Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
02/04/2016 05:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 128-PERM. FUND: DEPOSITS; DIVIDEND; EARNINGS
5:30:26 PM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced the consideration of SB 128. He
explained that the committee would hear public testimony on the
governor's Permanent Fund dividend bill, part of his approach to
the state's fiscal gap. He noted that Commissioner Hoffbeck from
the Department of Revenue was in attendance.
5:32:31 PM
DAVE HANSON, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128. He qualified that his support assumes that
reasonable budget cuts will be made. He asserted that the state
can live with a capped dividend and action must take place
immediately.
5:33:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee meeting.
5:35:36 PM
CHARLES MCKEE, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 128. He offered recommendations on
addressing the state's budget deficit.
5:39:14 PM
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He specified that the bill
was an assault on the private sector in order to maintain and
grow the public sector.
5:39:26 PM
LAURA BONNER, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. She stated that the Permanent Fund
dividend was important to Alaska's economy. She specified that
the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund and the earnings from the
Permanent Fund should not be rolled into the Permanent Fund's
principal. She opined that paying dividends on royalties does
not allow Alaskans to be beneficiaries from the Permanent Fund's
investment gains and noted that reduced oil production would
lower dividends tied to royalties. She conceded that the
Legislature must ultimately use part of the earnings reserve and
new sources of revenues to close the budget gap. She set forth
that the Legislature must act this year.
5:41:27 PM
JOSEPH JAMES, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He remarked that world events could
affect oil prices without notice. He recommended that a
provision be included that addressed oil price changes.
5:43:02 PM
KURT AUTOR, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He stated that his primary concern is
the bill does not have sunset provisions that takes into account
changes in circumstances. He remarked that transferring the
Permanent Fund earnings into general revenue with no
accountability violates the purpose and intent of the fund. He
noted that Alaskans have repeatedly voted against previous
attempts to change the Permanent Fund. He set forth that
constitutional protections need to be put into place that
reinforce the citizen ownership of the state's natural resource
wealth.
5:45:25 PM
TOM LAKOSH, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He asserted that SB 128 was
unconstitutional and money should not be spent on constitutional
litigation. He recommended that personal and corporate income
taxes be considered. He said changes to the Permanent Fund
dividend would be the most regressive tax that could be imposed
on Alaskans.
5:47:49 PM
SHAWN WARNER, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He stated that the Permanent Fund
dividend helps many people and hopes that the government does
not use the fund.
5:48:38 PM
RAY KREIG, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said the Permanent Fund dividend was
income to a broad-based sector in Alaska and a primary economic
driver. He asserted that taking 50 to 60 percent of the dividend
away from families and individuals was an extremely regressive
move. He said the state's budget would be balanced on the backs
of ordinary people. He explained that he was not in favor of an
income tax at the current time. He set forth that a sustainable
state budget should be based on a reasonable per-barrel figure,
approximately $40 per barrel. He asserted that spending cuts
must be made before changes are made to the dividend.
5:50:41 PM
LAUREN BLANCHETT, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128. She asserted that using the
Permanent Fund was one of the tools available to fund state
government.
5:52:02 PM
DAVID BOYLE, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He stated that budget cuts should occur
before cuts are made to the Permanent Fund dividend. He asserted
that the dividend helps low-income Alaskans.
5:53:59 PM
DAN ZANTEK, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128 with a caveat. He asked that the
Legislature do something during the current session. He said he
favored using a portion of Permanent Fund earnings so that the
dividends may be sustained. He remarked that Governor Hammond
first proposed that the Permanent Fund be used as a rainy-day
fund and the rainy day has arrived for the state.
5:54:59 PM
CHUCK STIELSTRA, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128. He said he supports the
governor's mixed approach in tackling the state's deficit by
cutting expenditures and spreading out the pain through a
variety of taxes. He suggested that a sales tax be included. He
asserted that the Permanent Fund dividend was public money that
should be used for public purposes before taxation.
5:57:11 PM
BERNIE KARL, representing himself, Chena Hot Springs, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128. He stated, "No simple solutions,
only intelligent choices." He set forth that legislators have
the toughest job of anybody in the history of Alaska to figure
things out, but making no decision will harm the state. He
recommended that more cuts be made as well as instituting an
income tax and sales tax.
6:00:25 PM
PAMELA GOODE, representing herself, Deltana, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. She asserted that the bill "hands over
the keys" to the state's multi-billion dollar lockbox that
belongs to the people. She asserted that the Permanent Fund was
set up to keep the hands of the politicians and special-
interests out of it. She pointed out that rather than providing
an increasing Permanent Fund dividend, Alaskans would receive a
dividend from a decreasing petroleum royalty's fund.
6:01:59 PM
JAMES SQUYRES, representing himself, Deltana, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He asserted that decreasing the size of
government should be considered prior to addressing revenue and
Permanent Fund proposals.
6:03:49 PM
ED MARTIN JR., representing himself, Cooper Landing, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He asked that the Permanent
Fund dividend not be touched. He suggested that earnings be used
from the sale of land to Alaskans.
6:08:21 PM
EDWARD WITBECK, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He recommended that the Permanent Fund
not be touched, incentives to oil companies eliminated, and
legislative corruption addressed.
6:10:22 PM
PETER PROBASCO, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He said the bill was premature and an
effort to do away with the Permanent Fund. He asserted that
changes to the Permanent Fund should be decided by a vote of the
people. He stated that he was in favor of zero-based budgeting.
6:11:07 PM
JIM SYKES, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 128 with changes. He said the state has a short
term and a long-term problem. He remarked that changes to the
Permanent Fund require concrete and bulletproof sideboards to
make sure the Permanent Fund is permanent. He said the full
dividend needs to be paid so that the money can work its way
through the Alaska economy. He recommended that a sunset clause
be added for when the oil market returns to normal times. He
suggested that a gasoline tax be considered as well.
6:13:48 PM
GARVAN BUCARIA, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He asked that state government be cut,
the Permanent Fund protected and sustained, capital spending
eliminated, and changes to the Permanent Fund should be voted on
by Alaskans. He pointed out that sovereign-wealth funds in many
countries have been exhausted.
6:15:52 PM
DAVE GLENN, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He declared that current financial
conditions in the state calls for sacrifice by all Alaskans. He
suggested that the Permanent Fund be cashed out where the state
retains half and the other half is paid out to citizens.
6:18:26 PM
LARRY DEVILBISS, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He explained that the
Permanent Fund has had a positive economic impact on his
business. He asked that committee members keep in mind the
impact that the dividend has on local economies. He remarked
that the Permanent Fund was set up as a renewable resource. He
set forth that in order to be sustainable, the cost of
government must be reduced and everyone has to live within the
earnings potential of the Permanent Fund.
6:19:58 PM
MIKE SWANSON, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He commended Governor Walker for his
efforts to address Alaska's fiscal crisis. He opined that
reconstituting and artificially capping the Permanent Fund
dividend is not an appropriate solution. He declared that using
the Permanent Fund's earnings reserve is the most sustainable
way to balance the state budget. He conceded that there will be
times when dividends are negatively impacted, but Alaskans
should be able to share in the prosperity of the fund in times
of plenty without restriction. He remarked that he is willing to
pay added taxes and a portion of the dividend if government
spending is scaled back to a sustainable level.
6:22:33 PM
EARL LACKEY, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He asserted that capping the Permanent
Fund dividend was a negative for the state. He suggested that
government costs be cut, the Permanent Fund earnings be tapped
and a sales tax be instituted.
6:24:10 PM
STEVE ST. CLAIR, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He said there was some
misinformation on the Permanent Fund and suggested that more
education be provided to Alaskans. He remarked that the governor
should not be allowed to use his position as a platform to spend
Alaskans' money on pushing his bill. He noted that Alaskans are
not allowed to drill for oil or minerals in their backyard and
the Permanent Fund acts as compensation. He summarized that SB
128 was a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
6:26:57 PM
BETH FREAD, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. She stated that any consideration in
spending from the Permanent Fund should only happen after
government spending cuts are made. She said the Permanent Fund
dividend should not be eliminated and noted the dividend's
positive economic impact in the state.
6:29:19 PM
CINDY BETTINE, representing herself, Big Lake, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 128. She said she is not opposed to
using the Permanent Fund dividend to help soften the blow to
Alaska's economy. She remarked that she did not know if SB 128
was perfect or exactly the way it should be. She noted that
sunset clauses were suggested as a hope that Alaska's economy
improves. She summarized that SB 128 should be worked on and
improved with the public's input.
6:31:08 PM
MIKE COONS, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He asserted that Governor Walker wants to
cut the state's budget by a small amount and increase government
spending through increased taxation. He suggested that the
Permanent Fund earnings reserve be used as intended by Governor
Hammond.
6:33:45 PM
DONALD WESTLUND, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He said he supports the
concept of SB 128, but does not support an income tax where
money from dividends is paid back to the state. He suggested
that Permanent Fund dividends not be issued for two to four
years and all earnings placed into a sovereign wealth fund. He
recommended that a sunset clause be included and government
spending lowered.
6:35:31 PM
HANNAH RAMINSKEY, representing herself, Ketchikan, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. She asserted that state
government continues to grow at unchecked levels. She asked that
the state-employee plan to use Permanent Fund earnings to
operate the government be assessed by the non-political
Permanent Fund investors as to what is sustainable.
6:38:11 PM
KEVIN MOTO, representing himself, Deering, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He remarked that the Permanent Fund
dividend contributes to rural Alaska's economy. He asserted that
reducing the Permanent Fund dividend will create a bigger rural-
urban divide.
6:39:28 PM
BARRY WAGGONER, representing himself, Copper Center, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He said he did not agree with
taking funds from the Permanent Fund. He asserted that the
government must live within a budget. He remarked that a sales
tax should be all-inclusive.
CHAIR STOLTZE acknowledged Darwin Peterson, Legislative
Director, for being in attendance at the committee meeting.
6:41:06 PM
GLENESE PETTEY, representing herself, Kenai, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. She said private-property owners do not
have mineral or oil rights and the Permanent Fund is an exchange
for the rights that were taken away. She asked that government
cuts be taken into serious consideration and insisted that state
government live within a budget. She pointed out that the bill
does not take into consideration when Alaska's economy goes back
up.
6:42:55 PM
BROTHER TOM PATMOR, representing himself, Clam Gulch, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He suggested that the
Permanent Fund loan money to state government. He asserted that
a separate loan fund could be created where the state sells its
real estate holdings, stocks, and generates added revenue from
marijuana sales.
6:44:38 PM
FRED STURMAN, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said state government needs to spend
more time figuring out how to cut spending.
6:46:44 PM
BILL WARREN, representing himself, Nikiski, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He remarked that he is not for using the
Permanent Fund dividend. He said state government spending
should be cut, an income tax instituted and the gas line built.
6:49:07 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He asserted that his Permanent Fund
dividend should not be touched by state government. He
recommended that the Permanent Fund not be used to bail out
legislators, spending should be cut and an income tax
instituted.
6:51:55 PM
GLENN HERMANN, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He asserted that spending
from the Permanent Fund is a temporary fix and will not solve
anything. He stated that the size of state government must be
reduced.
6:54:29 PM
EARL FISK, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He remarked that the Permanent Fund was
set up for the people and not the government. He recommended
that state government reduce spending.
6:56:09 PM
DIANNE MACRAE, representing herself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. She said the money from the Permanent Fund
dividend is due to Alaskans as compensation for taking away
rights to property. She recommended that the state's budget be
cut first.
6:57:59 PM
J.R. BOBECK, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said his family uses the Permanent Fund
dividend to assist with paying bills. He asked that government
limit spending and live within a budget.
6:59:50 PM
KEN FARAND, representing himself, Valdez, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He suggested that the Permanent Fund be
cashed out to residents or provide for people to donate $150 to
the government rather than taking money from people. He said he
does not want anyone touching his dividend. He stated that he
appreciates his dividend and usually spends it in Alaska.
7:01:25 PM
JIM HOTAI WILLIAMS, representing himself, Valdez, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He said the Permanent Fund is
owned by the citizens of Alaska. He stated that Governor Hammond
devised the Permanent Fund to keep the government away from
spending it. He suggested that state government spending be cut.
7:03:12 PM
ALAN CRUME, representing himself, Valdez, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He asserted that grabbing the Permanent
Fund is just opening up a bank account for state government. He
recommended that state government take a vow to cut costs.
7:08:20 PM
MARY NANUWAK, representing herself, Bethel, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 128.
7:09:31 PM
MIKE MCCARTHY, representing himself, Homer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said the bill is the wrong first step
in resolving the state's budget crisis. He said every Alaskan
needs "skin in the game" and suggested that an income tax be the
first step. He noted that taking the Permanent Fund dividend
away only affects residents whereas an income tax would include
non-resident wage earners. He opined that the Permanent Fund
dividend provides fixed-income retirees, disables and bush-
Alaskans with a security cushion to pay their bills. He asked
that government cut spending and noted that terminating mega-
projects would save the state $7.66 billion. He suggested that
the business and administrative functions of rural school
districts be consolidated, but schools should not be closed.
7:12:41 PM
DAN SULLIVAN, representing himself, Petersburg, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128. He said the state needs multiple
solutions to solve its crisis and cannot cut its way out without
having devastating effects on the economy. He suggested that a
modest income tax be instituted to support services. He
summarized that he supports using part of the Permanent Fund for
state government as well as allowing residents to receive a
partial check.
7:13:55 PM
DAVE GLADDEN, representing himself, Dillingham, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He said Governor Hammond set
up the Permanent Fund as the people's resource that needed to be
permanently protected. He suggested that government cut spending
and a capped-income tax be instituted.
7:16:09 PM
MATT DONOHOE, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said the Permanent Fund dividend has
become an important economic engine for Alaska, especially in
rural Alaska. He remarked that the Permanent Fund was created to
ensure residents had a vested interest in what happens to the
money and to protect the money from legislative raids. He said
the rural communities run on local-sales taxes and adding a
state-sales tax would be devastating.
7:21:30 PM
BARRY SOLIE, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said he favors balancing the budget
through spending cuts before taxation consideration. He asserted
that using the Permanent Fund dividend was one of the most
regressive taxes imaginable.
7:21:56 PM
BERT SHARP, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He said he does not support the
governor's plan to dedicate funds from the Permanent Fund to
support state government in perpetuity and the dividend would be
in danger of going away.
7:25:15 PM
GERALD WHITTON, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He recommended that the
dividend be reduced to $1,000 or less, a state income tax
reinstated, a luxury tax on large purchases instituted, fuel
taxes raised and a committee of experts formed to provide
solutions.
7:28:36 PM
LUKE HOPKINS, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in favor of SB 128. He set forth that the governor's bill is a
set of strong tools that keeps the state's economy running along
with keeping jobs.
7:30:53 PM
JEAN JAMES, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in favor of SB 128. She said positive action must occur during
the session. She remarked that the fiscal gap would not be
covered even if the entire state budget was cut. She stated that
she supported a state-income tax as well, especially by having
non-residents contribute.
7:33:14 PM
WILL FINLEY, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He noted that the Legislature
squandered funds when it did not use an $8 billion surplus to
fund the state's unfunded liabilities. He said the Permanent
Fund is the people's money and the government should not have
access to the fund. He asserted that there is no need for
additional taxes and the Legislature should not plan its budgets
on $100 per barrel of oil.
7:36:09 PM
CEEZAR MARTINSON, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He said he opposes tampering
with the Permanent Fund dividend. He opined that the Permanent
Fund dividend is a critical component of the Alaska economy in
terms of the support it provides to businesses and families. He
suggested that the state move towards zero-based budgeting and
not target the Permanent Fund dividend. He asserted that the
administration was wasting public funds in selling their plan to
Alaskans.
7:39:49 PM
BAERENT STRANDBERG, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He suggested that government
spending be cut.
7:43:46 PM
CARL BERGER, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128. He commended the governor for introducing
SB 128 as a starting point and urged the Legislature to act
during the session. He remarked that the Permanent Fund dividend
be continued at a $1,000 maximum level in order to help a lot of
rural residents who depend on the dividend. He suggested that
spending be cut, fuel tax increased, income tax reinstated and
out of state workers taxed. He opined that an income tax would
put people's "skin in the game" to specifically address mega-
projects.
7:46:42 PM
GEORGE GRIFFING, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128. He asserted that the governor has done his
homework and made comprehensive proposals that would go a long
way in diversifying the state's financial plan.
7:49:26 PM
NICK SZABO, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 128. He said the governor's proposal would bring
stability to the state's budget. He remarked that the state's
budget could not be balanced even if all state services were
cut. He asserted that additional revenue sources be instituted
via income and sales taxes. He said something has to be done
during the current session.
7:50:52 PM
JAKE JACOBSEN, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He said he does not support changes to
the current Permanent Fund dividend system. He stated that he
favors a drastic reduction in the size of government,
instituting sales and income taxes, and revising natural
resource taxes that targets oil, mining, tourism, and fishing.
He suggested that effective ethics rules be established to stop
unrestrained government spending.
7:53:41 PM
ALEXANDER HOKE, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He asserted that Governor Hammond's
vision was to share a portion of wealth with present and future
Alaskans. He said the governor's plan creates an almost direct
pipeline form Permanent Fund earnings right into government
coffers without accountability to citizens. He recommended that
taxes be instituted and the government's size cut. He conceded
that Permanent Fund earnings will have to be used to help the
state solve the fiscal problem.
7:57:13 PM
MARTIN STEPETIN SR., representing himself, Juneau, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128 with modifications. He asserted
that the state has no choice but to use the Permanent Fund and
to institute taxation. He urged that the Legislature do
something every day to solve the state's fiscal problem. He
noted that he does not support a gas tax due to the state's high
fuel prices and suggested that non-resident workers pay income
taxes.
7:59:57 PM
ERIN HARRINGTON, representing herself, Kodiak, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128 with modifications. She pointed out that
prior testimony indicates that a knowledge gap exists between a
number of citizens and the legislators. She said the governor's
bill was a starting point and asked that the Legislature act
during the current session. She expressed that she appreciates
the calls for cuts and noted that she sees places for efficiency
in government, but asserted that taking action to stabilize the
state's revenue sources is the first step. She said instituting
an income tax would put "skin in the game" with legislators on
spending.
8:02:50 PM
BILL TREMBLAY, representing himself, Petersburg, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 128. He asked that legislators act
during the current session. He said cutting government spending
should be judicious where attention is paid to essential
services and the basic support needed to function properly. He
recommended that an income tax be instituted first, especially
to tax non-resident workers. He remarked that he does not
support a state-sales tax and noted the additional cost to
local-sales taxes that are already in place. He noted that a
study showed a majority of people would prefer to pay a state-
sales tax first. He added that 56 percent of residents do not
pay a local-sales tax.
CHAIR STOLTZE pointed out that there are communities that pay
their way through property taxes pretty heavily too.
MR. TREMBLAY replied that Petersburg has a 6 percent sales tax
and an 11-mill property tax.
CHAIR STOLTZE asserted that Anchorage and Mat-Su pay their way
through property taxes.
8:06:23 PM
KENNY BINGAMEN, representing himself, Soldotna, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He pointed out that the state
spends over $16,000 per resident and the average per capita
spending in the Lower 48 was $5,300 per resident. He asserted
that the Permanent Fund dividend was established to be kept for
Alaskans. He suggested that an income tax be strictly assessed
on non-resident workers and a Permanent Fund cash out for
residents be considered. He pointed out that previous testimony
was approximately 85 percent against SB 128.
8:09:43 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, representing herself, Kachemak Bay, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. She asked that the current
financial crisis be used by the state to "tighten its belt." She
remarked that she worried about using the Permanent Fund to
support government due to accountability issues. She suggested
that spending be cut and to change to an economy that is based
on taxation and spending.
8:12:21 PM
GEORGE SMITH, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He asked that the Permanent Fund
dividend not be touched and new taxes not be instituted. He said
state government has to learn how to live within a budget.
8:13:28 PM
DENNY KAY WEATHERS, representing herself, Hawkins Island-Prince
Williams Sound, Alaska, testified in opposition of SB 128. She
noted that during low oil prices in 1999, a similar attempt was
made by state government to use the Permanent Fund earnings and
approximately 84 percent of Alaskans voted "no." She said the
current fiscal problem was due to overspending.
8:16:21 PM
DONNA ENDRESEN, representing herself, Soldotna, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. She said the state's budget
and spending must be cut. She specified that the Permanent Fund
should not be touched. She suggested that any reserves used by
the Legislature be treated as a loan that is paid back in 3 to 5
years. She asserted that a sales tax would not work for
residents that live in boroughs that already have a sales tax.
She stated that she also opposes an income tax due to the
Legislature's unaccountable spending.
8:18:54 PM
ROSS MULLINS, representing himself, Cordova, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128. He asserted that the proposed sovereign-
wealth fund plan by Governor Walker is the only way to resolve
the budget crisis without subjecting Alaskans to unnecessary
pain. He conceded that cuts are important and the budget should
be trimmed to the maximum extent that is reasonably possible. He
asked that legislators rise above the narrow self-interest that
is often displayed in testimony of those who absolutely do not
want the Permanent Fund dividend cut. He noted testimony at a
previous meeting from an expert on sovereign-wealth funds who
pointed out that Alaska had the best opportunity to utilize the
Permanent Fund as proposed in SB 128 to help support the state
and its people. He noted that the plan proposed in SB 128 would
automatically keep the constraints on government spending in
both good times and bad. He conceded that Alaskans' future
expectations for the Permanent Fund dividend have to be
diminished due to unsustainability from the current budget
crisis. He noted that he supports an income tax as opposed to a
sales tax. He opined that a sales tax is regressive,
particularly for those who live in rural communities that
already have sales taxes.
8:21:55 PM
CAROLYN DALILAK, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, did
not provide a position on SB 128. She said she uses the
Permanent Fund dividend to pay for her family's bills. She
stated that she does not support additional taxes.
8:25:32 PM
MELANIE GLATT, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 128. She recommended that government
cut spending. She suggested that part of the Permanent Fund
earnings be used for the state budget, but specified that the
dividend continue to be inflation-proofed and the fund's corpus
be left alone. She said she does not favor an income tax on
Alaskans, but suggested that non-resident workers be taxed. She
asserted that consideration for a sales tax must encompass
everyone. She suggested that the federal government pay an
acreage rent on locked-up lands. She endorsed an oil pipeline
with Canada along with moving forward on the current gas
pipeline project. She favored selling land to the private sector
and supported economic diversification.
8:28:14 PM
TIM BUCKMAN, representing himself, Houston, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He said Governor Walker's proposal takes
90 percent of the Permanent Fund dividend and is too oppressive
on Alaskans, especially the most vulnerable in the state. He
asserted that the Permanent Fund dividend is the largest
economic driver in the state. He set forth that taking away the
Permanent Fund dividend to just support government would be a
direct retraction out of the state's economy.
8:31:11 PM
DON SKINNER, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 128. He pointed out that past legislators who
supported using the Permanent Fund for government were not re-
elected.
8:33:09 PM
MARK WIGGIN, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 128 with modifications. He asserted that
legislators must do something quickly to balance the budget and
the governor's proposal was a good place to start. He said he
was willing to pay income taxes in order to avoid the calamity
of a budget crisis.
8:35:52 PM
DONALD JOHNSON, representing himself, Soldotna, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. He asserted that the state's
budget was too high and spending must be cut.
8:39:17 PM
CRAIG DOUGLAS, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 128. He suggested tourism be taxed and
spending restructured, but cautioned that strictly making cuts
could have negative economic ramifications. He proposed limiting
the Permanent Fund dividend for a short period of time to help
the state get ahead.
8:42:04 PM
JOHN TACKETT, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He opined that spending on the proposed
gas pipeline has caused budgetary problems. He recommended that
non-resident workers pay an income tax and that the Permanent
Fund dividend be continued.
8:45:04 PM
JOHN STRASENBURGH, representing himself, Talkeetna, Alaska, did
not provide a position on SB 128. He said spending on mega-
projects should be halted, government spending cuts should be
judicious and tax revenue sources should be explored. He read a
statement from his wife, Ruth Wood, which echoed his
recommendations without a position declaration on SB 128.
8:48:31 PM
ROGER COPE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He said Alaska's budget was too high
per capita and using the Permanent Fund for government spending
would bankrupt the state. He asserted that the Permanent Fund
should be protected and government spending reduced. He
suggested that the private sector be allowed and encouraged to
develop the state's natural resources for added revenue.
8:49:42 PM
SHELLY FINKLER, representing herself, Eagle River, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. She said she questioned the
Permanent Fund being the first piece of legislation considered
as a source of revenue. She asserted that the Permanent Fund
system be kept the way it is for future generations. She opined
that SB 128 is an unfair form of taxation where the poor are
disproportionally impacted. She suggested that an income tax and
dividend tax be income-based. She summarized that spending
should be cut and taxes on oil companies reexamined.
8:52:39 PM
ANDREE MCLEAOD, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 128. She remarked that SB 128 is a
raid on the Permanent Fund and implied that the bill's crafting
was not a transparent process. She asserted that state spending
must be cut.
8:55:19 PM
MARY BISHOP, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. She stated that SB 128 lacks in
explainability and was more susceptible to the law of unintended
consequences. She suggested that the committee consider other
plans, but to keep an open mind on the governor's plan as well.
She said she does not mind a reduction in the amount of her
Permanent Fund dividend, but does not want the dividend to go
away. She proposed that the Permanent Fund dividends in the
future should better reflect the state's fiscal condition at
that time. She asserted that stabilizing the state's income was
more important than an individual's dividend. She suggested that
sin taxes and motor-fuel taxes be raised. She stated that she
does not support an income tax at this time, but a luxury tax
might be considered. She proposed that municipalities should be
encouraged to use sales taxes as compensation for lost
municipal-sharing dollars. She recommended that the Legislature
find a way to get school funding dollars from the residents of
the Unorganized Borough.
8:58:23 PM
BILL SEITZ, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 128. He suggested that the Permanent Fund
dividend be set at $1,500 for five years and then reevaluated.
He said any taxes should have a five-year sunset. He advised
that inflation-proofing be reduced due to low inflation levels.
He recommended that the state's mega-projects be eliminated.
9:00:02 PM
MERRICK PIERCE, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 128. He recommended that government cut
spending and oil production taxes be reviewed. He asserted that
the state's unfunded public employee retirement obligations
continue to grow and will likely be discharged through
bankruptcy.
9:01:53 PM
CHAIR STOLTZE thanked the public for its participation and
testimony.
[SB 128 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 128 Public Testimony to SSTA - Fourth Batch (50) POMS 2-10-2016.pdf.pdf |
SSTA 2/4/2016 5:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Public Testimony to SSTA - Third Batch (25) POMS 2-4-2016.pdf |
SSTA 2/4/2016 5:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Public Testimony to SSTA - Second Batch (25) POMS 2-4-2016.pdf.pdf |
SSTA 2/4/2016 5:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |
| SB 128 Public Testimony to SSTA - First Batch (150) POMS 2-4-2016.pdf |
SSTA 2/4/2016 5:30:00 PM |
SB 128 |