute for Growth is a local think tank which studies and reports on and may sponsor projects of sustained economic growth for the Alaskan economy.  Crawford known as the Permanent Fund Defender was a member of the Investment Advisory Committee, appointed by Gov. Jay Hammond to plan and execute the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.