Legislature(2003 - 2004)
10/29/2003 07:00 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SJR 19-CONST. AM: PERMANENT FUND INCOME
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that Senator Lincoln, sponsor of SJR 19, has
asked Representative Croft to present SJR 19 to the committee at
this time.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT told members that Senator Lincoln was
tending to an emergency in Rampart and asked him to address the
committee because he is the sponsor of companion legislation in
the House, HJR 3. He said when he and Senator Lincoln presented
to the Senate Judiciary Committee during session, the main
discussion was about an asserted potential tax difficulty with
SJR 19 He noted the permanent fund is tax exempt at this time
but SJR 19 would constitutionally protect the dividend. Whether
doing that would affect the public purpose of the fund and
imperil its tax-free status is in question. His review of recent
cases over the last two years led him to believe that a change
in the tax status was not within the realm of possibility.
Attorney General Renkes recently commissioned an outside firm to
research the question and has sent a letter to legislators
confirming that constitutionally protecting the dividend will
not imperil the fund's tax status.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT submitted that SJR 19 provides a spending
limit that makes the most sense from an individual taxpayer's
perspective. He wants the spending limit to reflect the limit on
how much legislators can take out of his pocket. He said
limiting either input or output could create a spending limit.
It makes the most sense to him to limit input - how much
government can take from his pocket and to require government to
live within that limit. He said the output limits can have
unintended consequences and stated:
The one used now is a suit that's way, way too big. It
doesn't fit and you could guess wrong and fit a suit
for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years that unnecessarily
constrained what we spent on education and roads or
police officers. It's really hard to predict those
things.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said what is predictable is the amount you
do not want government to take from individuals. SJR 19 is a way
to constrain the size of government and, more importantly, the
amount it can take from individuals. He said making sure the
Legislature cannot touch the dividend is crucial to the oncoming
debate of whether or not the structure of calculating the
earnings of the fund is changed. He pointed out there is a large
mistrust of the Legislature on this issue, some of that mistrust
is warranted. He said so many politicians have promised not to
use the dividend without a vote of the people. Many Alaskans
are concerned that the POMV, despite its merits, will become a
Trojan horse. It could become the justification vote for
legislators to say a vote was taken and they can now use the
dividend. Legislators can prove they don't intend to use
people's dividends by enacting SJR 19, the companion legislation
that enshrines the dividend in the Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT summarized by saying SJR 19 will not create
tax problems, it creates a real spending limit in terms of how
much it can take from people's pockets, and it will be vital to
convincing Alaskans that the POMV or any other change to the
permanent fund is appropriate.
SENATOR OGAN asked if AS 37 and AS 43, as cited in the
resolutions, would constitutionally protect the hold harmless
agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he would get an answer to that
question to Senator Ogan. He then said he meant to mention the
provisions in the statute that directly relate to how the
dividend would be calculated. He was not sure if the hold
harmless provision is in that same provision, but offered to get
that information to the committee.
SENATOR OGAN said the [hold harmless provision] is not something
he wants to constitutionally protect; he would prefer to
eliminate it.
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that no one was present to testify so he
closed testimony on SJR 19. He announced that the committee
would meet the following day at 7:00 p.m. at the Anchorage
Legislative Information Office and would take testimony at that
time. He then adjourned the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|