Solve The Economic Crisis – Sell Alaska Back To Russia

In 1867 Russia was in a difficult financial position and sold Alaska to the United States. Perhaps its time to consider selling it back. Russia might pay for this helped with their huge oil revenues. At 350 million acres, by offering to sell back Alaska to Russia at a mere $5,000 per acre, there would be an almost two trillion dollar infusion into our Treasury. This would pay for the bailout of Wall Street and hopefully restore our financial markets as well as pay the cost of the Iraq War. There is certainly precedence for this. Countries sell territory when they get into big problems. For example the 1803 Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon.

After all the population of Alaska is only about 700,000 (about the same as Memphis Tennessee) and they are geographically closer to Russia than mainland United States. And this will have many side benefits. The drilling in ANWR debate is shifted out of our politics. Governor Palin now becomes a Russian citizen and will get some international experience and could be a real foil for Putin. The independent wilderness types and hockey moms could well be a force to democratize Russia. And a cross migration between Alaska and the residents of South Ossetia could mitigate a current source of international tension.

There could also be a precedent for this during a political campaign year - in December 1961, Goldwater told a news conference that "sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea". There might be an argument now to saw off Alaska to solve our country’s deep, deep financial debt that is dragging down our future and that of our grandchildren.

(This is tongue in check – no ignorant replies needed).

Comments

We are all well aware of the old joke concerning lawyers, well I think given the 10% approval rating of Congress maybe we should save the printine Alaskan wilderness and get rid of everyone in Congress.

We can do this right now by demanding that our voices be heard and we as constituents demand TERM LIMITS in Congress.

If we truly feel Washington needs reform and Washington is trult broken, lets fix it with new blood, all be it younger blood from a cross-section of our demographics regarding careers. Remember our nation was built by merchants, planters, shippers, ministers and of course lawyers. Today, our Congress reflect less of America and more of Washington. Lawyers and former lobbyists (also lawyers) from the same schools and networks and power apparatus.Maybe we should have educators, computer technicians, engineers, security ,doctors, nurses, and of course some lawyers.

We need term limits to reform Washington realistically not artifically by politicians themselves who pass band aid legislation for cover.

Congress could pass a measrue on term limits by stating that no Congressman elected before 2008 may reside in Congress after 2016 at which point a term limit of two consecutive terms in office just like the Presidency should begin.

We should also require our Congress to have a balance budget amendment passed and would only be done if we had term limits in place.

So lets save Alaska in all its beauty, and lets ditch the ugly spectacle of Washington by flipping Congress every eight years for new blood who seek to represent consituents and not special interests.
John said…
Smart Reagan Democrats think alike I guess Alter of Freedom.

One thing you forgot though was the line item veto. I remember Reagan asking for what most Governors have in terms of the line item veto and balanced budget requirements.

Had our Executive had it, maybe the would not have stuck 500 million dollars of pork in that Housing Bill they are talking about that passed during the summer.

With the Freddie/Fannie unwinding I feel as though we have reached a point where the Party has left us again as Reagan always said.

Things could be worse, the Republicans could have nominated some who could have been harder for the us or the independents to support but if they got one thing right in the last eight years at least they got the nominee to suit to times.

It not that I can't support Barack Obama but its just you don't put the rookie on the mound in the big game when your in a game seven. You go with the old, been around, has the bruises to prove it, and the experience to know where he stands and the ramifications.

Simply point, Obama may have been too late to the game. Maybe in 2000 he would have been a better option but today and in these times and facing this crisis, Barack Obama may certainly be out of his depth. Sometimes being a skilled poltician is simply not enough.
Bill Garnett said…
I can empathize with your comments. I’m not sure our wise forefathers appreciated well enough the problems that incumbency would have in tilting the elections such that the lesser of the candidates might have the advantage in winning an election.

Incumbency, along with gerrymandering, along with the rules of Congress that give increasing power to seniority, certainly favors the entrenched legislator or party. Not sure we have it right in terms of balancing wisdom of experience in office versus need to have fresh ideas and fresh eyes on the problems.

Yesterday PBS aired a program. “Questioning the Constitution’ that was developed in partnership with the University of Virginia Center for Politics. This program explored some of the issues you mention. From my point of view, government is broken. Squabbling partisan political parties is the symptom. An unengaged and uninterested citizenry is the problem. Too many seem unaware that democracy means we govern ourselves, and when we don’t take on that responsibility, the attendant power vacuum is filled by the powerful and the special interests.
Anonymous said…
Consider this scenario: USA sells Alaska to the Russians, Sarah Palin being now a Russian citizen runs for office in Russia, she becomes the next president of Russia winning over Putin and being American at heart she arranges the merger of USA-Russia. So the USA end up owners not only of Alaska but of Russia as well, so becoming the greatest superpower on earth because of Mrs.Palin. Next move? well we may sell Alaska to someone else lets say to China and having Mrs Palin becoming Chinese citizen, who runs for office etc. After some more resellings the US can own most of the planet because of Mrs.Palin.
Anonymous said…
Some reliable sources suggest that Ms.Palin will become advisor to the German Chancelerin Dr.Angela Merkel on European issues.Ms Palin as we know is an expert on European Affairs. From some other sources we have been informed that possibly Ms.Palin will be the next Fed Chairman after Mr. Bernanke.In that case we may resolve the dollar crisis without selling Alaska.

Popular posts from this blog

A Fun Test - Are You Liberal Or Conservative?

I Am Ashamed That Eric Cantor Is My Congressman

A Reasonable Solution To The Impending Political Impasse