SB91 Must Be Repealed: We Owe it To the People of Alaska

Something broke in Alaska over the course of this past year, and it won't be as easy to fix as a window. Our state government broke faith with the people of Alaska.

Alaskans feel betrayed:

Betrayed by a governor who campaigned on not touching the dividend.

Betrayed by politicians who joined him in taking not just a small portion, but in fact the lion's share of the PFD, and not once, but two years in a row now. Until last year, Alaskans relied on state law to calculate the value of the dividend. That state law is now rendered meaningless. The dividend is whatever they say it is. And we are told to be grateful if, by Oct 5th, there is still some portion of it left that has not already been turned over to satisfy the bureaucracy.

Betrayed by a governor and legislature who promised cuts to state government, but then voted to maintain the same overall level of spending as before, even while taking real money from Alaskan families ($8,872.76 taken from every family of four thus far, and the part of the dividend taken by government is expected to grow significantly over the next few years).

Betrayed by a governor and legislature that have demonstrated an incredible appetite for taking power from the people. Alaskans went to the polls to reduce the legislative session from 121 days to 90 days. They put a 90-day limit permanently into state law. Near endless special sessions have now made that law all but meaningless. The legislature was in session for its first 180 days this year. Having already more than doubled the 90-day session this year, the governor today called the legislature back into yet another 30-day session to pass an income tax. As Mark Twain warned us: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Betrayed by elected officials whose actions have made us less safe today than we were this time last year.

A friend had to call 9-1-1 this morning...again. More gunfire in his neighborhood in Anchorage. The word is out that you may now catch a glimpse of people spray painting vehicles in the parking lot of Lowe's as you drive by. Vehicle thefts are off the charts.

Government is the only entity I know, whose undeniable failures inspire some people to willingly give more power and more money to the very same people who sailed the ship onto the rocks just moments before.

The solution is not to send 60 legislators back to Juneau for another 30 days and hope they "get it right" this time. If more than 180 days of session is not enough, what is??

As our employers, ask yourself this question: Has our performance as part-time legislators merited a promotion to full-time status?

Was the rushed process that brought you SB91 an example for us to now follow? Should we repeat that process with another criminal reform law rushed through a 30-day special session?

And what positive thing can come from yet another 30-day special session focused on creating a new state income tax?

Alaskans feel betrayed today by a state government that is out of control, and a legislature whose job it was to keep it from happening. More time in Juneau is not the answer.

There is one thing that legislators can do in next month's special session that would actually be a meaningful step towards regaining the trust of the people of Alaska. That is an immediate and total repeal of SB91.

SB91 was passed against the protest of law enforcement all across Alaska. It was a 125-page monstrosity that was impossible for legislators (much less members of the public) to understand as it was pushed through the process. The governor has already signed one law just to correct some of its more obvious errors. The governor now proposes to tack on a second fix-it law to correct still further errors, without getting to the heart of what was wrong with the original bill.

Alaskans who have been watching the current crime wave roll through our communities will not be satisfied with their elected representatives going back to Juneau yet again, and returning home in November with another "fix-it" law. They deserve an apology from those who supported a law that plainly violated both reason and common sense.

There is no better apology today than a straight-forward and complete repeal of the law. Once it is repealed, we can immediately begin work on specific reforms, this time in consult with law enforcement and victims rights organizations. It is no longer just about finding the right laws to put on the books, and the right amount of funding to execute those laws.

It is about restoring faith in our legislative process, and recognizing that in order for criminal justice reform to work, the people must be on board before the train leaves the station.

Stossel: Tour Guides Under Attack

Another example of government making it hard for people to create small businesses and create jobs. The winners: no one. That said, if you are already in business, it certainly doesn't hurt in the short term for the government to make it hard on your potential competition.

Visiting UAA on Constitution Day

It was a privilege to attend tonight's Constitution Day Lecture, kicking off the Chartwell Lecture series at UAA. Professor Espada's perspective on the French Revolution in contrast to the American Revolution is a profound one. In his younger years, he and his wife both took an active part in the Carnation Revolution, which brought democracy to his native country of Portugal.

His talk contrasted the writings of Rousseau, which strongly influenced the French Revolution, with the writings of James Madison, who fought in the American Revolution and would later come to be known as the "Father" of the United States Constitution for his role in bringing it into existance.

Rousseau's call for a Utopian vision of government led his country to civil war, an exceedingly bloody revolution, and eventually to an emperor, Napoléon Bonaparte.

In contrast, America's Founding Fathers had no desire to create a Utopian society. A better society, yes, but they utterly rejected the notion that it was humanly possible to create a perfect nation.

The Declaration of Independence made clear to the entire world that governments can become destructive of the very purpose for which they were formed. Likewise, no more than a dozen words into a reading of the Constitution, you find the idea of a perfect union of states explicitly denied.

The United States Constitution was the fruit of an attempt by the American people to "form a more perfect Union". That attempt, though ambitious at the time, was also infinitely more humble than the Utopian vision of Rousseau.

Recognizing that a perfect union of states would forever be unattainable, the Founders permanently enshrined within the Constitution the ability for sober reflection that could produce changes, not just to laws and policies, but even to the nation's most foundational document, the Constitution itself, on which the entire federal government was to be established.

In order to ensure that sober reflection accompanied any changes to that document, a series of checks were put in place. Any amendment would have to first be supported either by two-thirds of each house of Congress or by two-thirds of the states. After securing that support, it would then need to be approved by fully three-quarters of the states. Only after surmounting both of these hurdles could a change be made to the Constitution.

As Madison would later write:

"It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other." 

Those who would shortcut the amendment process laid out in the Constitution undermine not only the Constitution, but also the knowledge and confidence of the people that their consent must be obtained before any permanent changes are made to it. Perhaps even more importantly, pursuing changes outside of the amendment process means that the sober reflection of the nation is no longer required before changes are made.

The U.S. Constitution is a truly brilliant document. Today, even 230 years after the Constitutional Convention, it still puts the constitutions of all other nations to shame.

But, if it is to be more than just a document, if it is to consistently protect the rights of the American people, it must be followed. If it is not consistently followed, no future changes to the Constitution itself can arrest the tendency of lawyers, judges and politicians to set aside constitutional provisions when the Constitution itself becomes an obstacle to their own private ambition.

Support your Constitution—Insist that your elected officials honor their oath to defend it.

After triple homicide at 10am on Tuesday, Anchorage Mayor says "it's a very safe city" as long as you don't go out after midnight

Another week, another four homicides in Anchorage, but not to worry, the mayor assures us that Anchorage is "a very safe city", as long as you aren't a drug dealer out after midnight (or any other time, we might add).

Apparently, the triple homicide that took place at 10am on Tuesday morning escaped his notice.

In calling Anchorage "very safe", perhaps Mayor Berkowitz was referring to Anchorage making this year's list of "Alaska's 10 Safest Cities" according to the website HomeSnacks.net.  The website ranked Anchorage 10th out of the 11 cities they looked at. Wasilla's on-going epidemic of property crimes due to SB91 is the only reason Anchorage did not end up dead last on the list.

Anchorage homicides doubled in 2014, and have only continued to climb since then. At 28 homicides already this year, there is every indication that Anchorage will soon break last year's all-time record high of 34 murders.

In the wake of a recently released report from the Walker Administration showing an increase in crime throughout Alaska, and the resignation of the Anchorage District Attorney earlier this year, assurances that Anchorage is "a very safe city" ring hollow, at best.

If Alaska's elected officials spent less time trying to tell us that crime isn't a problem, and more time fixing the ongoing disaster that is our criminal justice system, we wouldn't be reading right now about Alaska having again maintained its #1 rank as the state with the highest violent crime rate in the nation.

Heroism is for the Faint of Heart

I stood silently in the early morning hours as we awaited the moment (5:58am Alaska time) when the first tower fell, and thirty minutes later (6:28am) when the second tower fell. We marked each with a long and heartfelt moment of silence. By the time the second tower fell on the morning of September 11th, the Pentagon had already been burning for almost an hour.

Standing next to me was my father-in-law, a city cop for more than 30 years. All around us in the darkness were fellow firefighters from the Mat-Su, who come together each September 11th to honor the sacrifices that were made that day. For a brief moment I was transported back to Sept 14, 2001 at West Point, the night we held silent vigil for all who had been lost that week.

For my West Point classmates and I, 9/11 provided a moment of clarity. Some of my classmates lost parents in the attack on the Pentagon. Some traveled the forty miles to Ground Zero and searched for survivors amid the rubble. All of us knew with certainty that upon graduation we would be heading oversees for wartime deployments, and that some of us would not be coming back. That knowledge provided us the time to consider what we would be fighting for, and whether it was truly worth the cost. Not every soldier is afforded that opportunity.

G.K. Chesterton perhaps captures best what many veterans have learned through experience: “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”

You do not climb to the 78th story of the World Trade Center with 100 lbs of firefighting equipment without knowing what you are fighting for. You do not put yourself in that place by accident. You choose to go there, and then you train hard so that when duty calls, you are prepared to answer that call.

It was to honor the sacrifice of men like Ronald Bucca and Orio Palmer, two firefighters who gave their lives on the 78th floor of the South Tower, that Congress awarded the highest honor Congress can bestow, and established September 11th as Patriot Day. Today, we honor the memory of those who perished, and the heroism and courage of those true patriots who came to their support, and to whom our nation owes so much.

Their actions were noble. Those who have succumbed to the poison of political correctness cringe from such an acknowledgment, if they even acknowledge Patriot Day at all. They would rather focus on victims and victimhood than on acts of courage and heroism. A society of victims is easier to reshape according to a politically correct mold, than a society of Americans exercising personal responsibility, grateful to their heroes, and empowered to pass on that heritage to the next generation.

It is examples of courage and true heroism that we need most today. Heroism inspires bravery in even the most unlikely of places, and leads us to act with greater courage than we thought we had. We do not honor heroism to inspire our heroes to act more heroically. We honor heroism because it is a noble thing, and for the effect that it can have on the faint of heart among us. Endless stories of victimhood, on the other hand, inspire only passivity and inaction.

On 9/11, Ziad Samir Jarrah and 3 other Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked Flight 93. They chose the date September 11th with care, intending to destroy either the White House or the U.S. Capitol Building, and in so doing to help blot out the military defeat of Muslim forces at the Battle of Vienna on September 11th in 1683.

After subduing the unarmed crew, only one thing stood between the hijackers and their goal: the passengers.

To keep the passengers from getting in the way, Ziad Samir Jarrah made an announcement over the plane's loudspeakers:

"Ladies and gentlemen: Here the captain, please sit down keep remaining seating. We have a bomb on board. So sit."

He followed a little while later with a longer message:

"Ah. Here's the captain; I would like to tell you all to remain seated. We have a bomb aboard, and we are going back to the airport, and we have our demands. So, please remain quiet."

They chose not to.

Never forget, the White House and the U.S. Capitol still stand today because the men and women aboard Flight 93 saw through the lies, left their seats, and fought for their own lives and the lives of their fellow passengers. Today is the day we honor their memory, their courage, and their bravery.

Let the scoffers say what they will, but there is still much beauty in this country; in her people, in her history, in her Constitution, and in her heroes. It is love for each of these things that inspires true soldiers to continue to fight for her future despite the pundits who so loudly insist today that patriotism has gone out of style.

“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” - Mark Twain

Our youngest daughter turned one this week. My wife and I happened to do the math the other day, and realized that she has now spent more of her life in Juneau than she has in the Mat-Su. For those who missed it, the legislature has already spent more than 180 days in Juneau this year. And today, Governor Walker announced that he will be calling legislators back to Juneau for yet another special session.

This is without precedent. Never in Alaska history has a governor called a fourth special session in a single year, and never has the legislature held a fourth special session in a single year. In fact, before Walker, there was only one year that included three special sessions, going all the way back to statehood. All told, this will be the 9th special session to take place during Walker's tenure.

Voters have rightly picked up on the fact that special sessions cost money—their money. But few Alaskans have picked up on the less tangible, but more expensive, long-term costs of this year's endless special sessions.

The Alaska Legislature is currently on track to spend more days in session this year than in any year since statehood. Already this year, the legislature broke the record for the longest continuously serving legislature in state history. At 180 continuous days in session, the legislature easily broke the previous record of 165 days (set in 1981). Older Alaskans will remember 1981 as the year when the length of the legislative session so thoroughly disgusted voters that they were inspired to amend the Alaska State Constitution to prohibit such a thing from ever taking place again.

After amending the constitution, voters also passed a law limiting regular sessions to 90 days. It cannot have escaped notice that the governor has already doubled that number through his repeated "special" sessions this year. But what is so special about legislative sessions that drag on year after year? In the three years since Walker's election, the average number of days spent in session has already reached the same 165 days that inspired the revolt in 1981. And with a fourth special session now headed our way, that average will only continue to grow.

We are facing a crisis, and the outline of that crisis has now become clear. In short, our political system was not designed to endure the pressures that inevitably arise when legislators begin spending the majority of their lives in Juneau. At 90 days, legislators and their families can spend most of their lives, and pursue most of their social interaction, outside of Juneau. But when you begin to spend most of your life in a place, it is simply human nature that you will also want to invest more heavily in friendships and relationships with those you are likely to be spending the most time with.

At 90 days, legislators can maintain careers and businesses outside of the legislature. At 190 days, spread out unpredictably throughout the year, many of those opportunities disappear. Without being able to depend on an outside source of income, the role of legislator becomes self-limiting to those who are independently wealthy, as good candidates who are not independently wealthy choose not to run for election.

Current legislators who are forced to give up outside employment, become increasingly vulnerable to financial pressures. For many, the impact of lost wages is passed directly on to their families. This, in turn, has an effect on legislators. Also, it can become harder to say "no" to future special sessions if those special sessions might offset some of the wages that were lost. In short, having a part-time legislature requires having part-time expectations of our legislators. When those expectations get out of whack, you eventually end up with the majority of legislators having no other livelihood to turn to outside of politics.

At 90 days, it is reasonable to expect legislators to be present to represent their constituents when the legislature is in session. When legislators are in session for half the year or more, it is more likely that scheduling conflicts will arise (weddings, family emergencies, etc.) and legislators will be absent when it comes time to vote, thereby depriving their constituents of representation. Also, at 190 days, temptations increase for legislators to find excuses to be absent when tough votes are taken.

At 190 days, you may also encounter the surprising phenomenon, as occurred this year, of legislators actually boasting of not working in Juneau during the legislative session and explaining their absences as a type of "cost savings" to the public. But the cost of being absent for significant portions of the legislative session is inevitably paid by one's constituents.

It would be quite nice if legislators could return home each weekend with full confidence of being able to fly back to Juneau in time to make any important meetings or votes, but then again, we are talking about politics here.

To cite but one example from earlier this year, my senator happened to take a trip back to the district and made plans to fly back to Juneau in order to vote on this year's budget. He coordinated his travel with his colleagues in the senate, and flew back to Juneau when the time came for the vote. He arrived in Juneau, and on his way from the Juneau airport to the capitol building, the senate decided to go ahead and hold the vote without him, thereby denying nearly 40,000 Alaskans the opportunity to have our vote counted on this year's budget. Politics. 

Partisan politics aside, our current election processes were not designed with full-time legislators in mind. Legislators are forbidden from campaigning or fundraising any time that the legislature is in session (including any special sessions). And while voters may welcome fewer campaign ads in the short term, the long-term ramifications of endless special sessions are terrifying.

A sitting governor can campaign at any time, whether the legislature is in session or not. He can fundraise whether the legislature happens to be in session or not. Many of the candidates he is running against (as members of the legislature), have no such ability. Without the ability to campaign and fundraise, candidates choose not to file for office, and voters have fewer choices on Election Day. Even those who do file for office are likely to be severely handicapped in a year when multiple special sessions take place. A governor running for re-election therefore has much to gain politically by calling the legislature into session often.

Even in years when the governor is not running for election, he has the ability to profoundly affect the elections of others simply by calling special sessions. Last year was an election year. Even so, the legislature was in session for nearly 160 days. Being unable to campaign or raise money for nearly 160 days during an election year is a significant handicap for any legislator. Again, political opponents outside the legislature experienced no such restrictions. At this point no one doubts that this disparity resulted in a number of legislators losing their races on Election Day last year.

When there is a political benefit to holding multiple special sessions, you can bet that the holding of special sessions will continue long into the future. And as special sessions become increasingly more commonplace, you will find that legislators are obliged to spend more time campaigning in non-election years to make up for the inability to campaign as heavily during election years.

Rather than legislators being permitted to take a step back from politics in the off-season, exactly the opposite is now taking place. Our elected officials, both those that prefer to serve part-time and those who would prefer full-time work, are now having to respond to pressures that are more typically felt by legislators in states like California that already have full-time legislators.

For the sake of the part-time legislators that still survive in Alaska, just say no to the endless special sessions.

Waving goodbye to Juneau after a six-month long visit.

After All - It's Not as Though It's The Public's Money or Anything

Alaska legislators are voting today on whether or not to pass the state capital budget....without input from the public, and without an opportunity to read the bill. It's a recipe for ensuring that the "most important" special interests get their demands met, and everyone else gets to find out about it afterward. Is this really what twenty-first century democracy has come to in Alaska?

For those who have not yet heard, ADN announced this morning that legislators are being encouraged to vote on whether or not to call another special session so that a budget agreed to by leadership can be passed. Unfortunately, details of the budget are not to be available until next week when legislators are to meet in Juneau. Once in Juneau, legislators will take an official (public) vote to pass the budget.

I want my constituents to know that I will not be giving my vote to this plan for the following reasons:

First, I have not been able to read the bill. Without access to the bill, my staff and I are unable to evaluate it and I am unable to communicate with my constituents about what is in the bill and receive their input on whether or not it should be passed.

This process is not what the people of Alaska consented to. It erodes Alaskans' confidence in our political process, and undermines the ability of the people to engage in self-government. Fundamentally, it denies that it is the public's money that we are talking about spending, and instead treats our state budget as a joint savings account owned by 60 legislators and the governor. It is not.

I have also made it clear to everyone in the legislature who has asked me, that I will not be voting to fund government projects on the backs of the people while the government continues to prevent distribution of the full PFD ($2,280 per Alaskan under current state law). As legislators, we do not have the right to set aside state law to fund special interests over the people.

If the legislature wishes to change the law which determines the amount of the PFD they may do so, but I am not at all convinced that doing so would be in the best interest of Alaskans or the Alaskan economy.

Further, the legislature has already spent 180 days in session this year. They had every opportunity to pass a capital budget in the 90-day session approved by the people and enshrined in the Alaska Constitution. They chose not to do so.

Never before in history has the Alaska Legislature been continuously in session for 180 days. The legislature has already been in session for six months this year, despite direction from the people that the legislature complete its work in the regular 90-day session.

Alaskans have not consented to having a full-time legislature, and they have certainly not consented to adding still further to the 180 days the legislature has already been in session. Special sessions should be reserved for actual emergencies and unforeseen events, not used as a way to violate the constitutional limits placed on the legislature by the people.

"It's a Shame More Republicans Weren't Shot"

Five people were shot after a political attack against members of my government took place outside DC last week. A man asked if the people playing baseball were Republicans or Democrats. Then he started shooting.

When a professor at my state university recently painted Captain America holding up the severed head of my president, and then put that painting on display at the University of Alaska, we were reassured that the act itself was not an act of violence and that no one was hurt by it. He was simply channeling his grief at the outcome of the election.

When Americans were attacked and beat up for attending rallies in support of the man who is now our president, we could at least be reminded that it wasn’t armed conflict and that no one had been killed. Nothing to worry about, right?

Then a professor in the DC area declared to the world last month that Republicans in Congress, “should be lined up and shot. That’s not hyperbole...” Maybe he didn’t mean it, some said.

What do we tell ourselves now, after a man terrorized Americans at a baseball practice because he found their politics unacceptable? What do we tell ourselves after some responded to the attack, “Its’s a shame more Republicans weren’t shot”, a Democrat Party official in Nebraska declared publicly, “I’m glad he got shot. I wish he was f****ing dead.”, and the founder of a major liberal news site declared: “Republicans are getting what they want.”

Running for office is expected to have its share of challenges of course: public criticism, late nights, early mornings, time away from family, etc. But, excepting combat vets, the thought of getting shot at isn’t something most elected officials have ever had to wrestle with. Having people literally wanting you dead, and saying so publicly, isn’t something most elected officials have encountered throughout our nation’s history. In that, we have been blessed.    

But something profound is happening in America today. A segment of our society has decided that it is not enough to disagree politically. Disagreements have always been with us, even profound ones. That is nothing new. What is new today is that some have abandoned resolving those disagreements without resorting to condemnation. Some in America have lost the capacity to let their personal ideas be challenged without seeing such challenges as a threat to their person, as a threat to their safety. While they are glad to publicly celebrate the defeat of their political opponents on Election Day, they need a “safe space” if one of their candidates loses. Their political opponents and those who would support them are so evil, that unprovoked violence against them is justified.

A college president in our neighboring state of Washington this week asked state police for help in restoring order on campus after a white professor insisted on teaching his class on a day when all white people were asked to leave campus. We have reached a very low point indeed, when the only way to avoid violence is to physically remove an entire race of people from an American college campus.

In political terms, we are witnessing what happens when Americans begin to lose trust in the ability of our political process to negotiate acceptable terms of peace between warring factions. In some countries, violence and threats of violence are how political differences are resolved. America was conceived in the idea that constitutional government, and an American’s right to free speech which it protects, provides an escape from such terrors. You see, freedom of speech doesn’t just protect the person speaking. In the end, it protects all of us, because it preserves the space necessary to communicate and resolve passionate, even offensive, disagreement.

Curtailing free speech, no matter how altruistic the motivation, deprives us of a critical tool in preventing violent political confrontation. Our nation’s founders were not ignorant of such conflict. They witnessed it in the years leading up to the American Revolution, and then over seven bloody years of armed conflict. They left us with many tools; a system of checks and balances, to slow and even pacify the rush to resolve political issues through violence and threatened violence.

Over the years, we have watched as many of those checks and balances have been frustrated, and as succeeding generations have received less and less training in a number of the tools that were at one time simply an assumed part of the American Experiment. As bizarre as it sounds, our laws no longer carry the force of law today. Our elected officials no longer feel bound by them as they once did. The growing fear that a judge or justice will step in to overturn a written law or the result of an election, for whatever reason, has hastened the erosion of confidence that everyday Americans still have in our laws, and in the political processes that determine what those laws will be.

Events like the attack last week, and the responses to it, confirm that our situation is most dire. While a civil war is not necessarily around the corner, we should recognize that we are already many steps down the path towards such a possibility. Now is not the time to simply comfort the survivors of these types of attacks. Yes, comfort survivors. Yes, recognize the heroism and bravery of those who intervene on their behalf and on behalf of others who would have become victims otherwise. But also ask yourself what actions we can take today to alter course and to recover the confidence in our political institutions that has been lost.

Loss of confidence is not simply a marketing problem. It will require much more than an expensive PR campaign to restore it. It will require fundamental reforms and the hard work to bring those reforms about. It will require sacrifice on the part of each of us. As President Reagan reminded the generation of his day, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United State where men were free.”

In the end, when our political institutions are working properly, they serve a valuable function: They provide our communities with tools to resolve the political differences that will always be with us—but only if those institutions are working properly. As Americans, it is our job to ensure that they are.  

Rep. David Eastman is a conservative legislator in Alaska, representing the rural Mat-Su Valley (House District 10); He ran on a platform of fighting for genuine conservative reform, fiscally and socially, and remains committed to delivering on that promise.

Yesterday's Record-Setting Day for the Alaska Legislature

The legislature broke a record yesterday. Actually, they broke more than that: they broke a law. While the funds available to pay the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend have never been higher (currently $12 billion, though the exact figure fluctuates day to day), for the first time in Alaska's history the legislature has attempted to ignore the PFD amount set in state law.

Alaskans will remember that the governor attempted to ignore the amount of the PFD last year through a gubernatorial veto, but yesterday was the first time ever that legislators have also taken that ominous step. In the budget currently before the governor, a PFD calculated to be $2,280 will only be funded at $1,100. And the governor has already asserted the power to reduce that amount even further.

If he has the right to change the amount of the PFD, he could choose any lower amount: $1,000. $500. $100. Or perhaps he (or a future governor) simply object to the PFD on ideological grounds or believe that economic conditions don't justify a PFD in a particular year. In that case, the PFD could be $0.00

But let's not get tunnel vision on the specific amount that the governor comes up with this year. I believe the bigger issue is power. You see, anytime a politician (a governor or a legislator) decides to set aside a law for the first time, the people should immediately recognize that as a grab for power. It is a grab for power, even if they don't take the formal step of actually exercising that power.

State laws don't just exist to allow prosecutors to put criminals behind bars. Some laws have no penalty for breaking them. In a society where the rule of law is valued, laws also serve the fundamental purpose of establishing correct public expectations for behavior. In such a society, you can rightly make decisions based on what is written in state law and the expectation that state officials will follow it. That is, until a lawyer is elected president, in which case, even the meaning of the word "is" is up for debate. But setting aside President Bill for a moment, let us consider the consequences of the legislature's action yesterday.

State law provided a consistent calculation for the PFD from year to year. That calculation not only provided a predictable outcome, more importantly, it removed politics from the equation. In asserting the power to change the PFD, the governor, and now the legislature, have taken what was a math problem, and have now made it a political problem. And politicians love political problems.

A math problem offers nothing to a politician, short of an opportunity to spin the numbers in a way that suits them. A political problem, on the other hand, offers a whole range of possibilities. Laws limit power. Being able to break (or ignore) those laws gives a politician freedom of movement. Freedom to do something is the freedom to trade and negotiate with others about whether you will do it or not do it.

Perhaps you don't personally care much about the value of the dividend but a legislator from another part of the state does. In exchange for a higher dividend, which the other legislator's constituents care about, you have the opportunity to gain support for something you care more about (maybe a dam, maybe a pipeline, maybe killing the dam, or blocking the pipeline). And now that the legislature no longer feels constrained by the calculation in state law, tell me, what is the upper limit on the PFD?

This year's legislature wants to cut the PFD. Perhaps when a different party comes to power, a future legislature will want to increase it. The mechanism of the PFD, detached from law and historical practice, offers the ability for politicians to give something to each and every voter in their district. I bet you can buy a lot of good will with $12 billion. $17,000 PFD anyone?

And why in the world does the Earnings Reserve Fund stand at $12 billion today? One reason is because of another law that the legislature has seen fit to ignore. Alaska Statute 37.13.145 deals with the PFD and also spells out the method for calculating inflation-proofing for the permanent fund itself. Per state law, that amount is to be transferred to the permanent fund itself each year. This year, as in past years, the legislature voted against permitting that transfer to take place. Instead of honoring the calculation set in statute, the legislature set that number aside and inserted a different number in its place.

When politicians assert the power to set aside a state law, they cannot do so without silently asking permission from the people. After all, state laws were passed on behalf of the people. In a very real sense, they belong to the people. If there is no legal penalty for breaking a particular law, the penalty will be a political one. But if the people are simply going to return to power those who have gotten around the law, there may be no penalty at all.

This is not to say that there will be no consequences. Whether we support the PFD or not, each of us will now be forced to live with the consequences of a thoroughly politicized PFD. Our elected officials have asserted that the PFD should now be a political question, and should be handled the same way that other political questions are handled, by the politicians. Alaskans should see this for what it is: a request for more power.

If you believe those in the capitol have been doing a great job, perhaps they do deserve a bit more power. Or not. But no matter what you or I might think, until the people decide at the ballot box, it's an open question. Just remember, if the people will not stand up for their own laws they should not look to someone else in government to do it for them.

In the meantime, this legislature will go on setting new records and pushing into new frontiers. We are already at 158 continuous days of legislative session this year with no sign of stopping. We've already past last year's total, as well as the year before, and we haven't even made it to July yet!

Democrats led by Gabrielle LeDoux Flee PFD Vote—Adopt Gabrielle's Rules of Parliamentary Order

Whenever a politician comes asking for a pat on the back, make sure you've got a tight grip on your wallet. And then remember that everything you've heard about unscrupulous politicians...is often just the tip of the iceberg.

On Wednesday, Alaska's House Democrats showed the public a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse at the smoke and mirrors performance that professional politicians so often like to dazzle voters with.

Leading up to the vote, House Democrats had voted repeatedly not to authorize distribution of the full PFD. In fact, they blocked every effort we made this year to restore last year's PFD, and also blocked every effort to protect this year's full PFD as well. Now they want a pat on the back for voting to "save the PFD", even after voting consistently to spend a huge chunk of the dividend on state government.

Here is what took place on the House Floor during Wednesday morning's legislative session:

At 10:24am, House Democrats, led by Rep. Gabby LeDoux, wanted a pat on the back so they momentarily joined our fight to protect this year's PFD. They offered, word-for-word, the same amendment that I had written two days earlier. The amendment passed, with a majority of Republican support.

However, Democrat support for the PFD was extremely short-lived. At the same time I wrote the amendment to protect this year's PFD, I also wrote an amendment to restore last year's dividend. Moments after passing the first amendment, Democrats did an about-face and immediately began trying to find a way to avoid voting on my second amendment.

Unfortunately for them, the amendment had been submitted and accepted by the clerk even before they presented their "save the PFD" amendment, and it was an amendment to the very same bill that they had just added an amendment to only moments before. They were obligated to vote on the amendment and every one of them knew it.

However, Democrat support for the PFD left as quickly as it came, and by the time my amendment was before them, support for the PFD was already gone. But they also realized that the public would immediately see the sham for what it was if they voted against the PFD only moments after voting for it.

Having painted themselves into a corner, they turned to their House Rules Chair, Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, as they had done on so many previous occasions when faced with having to take an unpopular vote. True to form, Rep. LeDoux obliged them by once more creating a "tradition" out of thin air that would forbid them from voting on whether or not to restore last year's dividend.

You can watch the discussion on Gavel to Gavel.

The farce was laid bare for all to see, and the plan to hide behind this "tradition" was formally appealed as a disservice to the legislature. Even Republicans who steadfastly support taking the dividend acknowledged the farce for what it was and voted against it. Even so, every member of the Democrat Caucus charged head-long after Rep. LeDoux, voting 22 to 18 to bind the legislature with this "tradition" and thereby forbid us from being able to vote on whether or not to restore last year's dividend.*

The House Democrats who cast their votes in favor of Gabrielle's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure were:

Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux
Rep. Bryce Edgmon
Rep. Paul Seaton
Rep. Matt Claman
Rep. Jason Grenn
Rep. Dan Ortiz
Rep. Andy Josephson
Rep. Adam Wool
Rep. Ivy Spohnholz
Rep. Geran Tarr
Rep. Harriet Drummond
Rep. Zach Fansler
Rep. Neal Foster
Rep. Les Gara
Rep. David Guttenberg
Rep. Scott Kawasaki
Rep. Sam Kito III
Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Rep. Louise Stutes
Rep. Dean Westlake
Rep. Chris Tuck
Rep. Justin Parish

Lest any Alaskans be left with the impression that the Democrat's final word was to save the PFD, it should be pointed out that they later voted as a group, 22 to 18, to add an 89-page mystery amendment to the same bill. They then sent the 170 page, $12 billion mystery budget to the senate on Thursday night just prior to the legislature's midnight deadline. Once they did that, their effort to "save the PFD" had better than a snowball's chance in Jamaica of going down in flames.   

Conclusion and Today's Supreme Court Hearing

The governor and a majority in the legislature having refused to support distribution of the dividend as calculated by state law, the people now turn to the courts. Today, the Alaska Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether or not the state is legally required to distribute the amount of the PFD as calculated by state law. Alaskans should watch closely.

*Those interested in the nuances of parliamentary procedure may find the humor in Rep. LeDoux's escape plan from the corner into which she and her caucus had painted themselves into. In short, Rep. LeDoux determined that because a bill had been pre-filed last year to restore last year's PFD, that the legislature could not vote to restore the PFD as long as that bill could potentially be voted on next year. If it could be voted on next year, then we should wait until next year so that the decision could be "fully vetted".

Recognizing that the Democrats have refused for the last 155 days to hold a single hearing on a bill that was pre-filed last year, and that they have no intention of holding hearings at any point in the future, as the sponsor of the bill, I offered to withdraw the bill from the legislature prior to Wednesday's floor vote. On any other day, a legislator would have been permitted to withdraw a bill with no questions asked. Such is the actual tradition of the legislature. However, the absence of the bill would have required Democrats to abandon the farce entirely, so my request to withdraw the bill was of course steadfastly rejected by Rep. LeDoux.

Something Snapped in the Alaska Legislature Tonight

The Alaska House of Representatives witnessed the political equivalent of a nuclear blast tonight. As with Pearl Harbor, there was little warning. And as with any blast, it will take time for the mushroom cloud to clear so that we can see what remains of our legislative process in the morning.

Tonight, I think back to my favorite group of visitors during the legislative session. It's been 161 days since my family and I left the Mat-Su to drive to the capitol. Over the course of 161 days, you get a wide variety of visitors to the capitol; constituents, former legislators, judges, lobbyists, activists, celebrities, pastors, experts of one kind or another, volunteers, etc. But my favorite group to visit the capitol didn't fall into any of these categories. It was a visit from Academy Charter School in the Mat-Su.

The questions from the students were thoughtful and on-target. In turn, I hope we gave them an honest account of what it is like to serve in our state legislature. One student asked if it was worth it to run for office and go down to Juneau. Another student asked what the hardest part of being a legislator was. Based on the events of this week, a number of us are likely wondering if we need to go back and rethink how we answered some of those questions.

Like oil in a car engine, confidence is what enables our political process to function, and part of that confidence snapped today. When legislators from all across Alaska gathered in the House Chamber this morning, Republicans were not anticipating that House Democrats would end the meeting no more than five seconds after it began.

When House Democrats gave Republicans a mere 20 minutes heads-up before reconvening the house of representatives at 6:30pm this evening, legislators had to scramble to return to the Capitol, and one legislator who had been jogging, had to change clothes on the House Floor, to avoid missing the first part of the meeting.

When the meeting began, there were no bills on the agenda, and Republicans had not been told anything about what would take place, except that an attempt to combine the state operating budget (which keeps state government from shutting down) and the state capital budget (which funds the construction of state infrastructure) would not be taking place. House Democrat leadership assured us that was not going to happen.

No sooner had the meeting begun, then an 89-page document, written the day before, but never disseminated to Republicans or to the public, was placed on legislators' desks. We were told that we would be required to vote on it, and that we would not be given time to examine it, or even the normal amount of time to debate it. That document was then to be immediately inserted into an 82-page document, which we would also be voting on. All told, the spending in the two bills totals somewhere near $12 billion (but I honestly don't know the exact figure). I might hazard a guess that the finished document will be about 170 pages long, but that, too, would be speculation, because the document itself has not yet been made available. 

As of this writing, even though it has already been several hours since it was passed by the Alaska House of Representatives, it has still not been made available to the public, or to Republican Legislators, for review. I am told it is an attempt to combine both the capital budget (SB23) and the operating budget (HB57) into a single bill, the one thing that all 18 Republican legislators had been assured that House Democrats would not be doing.

When Republicans legislators protested being forced to vote on a bill that they had never been given an opportunity to even read, House Democrats responded unanimously by refusing to allow any opportunity to review the bill, and by voting unanimously to limit debate on each of the bills to no more than 2 minutes per legislator. You can find my 2-minutes here and here.

In Alaska, we have an Open Meetings Act to ensure that the public is able to observe how government decisions are made that will impact their lives. Current state law, AS 44.62.312, makes clear to every Alaskan that “The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them,” and that “The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” These are long-standing Alaskan values that the legislature would do well to heed.

Our function as legislators is to stand in the place of those we represent, in an orderly process that maintains the confidence of the people. Without that confidence, the people retain the authority to disapprove of laws we pass, through referendums, and to disapprove of our continuing in office, either through a recall effort or a future election. But there is a great deal more at stake today than whether a political party or a politician is thrown out of office.

Yesterday's attack outside of DC highlights the terrible consequences that can result when even one American loses confidence in the ability of our political institutions to resolve our nation's conflicts peacefully. Pursuing the kinds of reforms that will one day justify increased public confidence in our political institutions, and in the laws created by those institutions, is the duty of every lawmaker. As an institution, the Alaska House of Representatives violated that duty today. Our work tonight does not justify increased public confidence. It will now require even greater efforts on the part of future Alaska legislators to simply regain the measure of public confidence that some current legislators have clearly abused.

What is the hardest part about being a legislator? For one congressman today, the hardest part may well be recovering from being shot. For some of us in Alaska though, the hardest part may be working night and day for 150 days to earn the trust and confidence of Alaskans, while serving alongside legislators who have abandoned that project and whose actions frequently undermine what small measure of confidence Alaskans still have in their political institutions.

To students, I say: If you are willing to work hard to provide a real service to your neighbors and to your community, then consider preparing yourself to one day stand in the gap on their behalf in elected office. Short of that, it's not worth it. As a legislator, you will sometimes find yourself lumped in with some of the very worst politicians out there. Those close to you will be reminded why politicians have earned such low approval ratings from the public.

At times, it may seem like a David & Goliath struggle simply to stand in the gap on behalf of the good people who helped put you into office. No matter which party you belong to, it will take courage to go against the flow, and to speak out against the injustices you encounter. And it will take a better memory than most to keep from forgetting why you were sent to the capitol in the first place. But if you don't rise to the challenge, who in your community will have the courage to do so?

Senators Attack Trump's Nominee with Connections to Alaska: Declare Christian Beliefs Make You unfit For Public Office

Earlier this week, Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Van Hollen attacked Trump's nominee for the White House Office of Budget and Management, Russ Vought. I met Russ when he and Sen. Mia Costello (R-Anchorage) and I went through the Claremont Institute's Lincoln Fellowship together, back in 2011. His wife is from the Mat-Su. She worked for Vice President Mike Pence when he served in Congress, and had the audacity as a woman to defend him—and in the Washington Post no less.

In short, Russ is exactly the kind of person you would expect to see appointed by a Republican President to a White House staff position, and therefore the kind of person that progressive politicians love to hate. So what do they do when faced with a man with impeccable conservative credentials? They attack him for being a Christian.

Now, wait, you say: "We live in America. We have the U.S. Constitution, which forbids public officials from attacking a presidential appointee for their religious beliefs." Yes, of course we do. And for 229 years, at least this portion of that Constitution, was largely respected.

But we live in different times today. In 2017, no portion of that Constitution is sacrosanct from attack by progressive politicians, not even the portion that guarantees Americans the right to hold whatever religious belief they choose. As Albert Einstein predicted long ago:

"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."

And if progressive Democrats and their friends could prevent Trump from nominating 41% of Americans to office simply because of their Christian beliefs, that would certainly be a political victory that would move forward their progressive agenda. In Sanders' America, there is no need for religious freedom. Progressives in government will let you know what you are permitted to believe, by attacking those who hold any religious beliefs that don't support their agenda.

If criticizing Christian or Jewish beliefs supports the progressive agenda, loyal progressives will be there to defend the right to criticize. If criticizing Islamic dogmas hurts the progressive agenda, loyal progressives will condemn the "haters" for their "hate speech". Just remember, hate speech is whatever opposes their agenda. And whatever supports their agenda is wildflowers and rainbows—I mean, "worthy of tolerance."

Let's not kid ourselves about what the world just saw in the video above. A man was told that he has a disease, that he is "Islamophobic" and unworthy of holding public office; that Senator Sanders would vote to reject his appointment to the White House, because he actually believes what Jesus said, and supported the right of the Christian college that he graduated from to continue to teach that Christianity is true. It's the "Christianity is true" part that has progressives in a tizzy. It's not PC to believe in truth. It's not PC to believe what's in the Bible. And even if it was, it's certainly not PC to admit to it in public. Silence is what is demanded. And if you aren't silent, you will be attacked, just like Russ Vought.

Which leads me to conclude that Albert Einstein is right, and that we each have an important part to play in doing our share to defend the constitutional rights of Americans. Letting politicians and judges do it for us was never an option. Letting progressives do it for us is simply suicidal.

House Goes Off the Rails in Morning Floor Session

Video of Floor Session

During this morning's floor session, House Democrats doubled-down on their refusal to engage or even permit Republicans to speak.

After denying Republicans the opportunity to speak about the budget during the last session (held on Tuesday), Democrats made more than 30 legislators wait before starting today's floor session 18 minutes late.

After Republicans waited on the floor for 20 minutes for the opportunity to speak, Democrats abandoned all pretense of fair play and adjourned the session before it even started. In total, today's "session" did not last even 20 seconds, leaving no opportunity for Republicans even to object to the charade.

You will not be able to find the list of legislators who attended this morning's floor session because Democrats did not even permit the clerk to record them and enter them into the journal.

In fact, there is still no entry in the journal for today's floor session because if you don't even have a record of who attended, was it even a floor session at all?

Also skipped was letting the public know when the next floor session of the House would take place...there wasn't even time for it to be announced.

With nothing accomplished, and no opportunity to speak to the public, or to each other during the meeting, why did 31 legislators gather on the floor of the House today?

Some will say because the Constitution requires legislators to meet to conduct business at least once every three days during a legislative session. But the Constitution requires this so that legislators actually engage with each other and with the public during legislative sessions. And the House Democrat Caucus is not permitting that to happen!

I submit that the delegates to Alaska's Constitutional Convention wrote this requirement into the Constitution to prevent this very thing from happening. They foresaw that a slim majority of one body of the legislature might one day attempt to hold the rest of the state hostage over policies that could not otherwise be passed because they did not have widespread public support.

Even with this requirement included in the Constitution, some delegates to the convention still worried that future legislators might only pretend to meet, have no meetings for three days, and then pretend to meet again. Others at the convention argued that this could not possibly happen because the press would cover the charade and legislators would not risk the public exposure.

Well today, after more than 60 years, that debate has finally been settled. Politicians will indeed do plainly ridiculous things if the public lets them get away with it.

Today's events brought to you by the House Democrat Caucus:

Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux
Rep. Paul Seaton
Rep. Matt Claman
Rep. Jason Grenn
Rep. Dan Ortiz
Rep. Andy Josephson
Rep. Adam Wool
Rep. Ivy Spohnholz
Rep. Bryce Edgmon
Rep. Geran Tarr
Rep. Harriet Drummond
Rep. Zach Fansler
Rep. Neal Foster
Rep. Les Gara
Rep. David Guttenberg
Rep. Scott Kawasaki
Rep. Sam Kito III
Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Rep. Louise Stutes
Rep. Dean Westlake
Rep. Chris Tuck
Rep. Justin Parish

Day 134 of the Legislative Session: If You Give Politicians an Inch...

Let's first talk about where we are today, and then what to do about it.

80% of the Alaska Senate opposes creating a new state income tax.

According to a recent Dittman poll, 58% of Alaskans also oppose an income tax.

45% of the Alaska House has steadfastly opposed an income tax from Day 1.

No matter, House Democrats, with a razor-thin majority cobbled together with the help of turncoat Republicans, have demanded an income tax, and they aren't budging. It's "tax or bust", and the Democrats are now putting the breaks on the legislative process, even to the point of setting aside the Alaska Constitution, until they get their way on a tax.

To curtail heel dragging on the part of politicians, current state law (AS 24.05.150) requires that the legislature immediately adjourn after 90 days. No exceptions. This is not an arbitrary or inconsequential deadline. While the delegates to Alaska's Constitutional Convention granted the legislature the ability to call themselves into session as often as necessary, and to be well compensated for their work, it has always been understood that time away from jobs, families and communities is incredibly difficult for legislators and for their staff. The longer the legislative session drags on, the more that families, employers and communities suffer because of it.

At a certain point, legislators who do have jobs and families to return to, often cave to the demands of those who don't. This is especially true of commercial fishermen, whose livelihoods afford few opportunities to be in Juneau during the summer months. Of course, legislators who are retired and can afford to own homes both in Juneau and in their home district come out on top. Those represented by legislators of more humble means, who find themselves paying rent in both places, often do not.

For these and others reasons, more than 117,000 Alaskans voted that all future legislative sessions would have to be completed within 90 days. No one debates the existence of the law. And yet the legislature spent 121 days in regular session this year, and House Democrats would have spent more, if Republicans had not refused to give them the votes to continue.

To speed the process along, state law (AS 24.05.150) also requires (as mandated by our state constitution) that neither the house nor the senate may recess for more than 3 days without first gaining the concurrence of the other body. However, House Democrats dispensed with that requirement on Friday and recessed for more than 4 days, abandoning even the pretense of a meeting during that time. Shortly after the house recessed, the senate followed suit.

As if to reinforce their message, Democrat Leadership in the Alaska State House announced today that they have not scheduled any meetings during this week's special session. They had publicized a committee meeting this week to discuss climate change. But that's now been cancelled.

On Friday, we will gather for another house floor session, but as there was nothing on the agenda for today's floor session, it is doubtful whether there will be anything on the agenda for Friday's session either. Of course, by Friday morning, pink slips will have been mailed out to between 10,000 and 20,000 state employees, in what is now becoming an annual tradition here in Alaska. Welcome to what is, effectively, Day 134 of the Legislative Session!

How did we get here?

Let's review some of the milestones:

Today is Day 13 of the current special session. The Constitution empowers the governor to call special sessions in cases of emergency. But with five special sessions called during the last legislature alone, and the process already beginning to repeat itself again this year, are we really dealing with emergencies, or are we simply dealing with neglect on the part of some of Alaska's political leaders?

If you are wondering how legislators have been able to cope with being together in Juneau for the past 134 days of non-stop legislative sessions, the short answer is: They haven't had to cope, because they have found a way to avoid having to work or even attend meetings together during session. In the first 13 days of the current special session, the House has so far conducted business on only two occasions, despite the constitutional obligation to meet at least once every three days. In fact, most all of the meetings for this special session have so far been non-meetings; where nothing is on the agenda, no business can be conducted, and the majority of legislators are not in attendance. Even so, politicians can point to the fact that some members met, which technically satisfies the letter of the Constitution, hence the name "technical session". Through long recesses and the use of technical sessions, the House has been able to avoid conducting any actual business since May 22nd.

Interestingly enough, in 1956, the delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention debated whether or not it was conceivable that these very same delay tactics could be used by future legislatures. On January 10, 1956, the question was asked: "...but what is to prevent either house from...having a recess for three days...then meeting again and then immediately taking another recess for another three days?" The question was answered directly: "I can answer Mr. Robertson's question as to what would prevent it. The newspapers would prevent it." And perhaps at one time they did. But when you give politicians an inch...you may very quickly discover they have taken quite a bit more than that.

In 1978, 75% of Alaskans voted for the legislature to limit the legislative session to 120 days or less.

The legislature must've missed the memo. In 1981, the legislature's regular session lasted 165 days.

Because of this, and other years like it, in 1984, the people of Alaska voted (more than 3 to 1) to amend the state constitution to limit future legislative sessions to 120 days, with the option of a one-time, 10-day extension. The constitutional amendment also required the legislature to adjust its internal deadlines to accommodate the new timetable. But after more than 30 years now, those deadlines have yet to make it past the drafting phase. 

In 2006, Alaskans again took to the ballot box and passed a state law limiting all future legislative sessions to no more than 90 days.

As astute Alaskans will have no doubt already observed, legislators now have a well-developed habit of extending sessions past 90 days. In fact, when you add up all the days that the legislature was in session in 2015, it lasted 157 days. If you are thinking that might have been an anomaly, the total in 2016 was also 157 days.

Did legislators change the law to permit the longer sessions? Actually, no, they didn't. They left the 90-day session law on the books, and simply choose not to look at it. This year marks the 6th time the legislature has chosen not to look at the law.  

Once the constitution's 130-day limit kicks in (which the legislature and the courts have defined as 130.99), the legislature has found it necessary to enlist the help of the governor, who has been only too willing to call as many special sessions as necessary until the legislature passes his agenda.

And now, after ignoring the legal requirement to end in 90 days, after sidestepping the constitutional requirement to meet at least once every 3 days, after stretching legislative sessions to 157 days each of the last two years, and setting aside working on the budget for the first half of the current special session, we now come to a point where the house and senate are each using the threat of a looming government shutdown to attempt to put pressure on the other body.

If you are thinking to yourself, "this can't end well", you're right—it isn't likely to.

Advocates for increased spending on the part of state government are continually preaching "fiscal crisis" to the public. What that usually means is "more money from the private sector to keep the government sector happy". Unfortunately, as my old commander was fond of saying: "I've seen that movie before and I know how it ends". It ends with a smaller state economy, the rationing of some government services, and less to go around for everyone.

We should never have gotten here. The legislature should have instituted the deadlines required by the constitution as soon as the amendment was ratified in 1984. But now that we are here, I look forward to working with other legislators, and any members of the public who are so inclined, to draft and implement those deadlines. Now that we're here, the legislature should submit some of the most contentious questions to the people, to appear on the ballot at the next election. Bequeathing the future of the PFD to the perpetuation of state social programs is a decision that the people have a direct stake in. They should have a voice in that discussion, and we should carefully consider what they have to say about it.

Taxes won't do anything to satisfy or curb the endless appetite of government. Government will always be able to consume more money than we can produce as a state. Without a functional spending limit in place, taxes will only speed up the transfer of wealth from those who work in the private sector to those who work in the public sector. No tax increases. It's already hard enough to make a living without the state taking an even bigger bite out of hardworking Alaskan families.