By RANDY DALY
I am writing to address recent claims suggesting that candidate for Senate Ben Carpenter is in favor of a 2% state sales tax. This assertion is misleading and does not accurately reflect his position. Rep. Carpenter wants Alaska to have an operational fiscal plan.
First, it is important to clarify that Carpenter introduced a bill proposing a 2% state sales tax as part of a broader fiscal reform package aimed at addressing our long-term financial challenges. This proposal is not an endorsement of the sales tax in isolation, but rather a component of a comprehensive strategy to balance state spending and revenue.
In his sponsor statement, Carpenter emphasized that the proposed sales tax is designed to be part of a structural reform package, modeled after South Dakota’s sales tax system. He highlighted the importance of a broad-based system that keeps rates low, simplifies compliance, and minimizes economic distortions.
This approach aims to maintain Alaska’s ranking as one of the lowest combined state and local sales tax rates in the nation.
Second, Ben has consistently stated that he does not support any sales tax without a broader conversation about other fiscal measures, including cuts to current spending levels. At a candidate forum in October, Ben explicitly stated that he would not consider statewide sales tax alone. He also stressed the need for a mix of solutions, including reducing state spending and finding new revenue sources.
Ben is not advocating for sales tax in isolation.
He seeks structural fiscal reform.
Third, it is also worth noting that Alaska has faced declining oil production revenue for decades, prompting several attempts to introduce a state sales tax. Ben’s proposal is part of an ongoing effort to address these fiscal challenges to ensure the state’s long-term financial stability.
In summary, the claim that Ben Carpenter is in favor of a 2% state sales tax is a gross oversimplification of his position. His proposal is part of a broader fiscal reform package aimed at addressing Alaska’s future long-term financial challenges. Ben has consistently emphasized the need for a balanced approach that focuses on:
Reducing state spending and growing the private economy.
It is crucial for Alaskans to understand the context of his proposal to accurately understand his vision for Alaska.
Randy Daly is a Kenai resident, was in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, former member of the State Chamber of Commerce board and Kenai Chamber of Commerce board.
How about this plan:
Cut the bloated state government and stop spending on stupid things
“……..stop spending on stupid things………”
Does that include the $1 billion pinata party where cash is handed out for residents to blow on drugs, alcohol, trips to Maui, and cheap Chinese junk? Now we have to pay a 2% sales tax in order to continue the cash handout, and still listen to the Freebie Folks demand more? Do you really believe that there will be a sales tax of any kind or size in our beloved impoverished villages, where no handout of any kind can possibly be too large or enough?
Until the ultimate transfer payment, known worldwide as the best example of Universal Basic Income, is put to an end, taxes of any kind are just another foot in the door to increased taxes. Socialists can NEVER be satisfied. This state handed out a billion freaking dollars last year alone, and nearly $40 billion since 1982. Had that money been added to the Permanent Fund corpus instead of blown on crap, the fund today would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and could have funded the most glorious of social care and yet still be growing on its own accord.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I find your ignorance astounding.
“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – Mark Twain
I have a problem with the above statement, quote: “This proposal is not an endorsement of the sales tax in isolation, but rather a component of a comprehensive strategy to balance state spending and revenue.”
Is it just me or does this sound like word salad? Either he is or he isn’t for a 2% tax.
I don’t know Ben Carpenter personally, maybe a straight up guy.
But the statement: “Ben has consistently emphasized the need for a balanced approach that focuses on:
Reducing state spending and growing the private economy.”, doesn’t jibe with increased taxation. Adding a 2% tax would in my opinion minimize the pressure on the legislature to in fact “Reduce state spending”.
How about we reduce spending, grow the private economy and retire the increased taxation idea.
Agreed. “…not an endorsement of the sales tax in isolation,” simple means a stand alone sales tax, independent of any other fiscal mine field he can conjure up. We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We need to reduce spending and balance the budget, pure and simple, but it will take a new legislature and governor to accomplish that. I do not remain hopeful.
This is a clarification that he does not support a sales tax without it being tied to a reduction of state spending. We as Alaskans can continue to spend into oblivion or we can address the need for fiscal responsibility. His opponent supports a return to defined benefits that gives government workers a golden parachute while the private sector person struggles to survive! Look at who supports his opponent. Lobbyists like NEA don’t want Ben because they know he will not put them above the citizens of Alaska!
The problem starts with trying to hide spending increases by calling them cuts – a time-honored dishonest political move. We just sak for aa huge increase and then whittle it down to a smaller increase – “we cut the budget.” Senator Bert Stedman is a champion at this technique – the Chair of our Senate Finance committee. For every dollar spent, there is a constituency clamoring to sustain it and for even more – real cuts can be made, but it wll be difficult and painful.
Respectfully disagree, Judy.
.
Ben’s position is pretty clear: Alaska’s lobbyist-legislator team who spend the state into “financial insolvency” must be rewarded with even more money and anyway that’s how they do it in South Dakota and no conservative Republican worthy of the name should argue otherwise because it’s all about “state solvency”, whatever that means.
.
Inflation’s at record high because feds spend too much money, so Alaska’s team players gotta do their fair share to help make inflation great again?
.
And this bizarre chatter about “growing the private economy” while actually growing state government into a cottage industry that forcibly redistributes productive Alaskans’ wealth to government contractors and NGO’s… can it stop?
.
Words like “fiscal responsibility” and “structural fiscal reform”, sound cool but two problems won’t go away:
(a) Alaska’s lobbyist-legislator team seem immune to consequences of ignoring laws and constitutional mandates, so why should spending limits matter?
(b) nobody knows how much money actually comes in, where it’s stashed, what it’s spent on, -but- nobody wants a forensic audit of state finances and management practices to find out.
.
Just paint over the rot with a shiny new tax, problem’s gone, no?
.
Damndest part is, Ben seems decent, smart, got chutzpah, not someone who’d infect productive Alaskans with a tax just to grow government.
.
Doesn’t Ben deserve better than being the least worst ballot choice?
.
A word from you, Judy, might be just what it takes to help Ben toward an out from the perception that he’s all about getting more money for Alaska’s lobbyist-legislator team, which was -not- why people voted for him in the first place. Graceful apology, euthanized tax bill, decent people tend to forgive and forget, who knows maybe next time it’s Senator Ben, Governor Ben?
.
What’s he got to lose?
Sounds like he’s in favor of a 2% sales tax.
Yes?? It may start as as 2%, but we ALL know before it would pass, that our ever ranctious legistlature it would never let it pass without more added by each legistlature..DON’T LET IT START. It’d never be 2% it would keep increasing year by year and it(without our vote)would be subtracted from our PFD eventually.
Ben Carpenter must be voted out of office. A sales tax is highly regressive and a pain for business owners to have to contend with. Worse, there is no such thing as a structural plan regarding state spending. The Alaska Constitution allows the legislature to do whatever it wants with each budget- as long as the budget is balanced.
Due to SB-21, Alaskans are giving our oil away for peanuts, and we pay $1.4 billion per year in corporate welfare in “credits” on top of the low rate, and we still pay billions to develop North Slope infrastructure.
Reform starts with getting a fair return for our oil as Article VIII of our Alaska Constitution requires. People like Ben Carpenter want Alaskans to subsidize the giveaway of our oil with a highly regressive tax.
This is lunacy.
The state is already taxing us more than 2% by way of PFD theft.
Cut the bloated departments and foolish spending first.
I’d rather see a seasonal sales tax to take advantage of the tourists. Maybe May 1 – Sept 30. Drop it on Oct 1st during the winter months for the residents of Alaska.
Ben is a ‘straight up guy,’ a fiscal conservative, with the voting record to prove it…unlike his opponent who caucused with the democrats and gave them the majority, and is endorsed by liberal unions.
There is only one choice in Senate district D: Ben Carpenter!
“……..Is it just me or does this sound like word salad?…….”
It appears that the author would describe that as a “broader conversation”. That is a modern political adjective invented by a lawyer, politician, or journalist. A “broader conversation” always results in the same-old, same-old “solutions” that can be described with a single, more appropriate word: “manipulation”.
Randy. Have you or Ben ever spent any time in bush Alaska? Not every Alaskan lives in the Kenai or the rail belt, where fuel, groceries, etc. are in many cases 60% less expensive than for those who live in the outlying areas of the state. And in many cases, these bush residents don’t have the benefit of many state services that those who live in urban Alaska,yet a state sales tax effectively taxes them at a higher rate, due to the increased cost of their purchases.
Taxes are like cancer, once they are in, they are very hard to ever get rid of. The challenge here is all of the left coast liberals who have infected our state with their social programs which cost billions and that they promote as mandatory. Running government should be like running your house, if you cannot afford it, you do not buy it. Until this thought process is prevalent, politicians will continue spending without the budget to spend.
Cut the oil subsidies and guaranteed basic income and there will be adequate revenue to meet State Constitution obligations
Oil subsidizes government, not the other way around.
“A broad-based system that keeps rates LOW,” Reading this statement had me running for the door, though I have to admit I was at a quick jog prior to reading it.
How to boil a frog- Start with a LOW heat and increase without the frog knowing,
Sales taxes in other states are over 10%. They start at 2 percent, and then lie to us, “We only need another 1%”.
A new truck can force you to pay $5,000 to $10,000 in sales taxes in the 10 percent sales tax states.
Keep feeding the Monster, see what happens.
Dunleavy and this idiot belong in the same grouping. The shell game goes on and on. Kenai voters beware!!!
Haven’t we all beard this song before?? Give us MOREmoney, then well figure out how to spend it better! Butwe have to pass the plan before we can sed what’s in it!
Mr. Daly, Making excuses for Rep. Carpenter’s support for a sales tax does NOT change the fact that he supports it. Carpenter’s job is to accurately represent his constituents, not to come up with a “vision for Alaska”. I have never heard of a state sale tax being reduced. Ever. The state of Alaska does not have a revenue problem. The government of Alaska has an overspending problem. The only part of Carpenter’s plan that doesn’t fit or make sense is, in fact the sales tax. Carpenter wants to reduce state spending by giving the government more money?? Without the smokescreen, yes, it really IS that simple.
“I have never heard of a state sale tax being reduced. Ever.”
The sales tax in South Dakota that this sales tax is modeled after did that exact thing last year…
That’s a fair point, Steve, although after looking into it, it turns out that their tax cut is temporary, sunsetting in 2027.
I’m voting for Carpenter. He is more fiscal conservative than Bjorkman. To date, Carpenter has not sided with the liberal Democrats like Bjorkman has. Carpenter also did not try giving the legislature more power like Bjorkman did! Is anybody perfect? No. But I trust Carpenter more than I do Bjorkman as a legislator, especially when it comes to my tax dollars!
A few years ago there was bipartisan, bicameral working group that came up with the framework for a sustainable long-term plan for our bloated state budget. The plan was largely supported by all of those in the committee and somehow, shockingly, the legislature as a whole wasn’t having any of it. The goal of the working group was in “… developing policy recommendations that will provide fiscal certainty to Alaskans into the future through means of achieving a balanced budget and resolving the annual dispute over the Permanent Fund Dividend.” so it’s no great wonder why the legislature as a whole wanted nothing to do with it. Last year, speaking to the Alaska Beacon Representative Carpenter said “I don’t take this lightly, of instituting or bringing forward a bill that would institute a tax, a sales tax on Alaskans,” he went on to say “If we were having a conversation that didn’t include a bunch of other components of a fiscal plan, I would not be sitting here before you.”
Sales taxes are broad based consumption taxes, they do not punish people for working and being productive. It’s easy to not pay a sales tax, just don’t buy anything, or to limit your tax buy as little as possible. This incentivizes saving which is something we can all do more of. A sales tax in conjunction with reduced spending, an actual PFD plan, and no income tax in my view is preferred to more spending, no PFD plan, and an income tax.
I’m glad that there is at least one person running on fiscally sound policy out of all of the Nationwide and Statewide candidates.
Steve O. Sales taxes for Alaska are a terrible idea.
1. Sales taxes are highly regessive, hurting poor people the most. Poor people spend pay a higher percentage of their income to sale taxes.
2. Sales taxes are a big burder for business owners. They don’t need the headache of more forms, more penalties, and all the rest.
3. Sales taxes, 99 percent of the time, only go up.
4. Alaska doesn’t need a sales tax, we need a fair return on our oil. Simply ending the corporate welfare we pay would save us far, far more than a sales tax would raise.
M.
1. PFD cuts are much more regressive than sales tax.
2. Many businesses in the state that sell goods already deal with sales tax, somehow they manage…businesses in other states with sales tax also somehow manage.
3. Making up statistics does you no favor, and while I have no doubt that most sales taxes go up the same can be said for any tax whether it be a PFD tax, and income tax, or a sales tax.
4. Who is recieving corporate welfare? The state receives almost all of its funding by way of forced welfare from the private sector.
Just to illustrate the point about PFD cuts being more regressive that sales tax, consider the following.
The legislature decided that the PFD should be about 25% of the statutory amount, roughly $1,400 and a bonus $300 energy rebate that agreed to fund last year. That means a statutory Dividend should be somewhere around $5,500 per qualified individual, meaning there is a $4,100 PFD tax placed on the dividend by the legislature. In order for an individual to pay $4,100 in sales tax they would have to spend $205,000 on taxable items. How many poor individuals do you know that spend $205,000 on taxable items per year? Now calculate that out for a family of 4 and you are talking about $820,000 spent on taxable items to equal the same amount of taxation.
A sales tax is far more equitable than the current PFD tax.
Steve O, while you are correct that the PFD reductions are very regressive, you fail to understand the impact of the cost of our current severance tax structure, and associated corporate welfare.
After we abandoned ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share) to a new system we have lost billions in revenue. Under this new structure we pay about $1.4 billion per year in corporate welfare credits. The cost if $8 dollars per barrel of oil. Eliminating this welfare would save us $1.4 billion per year, which is about $1.2 billion more than a sales tax might raise.
The loss of revenue we suffer under SB-21 has now cost us, in reduced dividends, well more than $40,000 per family of four. So if you are concerned about regressivity of tax policy, then you should be opposed to a new tax on Alaskans, and favor Alaska following Art. VIII of the Alaska Constitution and getting a fair return (“maximum benefit”) for the sale of the oil that we own.
Business owners that do not now have to deal with a sales tax do not need that extra headache. Collecting sales taxes, filling out forms, and then getting audited by the state is a real headache. God help them if they make a mistake. Then they are dealing with fines, and maybe jail time. All of this requires dozens of new state employees, and their costly benefits.
Finally, you may have noticed that Alaska’s population is declining. Imposing more taxes on Alaskans will simply force more people to flee.
M,
The link between taxation on oil and dividends from the Permanent Fund are only linked by those who believe spending by government is a right of government. You apparently believe that government has the right to tax whatever they want at whatever level they want in order to fund whatever levels of spending. Had the previous levels of taxation still been in place the throughput of the pipeline would be much lower than it currently is, which would have resulted in lower levels of revenue, as you call it, to the state. Further we wouldn’t be looking at increased levels of throughput in the coming years. While some people would prefer government to eat the entire pie, some of us who understand how economies work with government leaching off the private sector, understand that the larger the pie the better for the entire economy including the welfare provided from the private sector used to fund the state.
SteveO, You do understand that money does not grow on trees? Spending money on dividends requires… money.
The oil is ours. We are selling it. This is a business transaction governed by the Alaska Constitution which requires we obtain maximum benefit fior the sale of our finite resources.
Perhaps you should take some time and read Article VIII so you know what the rules are.
Costly corporate welfare is not in the best interests of Alaskans- as demonstratred by the massive losses they’ve taken because of this corporate welfare.
M.
Spending money on dividends per the long time statute language that is still in place doesn’t cost the state a dime, unless you consider the corpus and earnings of the Permanent Fund to belong to the State and not to the people.
Maximum benefit does not include taxing something to the point of deminished returns, even if the “fair share” crowd does not understand basic economics. Put in plain English, if you tax something and make it uneconomic it is no longer a maximum benefit.
You should try and figure out what you mean by corporate welfare, you seem to have trouble expressing what it is you are trying to say. Giving oil companies back money that they’ve already been taxed in an effort to stimulate certain activities (like developing and producing more revenue for the state) isn’t corporate welfare.
Steve O, I can’t force you to read the Alaska constituion. But the resource belongs to Alaskans. When we give up our oil we are entititled to get a fair return for it. We now get less for our oil than any major entity in the world- and Prudhoe Bay is a world class resource. Its the largest oil field in North America.
Alaskans have paid billions and billions to develop that infrastructure, from oil gathering pipelines to dewatering facilties.
A shame you want Alaskans to pay a sales tax to subsidize the giveaway of our oil- that’s crazy. It will force more Alaskans to leave.
M.
I understand that you think we aren’t getting a fair return, you’ve made that clear. Your inability to express what you think a fair return might be speaks for itself.
Which “Alaskans have paid billions and billions to develop that infrastructure” and exactly how did they go about paying for it? I don’t remember being taxed for that, or seeing a bond anywhere.
You clearly do not understand the word subsidize. If I take $100 from you and then give you $10 to rake leave in my yard, I am not subsidizing you.
A sales tax has nothing to do with oil companies, it does however have to do with yet another way that government further makes money off of a product they tax at every step of the way (demonstrating just how much government is subsidized by oil) from before it is discovered until it is sold and used by the consumer.
If you want Alaskans to leave, return to ACES and watch the pipeline run dry, the jobs associated with oil and oil support dry up, the government coffers will quickly run dry, then when the corpus of the Permanent Fund is gone all of those remaining government jobs will also disappear.
You refuse to accept reality. I can’t fix that Steve. Enjoy your new sales tax.
M.
It’s ok, we both know you lack the ability to defend your position so the only way you can try and save face is to resort to gaslighting…the standard leftist maneuver now-a-days.
The idea that a sales tax is acceptable because it’s part of a larger plan is absurd, as is the assertion that people are rejecting it simply because they don’t understand the plan. Those who lack understanding are politicians like Carpenter, who seem to have trouble grasping the concept that government needs to make do with less money. LESS money. Not MORE money. A tax would be MORE money. Yes, it really is that simple. For the millionth time, government does not have a revenue problem. Government has a SPENDING problem.
M. John,
If you’ve paid attention at all to the will of the voters and who they continue to elect to state government, you’d be well aware that there is no will to cut spending. While I completely agree that our budget is bloated and our government is spending too much, that does not change the fact that the majority of voters and the majority of the people the voters send to Juneau do not want to cut spending. We can continue to steal the PFD at will and as the legislature has decided to do in order to fund the bloated budget, we can tax the incomes of producers and thus disincentivize productivity, we can find a common ground and include spending cuts along with a sales tax that will include people who don’t live here and don’t contribute here but simply leach off our state, or we can keep doing what we are doing and eventual spend the corpus of the Permanent Fund. Of course we could always elect officials that would do what you and I want, but your vote and my vote are only two votes and in this race the options are keep spending money we don’t have or vote for a guy who is at least having a conversation about spending cuts.
Lesser of two evils, in other words. Got it.
As a Person who spends a lot of my time in Alaska and plans to retire there, but has spent most my time in Washington State , I suggest to many I see posting complete nonsense whom don’t really understand the need for fiscal responsibility and Taxes both as necessary for any honest resolution to fixing these issues. A 2 percent tax is nothing compared to what most states pay, which is 8 to 11 percent in most cases! I laugh when I see these clowns who rant relentlessly about a 2 percent tax, especially when in reality more money would be raised on seasonal tourism( out of staters) from this tax then the people who reside with in state. I would warn many full time Alaskans , be carefull for what you wish for if your going to keep electing foolish Lifers from
state / public sector cesspools
Within Goverment like this Bjorkman guy, they are all just there to ride the gravy train, and thats exactly how your state gets into serious trouble , and once they get a foot hold on the money, the
greed and shananigans just get totally out of hand. Hopefully the serious thinking Alaskans take notice of what’s going on before they get totally entrenched in your great state. Take it from some of us who lost their state decades ago to these loony tune Politicians like Bjorkman and Mary P, and Lisa M, the desease of these type of politicians is spreading and moving north, and with them all the problems we have here in Washington State will come aswell. Example
,Have you noticed, the same people spending your money recklessly now days are the same people who are using the idea of a minimal 2 percent tax as a weapon in a campaign to lie and hoodwink the people. These people are not your friends people , they are like a 2 headed snake, they will do and say
anything to gain and retain power. All while bankrupting your state and destroying your standard of living. A warning Alaska, The Socialist are coming your way , and many have already set up camp . Get them out while you can before it’s to late ! What I’ve read and heard from Ben Carson , he’s see”s what the real problems are with in Alaska , and is one of a few who’s willing to take the task of fixing them head on. This Jessy B guy is a total mirage, he has no plans of fixing a dam thing, just is there for the gravy train ride! Lastly , for example Bernie Sanders, and countless others Nation wide, they get elected and become multi millionaires , how is it possible, because they join in the scam and play the game, it’s no different in State government , many are there for strictly Self enrichment, they live by no standards at all!!
In your statement: “A 2 percent tax is nothing compared to what most states pay,” just KNOW it would never stay at 2%. They say”2%” but by the time it got through “our money hungry legislature, it’d be ever increaseing before it passed.
DM, you write about sales taxes: “…which is 8 to 11 percent in most cases!”
Yes, and none of those states started at these rates. They started at one or two percent. Why would Alaska be any different? Same goes with property taxes. Do you ever see property taxes going down? Ha.
Tourists are here for several months. While Alaskans are here 12 months of the year. therefore, the greater tax burden falls on Alaskans.
From what I’ve seen and read, Carpenter is the only one that’s addressed any of the waste issue , Bjorkman acts as if nothings wrong, or nothing can be done about it, he just wants to reside in Juneau , the choice between the 2 of them is not even close if your a person who really pays attention to what’s been going on.
Should have adopted the Roger Cremo’s plan 30 years ago. We would still have the same issue of less money, but we wouldn’t have had to guess and re-guess and hope we’re right each year. Remember: it was those in Juneau who brayed the loudest that the plan was unworkable, when the rest of the state could see it was.
To the unrepentant toddlers throwing themselves to the ground, “CUT SPENDING”: There is no appetite for cutting spending as we saw in the early days of the Dunleavy Administration. The voters and the Juneau Clown Posse sent a very clear message to the administration: “don’t mess with the gravy train or we will rearrange your furniture! Capiche?”
This state doesn’t have a fiscal plan and hasn’t in my memory. Unless looting the public coffers is the plan, then I’d mark that one “mission accomplished!”
Continuing to ignore the pending fiscal Cliff isn’t really a good plan for the majority of Alaskan. Yeah, there are probably a few who’d profit but the majority of us would not.
Carpenter, and others, have a plan. Which is well ahead of a number of commentators in this space. If you have plan, show it! Show the numbers. Show the cuts. Explain how these spending cuts are going to work; how will they be implemented.
Standing on the sidelines screaming isn’t a plan. It’s just another part of the problem.
I support any effort to develop a sane and sustainable plan for Alaskas future.
Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Carpenter.
As a newer resident of Alaska settled on the Kenai Peninsula, I agree with Randy Daly and DM’s remarks. Coming from a state where taxes and government bloating ran rampant, I understand how crucial it is to protect what makes Alaska unique. A 2% sales tax, mostly funded by tourists, seems like a smart plan to stabilize our economy without placing the entire burden on Alaskans. However, let’s not forget that Ben Carpenter has pointed out our legislators are already taxing us through taking a portion of the PFD, sneaking into our pockets and snatching funds that belong to the public —including our kids’ dividends. We’re already paying taxes, but it’s being done in a sneaky way, with legislators quietly siphoning off our hard-earned cash.
What really concerns me is politicians like Bjorkman, who seem more interested in keeping their comfy seats than addressing real issues. His campaign ads shout about battling trawlers for fishermen, but where has he been? He’s practically a ghost, dodging public engagement and scrutiny. Many question whether he’s double-dipping—collecting a salary from the school while also getting a legislator’s paycheck. If he wants to be seen as a champion for Alaskans, shouldn’t he just agree to have the public records request disclosed? What’s he hiding? And just check who is funding his campaign—they come from unions and PACs, similar to Mary Peltola. What’s his real political affiliation—Democrat, Republican, or just “whatever gets me elected”?
We’ve seen this circus play out in other states—career politicians manipulating the system, evading accountability, and leading to wasteful spending that harms everyday folks. Alaska is special and we can’t afford to follow that disastrous path. We need leaders like Ben Carpenter, who aren’t afraid to tackle tough questions and demand accountability.
This drives me nuts. Typical politician looks for the easiest way to “fix” what they broke. Tax and /or cut budgets. Always the answer? How about reforming the antiquated methodology used to allocate fund agencies for the upcoming fiscal year? There are so many shell games played within agencies to utilize allocations outside the rules of the game. It’s subterfuge by necessity. Spend it all or don’t bother asking for it again next fiscal. Line 100 money from vacant positions gets reshuffled to use for pet projects. Many of the purchases are not and never were needed. Government is insatiable and it’s fun to spend money given freely. Why not? I’ve found that there’s zero interest in reforming the actual allocation process with simple solutions that will save the public’s money. That’s correct, the public’s money. From the gov on down. No one seriously wants to know.
Comments are closed.