Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/07/2019 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| Presentation: Economic Overview of Governor's Proposed Operating Budget | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Joe Riggs, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (amhta) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 7, 2019
9:01 a.m.
9:01:37 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel; Senator Mia Costello; Senator Gary
Stevens; Mouchine Guettabi, Economist, Institute of Social
and Economic Research; Ed King, Chief Economist, Office of
Management and Budget; Bruce Tangeman, Commissioner,
Department of Revenue.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Joe Riggs, Appointee, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
OPERATING BUDGET
CONFIRMATION HEARING: JOE RIGGS, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY (AMHTA)
Co-Chair Stedman informed that the committee would continue
to hear an economic overview of the governor's proposed
budget. He discussed scheduling. He expected that the ISER
presentation would take most of the two hours allotted for
the morning portion of the meeting.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the committee would reconvene
in the afternoon to consider the confirmation of Mr. Joe
Riggs.
9:04:45 AM
^PRESENTATION: ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
OPERATING BUDGET
MOUCHINE GUETTABI, ECONOMIST, INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC RESEARCH, informed that he was an associate
professor of economics at the Institute of Social and
Economic Research (ISER). He was a regional economist by
training and had a PhD from Oklahoma State University. He
had been with the institute since 2012. He described that
regional economics looked at the economic impacts of
development and included doing economic forecasts for the
state. He had recently developed a program to look at the
socio-economic effects of the Permanent Fund Dividend
(PFD).
Mr. Guettabi continued to discuss his background. He did
research on health economics and healthcare costs. He was
part of a team in 2016 that considered the potential
economic impacts of a few of the fiscal options. He
continued that ISER had used fairly generic options,
investigating how a potential shock to government jobs or
the PFD would ripple through the economy. He cautioned that
there was a tremendous amount of uncertainty inherent in
looking at impacts. He would use the 2016 study as a basis
for his interpretation of the potential economic
ramifications of the governor's proposed budget for FY 20.
Mr. Guettabi discussed the presentation "Budget options:
What are the short term effects?" (copy on file).
Mr. Guettabi showed slide 2, "Outline":
A little bit of background
Some basics
Short term impact of the proposed budget
Short term employment effects of the cuts
Short term employment effects of the higher dividends
What is the current state of the economy?
Is the recession over?
1980's recession
Final thoughts
Mr. Guettabi commented that he would discuss the extent to
which the proposed reductions would add to the recession.
He commented that the state was at a stage which if the oil
recession extended a year or two (and more jobs were lost)
it could become Alaska's biggest recession.
9:08:18 AM
Mr. Guettabi turned to slide 3, "Background":
In 2016, at the request of the Alaska Department of
Administration, UAA's Institute of Social and Economic
Research's Gunnar Knapp, Matthew Berman, and Mouchine
Guettabi provided an analysis of the economic impact
of various state budget options, "The Short-run
Economic Impacts of Alaska's Fiscal Options."
The analysis focused on the short term impacts and
therefore should not be used to evaluate the long run
impacts of the budgetary decisions. I will mainly
apply these 2016 estimates to the Governor's FY2020
budget to provide an assessment of the near term
employment impacts.
Mr. Guettabi noted that the report was dated March 30,
2016. Mr. Guettabi emphasized that the study focused on
short-term effects, which could be described as a year to a
year and a half. He emphasized that the effects took place
before firms decided to do things differently, before
people started out-migrating, and before wages changed. He
explained that the study was concerned with ancillary
effects of economic impacts; which followed money in its
different permutations of income, spending, and other
areas. He used the example of a teacher whose job had been
cut.
Mr. Guettabi displayed slide 4, "What were our conclusions
from the original study?":
?Different ways of collecting money from Alaskans
affect those with lower and higher incomes in
significantly different ways.
?Anything the state does to reduce the deficit will
cost the economy jobs and money. But spending some of
the Permanent Fund earnings the state currently saves
would not have short-run economic effects. Saving less
would, however, slow Permanent Fund growth and reduce
future earnings.
?Because the deficit is so big, the overall economic
effects of closing the deficit will also be big.
Mr. Guettabi explained that people in different income
brackets spent different portions of income. He discussed
the concept of residentiary adjustment made to the
analysis. He discussed how the concept would affect an
income tax. He noted that there was a trade-off: in order
to close the budget gap, money had to be taken from
someone. He suggested that every option aside from spending
savings would result in taking money from the economy and
would have a negative consequence.
Mr. Guettabi noted that because the budget was so big,
anything that was done would have negative consequences. In
2016, ISER had warned that the state should not try to
close the deficit all at once because of concern with
amount of pressure that would be put on the economy. He
thought the conclusion still held because the deficit was
very large and if the state was too aggressive it could
potentially have negative consequences on the economy.
9:13:22 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof thought it was the job of an economist
to understand the interplay of a series of choices. She
commented on the complexity of economic analysis. She asked
about the second bullet point on slide 4, which suggested
saving less would slow Permanent Fund growth and reduce
future earnings. She thought that in comparison to other
choices such as an income tax or sales tax, the matter
became relative and more tolerable. She hoped future slides
would not contain isolated statements that might not
provide context.
Co-Chair von Imhof continued her remarks. She asked if the
deficit was large.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the presentation had thus far
addressed conclusions from the 2016 study, which did not
include discussion of the size of the deficit. The study
had not yet addressed the percent of market value (POMV)
draw from the Permanent Fund. He thought it could be argued
that the size of the deficit had shrunk because the state
was relying more on the fund. He qualified that the slide
was taken to give context about the conclusions of the
study from 2016.
Mr. Guettabi continued to address Co-Chair von Imhof's
question. He did not disagree with Co-Chair von Imhof in
that economic choices were relative. He argued that
economists were good at analyzing reality rather than how
things should be. He stated that ISER had been careful in
highlighting that the only option that did not have
negative consequences was to use savings.
9:17:14 AM
Senator Hoffman thought the administration was trying to
solve the budget equation in one year. He referenced his
comments from the previous day. He asked if the deficit
would better be addressed over two or three years. He
thought the committee and the legislature needed to
consider the question.
Senator Bishop referenced Co-Chair von Imhof's comments. He
suggested that the legislature had solved 80 percent of the
problem the previous year, and the deficit was between $300
and $400 million, and not $1.6 billion.
9:19:00 AM
Senator Shower asked if Mr. Guettabi argued that taking
from savings did not affect the economy. He asserted that
the largest source of revenue was earnings from the
Permanent Fund. He thought there would be an impact. He did
not want the public to take away the idea that taking from
savings would not impact the state.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative. He stated that
there were trade-offs; when money was taken from savings
there was less base to grow and therefore long-term returns
were impacted.
Mr. Guettabi discussed slide 6, "What tools did we use?":
?To analyze the short term impacts, we relied on a
standard input output model which captures linkages
across Alaska's economic sectors. This allows us to
determine how changes or "shocks" to any sector, or
household income reverberate through the economy.
?The technique is therefore very useful in estimating
how a change in spending or income attributable to a
particular industry or government policy "ripples"
through the economy as a result of further changes in
spending flows between industries and households.
Mr. Guettabi reiterated that he wanted to analyze the
downstream effects of economic changes. He explained that
he would discuss direct, indirect, and induced effects of
budget cuts and job loss. He discussed an example of the
University of Alaska. He described induced effects as an
aspect of employment and income effects.
Mr. Guettabi reviewed slide 7, "How are the effects
estimated?":
?It is important to explain that the total effects we
estimate for both government cuts and higher PFDs
include direct, indirect, and induced effects.
?For a change in income, through a higher a PFD, there
are no direct employment effects because the PFD
represents an income shock.
?There are, however, induced effects because
households spend a portion of their checks which
result in retailers employing additional people.
?For a significant number of government cuts, the
person laid off loses his or her job which represents
a direct effect, and then the economy experiences
further employment losses due to the decreased
spending.
Mr. Guettabi contended that people were always surprised to
hear that the employment effects from cutting government
were larger than employment effects from cutting the PFD.
His discussed the effects of government cuts rather than
the income shock of cutting the PFD.
9:23:11 AM
Senator Micciche recalled that the previous year the Senate
had constructed and passed a spending limit. He thought Mr.
Guettabi's recommendation was to solve the problem over
time rather than all at once. He asked for Mr. Guettabi to
describe the time frame he was referring to.
Mr. Guettabi was referring to ISER's recommendation at the
end of the 2016 study. At the time, the institute had felt
the economy was fragile and therefore the potential
consequences from imposing a tax or cutting $3 billion from
government would have too big a negative effect on the
economy. An alternative would be to make a three-year plan
to eliminate uncertainty, but also mitigate the negative
consequences the economy would feel and give the economy
time to settle back and grow again.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked how the economic effects were
estimated. She asked what percentage of the PFD (under
ISER's model) was assumed to be spent in the state. She
listed expenses such as vacations, federal taxes, college,
and online purchasing.
Mr. Guettabi stated he would show high and low estimates.
In the high scenario, he removed taxes and savings by
household income bracket. He explained that people who were
low income were assumed to spend everything. Going up in
the income distribution, the calculation removed federal
taxes and savings. In the low scenario, ISER considered a
consumer expenditure survey and looked at how change in
income affected expenditures.
Co-Chair von Imhof hoped ISER looked at actual data within
its estimation. She considered a presentation from the
previous day that suggested that jobs remained the same
after a high PFD. She asked if Mr. Guettabi was considering
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) jobs
over different years (and different PFD sizes) to help
formulate estimates.
Mr. Guettabi explained that ISER had a paper that looked at
the causal effect of the dividend on labor market
fluctuations; which estimated the number of jobs gained
after PFD distribution. His analysis being presented looked
at how changes in income affected spending. The analysis
looked at how giving money or taking money away from people
influence the number of jobs and the amount of income in
the economy. He was happy to provide the paper, which had
looked specifically at how variations in the size of the
PFD influence employment in the months after distribution.
9:28:24 AM
Mr. Guettabi spoke to slide 8, "Some important
limitations":
?Our ability to analyze impacts of spending cuts is
limited by uncertainty about how they would be
implemented. Therefore our analysis uses generic cuts.
?Our analysis focuses on the short run and therefore
does not account for potential behavioral adjustments
in spending, wage rates, prices, or migration to and
from Alaska. The best way to interpret our estimates
is to say that they reflect immediate income and jobs
losses resulting from less/more money circulating in
the economy.
?Most importantly, these changes do not provide us
with guidance on the long term ramifications of the
changes in services, quality of education/life, and
the attractiveness of the business environment.
?The devil is in the details.
Mr. Guettabi showed slide 9, "Employment losses from
deficit reduction measures," which showed a bar graph
entitled 'Estimated Job Losses per $100 Million of Deficit
Reduction.' He explained that the graph showed a high and
low option depending upon how people spent money. He
qualified that the first four options on the graph were
government options, and the remaining options were income
options. He thought the takeaway was clearly that if a job
was eliminated through a government cut, the job was lost
as well as the spending that occurred as a result of the
job. He noted that the burden of a PFD cut was borne by
residents. He stated that the conclusions of the estimates
would be applied to his analysis of the governor's budget.
Co-Chair von Imhof looked at slide 9 and gleaned that a
decrease in government spending per $100 million had a
bigger detrimental effect on jobs than a smaller dividend.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if there were comparable choices,
it would have less economic impact on the economy if the
state reduced the amount of the dividend by a few hundred
million and instead invested the funds into state jobs.
Mr. Guettabi answered "yes."
9:31:52 AM
Senator Micciche recalled the previous day there had been
criticism of the ISER study. There had been claims that the
study was only considering short-term impacts; and there
was a claim that in the real world, the economy adjusted to
change to "fill the void" that was left. He asked for Mr.
Guettabi to comment.
Mr. Guettabi was not sure what "fill the void" meant. He
stated that he had been very transparent that he was
discussing short-term effects. He continued that long-term
effects were unknown and were considerations that were
beyond the scope of the study. He was not sure what the
criticism of the analysis was. He was happy to address
specific concerns about how ISER got to the numbers or what
were the shortcomings about thinking about job effects. He
was not trying to suggest that the short-term was the most
important dimension; or that thinking of job effects was
the most important. He stated that how much potential
damage was done to the economy in the short run to
alleviate budgetary pressures was but one part of the
equation.
Senator Wielechowski asked for an explanation of the
numbers on slide 9. He wondered if the numbers were
specific to the state.
Mr. Guettabi stated that everything on the slide was
Alaska-specific. Tax numbers used were from multiple data
sources and from an Alaska-specific input-output model. For
the PFD, ISER had treated it as an income-shock and used
different household brackets. For state workforce and the
capital budget, ISER used Alaska-specific content and
followed the dollars from the initial cut to the "end of
the road." He was happy to provide more details on the
mechanics.
9:35:53 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if Mr. Guettabi could address
slides from the administration.
Mr. Guettabi had not seen the entire presentation from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the previous day. He
thought the question of how responsive employment was to
government spending. He thought the way the administration
showed the equation was not how one would ask the question.
In causal analysis, counter-factual information was
considered to hypothesize what employment have been if
government spending had stayed at a certain same level. He
thought it was a simplified version of the world to
consider the correlation between budgetary spending and
employment without accounting for other macro-economic
indicators. He suggested resisted reaching conclusions
based on an overcomplication of the relationship.
Senator Hoffman looked at slide 9. He asked Mr. Guettabi
about the level of state pay cut that was considered. He
pondered that a combination of cutting state workers' pay,
a flat income tax, and a 4 percent sales tax (at the low
end) would equal cutting the state work force at the low
end.
Mr. Guettabi estimated that for every $100 million, if you
cut the pay of state workers, the state would lose between
459 and 727 jobs.
Senator Hoffman asked at what level was ISER looking at the
low end and high end of cutting state worker's pay.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the average pay of government
workers was $50,000; and ISER had used an average worker
that earned between $50,000 and $75,000 as a basis for the
analysis.
9:39:15 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought Senator Hoffman had been asking if
a flat rate income tax could be added to a 2 percent
property tax to determine effects.
Mr. Guettabi thought one could certainly add up the items;
ISER had not considered implementing multiple options. In
coming up with an overall amount of money that could be
raised, one could add the amounts.
Senator Shower considered the capital budget, and how the
data was put together for slide 9. He asked if Mr. Guettabi
made an assumption about the often temporary jobs that were
typical of capital projects.
Mr. Guettabi reiterated that the study looked at short-term
effects.
Mr. Guettabi referenced slide 10, "Income losses from
deficit reduction measures," which showed a bar graph
entitled 'Estimated Income losses per $100 Million of
Deficit Reduction.' He emphasized that for every $100
million, the graph showed how much money in income would be
lost in the economy. He made the point that a dollar in
compensation contained retirement and benefits. When the
dollar of income was cut, some of the dollar did not
actually make it into the economy. His reasoning showed
that one of the reasons it appeared was that cuts from
government options resulted in fewer income impacts.
Mr. Guettabi considered the income effects from the PFD,
which were the largest because all the burden was borne by
residents. He questioned how much expenditure was lost. He
noted that a portion of the expenditures were typically
undertaken by non-residents. In each of the options save
for the government and PFD options, someone else was
bearing some of the burden; so it was possible to raise the
same amount of money without losing as much of the
expenditure.
9:43:13 AM
Mr. Guettabi turned to slide 11, "What are the effects of
government cuts?
?The employment graph shows that for each $100 million
government related cut, we would expect about 1,086
jobs to be lost.
?This estimate is an average across three scenarios:
Government layoffs, broad-based state cuts, and pay
cuts for government workers. State government layoffs
would result in the greatest job losses: between 1,414
jobs and1, 677 jobs. We estimate broad-based cuts to
result in losses ranging between 980 and 1,260 jobs.
Pay cuts would result in job losses ranging between
459 and 727 jobs.
Mr. Guettabi stated that his slide would pivot towards the
governor's proposed budget and the potential economic
effect of the proposed cuts. He mentioned the rule of thumb
that for every $100 million in cuts, there was a loss of
1,000 jobs.
Mr. Guettabi reviewed slide 12, "What is the goal of the
summary?
?This summary attempts to assess the short term
employment impacts from the decreases in spending, and
increases in the PFDs.
?Given that we are interested in understanding the
aggregate economic effects, we need to take into
account how the proposed changes influence state
spending, local government revenues, federal funds,
and households.
Mr. Guettabi highlighted that it was important to think
beyond cuts in thinking about economic effects and think
about loss of local government revenues and federal
dollars. He thought it was important to consider how much
money was being pulled out of the economy, and how much
money was being added to the economy as a result of the
proposed changes.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought it mattered very much where the
reductions took place. She used the example of laying off
workers rather than purchasing less equipment. She hoped
that Mr. Guettabi would talk about his statement.
Mr. Guettabi apologized for his lack of clarity. He stated
that his comment alluded to his belief that the state
needed to be exhaustive in how it accounted for how much
money was being pulled out of the economy irrespective of
whether it was coming from the state, the federal
government, or a loss in local government revenues. He
qualified that the bullet point and his statement were not
about consequences, but rather an accounting of losses.
9:48:00 AM
Mr. Guettabi spoke to slide 13, "Describing the cuts,"
which showed a bar graph representing reductions in
spending using numbers from the Legislative Finance
Division (LFD). He thought LFD's presentation had
demonstrated very well what was a cut and what was not a
cut. He characterized the estimated reductions on the graph
as a cornerstone of the conversation. He had heard
differing information about potential federal funds lost
through reductions to Medicaid and other programs.
Mr. Guettabi displayed slide 14, "What is not included?":
?School debt reimbursement and debt service.
?Capital budget reductions.
?Use of reserves
Mr. Guettabi thought (according to LFD's presentation) that
there was an estimated $70 million in school debt
reimbursement and debt service. He stated there was more
use of reserves than was initially understood, and the use
of reserves was not used in thinking about economic impacts
as the use of reserves did not have a short-term negative
effect on the economy.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the three items listed on the
slide were an economic stimulus or suppressant.
Mr. Guettabi noted that the use of reserves was an example
of what Co-Chair von Imhof had mentioned. The use of
reserves cushioned the economic shock.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about debt service for schools.
Mr. Guettabi had not considered debt service for schools
and would have to think about how communities would respond
to it. He did not know how to model debt service for
schools, and it had not been clear to him how it would be
absorbed.
9:52:12 AM
Senator Micciche pondered "trickle-down economics," and how
the private sector rushed in. In the reduction of the
deficit, there was no cut to income tax or corporate tax.
He discussed the increased local taxes and wondered how the
private sector filled the void when there was not a
positive effect.
Mr. Guettabi thought there was no expansionary component of
the proposed budget except for the larger PFD. He thought
one could potentially argue that reaching a fiscal solution
eliminated uncertainty, which potentially improved economic
conditions. He thought it was also possible to say that
cuts were a negative signal to businesses and to
households, and hiring would fall. He stated that dividends
were a simulative component that added more money into the
economy, but quite a bit of money was being taken out
through reductions. He agreed with Senator Micciche's
assessment.
9:54:00 AM
Mr. Guettabi showed slide 16, "What are the employment
impacts?" which showed a bar graph considering employment
reductions from declines in state spending, loss of local
government revenues, and federal revenues. He explained
that when losing $650 million in agency operations, the
amount multiplied times 1,086 signified 7,000 jobs lost. He
qualified that he was treating the loss of local government
revenues as an actual reduction in economic activity, as he
did not know how communities would potentially replace the
dollars.
Mr. Guettabi discussed the assumption that if communities
were able to raise taxes to replace the $448 million, the
job losses would be lower. He questioned whether
communities had the capacity to replace the reduction but
reasoned that it was not possible.
Co-Chair von Imhof hoped that Mr. Guettabi's analysis of
local government reductions considered how the North Slope
Borough spent its tax. She pondered whether the borough
spent or saved the funds. She wanted to see a more complex
analysis of what would happen. She thought the fourth leg
of the equation was the Permanent Fund. She wanted to see a
fourth color on slide 16 to address potential job loss from
a lack of a PFD. She thought the comparison was the lever
by which the legislature was evaluating the budget.
Mr. Guettabi asked for Co-Chair von Imhof to explain what
part of the Permanent Fund she was referring to.
Co-Chair von Imhof reiterated that she had asked about how
much did the North Slope utilize its money. She asked how
much the bars on the graph would shrink if the PFD was
decreased.
Co-Chair Stedman clarified that the reference to the North
Slope borough was referencing the property tax. The borough
received a substantial portion of the property tax. He
thought the other part of the question dealt with the PFD
coming out of the percent of market value (POMV), which was
capped at 5.25 percent.
Co-Chair von Imhof confirmed that she was considering the
PFD portion of the Permanent Fund.
9:59:33 AM
Mr. Guettabi stated that it was true that the borough saved
some of its money. He wanted to provide a sense of scale of
the effects. The budget proposal had come out three weeks
ago, and ISER had not evaluated every element. He thought
there was a great deal of value in having the information
on the slide as a conversation starter. He did not know how
each borough would respond to losses from local government
reductions. He speculated but could not comment as to how
likely certain outcomes would be. He thought the slide
offered a realistic perspective if boroughs could not
replace the dollars from declines in the three areas on the
slide. He stated that a later slide would address how
communities responded to the cuts would determine the size
of the actual job losses.
Mr. Guettabi affirmed that the dividend was part of the
equation. He had tried to structure the presentation by
focusing on separate pieces. He thought adding a PFD bar to
the graph would be a useful exercise.
Mr. Guettabi referenced slide 17, "Table: Employment losses
summary from reductions," which showed a data table.
Co-Chair Stedman looked at the slide and asked how many
total jobs were in the state.
Mr. Guettabi informed that the state had about 330,000
jobs.
Senator Micciche thought Co-Chair von Imhof brought up a
good point. He thought using a 2016 study as a basis
required additional consideration the impact of the PFD and
broad-based tax on jobs included in slides 13 and 16.
Senator Olson commented that the North Slope Borough budget
was very complex and included bonding capability. He
remarked that SB 57 [a bill that proposed repealing the
credit for municipal payments against the state levy of tax
on oil and gas exploration, production, and pipeline
transportation property], would be implemented for a long
time while savings were short term.
10:04:30 AM
Mr. Guettabi turned to slide 18:
?The North Slope borough would need to impose a tax
equaling 35,972 dollars per person in order to replace
the lost revenues.
Table: Oil and gas property taxes
Mr. Guettabi thought the slide clarified the scale of
proposed reductions by population of each borough to
understand how much in taxes each borough would have to
raise to replace the funds. He emphasized that he was not
supporting a course of action, but thought the exercise was
one way to think about the scale of numbers being
discussed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if there was an estimated 5 percent
loss of statewide employment.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative. He stated he had
yet to talk about potential employment gains from higher
dividends.
Senator Bishop referenced the capital budget and thought
there was a tremendous amount of deferred maintenance in
the state. He thought the numbers on the slide could be
bigger since there had been a flat capital budget for five
years, and liability of state assets increased every year.
He commented that there had been jobs in the capital budget
and there was a multiplier with construction dollars that
went through the economy. He asked if Mr. Guettabi agreed
or disagreed.
Mr. Guettabi agreed that there was a significant amount of
deferred maintenance, and that the capital budget was
immensely important for the long-term health of the state.
He thought addressing the $2 billion of deferred
maintenance was a necessary step to ensure the long-term
welfare of the state.
10:07:36 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked to go back to slide 17. He
wondered who to believe. He referenced a chart in the
previous day's presentation by OMB; which had a slide that
analyzed jobs and state spending from 1990. The slide had
concluded that there was no relationship between state
spending and jobs in Alaska. He asked if Mr. Guettabi
agreed with the information. He asked why he should believe
Mr. Guettabi's information and not OMB's information.
Mr. Guettabi disagreed with OMB's assessment. He thought
when considering the causal effect of government spending
on employment, he would not simply run a regression that
controlled for population and inflation as OMB had.
Instead, he would consider a "counter-factual," to look at
what employment would be in the absence of spending. He
suggested there was plenty of methods to capture the
positive relationship between government spending and
employment. He stated he would be happy to share additional
literature on the topic.
Chair Stedman asked for shorter and more precise answers to
members' questions.
Mr. Guettabi showed slide 19, "Outline":
A little bit of background
Some basics
Short term impact of the proposed budget
Short term employment effects of the cuts
Short term employment effects of the higher
dividends
What is the current state of the economy?
Is the recession over?
1980's recession
Final thoughts
Mr. Guettabi stated he would try and walk the committee
through the marginal increases in the dividend as a result
of the proposed budget.
Mr. Guettabi reviewed slide 20, "What about the PFD?":
?Under the proposed budget, Alaska residents will
receive $2,932 instead of the $1,800 that they would
have received if the dividends were capped.
?This year, too, most Alaskans will receive an
additional 1,061 dollars to pay back for previous
capped dividends.
?This will result in a per-person increase of about
$2,193, which translates into an additional $1.348
billion in the economy if 615,000 people receive the
PFD.
Mr. Guettabi showed slide 21, "Added dollars due to higher
PFDs," which showed a bar graph depicting the additional
amount of money that would be in peoples' bank accounts as
a result of using the PFD statutory formula rather than
capped dividends. Additionally, the bar graphs showed the
additional dollars that would be in people's bank accounts
as a result of the payback dividend.
10:11:13 AM
Mr. Guettabi spoke to slide 22, "What are the short-term
impacts of the higher PFDs?" The slide showed a bar graph.
He calculated that if the high and low options were
averaged, then $100 million in dividends resulted in 725
additional jobs. He applied the formula to the additional
dollars he referenced earlier, and the result (using the
statutory formula) resulted in about 5,047 jobs and the
one-time dividend payback resulted in 4,730 additional
jobs.
Mr. Guettabi referenced slide 23, "Table: Employment gains
summary from higher PFDs." The slide showed the calculation
of employment gains using both the statutory formula and
the proposed dividend pay-back.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the jobs referenced were
permanent, full-time jobs.
Mr. Guettabi stated that more recent analysis indicated
that the jobs would last about 3 months.
Co-Chair von Imhof referenced a DOLWD presentation from the
previous day that suggested that data did not support the
conclusion that the dividend made large changes in the
economy.
Senator Micciche felt like the North Slope Borough Oil and
Gas Property Tax monies could be translated directly into
jobs. He had read a report from the administration that
suggested that more than 90 percent of PFD distribution did
not get into the Alaska economy. The report had also
suggested that changes in the PFD had no relationship to
changes in the number of jobs.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the question might better be
addressed to the author of the report.
Senator Micciche asked what method Mr. Guettabi was using
to interpret the dollars into jobs.
Mr. Guettabi restated that ISER treated the PFD as an
income injection that resulted in jobs through spending. He
continued that ISER had good evidence through recent
analysis that there was a causal relationship between
variation in the size of the PFD and employment. He
referenced an input-output model. He stated that there was
no good information as to how Alaskans used the PFD.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the earlier part of the question
would be addressed later in the afternoon.
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Guettabi could reconfirm that
the jobs were long term or short term.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the jobs were short-term.
10:16:03 AM
Mr. Guettabi discussed slide 24, "Let's put all numbers
together," which had a bar graph and summarized previous
slides. He stated that ISER was agnostic about the length
of the jobs. The slide added up the employment effects
(using the 2016 study) and considering the macroeconomic
effect employment in the short run.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what the slide showed.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the slide showed that on
aggregate, the state would lose more than 7,000 jobs even
after accounting for the simulative effect of the PFD. The
slide also accounted for the job losses that would come
from cutting agency operation, loss of federal dollars, and
potential loss of jobs from the loss of local government.
Between 2015 and 2018, the state lost between 12,500 and
13,000 jobs.
Co-Chair Stedman estimated that the job loss was a little
over 2 percent of the workforce. He observed that the upper
bars showed job gains in the shorter term on the chart. He
observed that the lower bars were negative numbers and
showed longer term effects.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative.
Senator Wilson asked if ISER's analysis took into effect
the over $500 million in increased federal spending for
military services in Alaska.
Mr. Guetabbi answered in the negative.
Senator Wilson asked how the funds would offset the
negative effects (such as the green bar) on the slide.
Mr. Guetabbi did not know the exact nature of the jobs but
stated that if the federal funding was similar it would
offset the job loss.
Senator Bishop asked if the estimated job loss of 7,146 was
immediate. He assumed ISER had no way of forecasting what
the long-term effect would be on the economy.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative.
Senator Hoffman asked about the average salary in the
state.
Mr. Guettabi stated the average salary of government
workers was about $47,000.
Senator Hoffman asked about the aggregate amount of money
for the estimated 7,146 jobs lost.
Mr. Guettabi estimated that the average wage in the state
was close to $50,000, multiplied by approximately 7,000
would be close to $35 million.
Senator Hoffman thought the loss would be for decades.
Mr. Guettabi reminded that the estimated total job loss on
the slide were short-term jobs and would potentially be on
top of jobs already lost.
10:20:16 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if all the estimated job losses
were for short term jobs.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the whole analysis was short-term.
Senator Micciche asked if the study divided the job losses
from the PFD by four.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the slide showed real numbers that
were not adjusted for the length of time.
Mr. Guettabi turned to slide 25, "A few notes about the
comparison":
?It is important to note that the jobs created from
the stimulative effects of the PFDs may be different
than the ones lost through government cuts.
?Additionally, the employment effects of the PFD may
be short lived. Our recent (yet to be published) work
shows that the employment effects are concentrated in
the three months post distribution.
?There is also the question of how uncertainty may
influence household spending patterns.
?On the spending reduction side, there is significant
uncertainty about how communities will respond and
if/how much federal spending the state will actually
forgo.
Mr. Guettabi discussed the average salaries for government
jobs and retail jobs and thought it was important to
consider if short-term jobs replaced the type of jobs that
were lost through government cuts. He pointed out that it
was not known whether households would spend in the same
way as done in the past. He thought the environment was
rife with uncertainty.
Senator Wielechowski tried to understand how the jobs were
all short term. He asked if Mr. Guettabi was saying that if
the proposed budget was passed then three months later the
state would bounce back and not have job losses.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the negative. He emphasized that
the analysis indicated the immediate effects of the
proposed cuts.
10:24:04 AM
Mr. Guettabi referenced slide 27, "Alaska employment
outlook, which showed a bar graph considering employment
growth in Alaska. He stated that he would present an
economic forecast that did not account for the potential
losses from the proposed budget, but he thought the
forecast provided context. The state had been in recession
for about three years; with 1.82 percent of jobs lost in
2016, and 1.25 percent of jobs lost in 2017. He did not
have final numbers for 2018 but believed the state will
have lost about .7 or .8 percent of its jobs.
Mr. Guettabi continued his remarks on the Alaska employment
outlook. He had done an analysis a couple of months
previously, comparing Alaska to other energy states. The
conclusion was that Alaska was the only state still in
recession and still struggling. His forecast for 2019 had
been that the economy was going to stabilize, and that it
would be the first year the state would potentially gain
jobs. The gains in jobs were still fairly low. He clarified
that none of the data on the slide took into account any
significant reductions in government spending. Even in the
absence of reductions, it would take the state between four
and five years to recover all the jobs that it had lost
between 2015 and 2018.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned the estimated loss of 2 percent
of jobs.
Mr. Guettabi stated that if the state was to lose the
estimated 7,146 jobs; the reductions in 2019 would be just
as significant as what was lost in 2016 in the worst year
of the recession.
Mr. Guettabi reviewed slide 28, "What is the current state
of the economy?":
?Since the start of the recession, the state lost
1.82% of its jobs in 2016 and another 1.25% in 2017.
?While we only have preliminary data, we expect
employment to decline by 0.8% in 2018. Before the
announced cuts, our forecast for 2019 showed positive
growth equaling close to 0.8%. Between 2019 and 2025,
we anticipated employment growth to average 0.68% per
year.
Mr. Guettabi reiterated that he had expected the recession
to end in 2019. As a result of the changes, it appeared the
recession would go on longer as a result of the negative
pressure on employment in the short run.
10:27:41 AM
Mr. Guettabi spoke to slide 29, "Short summary of
employment losses":
?The state lost between 12,500 and 13,000 jobs
between2015 and 2018.
?The projected job losses from the spending cuts,
higher PFDs, loss of federal dollars, and loss of
local government revenues would potentially result in
an additional 7,000jobs lost.
?If that happens, this recession-oil induced plus
spending reductions-would potentially be Alaska's most
pronounce done.
Mr. Guettabi discussed the compound effect of the lost jobs
between 2015 and 2018 in combination with the estimated
7,149 jobs as a result of declines in state spending. He
discussed the 1980s recession, which he thought was
important for context. Many people had been surprised about
how well the housing market had held up during the 1980s
recession. He thought some of the job loss had been
absorbed by non-residents, and that the economic floor of
Alaska was much higher. He thought the current recession,
if it resulted in out-migration, could spread to the
housing market.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Mr. Guettabi was referring to the
1980s recession.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative. The 1980s had
seen a significant housing shock. He stated that the 2015
recession, induced by oil price decline, had not seen a
housing effect. He reiterated that some of the job losses
in the most recent recession were absorbed by non-
residents. If there were more job losses added (mostly
borne by residents) the recession could spread to the
housing market.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated she had some consternation when a
presenter made extreme statements after stating that there
were many assumptions and that a dynamic model was being
discussed. She thought Mr. Guettabi was describing an
extremist view. She wanted to see a mixture of different
possible outcomes. She wanted to see more variation and
discussion of uncertainty. She pointed out that it was not
possible to control human behavior.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the amount of uncertainty in the
previous slide was immense. It was known that the aggregate
effects of the proposed changes would result in some job
losses, but it could be less than estimated. He stated he
was presenting the committee with what he considered as
objective an assessment of the information that ISER
currently had. He thought clearly how households and
communities spent money would affect the numbers. He
appreciated the caution raised by Co-Chair von Imhof.
10:32:41 AM
Senator Micciche stated that there were factors missing in
the study and thought there was potential for things to be
worse. He did not think that Mr. Guettabi plugged in the
price of uncertainty of industry investment in the state.
He thought there was a giant target on industry. He asked
if there was potential for the economic forecast to be
worse if the uncertainty continued.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the previous hear he had
calculated that for every year of uncertainty, the state
lost between $200 million and $600 million in investment.
He had considered the years when there had been
considerable debate over the POMV draw and use of the
Permanent Fund. He hoped to have more information to do a
specific assessment of each of the pieces.
Co-Chair Stedman followed up to ask about private
enterprise and backfilling job loss. He discussed the oil
industry, which was run off international economics and was
not affected by what happened in the state. He thought the
tax policy seemed like it would stay as-is for the
foreseeable future. He mentioned the fishing industry,
which was also not affected by what happened in the state
economically. He asked how industry could backfill the jobs
and how long it would take.
Mr. Guettabi reiterated that the question of backfilling
was one of vision rather than analysis. He did not
understand the elements that would encourage investment. He
thought there was uncertainty due to lack of knowledge as
to the size and placement of budget cuts. He thought it was
hard to see how the backfilling might occur. He continued
that even in the absence of the proposed reductions, his
forecast data looked at very slow growth of .8 percent gain
in jobs total, and DOLWD was forecasting half of the
amount.
10:36:31 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked if the industry uncertainty in
Alaska was greater than in other resource extraction
countries with dictators that routinely confiscated assets,
assassinated workers, faced civil wars, and raised or
lowered taxes at the whim of a dictator.
Mr. Guettabi answered "no."
Mr. Guettabi addressed slide 30, "What about the 1980's?":
?The 2015-current recession has been longer but milder
than Alaska's most severe recession which lasted from
1985 to 1987.
?That recession resulted in significant outmigration,
and a severe collapse of the housing market.
Mr. Guettabi stated he was one of the first people at the
beginning of the oil-induced recession to say that the
economy was much more diversified, and had many sources of
income that did not exist in the 1980s. He pondered that
there had been three years of recession, and now possibly
an extension.
Senator Shower asked about the influx of military personnel
and the accompanying jobs and construction. He asked if
there was a similar correlation in the 1980s.
Mr. Guettabi stated that the 1980s recession was a housing
recession with a boom followed by a significant bust. There
had also been an oil price component to the recession. He
reiterated that the current economy had sources of money
that went well beyond the 1980s. He emphasized the
difference in economies of the 1990s and the current time.
He wanted to be clear that he was not saying "the sky was
falling" but that the state had been in its longest
recession with potential to go longer.
Mr. Guettabi referenced slide 32, "Employment," which
showed a line graph depicting wage and salary employment
during Alaska's worst recession. The state had lost close
to 19,000 jobs between 1985 and 1987. He reiterated that
the recession of the 1980s was still Alaska's most severe
recession in terms of job losses.
10:40:23 AM
Senator Wilson asked if Mr. Guettabi knew the total job
number and percentage of jobs lost in the 1980s.
Mr. Guettabi did not have the number available but asserted
that 20,000 jobs in the 1980s constituted a much larger
share of employment than 20,000 jobs would be in today's
economy.
Co-Chair Stedman observed that the chart showed that the
1980s recession had about 8 percent job loss.
Senator Bishop commented that the working people's wages
had stayed flat from 1985 to 1990 and there had even been a
reduction of wages on the North Slope. He thought the state
had experienced the same effect again in the current
recession.
Mr. Guettabi discussed slide 33, "Migration," which
addressed net migration between 1982 and 1990. He asserted
that population had held up well during the current
recession. He discussed factors that could influence
population stability such as more multi-generational
families and housing prices holding up. While the economy
was still in recession, there were a lot of positive signs
and the state was in the last phase of the recession. The
recession had started in oil and gas, had moved to
professional and business services and state government,
and then moved to household spending sectors. As of 2019,
the recession was concentrated in the retail sector. He
anticipated that the current recession would stabilize in
the current year. He pondered if there would be some out-
migration if the recession continued.
Co-Chair Stedman quipped that out-migration would not
happen via the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Senator Bishop asked for clarity about the state being in
the last phase of the recession, notwithstanding the
potential proposed budget reductions.
Mr. Guettabi answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked for Mr. Guettabi's recommendation
to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Mr. Guettabi turned to slide 34, "Housing":
?The Alaska housing market experienced a long downturn
with a significant number of vacancies and
foreclosures. According to an ISER analysis from 1988,
there were 14,000 vacant housing units in Anchorage
alone.
?The Alaska department of labor has also summarized
the housing experience in the 1980's stating that
"Over 40percent of Alaska banks failed, and Alaska led
the nation in bank failure rates for the decade.
Foreclosures peaked in1988 at 6,821, and by the end of
the decade, more than30,000 foreclosures"
Mr. Guettabi displayed slide 35, "More questions than
answers":
?It is important to reiterate that all options to
close the budget gaps will result in short term
negative consequences. Therefore, it is important to
think about the cost of the alternatives.
?The economy is still in a fragile state as it has
experienced employment decline for 39 straight months.
?There is still considerable uncertainty on which
changes will actually take place.
?While understanding the recessionary effects is
necessary, the long run implications are far more
important.
?Many of these decisions are about priorities and
values.
10:45:00 AM
Mr. Guettabi addressed Co-Chair von Imhof's question. He
thought it was good that the state had many "levers." He
mentioned the state's immense savings account and thought
the decision to use the POMV to stabilize the economy sent
a strong positive signal. He mentioned the fragility of the
economy. He cautioned against taking too aggressive of a
step in too short of a time. He thought the size of the PFD
and the size of government needed to be addressed. He did
not have a policy recommendation. He thought a combination
of factors would be used over multiple years to avoid
damaging the economy and to tell investors there was a long
fiscal structure in place.
Senator Micciche thought Mr. Guettabi was justifying some
part of his study since he worked for the University, which
was proposed to be significantly cut. He asked how Mr.
Guettabi separated his research from his love for the
University.
Mr. Guettabi pointed out that the study was done in 2016.
He stated that ISER prided itself on being objective
brokers. He contended that he was an academic that believed
in good research that hopefully led to good policy. He
stated that any policy that potentially affected the
University or ISER would be unfortunate but had absolutely
nothing to do with what he had said to the committee.
Senator Olson referenced the question of objectivity and
thought all people claimed to be objective. He thanked Mr.
Guettabi for the presentation. He relayed that someone had
said the previous day's presentation by the administration
was like listening to a used car salesman. He referenced
earlier remarks about backfilling jobs by the private
sector. He harkened back to Calvin Coolidge and Herbert
Hoover, who had claimed that the private sector would bail
the country out, after which came the Great Depression. He
mentioned the trickledown economics of the Reagan Era. He
asserted that the private sector did not have the duty to
bail anyone out. He asked if Mr. Guettabi saw the
possibility of a depression with unemployment in double-
digit numbers and a housing collapse.
Mr. Guettabi reiterated that Alaska's economy was in a
fragile state. He questioned where the state's economic
recovery would come from; and pointed out that oil and gas
had always been and would continue to be a big sector of
the state's economy. He had not forecast significant growth
even before the proposed cuts. He thought the minimum
effect of the proposed cuts was to extend the recession. He
did know what the worst-case scenario was, but though that
taking more jobs from the economy in the short term would
postpone the state's recovery.
10:50:48 AM
Senator Olson discussed the fragility of the Alaskan
economy and the 2016 study. He asked if Mr. Guettabi saw
the state going into an all-out depression.
Mr. Guettabi thought "depression" was too strong of a word
and reiterated that there was a considerable amount of
uncertainty. He thought putting pressure on an economy in
recession potentially extended the recession and made
things difficult going forward.
Senator Hoffman recalled consideration of SB 26
[legislation proposing changing the amount of the dividend
and establishing the POMV] the previous year and noted that
the Senate had eliminated many provisions of the bill. He
thought that SB 26 had provided some certainty after
stripping out provisions and just retaining the POMV draw
after a compromise had been made with the other body. He
asked if the state could continue to afford the larger
statutory dividend of $3,000. He recalled that the Senate
had come to the conclusion that the state could not afford
the statutory dividend and had come up with a 20-year
average PFD in the amount of $1,100. He questioned whether
the state could continue to afford the statutory amount. He
stated that the governor (several years ago) felt the state
could not afford the statutory dividend and had reduced it.
Senator Hoffman continued his remarks. He thought certainty
was needed on the amount of the dividend. He did not think
the dividend would be as low as $1,100. He asked if Mr.
Guettabi thought there needed to be certainty on the size
of the dividend in order to know the size of the deficit.
10:55:22 AM
Mr. Guettabi generalized that certainty was good for
investors, individuals, legislatures, and for an economy.
He recalled that setting the POMV draw at 5.25 was deemed
to be sustainable, and his and other's work showed it
potentially was. He thought there was a question of
allocation. Between 2005 and 2014, 90 percent of General
Funds came from oil revenues; and SB 26 potentially solved
the problem by guaranteeing the amount of money coming from
the fund. He thought Senator Hoffman correctly pointed out
that how the $2.9 billion coming in from the fund was used
was clearly important for setting the stage for the size of
the deficit and moving forward.
Senator Micciche thought the theory and execution of
trickle-down economics was made possible by capital made
available through a significant tax cut. He thought the
proposed cuts increased taxes. He thought the idea of the
private sector stepping in was largely a myth. He thought
the state was extremely unique. He asked how to convert
other Lower-48 economics to what was possible for decision
making in Alaska. He discussed the differences in Alaska.
He asked how to "Alaskanize" the analysis.
Mr. Guettabi acknowledged that the state was unique in
several different ways. He argued that the state's economy
was fairly diversified, but its revenue sources were not.
The state had an over-reliance on one source of revenue to
pay for government. He thought the state's economy
structure had evolved and did not look much different than
many others. He pointed out that a lot of money left the
state. He opined that when thinking about the state's
economy one must consider the portion of money that left
the state, and "plugging the leakage."
Mr. Guettabi thanked the committee for having him and
acknowledged that it had a difficult task.
Co-Chair Stedman stated the committee would stand at
recess. He discussed the agenda for the afternoon portion
of the meeting.
11:00:03 AM
RECESSSED
1:05:23 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that the committee would consider
the appointment of Joe Riggs to the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA). He would ask the appointee to
discuss his background, education, work history, the
position, and his opinion on an AMHTA settlement. He wanted
to hear about the appointee's resume.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING: JOE RIGGS, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY (AMHTA)
1:06:28 PM
JOE RIGGS, APPOINTEE, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY
(via teleconference), discussed his qualifications. He read
from an introductory letter to the committee (copy on
file):
Thank you for taking the time to consider my
appointment to the Alaska Mental Health Trust Board of
Trustees. I realize that you have a busy schedule so I
will keep my introduction brief.
I moved to Alaska just out of high school. I drove up
in an old pickup with a backpack, snowboard, and a
paramedic's license in hand. I was off on my first
summer adventure to be a paramedic on a Cook Inlet oil
platform. Like many of us, I stayed. I'm now living in
Anchorage, married to a 3rd generation Alaskan, and
have two boys ages 10 and 4.
As a Trustee, I consider myself to be more of a
generalist. My professional career has taken me down
two paths that often intertwined, finance and
healthcare.
On the finance side, I was a financial advisor for
several years and have reentered the field as an
advisor with a major firm. I have experience across
the spectrum of financial instruments, portfolio
management, trust management, and have access to every
tool in the box. Bottom line, I know what fiduciary
responsibility means, I can interpret the data, and
can even do the math.
On the medical side I have experience across the
industry. From seeing first hand as a paramedic to how
mental illness and addiction impacts the daily lives
of my patients, to standing side by side with
healthcare providers to help them maximize patient
outcomes while minimizing cost. The latter has taken
me across the spectrum of provider specialties and has
given me a unique perspective of how our incredibly
complicated healthcare system operates.
1:09:27 PM
Mr. Riggs continued to read from his statement:
But I'd say my greatest experience to prepare me for
the role as a trustee is one that I wish I didn't
have, nor would I wish it upon anyone. I am the parent
to a trust beneficiary, and to my knowledge, the only
trustee that can say that. 10 years ago, what should
have been one of the greatest days in my life turned
into an unexpected and extended stay in the NICU. My
son has cerebral palsy. To put it simply, he has brain
damage from loss of oxygen during delivery. Many
people think that CP is just a motor issue, but with
my son his difficulties go beyond motor and into
behavioral, learning, sensory processing, and social
issues, etc. Every aspect of his life and personality
is affected. I can go on, but bottom line is that I
have experience as a parent with obtaining services
for multiple issues from multiple provider types. Most
importantly, I can say that I understand what other
parents and caretakers are experiencing. From the
overwhelming feeling of finally getting a diagnosis
and figuring out how to obtain services, to knowing
what it's like to invest a massive amount of family
time, money, and energy to ensure that our children
get the best outcomes possible.
My son as also inspired me to get involved in the
community by being on the board of the Blood Bank to
assist with their fledgling stem cell program and
being on the board of Challenge Alaska where my son is
on the ski team. Recruiting a trustee with board
experience with beneficiary programs who also obtain
funding from the trust is difficult due to the
required 2 year waiting period from board to trustee.
I meet that requirement and gladly bring that
experience.
Bottom line is that I consider this position to be the
best way for me to serve a community that I'm
passionate about and I guarantee that I will be a
tireless advocate for our beneficiaries at all times,
and at all levels.
I look forward to serving.
Mr. Riggs continued to discuss his qualifications.
1:12:25 PM
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Riggs to address his resume. He
asked if the resume was accurate.
Mr. Riggs stated that his resume was accurate. He qualified
that there were some dates that were rounded to the nearest
unit of time. He stated he was currently working with
Merrill Lynch. He still owned Alaska Healthcare Strategies
but had been phasing out of the medical device industry for
the previous two years. He had worked with another
healthcare distributor firm. He had helped his wife start a
medical practice. He discussed his history in the
investment business and as a paramedic for the fire
department in Fairbanks.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to FORWARD the appointment of Joe
Riggs in accordance with AS 39.05.080, to a joint
legislative session for consideration as a trustee of the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA).
Co-Chair Stedman informed that the action did not reflect
an intent by any of the members to vote for or against the
confirmation of the individual during any further sessions.
1:14:40 PM
AT EASE
1:30:17 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman stated the committee would continue to
hear a presentation from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) that was given the previous day. He relayed
that the committee had asked for an addition to slide 8 to
include the PFD.
ED KING, CHIEF ECONOMIST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
believed the committee's question was addressed on an
upcoming slide. He continued to speak to the presentation
from the previous day, Macroeconomic Impact of Fiscal
Options," (copy on file).
Co-Chair Stedman referenced an earlier question from
Senator Micciche. He thought the question was best
addressed to Mr. King, as it was in reference to an article
he had written. He referenced the document "How Important
is the PFD to Alaska's Economy?" (copy on file).
1:32:25 PM
Senator Micciche asked to go back to slide 3 of the
presentation, "Illustration of a 10x Multiplier Effect*,"
which had two graphs entitled 'One Time Injection,' and
'Structural Shift.' He quoted the article referenced by Co-
Chair Stedman and contrasted it with slide 3. He thought
the two pieces of information were contradictory. The paper
Mr. King had written over a year ago had indicated that
more than 90 percent of PFD payments went outside of the
state, and that the multiplier approach (mentioned on the
slide) did not pick it up. He thought that Mr. King's
previous economic evaluation of the PFD was in line with
other economic experts, and the slide was a direct
contradiction of the findings from a year previously.
Mr. King did not see the slide as a contradiction to the
article. The graph on slide 3 was to show how the economic
model used by ISER functioned. He qualified that the
multiplier in Alaska was not a 10x multiplier, which would
imply that 10 percent of the money left the state and 90
percent of the money circulated. He stated that the article
had discussed how the multiplier was probably the inverse;
it was more likely that a large portion of the money left
the state than it was to circulate. He asserted that the
indirect impacts (whether from the PFD, government
spending, or taxes) did not generate the indirect impacts
that one would expect if using a larger multiplier.
Mr. King continued to address Senator Micciche's remarks.
He made the point that the article stated that PFD's did
not show up as jobs. He thought PFD's had a much bigger
impact on people's lives than jobs and improved the quality
of individual's lives. He thought people missed the bigger
picture when too much attention was paid to job numbers. He
discussed the comparison of different ways of spending the
PFD and emphasized that it was impossible to economically
compare. He thought the "numbers being thrown around" did
not mean what people thought they meant.
1:37:10 PM
Senator Micciche thought Mr. King illustrated the 10x
multiplier effect and the PFD when he was discussing the
effects on the budget. He thought the slide should have a
footnote that stated it was theoretical.
Mr. King stated he had labelled the slide as an
"illustration" and had not meant to imply that the slide
depicted impacts he expected to occur in Alaska. He had
tried to define the economic theory behind what happens
when you inject money into an economy. He was merely trying
to illustrate a theory behind concepts and was not trying
to represent what he expected to happen.
Mr. King addressed slide 9, "Fiscal Options":
? Reduce Spending
? Lost government jobs, lower level of services
? Raise Taxes
? Lost economic activity, lower standard of
living
? Cut PFD
? Lost economic activity, lower standard of
living
? Deplete Assets
? Lower future earnings, bigger future problems
All options hurt, but doing nothing is not an option
Mr. King stated that the slide was to illustrate that there
was no solution in which no negative impacts occurred. He
thought the impact was a function of the fact that the
economy was structurally different than before, and the
economy had to adjust to the shock. He thought it was
important to build a counter factual. He thought it was not
possible to compare the proposed budget cut to what FY 19
looked like.
1:40:22 PM
Senator Micciche encouraged the public to consider slide 9.
He referenced page 5 of the article authored by Mr. King,
which stated that the PFD did not work to stimulate the
economy even if theoretical models indicated otherwise. He
mentioned other items in the article that indicated that
the PFD was a 10 percent benefit with 90 percent leakage.
He would have liked to have seen the impacts ranked on
slide 9.
Mr. King pointed out that the same was true for all
spending. When considering theoretical models and output,
and comparing with the data, it was not possible to find
the impacts in the data. He used the hypothetical scenario
of a science experiment in which it was possible to combine
two ingredients in a sterile environment. He concluded that
it was not possible to have a sterile environment in the
real world where there were outside influences. He thought
the economy would adjust to other factors.
Senator Wielechowski could see some consistency in what Mr.
King had stated but did not necessarily agree with all he
had said. He thought Mr. King was asserting that it was not
possible to discern the impacts of the PFD and government
cuts; while Mr. Guettabi had thought it was possible to
measure the impacts. He considered page 5 of the article,
which asserted that of all the tax proposals, a head-tax
PFD reduction did have the largest adverse impact on
individuals in the economy. The article also stated that
the PFD cut was the most likely tax to have flow-through
impacts on the economy because it took the most money from
the people likely to spend the funds locally. He thought
there was some agreement between Mr. King and Mr. Guettabi.
Mr. King thought he was saying the same thing as Mr.
Guettabi. He thought Mr. Guettabi was saying that if you
could isolate all the other effects, it was possible to see
the effects of the economic elements. He thought the
impacts did not show in the data. He agreed that the
distributional effects of a PFD were very different than
the distributional effects to government cuts or taxes. He
continued that a PFD cut would take more money from people
with lower incomes that were more likely to spend the money
locally. He thought the PFD cut would affect those
individuals in a more extreme way than other proposals.
1:45:44 PM
Senator Shower discuss Mr. Guettabi's slide on work force.
He thought another of Mr. Guettabi's slide claimed
something the inverse. He asked if Mr. Guettabi's slides
were aligned with Mr. King's. He thought Mr. Guettabi's
presentation focused on job losses but not on the impact of
reducing the PFD.
Mr. King answered in the affirmative and thought the
largest impact on household income was a PFD cut, which
ISER said in its report. He thought there was more value in
comparing the rank order ISER's analysis rather than the
magnitude of the impacts. He thought it was not possible to
see the magnitude of the impacts in the data. He discussed
hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate that the economy
could adjust itself to impacts.
Senator Bishop looked at page 2 of the article, which
stated that more than 90 percent of PFD's were spent out of
state. He asked what model Mr. King had used.
Mr. King stated that the statement was just an inference
from a statistical analysis that he ran of his own model.
Senator Micciche thought there was disagreement in the
analysis of how the various choices would affect the
state's economy. He thought the income loss was obvious,
because there was a one to one ratio. He mentioned ranking
the impacts on slide 9. He wanted to understand which of
the choices were best, and how each choice effected the
economy.
Mr. King wanted to be clear that the best way to talk about
the economy was circulation of money. He thought the worst
way to talk about the economy was through discussing jobs,
because of inconsistency. He mentioned the $1 billion
impact of the PFD in the economy.
1:50:13 PM
Senator Micciche asked if Mr. King's previous work
indicated that when there was $1 billion injected into the
economy, there was a $100 million impact.
Mr. King clarified that he meant there was a $100 million
impact on top of the $1 billion that went towards household
income. He stated that most of the money did not circulate
through local business, but the amount was not trivial.
Mr. King highlighted slide 10, "The "Avoid Budget Cuts and
Taxes" Scenario." The slide showed bar graph that depicted
a scenario in which there were no budget cuts or additional
taxes. He observed that there was enough room in the
current year by reducing the PFD to $400 or $500, but the
following years it would shrink by $100 and eventually
government growth would spend the funds. He pointed out
different ideas such as draining savings and summarized
that the problem would have to be dealt with eventually.
Co-Chair Stedman thought clearly it was important to pay
attention to the next three or four years to start going in
the right direction fiscally.
Mr. King showed slide 11, "Alaska's Changing Economy: And
how it will shape the reaction to the proposal."
Mr. King looked at slide 12, "Alaska's Gross Domestic
Product Mix," which showed two pie charts.
Mr. King highlighted slide 13, "Alaska's Age Distribution
Change":
Takeaways:
1. Alaska's population is much older and more rooted
than in the past
2. A large number of residents are near retirement
age, which will have economic impact
Mr. King observed that current demographics of the state
were very different than back in the 1980s. During the
1980s there were many younger people that were mobile and
easily left the state during the economic recession. He
made the point that the demographics had an important
impact on how the economy dealt with change.
1:54:09 PM
Mr. King discussed slide 14, "Alaska's Changing
Population":
? Population growth based solely on aging Alaskans
will:
? Increase demand for healthcare
? Increase mortality rates
? Increase out-migration
? Increase retirement spending
? Labor force projection is stable
? But jobs forecast is for 17,000 added jobs by
2026
? Significant labor needs for new oil and mining
projects not included in forecast
? Future labor shortages are likely, which
provides seeds for growth
? Child population stable
Mr. King observed that the labor force remained relatively
flat. The only age group projected to grow was the
retirement age group. The labor force itself was projected
to stay stable while the population was expected to grow,
which had important ramifications on the economy. The
growth in retirement age individuals would increase the
demand for healthcare. Net out-migration of the retired age
group was expected over time. He pointed out that the net
impact of job loss was different according to age groups.
He explained that the model assumptions that generated the
graphs assumed that spending went to zero when a job was
lost. He suggested that if the spending did not go to zero,
the indirect effects did not occur, and effects were not as
severe as the model would suggest.
Mr. King pointed out that because the labor force was
stable while there was a projected increase in jobs
(largely in healthcare), the state needed more workers. He
thought there were tremendous opportunities for jobs in the
state. He discussed retiree spending, which would require
more labor. He thought the state would see a more
productive workforce or a pull in economic growth. He
thought the picture of being on a precipice economic
calamity was not consistent with the demographics of the
state.
Senator Shower referenced the number of people that had
jobs as shown on the slide. He wondered how to reconcile
the number from the ISER presentation earlier in the day.
Mr. King stated that the slide showed the population of
people of age to participate in the workforce, but many of
the people were voluntarily not working.
1:58:28 PM
Senator Wielechowski referenced the impact of proposed cuts
to education, which he thought would affect the workforce,
the likelihood that young families stayed in the state, and
the decisions that young people made. He thought the
proposed cuts would have a big effect on the future.
Mr. King thought that it was difficult to forecast the
effect of the proposed cuts to education. He thought there
was a couple of ways that education funding translated to
economic activity. He thought the impacts to education were
more about the quality to the Alaskan versus the Alaskan
economy. He discussed the social value of education and
thought it should be considered in the subcommittees. He
thought many things could not be measured in the way people
wished.
Senator Wielechowski pondered that a young family would
leave the state if faced with a choice of 40 to 50 kids in
their child's classroom. He wondered if Mr. King was
suggesting that someone would fill the family's place.
Mr. King stated that if a job was open and recruiting, it
would attract a person that wanted to live in Alaska, and
would accept the wage and circumstances. He asserted that
the labor market still had a demand for the labor, it just
might be a different group of people. He was not suggesting
it was not necessary to fund education. He thought it was
needed to analyze the quality and value of the monies being
spent, and if people were willing to pay the price for the
quality of education. He thought it was important to figure
the minimum adequate level of education, and then consider
the value of every $100 million increment above what was
adequate in order to reduce class size.
Senator Bishop heard in the Senate State Affairs Committee
that the superintendent from Hoonah had said the proposed
cuts would cause a school to close. He asked if such
impacts had been considered. He understood that Mt.
Edgecombe School in Sitka was full.
Mr. King stated that the impacts in individual communities
were very important. He posited that when there was a
negative impact in one region, and a positive impact in
another region, from a statewide perspective it was a wash.
He reiterated that the impacts were important and needed to
be evaluated but were not in the purview of what he was
discussing.
Senator Bishop disagreed.
2:03:08 PM
Senator Micciche thought it was important to remember that
the state was struggling to hire teachers and referenced a
bill from the previous year that dealt with teacher retiree
rehire. He cited the same issue with law enforcement. He
supported the private sector taking over other
responsibilities when possible. He referenced "Reaganomics"
and cash incentives through a reduction in taxes. He
reiterated that the governor's proposed budget would
increase local taxes. He asked what would fund the
replacement.
BRUCE TANGEMAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
reiterated his statement from the previous day that the
discussion would take multiple meetings. He thought the
meeting was venturing into discussion into the proposed
budget's effects on the economy. He suggested that the
administration return at a later time to present on deeper
silos on the different parts of the budget.
Co-Chair Stedman agreed with Commissioner Tangeman's
suggestion and expressed a desire to complete review of the
slides.
Mr. King addressed slide 15, "Retirement Income Helped
Cushion the Impact of Oil Price Crash":
Takeaways:
1. The multiplier effects did not manifest, because
people adjusted to the shock without reducing
spending;
2. The lack of spending reduction suggests that
retirement was a more likely reaction than migration
Mr. King summarized that the slide reflected a recent
recession, significant job loss, and a significant
reduction in wages. He asserted that he did not see a
significant reduction in the amount of money people were
spending, which he thought refuted the assumption that job
loss resulted in spending going to zero in the last
recession. He suggested that there would be less indirect
effects than commonly thought as the result of the
potential future job losses.
Mr. King looked at slide 16, "Retirement Income Helped
Cushion the Impact of Oil Price Crash." The slide showed a
graph entitled 'Housing Prices Did Not Crash.' He furthered
that housing prices had not recently crashed as they had in
the 1980s due to residents with more equity and deeper ties
to the community. He thought the state's current economy
was much more robust and able to handle more changes than
in the past.
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that the state had fairly
substantial capital budgets that were intentionally
implemented to counter the recession with fiscal stimulus.
He reminded that it was difficult to compare Alaska to
other states.
Mr. King asserted that the idea of fiscal stimulus to help
an economy get out of a recession was sound but could have
the effect of lengthening the recession. He thought
spending money from savings accounts had lowered the
intensity of the recent recession but had extended it and
delayed growth. He proposed that when coming out of a
recession, it was time to scale back on stimulus efforts.
2:07:19 PM
Mr. King showed slide 17, "Impact of Proposed Budget."
Mr. King looked at slide 18, "State Budget Volatility":
Takeaways:
1. This proposal is not unprecedented in terms of
total spending;
2. This budget returns the state to 2005 levels of
inflation adjusted spending
Mr. King summarized that the slide showed that the budget
had volatility every year.
Mr. King highlighted slide 19, "Impact of Budget on Labor
Market":
Takeaway: Prior increases/decreases did not generate
the type of impacts being discussed
Mr. King commented that the data didn't show the kind of
impacts in the data that was shown in the model. He
explained that it didn't mean the impacts weren't
happening, but that there were other factors.
Commissioner Tangeman thought that Dr. Guettabi had cleared
up some of the issue. He referenced Dr. Guettabi's summary
slide, which had reduced the number of expected job losses
5o 1,700. He thought there was not a fixed calculation to
estimate job losses, but rather a combination of
considerations.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the increases in spending
shown on slide 19 and thought the vast majority of decrease
was capital budget.
Mr. King thought Co-Chair Stedman had made a fair point.
Senator Micciche commented that the slide was scaled on
inflation but not population growth.
Mr. King stated that the slide was scaled neither for
inflation nor population growth.
Senator Micciche had run the graph with a different scale
to see more granularity. He suggested that running the
numbers corrected for population growth and inflation
showed a very different picture. He thought the slide was
worth reviewing with the adjustment and expressed interest
in reviewing it with Mr. King.
Mr. King pointed out that the government spending was not
the only thing to change over the period on the graph. He
referenced job losses of 12,000 to 13,000; and thought
6,000 to 7,000 of the jobs were directly from the oil
companies. Some indirect effect of the job losses was in
the data, and some of the job losses were tangential. A
small portion represented state job losses as a result of
budget cuts. He thought it was not proper to say all of the
impacts were attributable to one thing; but there were
1,000 things going on.
Mr. King discussed slide 20, "Budget Impact on Total Jobs":
Takeaway: There is no statistically significant
relationship between State spending and jobs in
Alaska's history, once controlling for inflation and
population growth
Mr. King stated that the point of the slide was to show the
correlation of government spending on agency operations
versus the number of jobs in the economy on a per capita
basis. He thought that the slide showed that government did
not create jobs. He asserted that the job of government was
not to create jobs.
2:11:15 PM
Mr. King looked at slide 21, "10-Year Jobs Forecast."
Takeaway: The pre-budget forecast of 17,000 job growth
included some expectation of future budget cuts,
meaning that simply subtracting those jobs from this
forecast is improper
Mr. King noted that the slide showed a graph of the ten-
year job forecast as published by DOLWD. He pointed out the
fact that healthcare services was the biggest growth sector
in the economy largely because of the aging population. He
thought aging of people would be unaffected by the budget
but that payment for services would be affected; so, he
expected that some of the job increases would not occur.
Mr. King continued that the DOLWD forecast had anticipated
some reduction in state spending. He noted that the whole
forecast would be redone and would paint a different
picture. He concluded that the state was not on a precipice
of a depression, nor economic calamity that would result
from a change in budget. He acknowledged that the proposed
change in budget would have impacts, but it would not
destroy the economy.
Co-Chair Stedman thought several communities might disagree
with Mr. King's assessment considering that the impact at
the local level. He referenced property tax payments and
mortgage payments and thought Mr. King's statement was
broad. He thought the statement should be taken with a
grain of salt.
Mr. King did not want to come off as belittling the impacts
on individuals. He informed that there was a difference
between microeconomic impacts and macroeconomic impacts. He
acknowledged that there would be negative and positive
impacts. He thought there was a challenge in balancing
focusing on individual impacts versus the big picture.
Senator Wielechowski referenced another article authored by
Mr. King the previous year. The article discussed Medicaid,
and the challenges and complexity of the issue. The article
asserted that the issue had huge ramifications on the
economy, the general population, and the budget. The
article estimated that there could be savings from cutting
optional Medicaid programs in the range of $100 million. He
asked if Mr. King agreed that the proposed Medicaid cuts
would have huge ramifications on the economy as he asserted
the previous year.
Mr. King stated that he was in "a tricky position" due to
his role and asked not to answer the question.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that it was fine for Mr. King not
to answer the question. He suggested that the chart on
slide 21 be taken with caution because of the magnitude of
the budget issue being considered. He expected the chart to
be restated and look different after the budget was signed.
2:15:33 PM
Senator Wielechowski did not know that Mr. King could pass
on the question. He thought that Mr. King had made a broad
statement that budget cuts by the governor would not impact
the economy; yet had said two months previously that cuts
to Medicaid would have huge ramifications on the economy.
Co-Chair Stedman understood the question. He wanted to move
on.
Senator Wilson thought a more in-depth conversation
pertaining to Medicaid would aid in more fully
understanding the issue. He thought it was important to
understand the waiver program.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that there would be further and
more in-depth committee meetings on the topic of the
Department of Health and Social Services budget, Medicaid,
Medicare, and Alaska Pioneer Homes. He relayed that the
commissioner enthusiastically invited himself to the
meeting and would be participating.
Senator Micciche discussed the assumption of a $500 PFD as
listed on slide 22. He asserted that no one was assuming a
$500 PFD. He referenced the ISER estimate of 14,272 jobs.
He thought Mr. King had found no relationship between PFD
payments and changes in jobs.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. King to address slide 22.
Mr. King addressed Senator Wielechowski's question and
clarified that he had not meant to say that there would not
be impacts from budget cuts. He stated there would also be
impacts from other things, and the net projection of the
economy was not as dire as people might want to believe it
would be. He was not trying to say contractionary spending
had no impact.
2:19:46 PM
Mr. King addressed slide 22, "Expected Jobs Impacts":
? State Jobs
o Unclear depends on privatization efforts
• Up to 1,000
? Education related jobs
o Unclear - depends on school board decisions
(instruction vs non-instruction vs efficiencies)
and change in local contributions
• Up to 3,000 jobs
? University related jobs
o Unclear depends of board of regents decisions
(close campuses vs horizontal cuts vs raise
revenue)
• Up to 1,500 jobs
? Healthcare related jobs
o Unclear depends on market reaction to
changing payment system
• Industry projected to grow regardless, so
slower growth is more likely than net job
losses
? Trade related jobs
o Injection from larger PFDs will spur more
spending and create more labor demand
• ISER estimate is 14,272 jobs (892 jobs per
$100 million x $1.6 billion)
o Reduced employment from budget reductions will
offset part of this increase
o Improved fiscal stability should generate
additional investment (although timing is
uncertain)
Note: Jobs counts are not the best measurement of
economic impacts
Mr. King discussed mitigating factors of the expected job
impacts of the proposed budget. He thought there were
people studying the expected job impacts on the healthcare
related jobs, which was a complex issue that warranted
close attention. He discussed proposed reductions to the
PFD. He did not believe the ISER estimate of trade-related
job loss. He thought jobs were not a good measure of how
the economy was functioning.
Mr. King spoke to trade related jobs. He thought the topic
related to the ability of investors to feel confident
enough in Alaska's economy to invest in it. He thought a
reduction in uncertainty would generate stability and
thereby some investment. He thought the theory supported
that a stable environment that had low taxes was going to
attract more investment and more economic growth.
Co-Chair Stedman recalled the ISER estimate of 7,000 jobs
lost.
Senator Bishop thought there was a lot to discuss. He
thought the slide was a rough draft bid proposal. He was
stunned with Mr. King's assertion that jobs were not a good
indicator of an economy.
Senator Bishop discussed attracting business to the state.
He thought industry looked at factors such as the health
and quality of schools, the University, crime, roads, and
services. He thought the committee needed to address those
factors that would bring business to the state.
2:25:37 PM
Mr. King showed slide 23, "Expected Impacts":
? Regional impacts will be more pronounced than total
State impacts
? Every individual will be impacted differently,
regardless of fiscal solution
? There will be initial job losses from smaller budget
o It will not be 17,000 jobs
? There will also be additional jobs from larger PFDs
? Some job losses will result in retirement,
relocation, new employment, and new
o Net job loses will be smaller than anticipated
by static models
o Indirect effects will be smaller than
anticipated as a result
? Household income will be higher, as a result of
larger PFDs
o Alaskans will decide how to best improve their
quality of life
? Local governments will replace some spending
reductions
o Mitigates some of the direct effects
o Brings spending and revenue decisions closer to
user groups
? Economic growth will still occur through increased
resource development, tourism, military, retirement
spending, health care demand, and private investment
Senator Micciche understood the challenge of the short time
span in which to create the governor's proposed budget. He
though it had been demonstrated that a cut of $1.6 billion
was not possible so local taxes were shifted to state
coffers. He mentioned federal requirements that local
governments had to deliver. He thought it was the
legislature's job to understand the impacts of the
governor's proposal. He wanted to see more evaluation of
the impacts of the proposed budget. He acknowledged that
the task took time. He asked if the work of analyzing the
effects of the proposed cuts was taking place. He thought
the budget demonstrated the enormity of the issue for the
public. He asked Mr. King if the proposed budget was
illustrative to discuss options and get to a better place.
He felt the budget had to be reduced.
Commissioner Tangeman knew that Senator Micciche was
referencing the administration when he had said "you guys."
He reminded that the Department of Revenue and the
economists did not put the budget together, but helped
analyze it and continued to look into the details. He
thought Senator Micciche's question might be best addressed
to OMB.
Senator Wielechowski referenced a sentence on slide 20:
Takeaway: There is no statistically significant
relationship between State spending and jobs in
Alaska's history, once controlling for inflation and
population growth
Senator Wielechowski pointed out that expected job impacts
on slide 22 said "unclear." He summarized that Mr. King's
position was that it didn't matter what the state did, the
budget could be decreased by a couple of billion and it
would not have a statistical impact on the economy. He
thought the same could be said of the PFD.
Commissioner Tangeman thought Mr. King and Mr. Guettabi had
both expressed that all decisions would have consequences
and impacts.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
2:29:58 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 030719 Joe Riggs Letter.doc |
SFIN 3/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Confirmations 2019 |
| Confirmation Resume FIN Mental Health Trust Riggs 2019.pdf |
SFIN 3/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Confirmations 2019 |
| 030719 ISER economic impact handout (002).pdf |
SFIN 3/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 030719 How Important is the PFD to Alaska's Economy_ - King Economics Group provided by Senator Micciche.pdf |
SFIN 3/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 20 |
| 030619 OMB Economic Impacts of Policy Decisions 3.6.19.pdf |
SFIN 3/7/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 20 |