It’s not often you hear political debates that invoke religion and booze but have nothing to do with temperance, the social ills of alcohol or strict adherence to church teachings.
In Alaska, those points are being offered in the context of the state budget and oil prices — both of which are similar to alcohol and religion in the 49th state. They can be intoxicating, debatable and divisive.
High oil prices of recent months — and even higher in recent days after Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine — have made Alaska rich again, for now. The state treasury hasn’t enjoyed the tax and royalty deposits of $90-per-barrel oil in almost eight years. Alaskans, and their elected officials, are back to debating how to spend the riches rather than arguing what services to cut, as was the budget routine of the past several lean years.
Of course, all that money is pouring more oil on the burning argument over how high can — should — the state go in spending money on services, and how high can — should — the Legislature go in appropriating a larger Permanent Fund dividend.
Some advocate for writing checks on the high oil revenues almost immediately, particularly to boost this year’s PFD into the $2,500 range, as proposed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who is running for reelection on the Large Dividend Ticket.
Others, however, argue for a dividend certainly above last year’s $1,114 but less than the governor wants, saying it’s best to save some of this year’s oil windfall for next year and the next year, and when oil prices invariably go down, which they always do. Up-and-down oil prices, like rain in Southeast, is one of the few guarantees in life.
Senate Finance Committee members last week considered legislation to set a new formula in state law for determining the amount of the annual PFD. No surprise, members reflected the stark division among their constituents — whether to give more money to Alaskans (voters), or save the temporary pot of gold for later.
Anchorage Sen. Natasha von Imhof was among those who said banking on high oil prices and paying out large dividends is a bad idea. “Just like you don’t build a church for attendance on Christmas and Easter, you don’t pass a dividend bill based on $90 oil. … We need to find something that’s sustainable and affordable over time.”
Senate Finance Co-Chair Bert Stedman, of Sitka, did not invoke the church but nonetheless cited his own equivalent of scripture and verse: Do not overspend on an unaffordable, unsustainable dividend, no matter how politically popular it might be.
Among House Finance Committee members, Fairbanks Rep. Adam Wool was quoted by the Anchorage Daily News: “I personally would rather not be like drunken sailors and give a big fat PFD, like, ‘Woohoo, we can do this now,’ because I just don’t think it’s good policy.”
Calling in from Dillingham to testify in support of large dividends, Magnus Sampson asked the Senate Finance Committee on Feb. 21: “We’ve been calling and calling and calling for the past how many years now? Do you guys listen? Or do you guys have cotton swabs in your ears?”
No, not cotton swabs. But hopefully enough legislators have the common sense not to cash out Alaskans’ future by overspending on a one-time excessive dividend in an election year. No need to drink to that or pray for it, just hope lawmakers think longer term than today’s oil prices.
Reader Comments(0)