The Governor's New Jet

It should have been scripted more Hollywood. More Tom Cruise in Top Gun, less defensive press spokesperson in Juneau.

With the recent revelation that the governor intends to pursue his twice-denied jet upgrade, politicos are scrambling to interpret the political meaning. I’ll tell you what it means. It means the governor is tired of showing up for prom in a thirty-year-old Plymouth Fury.

The stories of executive jet envy began after attending national gubernatorial gatherings. Apparently there is nothing more emasculating than the size of the State’s current mode of air transportation. Alaska’s modest King Air doesn’t show well parked next to a line up of shiny Gulfstreams.

Even after failing to convince both the Homeland Security Department and the Legislature that a new jet was a worthy investment, the governor has decided to use his authority to sell one of the state’s current aircraft to finance the lease of a new jet. Gov. Murkowski’s quest for a new jet that had been dismissed as a distraction by lawmakers now appears to be destiny.

But instead of leaving staff to answer questions about the honorability of his jet intentions, the governor should have been more proactive. Like holding a press conference with Kelly McGillis while wearing a flight suit and officially declaring as Chief Executive he had “the need for speed”. Cue Goose Clark with a high five and a decent rendition of You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling and its wheels up time.

Hey, with sixteen days remaining in Juneau, comic relief comes in strange doses.

So what does this mean? It means that after drawing endless public and political criticism for his previous attempts at procuring a new aircraft, the governor has decided to clear himself for takeoff. It also means the governor should use every opportunity to show his critics just how functional and fashionable a new jet can be.

On Fridays, the Juneau airport is crowded with legislators trying to get a last seat on the Anchorage flight home for the weekend. Imagine the faces of lawmakers through the airport windows as the governor goes taxiing by with a martini in one hand while giving thumbs up with the other. I can hear the control tower now, “Negative ghost rider, the pattern is full”.

Or the reaction of jet critics and Capitol move advocates when the governor pimps his new ride with nice rims, 17inch plasma monitors and a booming stereo system. Paid for with the $94,000 those same critics demanded he get returned from the Juneau Capitol building effort.

But as always, the most entertaining story is never the most important.

Nothing will put you to sleep faster than the topic of public employee and teacher retirement systems, so I’ll refrain. Suffices to say overly optimistic actuaries, poor investment returns, rising health care costs and a search for budget savings have all created a financial hole. A recent opinion by Michigan based retirement expert Joseph Esuchanko, confirmed a potential pension shortfall of $5.6 billion.

Meanwhile the Senate has proposed SB141 and tied its passage to education funding. But in all fairness, the bill represents a classic partisan Senate solution to a strictly non-partisan problem. While redefining benefits for new hires might be advisable, stacking the investment board and unilaterally raising employee contributions while doing nothing to manage health care costs is not.

In fact if SB141 passed today in its current form, it would do absolutely nothing to address the $5.6 billion dollar projected shortfall.

The smart move for the House would be to dedicate the interim to adequately studying the issue with stakeholders. From West Virginia to Oregon, there have been well-documented failures and success stories regarding states that have had a similar retirement shortfalls. Unfortunately, the Senate didn’t invest enough time to review these valuable case studies.

The final weeks of the legislative session historically produce bad decisions. Many of these decisions have created costly legal exposure for the state. Now is the time to take a long view on the options available to restore solvency to our public employee retirement programs – wisely and fairly.