Protecting Alaska

Having read a short article in the September 15, 2006 USA Today regarding the State of Alaska's Governor Murkowski's executive order to offer nurses (for -- prisons, retirement homes, and other state facilities) a 15% pay raise my immediate thought was this is a completely unnecessary government program. This executive order was allowed under a new state law which "allows the state to offer more money for jobs that are hard to fill."

Now there are few occupations more noble than nursing so this is NOT an attack on the profession or any trade unions that exist in Alaska for nurses. The concern I would raise is the use of tax dollars to maintain the "social infrastructure" to keep the State of Alaska functioning. This use of tax dollars occurs in parallel to efforts to preserve more acres in Alaska by having the government purchase land, having people donate land in the wills, asking people to donate money to protect the environment, etc.

Question -- why not simply allow market forces to work in Alaska for a change? If businesses and government can't pay enough money to recruit the talent needed to keep parts of Alaska's infrastructure operating then let these areas return to their pre-human/natural state. For instance if only 2 or 3 major cities are sustainable due to market forces in Alaska then perhaps only those 2 or 3 cities should exist thus leaving millions of acres to become a huge nature preserve protected NOT by government action but instead by government INACTION by ending wasteful programs such as the wage law mentioned earlier.

My plan for Alaska is better than anything I have seen from the Sierra Club.

Eat more gorp,

Todd