Legislature(2015 - 2016)BILL RAY CENTER 208
06/14/2016 05:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB128 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Recessed to a Call of the Chair | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION
June 14, 2016
5:05 p.m.
5:05:37 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Laraine Derr, Self, Juneau; Bill Corbus, Self, Juneau; Bob
Bartholomew, Finance Director, City and Borough of Juneau;
D. Douglas Johnson, Self, Juneau; Xochitl Lopez-Ayala,
Self, Juneau; Amy Jo Meiners, Teacher, Self; Barbara Huff
Tuckness, Teamsters Local 959, Juneau; Representative Ivy
Sponholz; Representative Sam Kito; Representative Bob
Herron; Representative Liz Vasquez; Representative Craig
Johnson; Representative Charisse Millett; Representative
Louise Stutes; Representative Cathy Tilton; Representative
Mike Chenault; Representative Lora Reinbold; Representative
Gabrielle LeDoux.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Geraldine Ness, Self, Sitka; Jake Jacobsen, Self, Kodiak;
Rich Seifert, Self, Fairbanks; Aaron Lojewski, Self,
Fairbanks; Merrick Pierce, Self, Fairbanks; Cheryl Keepers,
Self, Fairbanks; David Fox, Self, Anchorage; Douglas
Blattmachr, Self, Anchorage; Brittany Christiansen, Self,
Metlakatla; Mary Nordale, Self, Fairbanks; Rynda Hayes,
Self, Wrangell; Mary Hart, Self, Soldotna; Denise Nyren,
Self, Kenai; Mary McCarthy, Self, Soldotna; Mary Jo
Mettler, Self, Soldotna; Mary Shannon Summner, Self,
Bethel; Nancy Henricksen, Self, Kenai; Don McNellis, Self,
Anchorage; Pamela Samash, Self, Nenana; Warren Russell,
Self, Juneau; William Deaton, Self, Cordova; Mary Nanuwak,
Self, Bethel; Zach Fansler, Self, Bethel; Bill Warren,
Self, Nikiski; Brendon Hopkins, Self, Soldotna; Fred
Sturman, Self, Soldotna; George Pierce, Self, Kasilof; Lee
Collins, Self, Kenai; Jesse Bjorkman, Self, Nikiski; John
Burnett, Self, Kodiak; Cheryl Stevens, Self, Eagle River;
William Scannell, Self, Anchorage; Ed Martin, Self, Cooper
Landing; Lloyd Perry Allen, Self, Fairbanks; Bret Bradford,
Self, Cordova; Roy Sumner, Self, Wasilla; Michael Ward,
Self, Eagle River; Eileen Ward, Self, Eagle River; Adam
Smith, Self, Ketchikan; Michael Chambers, United for
Liberty, Anchorage; Charles McKee, Self, Anchorage; Eric
Hughes, Self, Anchorage; Craig Mollerstuen, Self,
Anchorage; Jerry Alderman, Self, Anchorage; Andy Holleman,
President, Anchorage Education Association, Anchorage;
Rocky Dippel, Self, Anchorage; Curtiss Clifton, Self,
Anchorage; Cathy Mosher, Self, Willow; Kent Mosher, Self,
Willow; Shannen Connelly, Self, Palmer; Mark Fish, Self,
Big Lake; David Eastman, Self, Wasilla; Mike Coons, Self,
Palmer; Stephen Wright, Self, Wasilla; Mary Pete, Self,
Bethel; Abigail St. Clair, Self, Wasilla; Steve St. Clair,
Self, Wasilla; Andrew Wright, Self, Wasilla; Daniel Lynch,
Self, Soldotna; Michael Koons, Self, Sterling; Joe Demaree,
Self, Kenai; Helvi Sandvik, Self, Anchorage; Doug Smith,
Self, Anchorage; Don Jones, Self, Anchorage; Dave Bishop,
Self, Anchorage; Joelle Hall, Director of Operations, AFL-
CIO, Chugiak; Tina Pidgeon, GCI, Anchorage; Jenifer Nelson,
Self, Anchorage; William Wailand, Self, Anchorage; Tom
Lakosh, Self, Anchorage; Harry Crawford, Self, Anchorage;
Sharon Alden, Self, Fairbanks; Lance Roberts, Self,
Fairbanks; Paul Kendall, Self, Anchorage; Karen Perry,
Self, Chugiak; Mitchell Wilcoxon, Self, Anchorage; Michael
Schmidt, Self, Anchorage; Robert Davis, Self, Wasilla;
Albert Ningeulok, Self, Shishmaref; Bruce Galloway, Self,
Soldotna; Lynette Clark, Self, Fox; Alana Davis, Self,
Eagle River; Von Terry, Self, Seward; Maureen More, Self,
Anchorage; Andree McLeod, Self, Anchorage; Lois Epstein,
The Wilderness Society, Anchorage; Philip Treur, Self,
Anchorage; Richard Shafer, Self, Anchorage; David Hymas,
Self, Anchorage; Annette Gwalthney Jones, Self, Anchorage;
Rick Hitz, Self, Anchorage; Diana Redwood, Self, Anchorage;
Leah Sholz, Self, Anchorage; Holly Kain, Self, Fairbanks;
Chad Samskar, Self, Kenai; Warren Wright, Self, Anchorage;
Ed Larrivee, Self, Anchorage; Lowell Perry, Self,
Anchorage; Jeremiah Emmerson, Self, Homer; William Reiner,
Self, Anchorage; Bob Fassino, Self, Wasilla; Doug Tansy,
Self, Fairbanks; Sam Moore, Self, Anchorage; Pam Goode,
Self, Rural Deltana; Tami Morrill, Self, Anchorage; Helen
Paajan, Self, Eagle River; Bill Akins, Self, Anchorage;
Janet McCollough, Self, Palmer; Glenn Mullins, Self, Kenai;
Stephen Wehmeier, Self, Palmer; Shirley and Gerald
Dewhurst, Self, Big Lake; William Lambert, Self, North
Pole; Ross Mullins, Self, Cordova; Michael Vurazo, Self,
Anchorage; David Boyle, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
SB 128 PERM. FUND:DEPOSITS;DIVIDEND;EARNINGS
SB 128 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 128(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, the earnings of the Alaska permanent
fund, and the earnings reserve account; relating to
management of the budget reserve fund (art. IX, sec.
17, Constitution of the State of Alaska) by the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation; relating to procurement by
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation; relating to the
mental health trust fund; relating to deposits into
the dividend fund; relating to the calculation of
permanent fund dividends; relating to unrestricted
state revenue available for appropriation; and
providing for an effective date."
5:07:18 PM
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
GERALDINE NESS, SELF, SITKA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SB 128. She did not want to lose her Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD) but believed that if the legislature
did not act immediately the PFD would not be around long.
She stated that it was the first step needed to prevent an
economic crisis in Alaska. She agreed that the state needed
to consider other revenue sources and make some budget
cuts. She believed the bill gave the needed time to make
those other changes. She stated that Alaskans needed the
legislature to protect the PFD, the state's economy, and
their way of life. She urged the committee to support the
legislation.
5:08:26 PM
JAKE JACOBSEN, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), opposed
SB 128. He stated that the bill impacted his 20-plus family
members. He discussed that taking half of the PFD and
putting almost the same amount into oil tax credits was
unconscionable. He did not understand why the state wanted
to pay for oil companies to look for oil. Additionally, the
bill did not address other issues like ongoing spending on
megaprojects - specifically the gasline project, which he
believed was a pipedream. He restated his opposition.
5:09:40 PM
RICH SEIFERT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of using Permanent Fund earnings for valid state
purposes. He had lived in Alaska since the creation of the
fund and he believed the state was in a situation where it
was necessary to use earnings for public purposes. However,
he agreed with the previous speaker that he did not want to
see the money used to pay for tax incentives to the oil
industry. He had never seen any intent to use the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) or Permanent Fund to
give money away to the oil industry, but he thought it was
the desire of the Senate. He thought Permanent Fund
earnings should be used for necessary services; however, he
did not want to see any of the money going to tax credits
for the oil industry.
5:11:08 PM
AARON LOJEWSKI, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
referred to a document titled "Short-run Economic Impacts
of Alaska Fiscal Options" by economist Gunnar Knapp and
others at Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER).
The study had analyzed the impacts of what different
deficit reductions would do to the state economy. He
pointed to language in the study specifying that PFD cuts
would have the greatest short-run effects on income. He
stated that all of the other options had a lower impact on
the economy. The study estimated that for every $1.00 taken
away in a dividend tax would cut the economy by $1.40. He
listed other options including a 2 percent property tax, 3
or 4 percent sales tax, flat-rate income tax, progressive
income tax, decreased state workers, cuts to the capital
budget, and more. He emphasized that cuts to the PFD would
be the most harmful way to fill the deficit. He strongly
urged the committee to not pass the bill. He added that the
cut represented a tax on children. He suggested exempting
children from the cut if it occurred. He stated that the
legislature would literally be taking money away from
babies. Alternatively, he noted that there would be no
negative short-term impact if the legislature chose to use
Permanent Fund earnings that were not going to the dividend
and would otherwise be saved in the earnings reserve;
therefore, he could support that approach.
5:13:20 PM
MERRICK PIERCE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
opined that a balanced approach was necessary. He expounded
that the governor had tried a reasonable approach, but it
had been rejected by the Senate. He stated that the current
proposal was not balanced and would be highly recessionary.
He noted that there were 100,000 residents in the Fairbanks
Northstar Borough; if the cut was 1,000 per resident it
would be a $100 million direct hit to the borough's
economy. He relayed that PFD dollars recirculated in the
economy an estimated four times. He believed Alaskans would
pay more if they knew the final plan was comprehensive,
equitable, and fair. He explained that Alaskans needed to
know their money was being spent responsibly. He pointed to
areas where money was not being spent responsibly, such as
legislators accepting per diem much higher than their
actual expenses. Additionally, he believed the legislature
could meet biannually instead of every year. He believed
the state needed to end corporate welfare. He credited the
House for trying to come up with a balanced plan, but it
had been rejected by the Senate. He opined that the state
needed a fair return for oil. He elaborated that based on
the current price of oil there was about $25.75 million
worth of oil left Alaska per day. He stressed that the
current tax structure was essentially tax free. He believed
it was time for the legislature to adjourn and come back
the next year with a new legislature to fix the problems in
a comprehensive way.
5:15:28 PM
CHERYL KEEPERS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), was
not as concerned about the PFD reduction to individuals.
She did not believe it was a necessary piece of government,
which she saw as being responsible for providing
infrastructure and services for the quality of life
Alaskans hoped to enjoy. However, she did believe the state
needed to look at increasing revenues. She did not believe
the government services were overly bloated. She encouraged
the legislature to remain on task. She did not want the
legislature to get to the point where there were no options
other than eliminating the PFD.
5:16:40 PM
DAVID FOX, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), encouraged
members to support SB 128. He stated that the single most
important aspect for the House to take action on was to
restructure the PFD. He stressed that the Permanent Fund
had been designed for the purpose at hand. He believed
immediate action was necessary. He emphasized that next
year the state would face even more dire circumstances if
action was not taken. He understood the bill was imperfect;
however, as a compromise measure, the bill did more to
protect Alaska than anything else currently available. He
believed the financial situation facing the state cut
across party lines. He underscored that if action was not
taken there would be nothing left in the PFD to support
those who count on it most. He quoted former President John
F Kennedy "a man does what he must, in spite of personal
consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and
pressures; and that is the basis of all human morality." He
implored the legislature to support the legislation.
5:18:50 PM
DOUGLAS BLATTMACHR, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of SB 128. He stated that there was not
any other reasonable method to make the state solvent. He
stated that he lived in Alaska when the Permanent Fund had
been established and it had been set up for this purpose.
He elaborated that people had known oil revenue would run
out one day and that the fund was available to help the
state continue to operate.
5:20:07 PM
BRITTANY CHRISTIANSEN, SELF, METLAKATLA (via
teleconference), spoke against the bill. She did not want
half of her PFD to be taken away. She remarked that she was
planning a trip. She wondered why the dividends were being
cut. She hoped the legislature did not take half of her
dividend.
5:21:15 PM
MARY NORDALE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the legislation. She had been the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue (DOR) from 1984
to 1986. She discussed that in 1986 the price of oil had
tanked and Alaska had fallen into worse economic straits
than at present. She did not want to fall into the disaster
that had occurred in the late 1980s. She strongly urged the
committee to pass the legislation. She discussed that the
state had not yet recovered from the 1986 disaster in many
ways. She stressed that there was no reason to compound the
loss from the late 1980s by failing to utilize the
available funds to balance the budget - not at the level
the state would like - but to keep it balanced in order to
maintain a strong credit rating, services, and for the
economy to remain strong enough to sustain the state over
the next few years until revenues increased.
Co-Chair Thompson acknowledged Representative Lora
Reinbold's presence in the room.
5:23:02 PM
RYNDA HAYES, SELF, WRANGELL (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She was worried about the state's
economy.
5:23:25 PM
MARY HART, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), supported
SB 128 because she believed using a portion of Permanent
Fund earnings was the only thing that would make a dent in
the deficit. She understood that spending cuts had been
made in the past few years and that it was likely more were
needed; however, cuts and tax increases did not come close
to dealing with the deficit. She also believed using the
funds would help keep the state's reliance off the price of
oil to create the budget, which would stabilize many
programs such as education funding. She reasoned that if
the legislature acted at present the state could extend its
budget reserve savings, continue to grow the Permanent
Fund, and ensure that the PFD would exist for years to
come. She stated that if action was delayed until the
following year solutions to the deficit would become much
more difficult in the future as savings dwindled. She was
concerned about the state's economy and jobs. She
encouraged members to support the bill.
5:25:17 PM
DENISE NYREN, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She believed it was very
important to look at the idea in order to avoid job loss.
She reasoned that companies would not always invest in a
state in economic crisis. She was concerned about a
potential downgrade in the state's bond rating. She looked
at the bill as an opportunity to save the PFD so that
children in the future had access to the fund.
5:26:39 PM
MARY MCCARTHY, SELF, SOLDOTNA; MARY JO METTLER, SELF,
SOLDOTNA; MARY SHANNON SUMMNER, SELF, BETHEL (via
teleconference), spoke against a cut to the PFD, especially
for what she believed was likely to end up going towards
corporate welfare to oil companies. She believed oil
companies needed to be taxed appropriately. She opined that
a cut to the PFD would hurt some of the most vulnerable
populations in the state. She pointed to people who
depended on the income - often in areas were subsistence
was challenged by environmental changes. She stressed that
the cut would take away funds from children who needed the
money. She stated that there were very few economic
opportunities in rural Alaska.
5:28:26 PM
NANCY HENRICKSEN, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference),
testified against SB 128. She did not want her dividend
taken. She shared that she used her PFD to pay her taxes
and to eat. She believed there were other ways to bring
income into the state. She suggested a hemp industry. She
stated that there were many products made with oil that
could be made with hemp. She believed the hemp industry was
going to "explode" across America and that it would benefit
Alaska if it was a front runner. She reiterated her need
for the PFD. She spoke to corporate welfare. She stressed
that she did not want the legislature taking her money.
5:30:32 PM
DON MCNELLIS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He believed there were other
ways to bring in revenue. He stated that the bill would do
away with the PFD, which he believed was wrong. He believed
the governor needed to start sending out pink slips to
state employees. He had personally had to cut his own
expenses. He spoke to the need to cut government.
5:31:53 PM
PAMELA SAMASH, SELF, NENANA (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. She would rather see responsible cuts in
budgeting than taking the PFD. She explained that families
relied on the dividend to buy their children winter
clothing and supplies. She stressed that the cut would be a
huge blow to individuals with mouths to feed. She stated
that it would also hurt the economy as a whole since most
businesses counted on the PFD as part of their budget. She
noted that legislators with other ideas on ways to fix the
budget should be heard.
5:32:56 PM
WARREN RUSSELL, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), strongly
supported SB 128. He relayed that it was important to his
family to ensure that the fiscal viability of the state
remained and that public services continued. He stressed
that spending cuts and tax increases were not nearly enough
on their own to take care of the current deficit. He
believed the use of Permanent Fund earnings was a viable
option to help reduce or remove the deficit for the next
fiscal year. He stressed that if the legislature did not
act in the current year, fiscal solutions would become far
more difficult and savings would continue to deplete. The
bill would ensure that the state could extend its CBR, grow
the Permanent Fund, and ensure that the PFD existed going
forward even if it was capped at $1,000.
5:34:26 PM
WILLIAM DEATON, SELF, CORDOVA (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He believed the legislature needed to cut
the budget to $4.5 billion and then look at possible
revenue sources like the ISER model specified. He remarked
that the legislature had failed to cut Planned Parenthood
funding, or education, and had not sold the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS). He did not support Planned
Parenthood. He believed education should be left primarily
to local school boards. Additionally, he believed the
legislature should consider selling AMHS to a private
company. He stated there were many paths to fixing the
economic crisis, but he did not support using the PFD. He
asked the committee to vote against the legislation.
5:35:45 PM
MARY NANUWAK, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), testified
against the bill. She relayed that she did not have any
money despite the fact that she had worked for years. She
thought the legislature should realize that other revenue
sources outside of oil and gas were necessary to help fund
state government. She emphasized that the wealthy oil
companies should pay the proper fees and should be fined
accordingly for things like oil leaks. She stressed that
people in rural areas were suffering because they paid the
highest cost of living costs. She did not like it when
legislators wanted recognition or to be awarded for things
- she stressed that it was not the reason a person ran for
office. She countered that people were supposed to run for
office to help their constituents. She believed certain
individuals were always trying to confuse things. She
thanked various legislators for their work over the years
including Representative Les Gara, Senator Bill
Wielechowski, Representative David Guttenberg,
Representative Scott Kawasaki, Representative Bryce Edgmon,
Senator Lyman Hoffman, and Representative Sam Kito III.
5:39:05 PM
ZACH FANSLER, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of SB 128; however, he felt there had been better
options for restructuring the PFD. He saw the bill as a
first step in the right direction. He supported an increase
in taxes (i.e. income, mining, gas, tourism taxes); he
believed a comprehensive plan to diversify the state's
revenues was needed. He believed it was important that the
plan be put into motion as soon as possible. He stressed
that delay was imperiling the state's fiscal stability,
bond rating, and other. He hoped the bill would pass and
that it would be refined in the future. He asked the
committee to turn its attention to other forms of revenue
in order to ensure Alaska's fiscal viability for future
generations.
5:41:03 PM
BILL WARREN, SELF, NIKISKI (via teleconference), was
opposed to SB 128 until HB 247 [oil and gas tax credit
legislation passed in 2016] was vetoed and done right. He
stressed that the Kenai and Prudhoe Bay oil fields had been
developed with no incentives or giveaways. He underscored
the importance of a simple tax plan - probably a production
tax. He stressed that it was not possible to kick a dead
horse alive. He stated that with a good oil product and
price it oil companies would not stay away. He stated that
the legislature did not need to do handstands for the oil
companies. He would vote for a one-year reduction on the
PFD only. He did not want to further grease oil companies'
hands and he did not want the funds to go towards
government where the legislature may "blow it." He stated
that constituents needed money to survive. He reminded the
legislature that natural gas was the state's future.
5:43:38 PM
BRENDON HOPKINS, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), was
opposed to the bill. He believed there needed to be more
focus on expenses and not just the revenue side of the
equation. He spoke to his personal experience. He stated
that he would like to see his children have the same
opportunities he had. He intended to stay in Alaska. He
asked the committee to think about former Governor Jay
Hammond's intent for the Permanent Fund, which was to
maintain voter engagement because of the wayward ways of
state government. He urged the committee to vote no on the
bill.
5:46:05 PM
FRED STURMAN, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He heard repeatedly that individuals had
to put some skin in the game. He wondered how much more
skin in the game he should be expected to give. He did not
see state or city employees taking a hit - they continued
to receive raises, healthcare, and retirement. He saw that
legislators were still receiving per diem and were not
putting anything in the game. He referred to state salaries
with good growth over the years. He referred to friends
working on the North Slope; there were more cuts occurring
on the slope. He believed the state was going into a
depression that would be worse than the one in the 1980s.
He thought employees of the state needed to take some of
the hit.
5:48:49 PM
GEORGE PIERCE, SELF, KASILOF (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He thought it represented a raid on the
PFD. He believed solutions should come from many sources
and not merely from taxes on the backs of Alaskans. He
believed the oil industry was tickled pink with the passage
of HB 247. He stated that it was hard to believe the
legislature had its chance to correct mistakes made, which
had not occurred. He believed changes resulted in lost
revenue. He believed that reducing the PFD to $1,000 was a
regressive tax to Alaskans. He stated that 50 percent of
Alaskans received 20 percent of their income from the PFD.
He stated that the dividend belonged to the people. He
spoke to the prediction in lost jobs and stated that people
would need their dividend. He mentioned various taxes that
fell on the backs of the people.
5:51:36 PM
LEE COLLINS, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. She shared that she is a senior and
needed the income. She believed the legislature did not
care about the people. She believed they were throwing
water on everything. She implored the committee to maintain
the PFD.
5:52:49 PM
JESSE BJORKMAN, SELF, NIKISKI (via teleconference),
testified in favor of SB 128. He referred to other
testimony urging cuts to spending and nonprofits. He stated
that although those cuts may be necessary, it was also
necessary to restructure the Permanent Fund earnings
reserve to make it into an endowment for the people to fund
their government. He believed it was a necessary step in
order for government to continue to serve its people. He
relayed that the Permanent Fund was intended to operate
government in times of need - when oil revenues dried up.
He reasoned that the program could not continue as is or
the PFD would run dry. He would much rather have a lower
PFD than no PFD at all.
Co-Chair Thompson acknowledged Representative Gabrielle
LeDoux's presence in the room.
5:54:16 PM
JOHN BURNETT, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), testified
in support of the legislation. He shared that he had lived
in Alaska for 34 years (around the time the dividend was
started). He and his family believed that jobs, homes, and
the economy were much more important than receiving a PFD;
they supported capping the dividend at $1,000. He believed
that if the dividend was not capped there would be no
dividend in the future. He urged the committee to pass the
legislation. He was scared to think what would happen to
many jobs and the state as a whole if the bill was not
passed.
5:55:17 PM
CHERYL STEVENS, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference),
spoke against the legislation. She believed that if the
state kept spending money as it was currently, the money
would flow away like water. She believed the legislature
was spending money like there was no end. She stressed that
the state could not continue spending money as it was
currently. She reiterated her opposition to the bill.
5:56:22 PM
WILLIAM SCANNELL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. He asked legislators to
keep their hands to themselves and to not pick the pockets
of ordinary Alaskans. He did not believe it was okay to
take money from kids' college funds. He spoke to GCI's
support of the bill and reasoned that the company was rich
and its executives wanted to keep it from paying more
taxes. He believed it equated to welfare for companies and
the oil and gas industry. He needed the legislature to care
about the rest of the state's citizens. He asked the
committee to avoid exploiting regular Alaskans to benefit
people who needed the money the least. He asked the
committee to reject the legislation.
5:58:02 PM
ED MARTIN, SELF, COOPER LANDING (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He believed there was a long
way to go before it would be necessary to tax residents. He
shared a personal story of his father testifying to the
legislature in the late 1990s related to the topic. He
asked what had changed with regards to the less fortunate
in the state and what the legislature would do when it took
the PFD from those individuals. He stressed that the
individuals would be less fortunate if the PFD was reduced.
He supported use of the permanent fund earnings, but not
the dividend. He did not support restructuring how the
dividend was calculated. His compromise included selling 5
million state acres over the next 5 years to bring in
revenue. He suggested a land voucher program that would
give every Alaskan an acre of land. He stressed that the
state had resources.
6:00:45 PM
LLOYD PERRY ALLEN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He wanted the committee to
vote yes to protect the PFD.
6:01:19 PM
BRET BRADFORD, SELF, CORDOVA (via teleconference),
testified in favor of SB 128. He thought something needed
to be done fast or the PFD would not continue into the
future. He hoped the committee could look at cutting the
budget and using some of the Permanent Fund earnings.
6:02:06 PM
ROY SUMNER, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He understood that the Permanent
Fund had been designed to provide the state with help down
the road when needed; however, he did not believe it needed
to be restructured. He was amenable to taking some of the
funds if needed for one to two years. He stressed that the
bill did not preserve the PFD; he believed the money would
be spent. He remarked that there were 25,000 state workers
for a state with 600,000, which he believed was bloated. He
believed the legislature needed to use other methods to
generate funds and savings prior to using the Permanent
Fund. He believed that if restructuring occurred that it
should include a sunset provision.
6:03:19 PM
MICHAEL WARD, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He believed the budget needed to be cut,
which he did not believe had occurred in the current year.
He stressed that special interests including GCI, AFL-CIO,
and others were trying to deceive residents by saying that
the bill would save the Permanent Fund. He believed the
bill would actually end the PFD over a three-year period.
He opined that phasing out the dividend was the worst way
to raise money for government. He remarked that economist
Gunnar Knapp and others had stated that using the Permanent
Fund would have the most deleterious impact on Alaska's
economy out of all of the income enhancement methods
available. He stressed that reducing the PFD would increase
homelessness.
EILEEN WARD, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She was opposed to abolishing
the PFD program. She encouraged significant cuts and
responsible budgeting before the Permanent Fund was used.
She believed residents were being railroaded and pushed
into a hasty action that would hurt Alaskans and the state.
She asked members to vote no on the bill.
6:05:30 PM
ADAM SMITH, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the bill. He understood that the bill did not
provide a complete solution [to the state's deficit]. He
knew that cuts needed to be made, but he did not see the
deficit being filled with any solution that would exclude
using a portion of Permanent Fund earnings.
6:06:21 PM
MICHAEL CHAMBERS, UNITED FOR LIBERTY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), opposed SB 128. He indicated that he had a
recommendation document that contained a number of
suggested cuts totaling $1.5 billion. He cited examples of
the recommended cuts that could be applied prior to dipping
into the PFD including 80 vacant positions within the
Department of Public Safety. He did not support spending
$73 million on the Kodiak launch project and the
organization believed the gasline was a pipedream. He
remarked that the Medicaid expansion had 400 systemic
errors. Additionally, there were 3,200 nonprofit
organizations and 120 boards and commissions in the state.
He noted that state school districts had not been
restructured; there were four school districts on Prince of
Wales Island. The rural economy relied heavily on the PFD
program. He stated that the bill was designed to take money
from the private sector to be given to special interest
groups and support a bloated government the state could not
afford.
6:08:39 PM
CHARLES MCKEE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition of SB 128. He reported taking the issue to a
U.S. Senator to report fraud against senior citizens. He
spoke of someone using the PFD application as a method of
fraud. He thought the PFD application was a way in which
fraud could be carried out. [Note: the sound cut out for a
portion of testimony.]
6:11:09 PM
ERIC HUGHES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition of the state's current spending habits and SB
128. He discussed that the state's spending habits were
based on unsustainable oil revenue, which needed to be
changed. He remarked that he had been told many times by
legislators that the state could not cut its way out of the
current deficit. He noted that it appeared they had not
even tried. He believed drastic spending cuts each year and
using a small portion of the CBR was the way to get the
state out of deficit. He stressed that tapping into the
Permanent Fund or the PFD was not the way to solve the
problem, which he believed was a "last ditch" solution. He
supported getting state spending under control. He thought
that individuals relying on the PFD for their finances
needed to rework their own situation. He remarked that
those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat
it; he stated that the issue was being relived over and
over. He noted that he had been in Alaska during the 1980s
when the problem had occurred.
6:12:42 PM
CRAIG MOLLERSTUEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in favor of the legislation. He stressed that the
current financial crisis demanded action by the
legislature. He appreciated the need for cutting expenses,
the concern about oil tax credits, and a lack of enthusiasm
about taxes to increase revenue. He stated that if action
was not taken in the current year, the damage to the state
economy would increase. He recognized that cutting the PFD
would hurt the economy and would be a burden on many
individuals statewide; however, the legislature had been
unable to make significant cuts or consider increasing
revenues. He expected a compromise would be no easier in
the following year. He continued that people who rely on
the PFD would discover that the loss of the CBR would cause
the PFD to be eliminated entirely. He asked the committee
to pass the bill. He supported the use of Permanent Fund
earnings to pay for state government and to maintain the
PFD for future generations.
6:14:40 PM
JERRY ALDERMAN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. He believed there was no doubt the
legislature would use Permanent Fund earnings to fund state
government. He believed the relevant question was about
when the use of the earnings would occur. He had heard from
economists and business leaders that the action needed to
take place at present. He reasoned that procrastination was
never a good strategy - the issue would be much harder the
coming year. He implored the committee to pass the
legislation immediately. He did not believe the bill was
perfect - he thought the $1,000 ceiling was too high.
6:15:46 PM
ANDY HOLLEMAN, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in favor of the
legislation. He urged the committee to make comprehensive
changes. He pointed to the long-term financial impacts on
the state - he explained that the funds earned from selling
the state's oil had fallen below what it took to deliver
the expected services to Alaska residents. He noted that
the situation was not temporary. He stated that it was a
time when the legislature needed to look at the fundamental
responsibilities of government, how it was funded, and what
the state's goals were. He remarked that Alaska had its own
traditions, some of which were based on a different time
and circumstance. He discussed that the PFD had a fairly
stable and predictable funding and long future as it was
currently set up. However, the funding of core government
services was at risk and unclear into the future. He did
not believe anyone thought there would be any significant
sum of money paid back into the CBR in the near future - he
found it disturbing to listen to the committee discuss the
notion, when it was obvious it would not happen. He
stressed that the state could not continue the PFD with no
end and keep services that citizens wanted. Additionally,
the state could not continue without alternate sources of
revenue outside of oil. He spoke to the need for a broad
and comprehensive plan.
6:18:02 PM
ROCKY DIPPEL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He stated that the art of politics was
compromised, but it did not mean that legislators needed to
sell out state residents. He did not support the governor's
proposed use of the dividend. He was against a reduction to
the dividend. He stated that the PFD fed and fueled much of
the bush community; it also reduced credit card debt. He
believed that a lack of funding for food and fuel in rural
Alaska would cause an influx of people in Anchorage and
would result in a larger homeless population. He stated
that the PFD also spurred the economy during dividend
season. He did not want the money to be used on pipedreams
like a gasline. He questioned why Alaska's government cost
three times the national average. He reiterated his
opposition to the bill.
6:20:56 PM
CURTISS CLIFTON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He stated that relying on
spending cuts and taxes would not fix the budget deficit.
He relayed that economists and other experts believed that
a portion of Permanent Fund earnings must also be used. He
stated that kicking the can down the road would mean the
state would run out of options. He reasoned that the
current situation would worsen and more Alaskans would lose
jobs. She stated that acting now was imperative. He relayed
that unemployment had soared when oil prices crashed in the
late 1980s. He stated that the bill would extend the life
of the dividend. He reasoned that if the legislature did
not act, the program would end in a few years. He referred
to discussion by the younger generation about a reduction
in opportunity in the state. He stressed that the train
wreck was coming and he asked if the state would be known
for showing leadership, acting decisively, and softening
the economic blow of the recession. He emphasized that it
was a decision facing residents and the legislature. He
asked the legislature to pass the bill.
6:23:00 PM
CATHY MOSHER, SELF, WILLOW (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill. She believed there were other
actions that could be taken and that testifiers had offered
many good suggestions. She hoped the committee would take
the suggestions into consideration.
6:23:59 PM
KENT MOSHER, SELF, WILLOW (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He supported selling land grants from the
University and the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
(AMHTA) before the legislature allocated the entities any
money, which would cut back on the current year's budget.
He stressed that the legislature had not even started to
cut. He encouraged further cuts to state government. He
thought there needed to be a vote by the people on the
issue.
6:24:57 PM
SHANNEN CONNELLY, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
strongly against the bill. She believed there needed to be
further cuts before the state could even think of coming to
the people and expecting them to bail out the mess that had
been created. She opined that the issue should go to the
people for a vote.
6:25:39 PM
MARK FISH, SELF, BIG LAKE (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill. He believed that individuals in
favor of the bill seemed to want a sense of urgency to pass
the legislation. He believed the reason for the urgency was
that there was large opposition to the bill. He used his
dividend to pay property taxes. Without the dividend he
would have to reduce spending on other areas of the economy
like going out to eat and other recreational activities. He
reminded the committee of the state's constitutional
provision that all political power was inherent in the
people. He urged the committee not to pass the legislation
and to speak face to face with its constituents prior to
making a life altering decision for so many Alaskans.
6:27:10 PM
DAVID EASTMAN, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He stated that the legislature gave the
governor an allowance and he believed it needed to limit
the allowance. He supported sustainable budget numbers
provided by ISER. He stated that the deficit situation had
occurred because the legislature had not applied the
sustainable cap from the beginning; instead, the
legislature had approved an unbalanced and unsustainable
budget. He underscored that it was not a question of the
people overspending and needing a government bailout. He
stated that the government could not conceive of living
within its means and was currently demanding a bailout from
the people. He continued that the administration's position
was that the consequences of irresponsible government
spending should fall on the private sector. He stressed
that residents did not overspend, but the government did.
He stressed that the Statutory Budget Reserve had been
drained. He stressed that the legislature needed to
advocate for the people. Once funds were spent they could
not be saved or used in the future. He reiterated his
opposition to the bill.
6:29:06 PM
MIKE COONS, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), testified
against the bill. He believed it would adversely impact
children in the state. He stated that under the current
system the PFD was based in part on the expertise of the
individuals investing the body of the Permanent Fund. He
stated that when parents received their children's dividend
they had an opportunity to put it towards their kids'
education fund. Over the years the PFD enabled many
families to pay for a higher level of education. He
explained that families would have to find other means to
support their children's educational choices. He elaborated
that it would reduce other income to be used in the economy
on a daily basis. He stressed that the bill would damage
future educational opportunities and would increase debt.
6:31:01 PM
STEPHEN WRIGHT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill, which he believed would have negative
implications if passed. He thought credits and the state
budget should be capped prior to tapping the Permanent
Fund. He stated that if someone wanted to give the state
their mineral rights they should have the ability to do so.
He was against a "raid" on the fund. He believed there were
other options to cut the budget.
6:33:00 PM
MARY PETE, SELF, BETHEL (via teleconference), supported the
bill. She believed it was important to think about the
future of the state. She stated that the budget crisis
required thinking about all of the options available - the
Permanent Fund was a piece of the picture that would allow
a softer landing than cuts. She stated that it was not
possible to cut the state's way out of the deficit. She
stressed that there had been real cuts. She shared that it
would take university students in her region longer to
reach their educational goals due to cuts to classes. She
believed creative solutions to the deficit were necessary.
6:34:22 PM
LARAINE DERR, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in favor of the bill. She
had lived in Alaska for almost 50 years. She shared
information about her personal background in Alaska. She
cared about Alaskans and spoke to her service to various
agencies and foundations (former commissioner of the
Department of Revenue and other). She communicated that she
was a founding member of the Alaska Food Bank - she cared
about individuals who needed food to feed hungry children.
She noted that she had retired from the state and cared
about receiving a retirement check as well. She was
concerned about services in many areas in Alaska. She had
been present for discussions on the original legislation
that had put together the Permanent Fund concept. She
recalled predictions from 30 years earlier that the
pipeline would be dry by 2000. The state had been luckier
than earlier predictions and it was necessary to address
the dire predictions from 30 years earlier. She believed it
was time for the state to begin using the earnings of the
Permanent Fund as they were originally intended.
6:36:36 PM
BILL CORBUS, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of SB 128. He
shared that he had served as commissioner of the Department
of Revenue in the early 2000s. He had followed SB 128 and
the other Permanent Fund bills throughout the current
session and he supported SB 128. He believed it was time to
use the Permanent Fund for its intended purpose.
6:37:16 PM
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, FINANCE DIRECTOR, CITY AND BOROUGH OF
JUNEAU, spoke in support of the legislation. He relayed
than in February the Juneau Assembly had unanimously
adopted a resolution asking the legislature to take
immediate action to enact a package of initiatives that
would lead to a sustainable, predictable, and balanced
budget. He understood that progress had been made on the
spending reduction side of things. The Juneau Assembly was
in support of increased revenues including some use of the
Permanent Fund earnings (SB 128). He spoke to the need for
a comprehensive plan that would enable others to plan for
the future. For example, if the implementation of the use
of earnings required a reduction in the PFD, the city would
have to reopen its FY 17 budget because the reduction would
result in $1 million in local sales tax revenue. The city
understood and accepted the possibility because it was the
cost of trying to solve the fiscal deficit. The city knew
the situation was not easy and was willing to participate;
it greatly appreciated the state and benefited from a
stable budget.
6:39:34 PM
D. DOUGLAS JOHNSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of
the bill. He shared that he is a business owner, angel
investor, and father of two. He was in favor of the bill,
which he knew was not perfect. He understood there was a
tremendous amount of work to do on it. He believed that as
Alaskans it was necessary for people to roll up their
sleeves and get to work. He spoke about a recent trip to
Bethel and he recalled thinking about pioneer pilots flying
through the area years ago. He believed the old pilots had
been smart, bold, skillful, and full of grit. He stated
that Alaska faced a tremendous fiscal problem at present.
He recognized the challenge facing legislators. He
encouraged members to be bold, smart, courageous, and full
of grit as it moved forward.
6:41:15 PM
XOCHITL LOPEZ-AYALA, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
bill. She shared that as a recent homebuyer and head of
household she looked forward to a stable Alaskan economy.
She believed there should be other options and a one-year
provision of tapping into the PFD in order to allow time
for restructuring. She stressed that the topic needed to be
looked at during the current session. She stated that the
legislature had months to address the issue. However, she
felt that it had wasted time trying to defund Planned
Parenthood and trying to revoke access to healthcare for
low-income and minority women. She did not believe the bill
was a solution, but it was a step in the right direction.
6:42:39 PM
AMY JO MEINERS, TEACHER, SELF, spoke in support of the
bill. She countered claims that there had not been
sufficient budgetary cuts. She invited members to join her
on the bleeding edge of education. She stressed that the
schools had received cuts for the last several years. She
invited any members to visit her class to see how cuts had
impacted the school system. She relayed that friends had
moved out of state to locate employment. She compared the
Alaska economy to Apollo 13. She detailed that Apollo 13
crew had worked together, used every resource and tool
available, and had worked in a timely manner to find a
through solution. She encouraged the legislature to work
collaboratively and consider all options. She spoke about
words of wisdom from her elders. She shared that her
grandparents and parents had the opportunity to pay an
education tax. She considered how to stabilize funding for
education and other state services. She wanted to teach her
children that people did not get things for free; that they
should be able to pay for services. She discussed that the
state offered public safety and education. She wanted her
kids to know that as a family they were contributing to the
services and putting some skin in the game. She wanted to
look at how to stabilize the funding for education.
6:45:04 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, JUNEAU,
testified in support of the bill. She provided information
about the organization. The organization believed that the
bill saved the PFD. She shared that in the 1980s the
organization had 25,000 members working on the pipeline;
when construction concluded they had been down to 6,000
members. The organization understood what it was like to
cut. She provided examples of cuts the organization had
made. She stressed that it was only possible to cut a
certain amount. She believed that the message was that if
action was not taken in the current year it would further
erode the dividend checks.
6:46:46 PM
ABIGAIL ST. CLAIR, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. She shared information
about her personal background. She had been raised in a
small village where the average person currently made
$15,000 per year. She stated that limiting the dividend to
$1,000 would take money away from funds for winter
survival, hunting supplies, kids clothing and other. She
did not know where the funds would be spent if the money
was taken. She believed that the legislature should not be
given any part of her PFD until it could control spending.
She stated that she was required to live within her budget
and the legislature should have the same requirement. She
stressed the importance of making more cuts. She urged the
committee to use the ISER model or another budget plan as a
guide.
6:48:15 PM
STEVE ST. CLAIR, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He offered a solution to the
budget deficit problem. He asked the committee to change
the bill's effective date to one year out and get it on the
House floor. He stated that it would give the legislature
one year to repeal the measure, recall the governor, and
replace spineless legislators. He stressed that there could
be write-in candidates on the ballot. He was tired of the
lack of transparency. He communicated that he was running
for Senate.
6:49:58 PM
ANDREW WRIGHT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He cited the Alaska Constitution,
which specified that mineral rights belonged to all
Alaskans. He discussed that Alaska had been a boom and bust
economy in the fur trade, gold rush, and coal mining
industry. He stated that Alaskan people had been left with
nothing. He believed the legislature wanted to be
responsible for the same results. He believed the issue
should be decided by a vote of the people. He stated that
there was nothing devastating about the recession facing
the state to justify the plunder.
DANIEL LYNCH, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. He was fine with sticking with the
original dividend formula if it meant paying out $2,200 per
person in the current year, $1,500 the next year, and $237
in the following year; he stated that it would buy time. He
believed that if the dividend was $1,000 for three years,
citizens would not pay attention to state government or the
oil and gas industry. He referred to the Alaska three-
legged stool: the federal government leg was still solid,
the oil and gas leg was getting shorter and shorter, and
the consumer spending leg was ready to be fractured with
the loss of the PFD. He stated that an income tax would
enable the state to recoup income from the dividend,
business owners, and employees receiving dividend dollars.
He noted that large corporations and other entities would
rather have the masses give up $1,000 than to pay an income
tax. He believed the status quo had dug the financial and
social hole.
6:53:54 PM
MICHAEL KOONS, SELF, STERLING (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He believed the state was still spending
as it had when oil prices had been $100 per barrel. He
stated that current oil prices were around $40 per barrel.
He discussed that one of the hardest things he ever had to
do was lay off people, but sometimes it was necessary. He
did not believe using the Permanent Fund was the first
step; there were other options that should be considered.
6:55:31 PM
JOE DEMAREE, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke
strongly against the bill. He was completely opposed to
using the Permanent Fund in any way. He stated that people
used the money for school clothes and businesses depended
on the money. He suggested that legislators could cut their
own salaries. He had not heard of one person in his region
in support of use of the Permanent Fund. He wondered if the
peoples' voices counted.
6:56:51 PM
HELVI SANDVIK, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), urged
the committee to pass the bill. She provided information
about her family's history in Alaska. She hoped her
children would have the opportunity to continue to live and
work in Alaska. She stated that the bill was not perfect,
but the state did not have the luxury to defer action,
which would create an even larger fiscal crisis moving
forward. The bill provided a long-term fiscal plan and
provided for restructuring of the Permanent Fund using a
portion of the earnings to fill the funding shortfall gap,
while still allowing for a meaningful dividend program. She
was concerned about the current and future economic
condition of the state. She spoke to the business she
worked for, which employed Native Alaskans across the
state. She discussed that the decline in oil prices was
severely impacting the state and the company she worked
for; in 2015 the company had employed close to 4,600
Alaskans, but at present it had about 1,000 less jobs. She
highlighted the importance of working together to ensure
the state had a stable economic climate. She believed the
underlying structure of the bill was sound.
6:59:57 PM
DOUG SMITH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
against the legislation. He believed the issue of oil taxes
were somewhat inseparable from the bill. He addressed the
significant financial crisis facing the state. He shared
that he was the CEO of two local businesses and it was his
job to keep the businesses solvent. He furthered that the
companies had made some severe cuts in the current year to
reduce spending. He believed reductions to state spending
had not gone far enough; cuts needed to be made across the
board. He reasoned that if people felt sufficient cuts had
been made they would be able to support funding government
with a portion of PFD earnings. When he understood that no
more cuts could be made he would support the use of some
Permanent Fund earnings to maintain essential state
services. He believed there was money in the Permanent Fund
that was not being managed to the maximum benefit.
7:02:24 PM
DON JONES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
against the bill. He believed excessive state spending,
fraud, waste, and abuse had resulted in the current
deficit. He stated that two pay raises per year to state
employees was part of the problem. He mentioned other state
workers and their salaries. He remarked that the only cuts
the government seemed to be willing to make were to people
who did not make an excessive amount. Once cuts had been
made he believed they should consider a sales or income tax
and the PFD should be a last resort.
7:04:37 PM
DAVE BISHOP, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation on behalf of himself, his wife,
and their daughter. He discussed that there were very few
chances to divert a state recession and likely hardship for
thousands of people. He stressed that it was not possible
to control the global economy or the price of oil, but it
was possible to do something about the deficit by using
proceeds from the Permanent Fund. He asked the committee to
vote in favor of the legislation.
7:05:33 PM
JOELLE HALL, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, AFL-CIO, CHUGIAK (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. She
discussed that the people working for a living had a great
deal at stake, specifically, their jobs. She spoke to the
threat to the economy the instability and deficit
represented. The organization was working with others to
determine a comprehensive package using Permanent Fund
revenue, cuts, and new revenues. She reasoned that it was
not a question of if the bill would pass, but about when it
would pass. She stressed that the deficit was just too big;
there was no other recourse. She stated that the logical
answer was when the money could do the most good to
generate the most wealth. She believed the answer was - the
sooner the better. She stated that the failure to pass the
bill would result in a forfeit of over $1 billion in
savings over the next two years. She stated that money
would never come back. She stated that there was an
opportunity cost to delay, which the state would have to
claw back some other way out of people's pockets and state
spending.
7:08:14 PM
TINA PIDGEON, GCI, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill on behalf of her family. She stated
that people were concerned about housing prices, jobs, the
PFD, and spending. She believed the bill was the first and
largest step towards addressing the concerns. She furthered
that without action the CBR would be drained in the coming
year and spending from the earnings reserve would be
required without any plan. She continued that the dividend
would be at risk and the state would have lost the
opportunity to protect it. In the meantime, the economy
would continue to suffer and jobs would be lost. She
discussed that the bill was the best opportunity to secure
the state's fiscal future. She believed that cuts were also
needed to close the $1.5 billion gap remaining under the
bill. She urged the committee to pass the bill.
7:09:52 PM
JENIFER NELSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She believed the bill
provided a long-term solution to address the budget deficit
by using a portion of the Permanent Fund earnings. She was
concerned about the catastrophic impacts of doing nothing
or delaying the decision. She urged the committee to take
action now.
7:11:03 PM
WILLIAM WAILAND, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in strong support of the bill on behalf of himself,
his wife, and his family. He believed cuts and taxes were
part of the solution, but they were not enough. He believed
the use of the fund earnings were an essential part of
addressing the state's deficit. He furthered that action
was needed immediately, before the fiscal situation
worsened. He understood that the bill represented an
imperfect solution, but it was time for both sides to come
together to act decisively and responsibly. He believed
that doing nothing was an unacceptable option.
7:12:13 PM
TOM LAKOSH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
strong opposition to the bill. He stated that the bill
stole from the mouths of babies and crutches from the
elderly. He wanted a more progressive tax for businesses or
an individual sales or income tax. He urged the committee
to construct bills that balanced all three of the taxes
with sunset provisions. He recommended maintaining the
current Permanent Fund structure as he believed it was the
only sound stimulus for Alaska's economy. He stated that
oil would go the way of the Stone Age - the whole world was
turning to renewable sources of energy. The state could not
rely on the oil industry to support its government. He
cautioned against cutting into the fund's interest. He
suggested issuing the dividend on a debit card that could
only be spent in Alaska.
7:15:03 PM
HARRY CRAWFORD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
stated that the choice to do nothing when times were good
had resulted in the same position where the economy and PFD
was threatened. He spoke to the terrible recession in 1986
that he did not want to see it repeated. He recalled
watching 60,000 Alaskans leave the state because they had
no opportunity in Alaska. He shared his personal experience
in the state. He stated that something had to be done. He
chided the House for not taking action when the state had
$18 billion in savings that could have been turned into an
endowment. He asked the committee to amend the bill to
implement a comprehensive fiscal plan that the state could
live with for years to come and a plan that guaranteed a
dividend for future generations.
7:17:39 PM
SHARON ALDEN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. She relayed that she was not
absolutely against using the PFD to help close the budget
gap, but she was firmly against it while there continued to
be oil tax credits on the books. She had heard that the
money resulting from a cut to the PFD proposed by the
legislation, would not even cover the tax credits offered
to oil companies. She reasoned that cutting the PFD while
continuing the tax credits only transferred money from the
pockets of Alaskans to the pockets of the oil companies.
She stressed that the state could no longer be dependent on
oil money. She would favor an income tax before a PFD cut.
She reasoned that a cut to the PFD would cost a 2-year-old
the same as an adult, which she did not believe was fair.
7:19:20 PM
LANCE ROBERTS, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. He referred to the ISER plan,
which showed that there was a solution to the deficit with
no tax cuts, including the cut to the PFD. He detailed that
achieving a sustainable spending plan with to the budget
would be sufficient. He discussed that the state's two
primary revenue streams were oil and investment income. He
reasoned that the legislature could use the Permanent Fund
earnings reserve without touching the PFD. He spoke to the
significant amount of funding the PFD infused into the
state's economy. He stated that the bill took money from
private individuals to prop up state government. He
believed the bipartisan coalition destroyed the state's
budget by dramatically increasing it. He stressed the need
for being responsible. He wanted the bill to go to the
House floor so he could see how members voted.
7:21:34 PM
PAUL KENDALL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He believed that public
testifiers needed to provide any disclosure of conflict of
interest. He believed the government had gone way out of
line. He wanted the legislature to pass rules to protect
the Permanent Fund and PFD. He provided other suggestions
related to government.
7:24:31 PM
KAREN PERRY, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), strongly
opposed the bill. She stated that the legislature had
ignored the ISER plan and a United for Liberty proposal for
$1.5 billion in cuts. She urged the legislature to vote
against the bill. She believed the governor was acting like
a tyrannical dictator. She stressed that legislators had
been elected to represent their constituents. She stated
that more people calling in were opposed to the bill than
in favor. She elaborated that the bill represented nothing
but a tax. She thought the bill would steal from many to
pay for a few. She believed all taxation was theft. She
shamed GCI and the Rasmuson Foundation. She asked the
companies to write big checks to the state.
7:26:58 PM
MITCHELL WILCOXON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He provided information about
his personal experience. He had come to Alaska because he
believed it had offered a dream opportunity for his family.
He believed his family had a better chance in Washington
than in Alaska because it had a diverse economy that did
not depend on one industry. He discussed attributes of the
Washington economy including carbon taxes, income tax, and
other. He stressed that he and his family were moving in
two years' time. He asked the committee to think about the
percentage of income from the PFD that stayed in Alaska. He
referred to the state's credit rating and oil prices. He
recommended eliminating all oil and gas tax credits and
adding a 5 percent income tax before touching the PFD. He
stressed that the bill was a tax on individuals who needed
the money the most.
7:29:12 PM
MICHAEL SCHMIDT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of SB 128. He believed the bill would
continue to protect the PFD. He continued that if the
legislature took action in the current year it could extend
the CBR and continue to grow the Permanent Fund to ensure
the future of the PFD.
7:29:53 PM
ROBERT DAVIS, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition of the bill. He believed the issue needed to be
taken to the people of Alaska for a vote. He thought that
the issue was too big to pass in legislation. He surmised
that legislators were probably getting paid by other people
to vote their way. He reasoned that it would be fine if the
people of Alaska voted in support of using the PFD.
Alternatively, if people voted no he believed the
legislature needed to pretend there was no PFD to use to
pay for the budget.
7:31:17 PM
ALBERT NINGEULOK, SELF, SHISHMAREF (via teleconference),
opposed the legislation. He asked the legislature to leave
the PFD alone and to come up with alternative revenues. He
suggested increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes. He relayed
that there were many senior Alaska Native rural residents
who relied on the PFD. He urged members to vote no on the
bill.
7:32:23 PM
BRUCE GALLOWAY, SELF, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition of SB 128. He was currently opposed to using
the Permanent Fund because he believed there was way too
much government spending. He thought that state workers
were paid ridiculous salaries and that the state paid for
fancy buildings. He reasoned that when his bank account was
empty he had to wait to get more money before he could
spend. He believed it was just the opposite with the
legislature. He stressed that the legislature continued to
spend and when it ran out of money it wanted to take money
from individual Alaskans. He believed a set state budget
was necessary. He was against using the PFD for spending at
the present time because it was not needed.
7:34:07 PM
LYNETTE CLARK, SELF, FOX (via teleconference), opposed SB
128. She wondered how the bill related to [Alaska
Constitution] Article 9, Sections 15, 16 and 17, which
pertained to the Permanent Fund, appropriation limits, and
the budget reserve. She encouraged a vote of the people.
She called the bill "out-right theft." She stated that the
changes the bill was calling for was a direct violation of
the state's constitution. She asked the legislature to make
more cuts and to stop the oil industry welfare. She
reiterated that the bill should be voted down. She asked
the members to kill the bill.
7:36:51 PM
ALANA DAVIS, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to SB 128. She believed that additional cuts
needed to be made prior to using the PFD.
7:37:50 PM
VON TERRY, SELF, SEWARD (via teleconference), testified in
favor of SB 128. He believed responsible cuts were
necessary and revenue needed to be increased; however, the
changes would not cover the $4 billion deficit on their
own. He believed it was the crucial time to make a long-
term solution to address declining oil revenues; it would
also ensure a continued PFD for the children of Alaska.
7:39:00 PM
MAUREEN MORE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in strong support of SB 128. She shared that she had been
born in Bethel and grew up in Seward. She recalled seeing
people lose jobs in the 1980s and property values decline.
She reminded members that Alaskans had received a PFD in
the 1980s, but it had not saved the state from a recession.
She thought all options needed consideration including
cuts, revenues, and restructuring the PFD. She stated that
SB 128 bought the state the time needed to solve the
crisis. She furthered that there was no silver bullet. She
reasoned that if all Alaskans were unhappy with the
solution, it was probably the correct one. She asked the
committee to pass the legislation.
7:40:17 PM
ANDREE MCLEOD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. She believed the Permanent Fund
did not need restructuring. She asked the committee to put
the interests of average Alaskans over and above money
interests. She encouraged members to consider their
neighbors who would be adversely affected by the bill. She
remarked that the administration had not made efforts to
reign in state salaries. She spoke against special interest
groups. She encouraged a no vote.
7:42:15 PM
LOIS EPSTEIN, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified against the bill. She worked on
oil and gas issues for The Wilderness Society. She spoke in
favor of oil and gas exploration, production, and transport
needed to utilize the best technology and practices and
that development should occur in less sensitive locations.
She relayed that she had testified multiple times during
the session. She opposed SB 128. She stressed that the
state was giving far too much money to the oil and gas
industry with far too little oversight and public
disclosure. Without reforms to bills related to oil and gas
she urged the committee to vote SB 128 down.
7:44:39 PM
PHILIP TREUR, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of SB 128. He hoped the bill passed and he
believed it was important to restructure the Permanent Fund
during the current session. He thanked the committee.
7:45:09 PM
RICHARD SHAFER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition of SB 128. He was angry that the legislature
had not done anything to downsize government. He pointed to
millions of dollars spent over the years. He surmised that
the legislature was asking Alaskans to trust the
legislature on spending money that had been set aside for
each citizen. He relayed that he did not trust the
legislature and encouraged a vote of the people.
7:46:19 PM
DAVID HYMAS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation on behalf of himself, his wife,
and their three kids. He discussed that friends were facing
accelerating layoffs and others had moved due to the
contracting Alaska economy. He urged the legislature to act
now. He stressed that the deficit was a crisis. He reasoned
that anyone believing it was possible to cut the state's
way out of the deficit did not understand how severe the
problem was. For example, if the entire state's education
budget was cut, the state would still be billions short. He
furthered that it was not possible to tax the state's way
out of the hole. For example, if $715 million in new taxes
was brought in, the state would still be short by billions
of dollars. He supported the legislature's efforts to
examine substantial cuts and new revenue sources as avenues
to contribute to the potential solution; however, he
believed the only way to come close to addressing the
problem was to use a portion of the Permanent Fund
earnings. He reasoned that the state could not pretend that
oil prices would recover in time. He relayed that the issue
would not be easier the following year. The Permanent
Fund's long-term viability would be in jeopardy, which
would mean no PFD checks.
7:48:40 PM
ANNETTE GWALTHNEY JONES, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill. She
stated that the legislature was bouncing checks and now it
wanted to rob a bank to pay for the checks. She wondered
when the legislature was going to be responsible and
balance a budget. She believed the legislature was creating
more problems and was not finding other sources of income.
She stated that the Permanent Fund had been designed
because the state had squandered $900 million. She believed
the Permanent Fund was so well designed that other nations
and states were copying the idea. She did not want to tap
or "raid" the fund. She stated that the legislature was not
planning for a rainy day, but it was planning for now.
7:50:41 PM
RICK HITZ, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SB 128. He stressed the importance of acting
now. He believed the budget needed to be cut, but it would
not solve the deficit alone. He reasoned that businesses
needed a stable state government in order to plan for the
future. He urged the committee to pass the bill.
7:51:27 PM
DIANA REDWOOD, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in strong support of the bill. She believed an income tax
and sales tax also needed to be on the table. She addressed
that the PFD was designed to be a reserve for the state in
hard times and should be used as such.
7:52:18 PM
LEAH SHOLZ, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the bill. She hoped the bill could be implemented
to give time to come up with a comprehensive plan. She
believed that if action was not taken there would not be a
PFD in the future. She opined that the bill would provide
time to create a solid long-term plan. She referred to
ideas for budget cuts and new revenue sources, which would
bring in significant funds, but would not cover the entire
deficit. She asked the legislature to take action.
7:53:29 PM
HOLLY KAIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the bill.
7:53:59 PM
CHAD SAMSKAR, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He believed the government had much
more work to do in regards to budget cuts and looking at
alternatives. He supported some type of income tax. He
believed it would keep people more involved.
7:55:15 PM
WARREN WRIGHT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), was
extremely opposed to the bill at present. He shared that
his family had been in Alaska for numerous generations. He
referred to an exponential growth in government. He
believed the independence of Alaskans had been stripped
away by dependence on government. He did not believe the
bill was about what was right for Alaskans. Alternatively,
he thought it was a measure to sustain a bloated
government. He believed the time had come to make
significant cuts, to cut many state jobs, and to get rid of
unnecessary government agencies. He stated that the bill
would drive people out of their homes. He supported
preserving the fund for emergency use.
7:58:13 PM
ED LARRIVEE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He did not want the legislature to touch
the Permanent Fund earnings in any way. He wanted a
constitutional amendment to prevent the government from
taking money from the fund. He recommended hemp as an
alternative revenue source for the state instead of a
gasline. He stressed that gas was overpriced and the state
would never be able to compete in world markets. He
emphasized that hemp fiber was ten times stronger than
steel. He elaborated that Ford had come up with the idea in
the 1920s. He discussed uses for hemp byproducts. He was
against a state income tax. He could not wait to vote
against legislators who had voted for the bill.
8:00:11 PM
LOWELL PERRY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He did not support that the
bill would take 80 percent of the earnings and leave 20
percent for state residents. He believed at the very least
the percentage should be the other way around. He likened
the cut to a tax on a portion of individual's income and
believed that a 20 percent tax was more reasonable. He
recommended changing the amount to a number voted on every
year by the legislature to use funds on an as needed basis.
He stated that it was a permanent solution to a temporary
problem. He thought the PFD should be taken from criminals
and drug addicts first instead of across the board. He
suggested giving individuals living in Alaska 80 percent of
the time 80 percent of the PFD. He discussed that taking
the PFD out of the state's economy would destroy
businesses, which provided a tax base. He suggested
implementing a high school graduation requirement where
students created a small business in a class. He remarked
that the state's economy was far too invested in oil. He
did not support the gasline.
8:03:35 PM
JEREMIAH EMMERSON, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill because it would impact Alaska's least
fortunate citizens the most (i.e. disabled individuals and
children in low-income households). He believed it was
disastrous that the legislature was considering taking the
funds from residents but was not reducing tax credits for
oil and gas companies. He elaborated that the state was
giving $500 million to oil companies, which all stemmed
from SB 21 [oil and gas tax legislation passed in 2013] and
from overspending. He noted that many testifiers had voiced
that the state needed to stop spending money on failed
projects. He stressed that expenses had to be cut to
survive. He believed the state should implement an income
tax and potentially higher corporate income taxes (or
create a higher bracket for companies making over $500,000
per year). He believed the legislature should stop wasting
money. He remarked that another testifier had brought up
the use of hemp products and he had seen on the video
[Gavel to Gavel] that the committee members had merely
laughed about it. He stressed that the issue was very
serious to Alaskans and was not a joke. He asked the
committee to have more decorum. He agreed with the
testifier who suggested the use of hemp products that money
should be put into new sustainable, renewable industries.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that there had been work to get a
bill submitted related to hemp products. He relayed that
they took the issue seriously.
8:06:26 PM
WILLIAM REINER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified against the bill in any form. He noted that
Ballotpedia.com listed Alaska at a total expenditure of
$18,000 per person per year. He stated that it was the
largest spending of any other state. He remarked that the
PFD check had pulled the state through in the past and he
suspected it would pull the state through the current bump
in the road again.
8:08:19 PM
BOB FASSINO, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), wanted to
see a good stable economy. He believed whatever it would
take to stabilize the economy would be beneficial to the
state's residents and the future. He understood that the
decisions would definitely not be easy. He believed the
governor and many legislators deserved some credit. He
reasoned that the tough decisions to stabilize the economy
needed to be made. He believed the gasline would happen. He
thought if everyone worked together there would be a
positive outcome.
8:09:47 PM
DOUG TANSY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), supported
the bill. He wanted to protect the PFD. He wanted to cut
the dividend in order to ensure that the state did not
exhaust all of its financial resources. He referred to the
ISER model, which was helpful, but he had not seen the
specifics laid out on how to actually solve the deficit. He
had participated in many workshops looking at the budget
and ways to make cuts - there had not been any silver
bullet identified in any of the meetings. He knew
legislators had been working to find duplicative services
and areas that were easy to identify to cut. He believed
cuts were not easy to locate any longer or they would have
been made.
8:11:31 PM
SAM MOORE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He stressed that it was not possible
to cut all the way to a balanced ledger - he reasoned that
discussion had passed for the current fiscal year. He
stated that the current bill did not have anything to do
with oil tax credits, sales or income taxes. He believed it
had been a mistake to allow people to become addicted to an
annual check from the state, which was comparably as
addictive as heroin. He reasoned that recovering from
addiction was painful. He opined that much of the anti-SB
128 testimony was angry and in denial of the actual fiscal
situation facing the state. He referred to testimony that
people used their PFDs to pay for food, heat, and taxes. He
elaborated that the PFD was a unique and arguably
detrimental thing about Alaska; it was not a right given by
a deity. He continued that if someone from the Lower 48 was
listening it would sound like Alaska had never existed
prior to the dividend program. He added that it was
unbelievable to hear that many individuals seemed to be
confusing the PFD and the Permanent Fund itself. He urged
the committee to report the bill from committee. He
discussed the need for a long-term, sustainable solution;
the bill was a requisite portion of the overall solution.
8:13:41 PM
PAM GOODE, SELF, RURAL DELTANA (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. She discussed that for years and
years the legislature had overspent and wasted billions of
dollars with no accountability. She pointed out that the
legislature had received the ISER model four or five years
earlier, which it had rejected. She did not believe the
legislature had any intentions of adhering to a $4.5
billion budget. She remarked that the oil and gas tax
credit had come out in the eleventh hour or overtime and
there went the budget. She elaborated that the legislature
had ended up giving back the cuts it had made. She stated
that the legislature had proven that it could not cut
spending. She spoke to billions of dollars in waste that
had taken place over years. She believed the problem was
the legislature. She reiterated her opposition to the bill.
She believed the money belonged to the people of Alaska.
She did not support an income or sales tax. She supported
more spending cuts.
8:16:10 PM
TAMI MORRILL, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. She believed the budget problem could be
solved with taxes and appropriations on marijuana. She
believed Colorado had provided a prime example on how to
solve Alaska's financial issues. She believed there were
other ways to solve the deficit. She reasoned that PFDs
were not just for adults and played a large role for low-
income children.
8:17:30 PM
HELEN PAAJAN, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. She believed the government needed to be
cut further.
8:18:12 PM
BILL AKINS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
against the bill. He discussed that the governor and
legislature had spent money for years, while increasing
their own wages. He believed the Senate and the governor's
behavior had been dishonest and deceitful because they had
passed the bill over a weekend. He had worked in over 80
Alaskan villages and he had seen how people rely on the
dividend. He thought the bill was a raiding of the
Permanent Fund.
8:21:01 PM
JANET MCCOLLOUGH, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill on behalf of herself and her
husband. She asked the legislature to maintain the current
PFD calculation. She shared that they lived on a fixed
income. She elaborated that they accomplished living within
their budget by cutting expenses and forgoing purchases.
They expected the legislature and governor to do the same.
She did not believe it was right to expect Alaskan families
to support Alaska's bloated government by cutting their
income and by increasing taxes on individuals when the
legislature had not made the necessary cuts.
8:22:07 PM
GLENN MULLINS, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), did not
support the bill. He stated that when the fund had been
established it had been specified that the people would
have to vote on any large changes to the fund. He discussed
that Alaskans depended on the PFD for food and other items.
He suggested a statewide sales tax. He noted that special
sessions added to the deficit. He had heard on the news
that evening that the government was looking at where it
could spend all of the money if the bill passed. He hoped
people really looked at who got elected in the upcoming
election if the bill passed.
8:24:18 PM
STEPHEN WEHMEIER, SELF, PALMER (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He spoke to overspending by government
employees. He thought the per diem amounts were
ridiculously high. He was concerned about government
wasting money. He did not care for the idea that government
was wasting money and wanted to take money out of people's
PFDs. He was on a fixed income and he needed the money to
buy clothing. He pointed to revenue that would be generated
from taxes on the new marijuana law. He did not support
laying off teachers and cutting the PFD. He needed the
funds.
8:26:58 PM
SHIRLEY AND GERALD DEWHURST, SELF, BIG LAKE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
spoke in support of passing a completely funded and
sustainable budget. She thanked the committee, but wished
the legislature would have considered the bill earlier in
the year. She urged the committee to pass the legislation.
8:28:34 PM
WILLIAM LAMBERT, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference),
testified against the bill. He reminded committee members
from Interior Alaska that the PFD paid for fuel, food,
clothes, and other. He asked members to think before voting
for the bill because constituents would write-in a
replacement candidate.
8:29:57 PM
ROSS MULLINS, SELF, CORDOVA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He believed the PFD reduction would
harm lower income individuals. He shared information about
his background in Alaska. He shared that he loved Alaska
and was a retired commercial fisherman. He was disabled and
lived on social security. His dividend was important to
him, but he was not opposed to the sovereign wealth
concept. He saw it as the only thing the state could
utilize to solve its fiscal problem. He recalled that in
1968 the state budget had been $165 million; it had started
increasing beginning in 1969 when $900 million in oil
revenues had arrived. He lauded former Governor Jay Hammond
for the creation of the Permanent Fund. He supported
Governor Bill Walker's sovereign wealth plan. He believed
the plan to balance the budget should include an income
tax; he believed higher earning individuals should be
liable for part of the solution. He thought an income tax
would take two years to implement. He urged the legislature
to pass the bill. He wondered what kind of game the
legislature was playing because it dragged the most
important thing the state needed to address (the fiscal
strategy) out to the point where the governor had been
forced to call a special session. He hoped the committee
would act immediately to get the state on a sustainable
fiscal path.
8:32:50 PM
MICHAEL VURAZO, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against the bill. He stated that the government had a
spending problem. For example, he recalled that at one
point California had promised it could fund schools with
the lottery, but it had never come to fruition. He believed
the problem in Alaska had arisen due to the mismanagement
of government spending by elected officials. He compared
the situation to Greece solving its budget shortfall by
taking from the bank account holders. He relayed that
elected officials in Alaska had spent past surpluses rather
than saving. He believed the budget was out of scale
compared to the population. He did not understand the
urgency of the bill. He wondered where the legislature
expected to take money from in the future when there
continued to be a budget shortfall. He believed the bill
worked against the direction the legislature needed to fix.
He supported making cuts first. He believed more revenue
would generate additional deficit.
8:35:12 PM
DAVID BOYLE, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
strong opposition to the bill. He supported cutting the
budget first. He shared that he had watched the legislature
on television nearly every day for several years. He stated
that he had listened to lobbyists, special interest, and
bureaucrats who only cared about how they could keep
theirs. He elaborated that unions and the education
industry had a much larger voice than everyday people. He
believed that for years the legislature and special
interest groups had created the problem. He opined that the
budget should be reduced to its FY 06 level. He continued
that past politicians had squandered the state's financial
resources. He wondered why constituents would believe
anything different would happen if SB 128 was passed. He
did not want the governor to use the corpus of the
Permanent Fund as collateral to build a gasline. He asked
legislators to ban all lobbyists from their offices. He
believed they should be required to communicate only on the
record in written documents. He stated that many
legislators were focused on the return on investment
through private industry, but he believed they should be
focused on return on investment from public institutions
the state funded (e.g. Department of Education and Early
Development, Department of Health and Social Services, and
other). He concluded that if wealth was taken out of the
private economy it would downsize the general population;
if wealth was taken out of the government economy it would
downsize the government.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony. He relayed that
152 people had called in or come to testify in person. He
noted that many individuals had dropped off the phones
after waiting for three hours.
SB 128 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson addressed the schedule for the following
day. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair [Note:
the meeting never reconvened].
^RECESSED TO A CALL OF THE CHAIR
8:38:29 PM
ADJOURNMENT
8:38:35 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 128 Public Testimony 1 pkt.pdf |
HFIN 6/14/2016 5:00:00 PM |
SB 128 |