Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
01/28/2017 10:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB1|| SB2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 1-APPROP: 2016 PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT
SB 2-2016 PFD SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENT
10:01:13 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced that the purpose of the meeting is to
hear testimony on SB 1 and SB 2. He asked for summations on SB 1
and SB 2.
10:01:33 AM
GINA RITACCO, Staff, Senator Dunleavy, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 1 is an appropriation bill
that will appropriate the money to restore the dividend that
amounts to approximately $1,030 per person, which is a total of
$683.23 million; SB 2 is the directive for the Alaska Department
of Revenue to immediately payout the dividend once both bills
are passed.
10:02:09 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY announced that the committee will commence with
invited testimony.
10:02:40 AM
At ease.
10:03:01 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order. He announced
that invited testifier Dr. Jack Hickel will address the
committee. He detailed that Dr. Hickel is a family physician
working for the Southcentral Foundation.
10:03:09 AM
DR. JACK HICKEL, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that there
should not be changes or capping of the permanent fund. He added
that earnings should not be spent without the vote of the
people. He asserted that the permanent fund dividend (PFD)
belongs to the people and is guaranteed through a constitutional
amendment.
10:08:56 AM
At ease.
10:09:31 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order. He announced
that the committee will hear public testimony.
10:10:13 AM
KEN FISHER, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. He said the governor unilaterally took
away over $1,000 from each Alaskan and it's up to the
Legislature to defend the PFD law against the unilateral action
of the governor. He asserted that state government should live
within its means.
10:13:26 AM
AL TINGLEY, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 1 and SB 2. He asserted that Alaskans have not
earned a cent that the state seems bound to give to them. He
advised that funds would be better spent on correcting issues
for the population. He suggested that an education endowment be
set up for children rather than allowing parental control.
10:15:27 AM
MIKE ALEXANDER, representing himself, Big Lake, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that the
governor had taken away $1 billion from Alaska's economy and
hurt a lot of folks, especially the poorest members of society.
10:17:54 AM
EDWARD WITBECK, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 1 or SB 2.
10:20:03 AM
DAVID NEES, representing himself, Cooper Landing, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He asserted that the
governor's action on the PFD negatively impacted his family.
10:21:43 AM
J.R. MYERS, Chairman, Alaska Constitution Party, Soldotna,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that
the Alaska Constitution Party is adamantly opposed to the
governor's unilateral and unprecedented action that interferes
with a contract with the people of Alaska. He said the Alaska
Constitution Party views the PFD as compensation for Alaskans'
loss of mineral and subsurface rights. He remarked that the
money for the PFD is best spent by the people not by the
government. He asserted that government should be downsized to a
sensible level. He said the governor's action created an adverse
effect on the economy in addition to placing two percent of the
state's population below the poverty line.
10:23:17 AM
WILLIAM DEATON, representing himself and family, Cordova,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He said what the
governor did was wrong and did so without the Legislature giving
its okay. He set forth that cutting the PFD will have the most
adverse effect on the private-sector economy. He asserted that
the current deficient is due to the government spending too much
without looking to the future.
10:25:06 AM
BARBARA LEARMONTH, representing herself, Juneau, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 1 and SB 2. She set forth that she
supports the governor's actions from the previous year. She
asserted that she would rather hear talk about a responsibility
to the state, its infrastructure and children's future rather
than a right to unearned money. She opined that the permanent
fund is a "permanent fund" that might be needed later and not a
"permanent dividend." She asserted that last year's decision by
the governor was necessitated due to the Legislature not coming
up with a solution. She encouraged the Legislature to come up
with a fiscal solution first and then see what's the best
outcome for the PFD.
10:27:47 AM
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, representative, United for Liberty-Alaska,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He
stated that he is adamantly opposed to the restructuring of the
permanent fund. He set forth that Alaska has a very proud
history of creating the very first payment of the earth's
resources directly to the people and the history should be
protected.
10:30:17 AM
RICK HALFORD, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He disclosed that he is a former
legislator and noted being the House-majority leader when the
original PFD was passed.
He supported the PFD legislation and continued to support the
PFD against every effort to change it. He pointed out that most
of those in power have gone to the permanent fun when money was
needed, the most regressive possible source. He revealed that
the original amendment was changed in the Legislature
specifically to allow for the dedication of permanent-fund
income, the added language was the last five words, "Unless
otherwise provided by law." He explained that the amendment
allowed for the dedication, which is in the law today, in
addition to requiring inflation proofing and dividends.
He disclosed that there was a lot of effort in the permanent
fund discussion of how the averaging worked and how the
inflation was calculated; that far exceeded the discussion of
the dividend's amount. He stated that the dividend's purpose was
to equalize some of the benefits that were going in huge measure
to wealth, power, influence and all of the other things that
drive the political process; but, other than the first dividend,
which came from the general fund because the money hadn't
accrued in the permanent fund yet, there was never the need of
an appropriation.
He said he supported the efforts and purposes in SB 1 and SB 2,
but the question currently in court is over "appropriation." He
asserted that the inflation proofing and dividend in the law are
specifically provided for and allowed by the constitution, they
are not optional and the corporation violated the law on bad
legal advice. He remarked that appropriation for accounting
purposes or for knowledge of what's going on does not hurt
anything, but the appropriation was totally unnecessary.
He said taking over $600 million out of an economy that is spent
from the bottom by individual choices over a short period has an
astronomical impact that approaches the entire payroll of state
and local government. He opined that the impact has spread the
recession that was limited to the oil industry and their
contractors to the whole economy; it is the most regressive
economic act since statehood and the veto totally separates the
dividend from the permanent fund itself, resulting in a vehicle
that no longer protects a prudent investment policy to avoid bad
loans or bad investments and no longer acts as an avenue to
protect and let people understand that inflation proofing is
essential to the future of the fund. He set forth that permanent
fund itself is under attack due to the separation.
MR. HALFORD referenced a 1995 annual report from the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation that stated the following:
The permanent fund earnings are rightfully owned by
the people of Alaska; they are not gifts bestowed by a
generous government, they are constitutional rights.
He contended that he does not buy every aspect of the permanent
fund earnings being a constitutional right, but he contended
that the people of Alaska should decide.
He set forth that the battle the state sees itself in has been
repeated over and over again since the inception of the
permanent fund. He opined that the dividend funds everything
from the bottom while the government funds everything from the
top.
He summarized that the permanent fund speaks for itself by its
record and encouraged the Legislature to let the people decide
what to do with it. He asserted that the permanent fund is the
one thing in the state of Alaska that is not broken.
10:37:50 AM
CHARLES MCKEE, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2.
10:41:52 AM
DAVID BOYLE, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He asked that people in the lower
income brackets be taken into consideration.
10:45:16 AM
PAUL KENDALL, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He opined that that the bills would
get back the "theft" of $1,032. He commended legislators who
have stood on behalf of the "little people" against the "theft."
10:49:38 AM
MARY NANUWAK, representing herself, Bethel, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. She asked that legislators think about
rural Alaskans before making their decisions and consider the
horrendous conditions they live under.
10:54:09 AM
CHARLENE ARNESON, representing herself, Whittier, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She asserted that
legislators can come up with a good solution without tapping the
PFD first.
10:57:31 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY recognized legislators online: Senator David
Wilson and Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard. He asked
that Dr. Vernon Smith, an invited testifier, address the
committee. He detailed that Dr. Smith received the Nobel Prize
for Economic Science in 2002 and is now a professor at Chapman
University.
10:58:10 AM
DR. VERNON SMITH, Professor of Economics and Law, Chapman
University, Orange, California, testified in support of SB
1 and SB 2. He mentioned that he did not speak as an
Alaskan, but as one who loves Alaska very much and noted
that he has been going to Alaska fairly regularly since
1965 and feels almost like a citizen.
He set forth that Alaska did an incredibly innovative thing
when the state created the Alaska Permanent Fund. He set
forth that the permanent fund is unprecedented in the sense
that it recognizes that the state's natural resources
belongs to the people and at least some of the revenue and
value from those resources should be set aside for direct
distribution to the people. He admitted that most
governments give the people nothing and the individual
citizens in the few that have some sort of a permanent fund
do not have rights in their funds; that is an important
principle that has the potential of reducing an inequality
in a way that's not really a burden in terms of transfers
through the tax system.
He said if the Legislature cannot support them, then a
referendum is important where Alaskans have an opportunity
to approve any diversion of their dividend income. He
pointed out that the state had a large share of the
permanent-fund income and asking why better emergency
provisions were not made is an important question. He
calculated that the Alaska Permanent Fund was worth a
remarkable $74,000 for every man, woman and child in the
state. He opined that if any change is made to the
permanent fund, Alaskans should be allowed access to the
principle to invest in Alaskan businesses or other ways to
help develop the Alaskan economy.
11:01:24 AM
SALLY POLLEN, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. She noted that the dividend money
taken from Alaskans is sitting in an account and inquired what
is to be done with the money. She pointed out that the money set
aside would not make a dent in Alaska's fiscal crisis. She
opined that the money taken from the permanent fund was far
reaching and robbed what belonged to future generations.
11:04:58 AM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, Kasilof, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that the PFD is most
important to children, Alaska natives, and rural areas. He
opined that taking half of the PFD has made the people poorer.
He pointed out that the University of Alaska-Anchorage Institute
of Social and Economic Research (ISER) reported that a PFD cut
has a higher impact than other tax options. He summarized that
the legislation is broken, not the PFD.
11:08:24 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY specified that the previous year's budget bills
that were passed by both bodies had an appropriation in the
legislation for a full dividend that many legislators voted for,
but the appropriation has halved through the governor's veto.
11:08:59 AM
FRED STURMAN, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. He remarked that the Legislature spent
more money than the state could afford to spend. He pointed out
that bills to cut spending were never introduced when the state
had a lot of money. He asked that people who don't have a lot of
resources should not be taxed. He set forth that a local Alaskan
can spend their money better than the government can.
11:11:00 AM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY recognized that Senator Tom Begich and
Representative George Rauscher were in attendance. He announced
that the next testifier is Mike Navarre, mayor of Kenai and
former Alaska legislator.
11:11:19 AM
MIKE NAVARRE, representing himself, Kenai, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that the spending
decisions need to be in the context of an overall fiscal plan so
that the current fiscal crisis does not turn into a full-blown
economic crisis for Alaska.
MR. NAVARRE opined that last year's actions by the governor
simply reduced spending, not dissimilar from the Legislature's
discretionary authority on inflation proofing the permanent
fund. He noted that the overriding concern during the permanent
fund's early days was to save a renewable resource for future
debates and discussions about what the spending decisions are
for the state of Alaska.
He conceded that making a distribution and then deducting that
distribution hits the state's lowest earners and income folks;
however, the focus should be on the state's overall future. He
said he is fine with some legislators interested in spending
reductions; however, once a determination is made, legislators
have to figure out how to pay for their decisions. He asserted
that choices in budget cuts, taxes or PFD distribution are going
to have economic consequences.
He summarized that he thanked past legislatures for
appropriating excess earnings into the permanent fund as well as
setting up the permanent fund to turn Alaska's nonrenewable
resources into a renewable resource which is now the state's
largest single source of revenue.
11:14:33 AM
DONALD WESTLUND, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 1 and SB 2. He opined that many
Alaskans survived without the PFD. He remarked that the state
probably does not have the money to put into PFD checks and
legislators should focus on the state's current financial
problems. He suggested that an income tax be considered to close
the state's debt. He remarked that distributing a PFD and then
paying the state for an income tax does not make sense.
11:18:00 AM
JAKE JACOBSEN, representing himself and family, Kodiak, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He said he initially
opposed the PFD because he considered it to be a form of
socialism, but he came to understand that as owners of Alaska's
owner state, the PFD is Alaskans' due as a share distribution,
whether needed or not.
11:19:32 AM
MIKE COONS, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2, specifically due to their impact on
the economy. He said he questioned Governor Walker's statement
that keeping half of the PFD would help reduce the budget. He
opined that the real reason for the state's recession is a
combination of not paying the oil industry the credits that are
in statute and the state's economic uncertainty. He asked that
state government stop spending the people's money and cut the
budget to sustainable levels.
11:22:40 AM
JEFFREY VAN ZANDT, representing himself, Tok, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He opined that the taking of the
PFD is criminal and has hurt poor people. He asked that the
government make budget cuts and restore the PFD.
11:25:09 AM
JIM "HOTAI" WILLIAMS, representing himself, Valdez, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He opined that the taking
of the PFD by the governor is a crime.
11:27:53 AM
DR. BARBARA HANEY, representing herself, North Pole, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She asserted that the
governor's PFD veto exasperated the "depression" in the area
north of the Alaska Range. She opined that the governor's
economic model has serious philosophical and economic flaws. She
asked that the PFD not be restructured and asked that the amount
of money from the PFD veto be restored. She set forth that the
governor's veto was the most regressive tax.
11:29:58 AM
JAMES SQUYRES, representing himself, Deltana, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He asserted that the governor's
veto had taken $5 million directly out of the Deltana's local
economy. He concurred with the ISER study that cutting the PFD
has the hardest effect on the private economy.
11:32:14 AM
PAMELA GOOD, representing herself, Deltana, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. She asserted that the permanent fund,
PFD and oil revenues belong to the people and the Legislature
was supposed to be wise stewards of the state's money. She set
forth that government is too big and the PFD money should be
returned to the people.
11:35:16 AM
DENNY KAY WEATHERS, representing herself, Hawkins Island-Prince
Williams Sound, Alaska, testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2.
She believed that Governor Walker was wrong when he vetoed half
of Alaska's PFD checks the previous year. She opined that an
overwhelming majority of voters felt the same way and noted a
survey that Governor Walker's popularity dropped sharply after
his veto. She set forth that the Senate was wrong in not taking
action. She noted that the governor was quoted in a 2014 where
he stated that he had no intention to implement a statewide tax
or paying for state government by reducing PFD checks. She
explained that the permanent fund was created to keep the
government from spending the oil-wealth recklessly. She
summarized that Alaska does not need any new taxes nor does the
PFD need to be surrendered. She set forth that government needs
to be cut and overspending stopped.
11:39:38 AM
RHONA VAN ZANDT, representing herself, Tok, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. She said the rural communities have
been devastated and forgotten. She revealed that her family uses
the PFD to pay for wood to heat their home and buy groceries.
She set forth that the PFD should remain with the people. She
asserted that the people in the rural communities have lost
total trust and faith in Alaska's government.
11:42:05 AM
GARY MCDONALD, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He opined that 99 percent
of the people want their PFD back and not to touch it. He said
he is upset with the governor and will never vote for him again.
11:43:20 AM
CHRISTINE NEES, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She remarked that if
allowed, voters would repeal the governor's veto. She said the
PFD is her share of Alaska's oil wealth as well as her family's
share. She remarked that legislators need to cut into the budget
before reaching into her wallet and the wallets of other
citizens. She said she is tired of legislators and the governor
looking for a quick fix, which is an irresponsible and lazy act.
11:44:50 AM
FRIEDRICH ZIMMERMAN, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He asked that the PFD be
reinstated that way it was.
11:45:59 AM
WILLIAM WEATHERBY, representing himself, King Salmon, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He revealed that he ran
as a candidate for the House the previous year and noted that a
common theme was how hard people were impacted by only getting
half of their PFD. He explained that the cost of living is high
in Alaska's rural villages and asked that the other half of the
PFD be returned so that residents can provide for themselves.
11:49:54 AM
CHARLOTTE NAYAGAK, representing herself, Chevak, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She asserted that true
Alaskan people were meant to be given their PFD. She set forth
that the PFD is needed for her family's needs.
11:52:11 AM
BYRON CHARLES, representing himself, Ketchikan, Alaska, did not
provide a position on SB 1 or SB 2.
11:55:36 AM
VICTOR NAYAGAK, representing himself, Chevak, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He said the PFD tremendously
impacts a low income family. He pointed out that no PFD to spend
means no money goes back into the economy. He stated that
getting the second half of the PFD would help his family out a
lot.
11:57:50 AM
TOM BOUTIN, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that the PFD gives
Alaskans flexibility, especially with the likelihood that
Alaskans might have to purchase some of the government services
they enjoy that the state can no longer afford. He opined that
outside of the southern states during Reconstruction, no state
has ever faced the kind of economic change that Alaska faces. He
pointed out that the state faces a profound imbalance of
consumption versus production. He noted that if he and his wife
had saved all of the PFDs and invested at 6 percent, the total
would have been $260,000, an amount that would have provided
financial flexibility. He summarized that everybody had choices
and Alaskans continue to have choices with the PFD; SB 1 and SB
2 continue those choices.
12:00:57 PM
JEANINE ST. JOHN, representing herself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition of SB 1 and SB 2. She asserted that the
fiscal situation should have actually been resolved last year
and part of the permanent-fund earnings should have been part of
the solution that would have stabilized government services and
resulted in a $1,000 PFD check anyway; however, the veto by the
governor did not reduce the budget and maintained the
Legislature's ability to make changes in the revenue portion of
the state's fiscal plan. She set forth that overriding the
governor's veto and giving out the PFD money is not a good
solution or even the right thing to do. She asserted that
distributing the PFD and then having to come up with a revenue
source to fill the bigger hole is not leadership. She remarked
that giving out money might be good for votes, but not good for
policy. She asserted that she and her family are willing to step
up and help pay for services and everyone, including out-of-
state workers, should contribute as well. She opined that the
state cannot cut its way out and the two bills do not help with
the solution.
12:04:44 PM
LAURA CLARK-MAKETA, representing herself, Palmer, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She said the PFD veto
really effects the lowest 10 percent of income earners in
Alaska. She explained that she relied on the PFD to help pay her
bills. She asserted that the governor can only take her PFD if
she receives her subsurface rights in-kind. She set forth that
the PFD should not be touched until the size and spending of
government is addressed. She pointed out that oil companies have
reduced and asked why state government has not reduced as well.
12:07:47 PM
WILLIAM TOPEL, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He said he witnessed the
formation of the permanent fund and PFD, both are state programs
that have worked well and are models for the world. He remarked
that Governor Walker's action to cap the 2016 PFD through his
appropriation veto has not been used to offset the state's
fiscal problems, but his action has made the lives of many
Alaskans more difficult. He asserted that the governor's veto
had a $1 billion effect on Alaska's economy, worsened the
state's recession, placed more Alaskans below the poverty line,
and reduced retail sales in the private sector. He set forth
that the PFD belongs to the people of Alaska, not state
government. He remarked that the PFD represents individual
Alaskans' shares to a commonly held resource wealth. He
summarized that there needs to be a sustainable budget approach,
continued spending cuts to state government, and restoration of
PFD payments to Alaskans as proposed by SB 1 and SB 2.
12:10:31 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY recognized that Representative Tammie Wilson was
listening to the committee meeting, online.
12:10:44 PM
JIM SYKES, representing himself, Palmer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. He said he concurred with former
senator Halford's comments. He remarked that he has not heard
the Legislature address how the state's budget crisis can be
solved while leaving the permanent fund intact. He asserted that
inflation proofing the permanent fund and annually paying out
the PFD are the glue that has held the whole thing together and
needs to continue.
He suggested that Alaskans reflect on former Alaska governor
Hammond's statement that taxing back some of the permanent fund
is better than allowing the transfer of the permanent fund
directly to government; a salient point because paying the PFD
sends money through the Alaska economy where people may have to
pay some of it back through a possible income tax.
He remarked that in 2016, the Legislature did not take their
responsibility to meet spendable budgets and the governor did
not have the authority to raise revenue. He suggested that
solving the state's budget problem is going to take a
combination of cuts and efficiencies; however, the Legislature
is the only authority that can raise revenue. He opined that the
state cannot cut its way out of the budget crisis and revenues
will have be raised. He pointed out that changes can be
temporary. He summarized that he supported SB 1 and SB 2 in
concept, and the bills should be part of a larger package.
12:13:49 PM
At ease.
12:46:07 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
12:46:22 PM
ANDREW FRAILERY-AFANASYEV, representing himself and the Alaska
native-rural population, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support
of SB 1 and SB 2. He asserted that the PFD is a vital part of
the income of native Alaskan families who face severe poverty,
extremely harsh living conditions, and degradation of their
subsistence lifestyle. He advocated for the restoration and
payout of the PFD.
12:47:37 PM
TARYN LUSKLEET, representing herself and family, North Pole,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She said the
people's PFD should be returned to the people. She asserted that
the money vetoed from the PFD would not make a dent in the
budget and noted that the money was sitting aside in an account
not doing anything. She disclosed that she had planned to use
the PFD for her children's college expenses. She remarked that
not receiving the full PFD had a huge impact on similar families
that are earning just barely "above the line" where families
"below the line" would qualify for services. She summarized that
the state should operate within its means.
12:50:44 PM
VANESSA PLATTER, representing herself, Eagle River, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She asked that the
proposed PFD be returned. She opined that Alaskans should at
least have a vote on something as important as their PFD.
12:53:37 PM
GERRIT SOUTHLAND, representing himself, Wrangell, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He remarked that what
Governor Walker did was wrong and the PFD should go back to
Alaskans.
12:55:26 PM
NORAH SMART, representing herself and her grandchildren, Hooper
Bay, Alaska, testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She said
living in rural Alaska is expensive and the money from the PFD
is needed.
12:56:59 PM
At ease.
12:57:12 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
1:30:11 PM
EVELYNN TREFON, representing herself, Newhalen, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She said the people have
a right to the PFD money due to the law as currently written.
She remarked that she also supported the governor on taking
action in trying to protect Alaskans by trying to balance the
budget. She pointed out that capping the PFD at $1,000 would
mean having the PFD for the next 20 years.
1:32:17 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY asked if Ms. Trefon is in support of SB 1 and SB
2.
MS. TREFON answered that she supported SB 1 and SB 2 because of
the way the law is currently written. She remarked that she
applauded Governor Walker for doing something to try to generate
the conversation about the state's financial situation.
1:33:00 PM
WILLIAM REINER, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2.
1:33:58 PM
At ease.
1:40:20 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
1:40:36 PM
ELIZABETH BREUKER, representing herself, Deltana, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She said she was angry
with the Legislature in allowing the governor to steal her
children's PFD. She suggested that the Legislature get its
spending intact. She remarked that the PFD veto had directly
taken money out of the Alaskan economy. She asserted that her
mineral rights should be given back if the PFD is going to be
taken away.
1:43:59 PM
JOHN SONIN, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. He set forth that the PFD puts funds
into Alaska's economy.
1:47:16 PM
DELICE CALCOTE, representing herself, Sutton, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. She set forth that the PFD veto
effected children, single parents, released inmates, the
unemployed in tribal communities, and people in low-cost
housing. She inquired if the state saw an increase in theft and
crime due to the PFD veto. She questioned the percentage of
Alaskan businesses that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
invests in. She summarized that the money should be given back
to the people and for the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation to
make better investment choices.
1:51:33 PM
ROSS BIELING, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 1 and SB 2. He asserted that the state was in a
situation forecasted by an ISER report that a PFD cut would have
a demonstrative effect and lead to a recession. He said the
governor made a mistake in his PFD veto, but he understood the
peril that the state was in. He pointed out that a positive may
result from the recent oil discoveries. He said passage of SB 1
and SB 2 is needed for a solid economy so people do not leave
and help avoid a long-term effect on the state, such as
providing the ability to invest in oil-tax credits.
1:53:08 PM
At ease.
1:53:17 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order.
1:53:33 PM
PAMELA BRODIE, representing herself, Homer, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 1 and SB 2. She conceded that the Legislature is
facing a difficult problem with unattractive possibilities that
hurt people, but taking money out of the PFD is the worst
possible solution with the most damaging effect to the economy.
She asserted that taking the PFD is the equivalent of taxing
every Alaskan $1,000 regardless of their ability to pay. She
asserted that instituting an income tax would be fairer. She
suggested that subsidies to the oil industry be cut as well as
cutting money to the proposed gas line.
1:56:45 PM
At ease.
1:58:47 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order. He thanked
those that testified on SB 1 and SB 2 and held the bills in
committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 1 & SB 2 - Brad Keithley Written Testimony.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 1 SB 2 |
| SB 1 & SB 2 - Letters of Opposition 01.30.17.PDF |
SSTA 1/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 1 SB 2 |
| SB 1 & SB 2 - Letters of Support 01.30.2017.pdf |
SSTA 1/28/2017 10:00:00 AM |
SB 1 SB 2 |