The Weekly Top 3 (10.20.2025)

Welcome to The Weekly Top 3 — our look at the top 3 things on our mind here at Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets — for the week of October 20, 2025.

This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) following up on recent comments by House Speaker Bryce Edgmon about the situation in western Alaska, we ask whether it could be the final straw that breaks the PFD (2:18); 2) we use a recent op-ed from House Minority Leader Mia Costello to demonstrate that it’s not just Ds that push spending without saying how they will pay for it (17:44); and 3) having read the second in his series on the Permanent Fund, we ask whether MustRead Alaska’s Jon Faulkner should just start over (37:07).

The Weekly Top 3 is a regular weekly segment on The Michael Dukes Show. The Show broadcasts on Facebook and YouTubeLive as well as via streaming audio from the Show’s website weekdays from 6–8am. We join Michael weekly in the first hour of Tuesday’s show, from 6:25–7am, for a discussion between the two of us about our three issues.

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_01 (00:10):
Hi, this is Brad Keithley, Managing Director of
Alaskans for SustainableBudgets.
Welcome to the Weekly Top Three.
The top three things on our mindhere at Alaskans for Sustainable
Budgets for the week of October20th, 2025.
The weekly top three is aregular segment on the Michael
Duke Show.
The show broadcasts on bothFacebook Live and YouTube Live,

(00:33):
as well as via streaming audiofrom the show's website weekdays
from 6 to 8 a.m.
I join Michael weekly in thefirst hour of Tuesday show from
6.10 to 7 a.m.
for a discussion between the twoof us about our three issues.
We post a podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, YouTube,

(00:56):
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages, also on the
Alaskans for Sustainable Budgetswebsite, as well as the projects
page on national blog site,medium.com.
You can find past episodes ofthe weekly top three also at the
same locations.
Keep in mind that in addition tothese podcasts during the week,

(01:18):
you can also follow andparticipate in the discussion
with us of these and otherissues affecting Alaska's fiscal
and economic condition byfollowing us on the Alaskans for
Sustainable Budgets Facebookpage and through our posts on
Twitter and Blue Sky.
This week our top three issuesare these.
First, following up on recentcomments by House Speaker Bryce

(01:40):
Edgeman about the situation inWestern Alaska, we ask whether
that's the final straw that willbreak the PFD.
Second, we use a recent op-edfrom House Minority Leader Mia
Costello to demonstrate thatit's not just the Democrats that
push spending without saying howthey will pay for it.

(02:04):
And third, having read thesecond in his series on the
permanent fund, we ask whetherMustard Alaska's John Faulkner
to just start over.
And now let's join Michael.

SPEAKER_00 (02:18):
We're going to uh get into this here and get
started this morning.
Uh Brad, you got some uh you gotsome d delicious topics for
today, uh to say the least.
Let's get started with it andstart talking uh talking about
it.
Um, where you start off byasking the question, is this the
final straw that breaks the PFD?

(02:39):
Uh and by this, I'm assumingyou're talking about the uh
typhoon and the incidents inWestern Alaska.

SPEAKER_01 (02:48):
I am.
Um I've read almost all thestories.
I'm sure there's a couple Imissed, but I've read almost all
the stories uh about the theevents in Western Alaska and the
consequences uh uh in WesternAlaska.
Uh there's one place though thatpicked up some things that I'm

(03:09):
not seeing any place else, andthey're very important.
Nat Hertz uh did a story uh uhin his Northern Dispatch
Northern Journal uh entitled,We're in God's Hands Now.
Um and it was a reporting fromOn the Scene.
He happened to be in WesternAlaska.
He was reporting from On theScene, talking to uh various uh

(03:31):
uh uh survivors of the storm andtalking to various uh people who
came in to help uh with thestorm.
Um and he talked to BryceEdgman.
Um, and this is the part that Ihave not seen anyplace else, but
he's quoting Bryce in thisregard.
He says, Edgeman, the HouseSpeaker, told me he's been

(03:52):
pondering some of the samequestions uh about the
consequences of the typhoon.
While the impact of the stormwas regional, quote, to quote
Bryce, the scope of this is verymuch statewide.
He said, citing Alaska's tightbudget.
The state, he argued, does nothave enough money to pay a large

(04:13):
dividend, large permanent funddividend checks to residents
while also meeting itsobligations to match aid money
from federal from the federalemergency management agency,
typically 25% of the total cost.
You think about the enormity ofthe expense involved in all this
and what it could do to Alaska'sfiscal future, Edgman said, it's

(04:34):
going to be transformative inways that we don't know yet.
It's too early to take action,of course, he added, but he said
it's not too early to start tothink in those terms.
And as I pondered and looked atnumbers um uh about about what
the potential cost of the ofdealing with the typhoon in the

(04:55):
aftermath uh are out in WesternAlaska, he very well could be
right.
We're down to a point uh in theover the next decade if nothing,
if no additional revenue sourcesare are developed, uh, and if
spending continues to go even atthe rate of inflation.
Uh the numbers get more wild ifit's not, if it's if it's higher

(05:18):
than the rate of inflation.
But if spending goes even at therate of inflation over the next
decade, we're gonna be down toabout$500 billion for the PFD
using the leftover uh PFDapproach.
That's about 13% of the POMBdraw that's gonna be available
for the for the uh the PFD underthe current approach that we're
taking.

(05:38):
Right.
It's not it's not hard toimagine that that that people
are going to we when you startpiling on and say, oh, we need
uh uh climate resilience, weneed a bunch of things to deal
with the consequences of thestorm, not only reconstructing
the villages if we if we decideto do that, or or in whatever

(05:59):
manner we decide to deal withthe damage that's been done, but
dealing with the consequences,the ongoing consequences.
And some are already talkingabout establishing a climate
resilience fund, the stateestablishing a climate
resilience fund in the wake ofboth the storm and the federal
government sort of wind down ofFEMA.
Uh, when you start putting thenumbers together, you can

(06:19):
quickly see, you can easily seethat five if they focus it on
the PFD, if they take it out ofthe PFD, you can easily see that
$500 million that that towardthe end of the decade is what we
have left for the PFD.
You can easily see that you knowslipping away.
So I think, I think, you know,the the the storm and the

(06:40):
consequences of the storm andthe potential that people will
talk about for additional stormsand needing to get ready for
that and spend in inanticipation of that or
establish the climate resiliencefund and save in anticipation of
in anticipation of those costs.
I think it very well could bethe straw that breaks if we
don't develop alternativerevenue sources, it very well

(07:03):
could be the straw that breaksthe camel's back uh on the PFD.
PFD's sort of been sitting thereuh uh hanging on by its
fingernails.
And if if we throw all thesecosts at it, particularly if if
you know if FEMA doesn't,Governor Dunling has asked for
the feds to cover 100% of thecost uh instead of just 75%.

(07:24):
But particularly if the fedsdon't cover uh that 100%, if
they leave 25% to the state andthe FEMA support expires at some
time, we don't get additionalfederal dollars to deal with it.
You can I think you can see seethat slip away.
The irony of it is, and this isjust this just infuriates me

(07:45):
sometimes when I think about it.
The irony of it is we are takingit off the backs.
We'll be taking that money outof the hands of the very people
we claim that we're that we'rethat we're saving, uh or that
we're dealing with the bush.
I mean, we'll be driving, we'llbe driving one of the one of the
things of using PFD cuts asopposed to more equitable, uh,

(08:10):
more uh uh fairer uh revenuemethods.
One of the consequences is youdrive people into poverty.
I mean, you've got people whoare who are near the poverty
line, uh above the poverty linewhen they have when we have the
full PFD.
They're dropped below thepoverty line when we when we cut
the PFD.
And so we're gonna be drivingthe very people that that we

(08:30):
claim to be concerned about,that we claim to be focused on,
we're gonna be driving a segmentof that very population into
poverty by in structuring thepayments, uh in structuring the
way that we that we that weprovide revenue for those
payments um uh out of the out ofthe PFD.
And and in terms of statewide,it's gonna be middle and lower

(08:51):
income Alaska families that aregonna pay, that are gonna bear
the bulk of it.
Top 20%, no.
Non-residents, no.
Oil companies uh paying up totheir constitutional max max or
constitutional mandate, no.
It'll be middle and lower incomeAlaska families that will be
bearing the the consequence ofthat.
So I this this storm certainlyhas has huge and direct impacts

(09:16):
on the people affected by it.
But but you know, looking atBryce's comment, he just sort of
flipped it off.
I mean, the looking at BryceBryce's comment, the
consequences of this may be forthe for the rest of the state
and for Alaska's businesssituation may be huge.

SPEAKER_00 (09:31):
Well, and and again, the the biggest thing here is is
that people don't realize thatyou know the cost of the PFD at
this point was$660 million thislast year, roughly, about$660
million for the lowest PFD we'veever received on a on a you know
uh average on a tax adjusted oruh you know inflation adjusted

(09:52):
basis.
And so when you start talkingabout$500 million going away, I
mean that is the end of it atthat point.
I mean, we're still talkingabout supplemental, we're still
talking about all these otherthings.
And the the the the biggestquestion is, like you said, it's
infuriating to say, oh, we wantto help you, but at the same
time, it feels like you'rehelping me, but you're reaching

(10:14):
around in my other pocket andpulling out all my money and
saying, Oh, we're gonna help youon the other hand with what
we've just taken out of yourpocket.
It's it's it's crazy.

SPEAKER_01 (10:23):
We're gonna help you by by throwing you into poverty,
throwing a segment of you uhinto poverty.
That's just that's just when youthink about when you think about
the consequences in thatfashion, it's just it's just top
upside down.
I mean, we're gonna help you,we're gonna help people by
taking money out of your pocket,not not not the state as a

(10:45):
whole, not the top 20%, not theoil companies, not the
non-residents.
We're gonna take money out ofyour pocket and recycle it and
and tell you we're helping you.
This is your we're we're helpingyou by by putting you into
poverty.
Feel good about it because we'rehelping you.
We're going out.

SPEAKER_00 (11:00):
We won't be there.
We will be there for you afterwe put you in poverty.
Just just know that we'll bethere for you.

SPEAKER_01 (11:07):
And it's and it's just, I mean, it's uh I it was a
perfect opportunity, frankly,for Bryce to say, look, this
this this situation hasstatewide consequences.
We're gonna need to think abouthow we finance it.
We're gonna be think we're gonnathink about how we spread the
burden across the state.
We're gonna think we're gonnaneed to think about how we uh

(11:27):
how we do this in an equitable,equitable way.
Not mention taxes, not mention,you know, if you if he doesn't
want to mention the T-word, notmention the T-word.
Uh, but but at least talk aboutit in broader strokes, broader
revenue sources.
It's gonna impact the state as awhole.
We're all gonna have to cometogether, we're all gonna have
to contribute.
No, I mean, he targets the PFD.

(11:50):
He says, um the state, heargued, does not have enough
money to pay a large permanentfund dividend checks to
residents while also meeting theobligations to match aid money
from that.
He's targeting the PFD.
And and so it's just, I meanWell, that's the thing.

SPEAKER_00 (12:06):
He doesn't even he doesn't even talk about any
other option, you know, nothingabout tightening government's
belt, nothing about, you know,looking for new sources of
revenue, nothing about anythingelse.
He immediately goes for thethroat and goes for the kill on
the PFD.
I think that's what you're youknow, you're you're you're
you're saying there.

SPEAKER_01 (12:25):
Yeah, yeah.
It's it's like it's like, Imean, Bryce is fully in on this
notion that the PFD is just apot of money waiting there for
the legislature to use.
And boy, aren't you lucky wehaven't used it yet?
But we're just sort of sittingthere waiting for a thing where
we need to use it.
And boy, you know, this isprobably the thing where we're
gonna need to use it.

(12:45):
It's it's been a pot of moneyavailable that the state it's
the state's entitled to, a potof money that the state ought to
take.
Nothing.
And the other irony of this is Ithink Bryce's district includes
Hammond's home.
And I think it's the district,the same district plus or minus
that Hammond used to representin the legislature when he was a
state representative and a statestate senator.

(13:07):
So you have you have hissuccessor or nearby successor,
because he's certainly out inthat area, nearby successor
being the one that ultimatelyplunges the knife into the into
the gut of the uh of the PFD andthe concept that Hammond had
that it's the people's share ofthe state's commonly owned
wealth.

(13:27):
Um, but uh it it just I mean thethe the directness of the state,
he argued, does not have enoughmoney to pay large permanent
fund dividend checks toresidents, and then you know, to
tie that directly to what thestate's gonna have to be paying
out to to deal with the thetyphoon was just dark for me.

SPEAKER_00 (13:46):
Yeah, well, and I don't know if he's even doing
it.
Brian's saying because he canlook like a hero.
I don't even know if he's sayingit because he wants to look I I
think he just they just wantaccess to the rest of that
money.
You know, this is the perfectopportunity, this is the perfect
storm, you know, pardon the pun,to basically reach in there and
swoop in there and take it.
If just for this one time thisgo around, but see, once it's

(14:08):
gone, then it's assumed thatyou'll never get, you know, then
then they'll know that you won'tsquawk next time because we've
already taken it.
And we've said we had to take itfor the thing, and next year
it'll be like, oh, well, that'sgone.
We've already taken that, andnow we're we're using it to
spend it on more importantthings.

SPEAKER_01 (14:24):
Yeah, and it's gonna turn into I I've read too many,
too many op-eds and commentariesnow about the climate resilience
fund.
It's gonna it's gonna be we needto spend this right now on this
particular storm, but look atthe combination of the storm
that hit up north and the stormnow that's hit near Bethel, and

(14:44):
we're gonna have more of thesestorms coming in.
No doubt we are, we're gonnahave more of these storms coming
in, and we need to have a way ofpaying for them that doesn't
interfere with the rest of ourspending.
And so we need this, we need aclimate resilience fund.
And I can easily see thistransitioning from oh, we need
all this right now, we're gonnaneed it to deal with the
consequence of the storm.

(15:05):
And then as that gradually wearsoff, oh, we're gonna need it to
build up the climate resiliencefund for the for the next time.
So I um I I I think this couldbe, I mean, it shouldn't be.
It shouldn't be.
We ought to be talking aboutways to pay for this that that
everybody, truly everybody inthe state chips in, including

(15:25):
non-residents, uh, thateverybody chips in to pay for
it.
We ought to be talking aboutthat.
But if we're if we're but he'snot talking about that, and if
we don't talk about that, youcan truly see that this is the
straw that uh finally breaks thePFD.

SPEAKER_00 (15:40):
Brian, he has a solution to this.
He goes, just name the powercost equalization fund to the
climate resilient fund, andyou're done.
There you go.
That's the uh that's the answerthat we're looking for.
Um, but you're right.
I mean, I think this is they'vebeen looking for an excuse to be
able to spend the PFD, becauseagain, in people's mind, the

(16:01):
first year that the PFD is gonewill be the last year that
they'll expect it.
Uh right.
I mean, because then thefollowing year they'll be like,
okay, well, we didn't get itthis year.
Some people will be like, well,we'll get it next year, but a
lot of people will be like, onceit's gone, it's gone.
And so I think that they'reactually looking for, um I think
it's actually where, you know, Ithink that's what they're

(16:23):
looking for.
They're looking for an excuse toget it done.

SPEAKER_01 (16:26):
You know, it's almost, Michael, as if it's
money that's burning a hole intheir pocket, right?
It's money, it's it's money thatthey think they're that they
think the the state legislatureis entitled to direct.
It's not, it's not the the thethe citizens of Alaska's share
of the commonly held wealth.
It's money that's the state ledthat's the state legislature's
direct.

(16:46):
And it's almost like, oh mygosh, we we haven't come up with
a reason yet to spend it all,but but you know, it's like
loose change in your pocket orlike that last 20 that you've
got, you know, in Canadianbefore you cross back over the
border, or it's just it's it'syou know, it's just burning a
hole in your pocket.
So we gotta we gotta get rid ofit.
And it's almost like you'relooking for an excuse uh uh to

(17:08):
uh to get rid of it.
So that that seems, I mean, I'mreading a lot into these three
paragraphs.
I understand that.
But but it's these three thesethree paragraphs with all of the
talk about the climate's climateresilience fund and all of the
talk about you know the stateought to take this on uh as a as
a big priority, uh putting thatall in nobody, nobody, none of

(17:29):
those.
Talking about revenue sourcesother than uh other than the
existing revenue source.
So all that together just uh uhseems to seems to be an arrow
that's pointed toward thisparticular uh structure.
Right.
Right.

SPEAKER_00 (17:44):
Welcome back to the program.
We're continuing the BradKeithly, Alaskans for
sustainable budgets and theweekly top three.
Number two of the weekly topthree, um, is that uh it's not
just the Democrats that proposespending without saying that
they're going, you know, thatthey're gonna how they're gonna
pay for it.
They're you know, there's no whopays, right?

(18:04):
That's been our big question,Brad, uh, on a lot of this.
But it's not just the Democratswho were just like, let's spend
it.
I mean, it's like it'severybody.

SPEAKER_01 (18:14):
Yeah, uh, so there's an editorial, an op-ed by Mia
Costello, who I who I generallylike, but sometimes I get
irritated with.
And this was one of those times.
The op-ed is the Alaska Gas LineProject is trans is a
transformative opportunity,which we must seize.
And this uh it's an op-ed thatfocuses on the recent formation

(18:39):
of the Alaska Gas Line caucus uhin the uh in the legislature,
uh, particularly among theminority members in the House uh
in the legislature, and theirfocus on things the state must
do, state must do uh to getready for the opportunity of the
uh of the gas line.

(19:00):
This particular one, thisparticular op-ed focuses uh on
workforce development and on thestate uh developing more
workforce develop uh workforceeducation uh programs to prepare
the workforce for working uh onthe pipeline.
Uh not a bad, not a bad use ofstate funds uh uh if if we have

(19:23):
a whole bunch of surplus funds,but we don't.
Um and so it's like it's likeall those K-12 up K through 12
funding op-eds or K through 12spending op-eds that I complain
about from time to time, whichis somebody writes this op-ed
and says, oh, we got to spendhere, we got to spend here.
It's important Alaska's future.
We gotta, we gotta make these,gotta make these decisions,

(19:45):
we've got to have thisadditional spending, but without
mentioning where the heck therevenue is gonna come from.
Who who's gonna pay for it?
Right.
This one is Mia saying, oh, wegot to develop these additional,
these additional uh uheducational opportunities, we've
got to develop these additionalprograms, but nothing in here
about how you're gonna pay forit.
Nothing in here about about howwe're gonna develop the revenues

(20:07):
to pay for it.
The thing that the thing thatsort of really irritates me
about this is the if the LKAKLNG line comes through, it
won't, but if the AKLNG linecomes through, we're we're gonna
have a bunch of outside, nomatter how much we educate
Alaskans, no matter, no matterhow many workforce educational
opportunities we provide, we'regonna have a bunch of

(20:28):
non-residents come in here andtake advantage of it uh during
the construction.
But we don't tax them at allwhile we're here.
So we're gonna have in state,we're gonna have Alaskans, only
Alaskans, paying for theseprograms uh through PFD cuts, if
we've got a PFD left uh by then,or maybe through sales taxes,

(20:50):
which is the most regressiveform of tax.
We're gonna have Alaskanslargely paying for these
programs uh uh or largely payingfor the costs, and we're gonna
have all these non-residents inhere who are gonna get away
tax-free or scot-free, as uh asGovernor Hammond used to say.
This is the perfect opportunityto say, look, we're gonna have,

(21:11):
we're gonna, we've got this biggas line project coming up.
We've got, we need to educateAlaskans to be able to work for
it, uh, work on it.
We need to have workforcedevelopment and get them the
skills that they need to be ableto work on this pipeline and
other things that uh that comealong if this pipeline goes
through.
But we also need to think abouthow we're gonna pay for it.
And we need to include, we needto find a revenue base that

(21:35):
includes non-residents who willalso benefit from from this
project and benefit from otherprojects.
We need to include a rev, weneed to develop a revenue base
that will also havenon-residents and all Alaskans,
including the top 20%,contributing uh toward uh toward
the cost of it.
There's nothing, nothing in thisop-ed, just like in the K

(21:57):
through 12 op-eds that Icomplain about a lot.
There's nothing in this op-edthat even remotely talks about
the revenue side and who's goingto pay for it.
It just leaves it, leaves it byimplication to how we're
currently doing it, which isAlaskans only paying for paying
for these costs by focusing it,uh, by paying for it uh through

(22:19):
the PFD.
It's not just me.
I mean, as I went through the,went through the papers this
week, up in uh up in Fairbanks,uh the uh uh the Fairbanks
Fairbanks North Star Assemblysets, there's an article by Jack
Barnwell in the Fairbanks uhDaily uh News Miner.
Assembly sets initiallegislative capital priorities
for 2026.

(22:40):
Um and then there's an op-ed bythe uh uh Fairbanks uh Daily
Newsminer Editorial Board,enrollment, the headline of
which is enrollment in the FNSBschool district is down.
Now what?
And the now what, as you gothrough the op-ed, is we need to
spend more to make uh to makethe Fairbanks, the declining
enrollment to make the schoolthat's losing people more

(23:02):
attractive.
We need to spend more to make itmore attractive, make it more
costly, to to drag uh dragpeople back in that are running
running away from it.
I mean, you can go through, youcan pick up any paper in the
state virtually uh and gothrough it and find these op-eds
about, oh God, we need to spendon this, we need to spend on
that, we need to spend on on theother thing, we need to spend

(23:23):
down this, we need to befar-sighted, and we need to be,
you know, getting our workforcerate ready in the case of Mia.
But nothing in any of those,Republican or Democrat, local,
state, nothing in any of thoseabout how they're gonna pay for
it.
No contributions on their sideabout how they're gonna pay for
it.
If I were, if I were thelegislative delegations from

(23:46):
these regions, uh, I would say,okay, here's your list of
priorities.
Now, give me your list of howyou're gonna pay for them.
Give me your list of revenuemeasures that that that you
propose to pay for the to to payfor these things.
And tell me, tell me how muchI'm gonna need to raise uh in
each of the or how much youpropose I raise in each of these

(24:06):
revenue measures to pay for it.
Tell you what would happen ifyou had to, if if you did that.
You said, and and and you wouldsay also you can't include the
PFD.
Uh you can't include PFD cuts.
I tell you what, the the list ofthe things they want would go
down dramatically, would go downquickly.
Oh my gosh, you want us to payfor it?
We have to we have to come upwith ways to pay for this, it'd

(24:27):
go down dramatically.
So we're getting all these shotsfrom Republicans from Mia
Costello.
Yeah, we're getting all theseshots about I want to spend
more, and it's a great thing Iwant to spend more, and I want
to spend more on really goodthings.

SPEAKER_00 (24:38):
But but this time, Brad, but this time, this
project is important.
That's the only time I wouldnever advocate, but for this
time, this one project isimportant.
I mean, this is again theproblem because every time it's
some important project, right?
Yeah, that's it.
Every time it's some importantproject.
Of course.

SPEAKER_01 (24:59):
Well, if it's important, then pay for it.
If it's important to the stateas a whole, I mean, so Mia's
op-ed and the other op-eds go onabout how important this is to
the state as a whole, how itimportant, how important it is
to the state's people.
Well, if it's important to thestate's people, have them pay
for it in a way that is that isuh revenue equal or revenue

(25:23):
revenue neutral.
Have them pay for it in a waythat is that is uh appropriate
to the statewide benefit.
Have non-residents contribute toit.
You know, the cost of Alaskagovernment that we're paying for
through PFD cuts, the the burdenborne by Alaskans of the PFD
cuts would be 10 to 15 percentless if we had non-residents

(25:47):
contributing.
Our PFDs could be 10 to 15percent higher if we had
non-residents at least 10 to 15percent higher, if we had
non-residents contributing tothe revenue base.
But we don't.
We force Alaskans through byusing PFD cuts, we force
Alaskans to pay for all of it.
And and that's just, I mean,talk about talk about suicide

(26:10):
economics.
I mean, you're just you're justcollapsing the cost on a on a on
a on on a very small portion ofthe total of the work, well, on
a portion of the of the total uhpopulation in the state, the
total workforce in the state,you're collapsing all this cost
just on Alaskans, and then wehave out migration.

(26:31):
So the number of Alaskans isgoing down.
If you look at the number ofPFDs, they are going down, and
so the costs are increasing,being focused on a smaller and
smaller population.
We we need to we need to endthis.
And these op-eds are perfectopportunities to talk about that
issue.
You know, perfect opportunityfor the Fairbanks North Star

(26:51):
Borough Assembly to say, okay,how are you gonna pay for it?
To talk about includingnon-residents, to talk about
including other revenue sourcesuh in meeting in meeting your
demands.
But we don't.
We let them get away with, welet op-eds get away with just
being one-sided spending.
We let the Fairbanks North StarBorough get away with being

(27:11):
one-sided, we let the editorialpage of the Fairbanks News Miner
get away with one with beingone-sided, just talking about
what they want to spend it onand what we need to spend it on
as opposed to how we pay for it.

SPEAKER_00 (27:23):
Yeah, no, I mean, look, I mean, this article
specifically was targeted atworkforce and labor development,
which is all well and good, butyou're you're focusing on the
beginning where she's basicallysaying we need to fund the gas
line because now's ouropportunity and it's it's a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,yada yada.
But again, no commentary on howanything gets paid for.
And and again, uh touting allthe great things that Glenn Farn

(27:46):
brought up, but there's still nopricing.
We still do not have a new pricetag for this gas line.
The last tag we have is 10 yearsold at 44 billion dollars,
right?
I mean, that's 10 years ago,pre-COVID, pre-tariffs,
pre-steel changes, and and Japanbuying USD.

(28:07):
I mean, pre all that stuff.
And we still don't have anumber.
How how are people how arepeople still like oh yeah?
I mean, just like they'rethey're they're drinking the
Kool-Aid on this.
We've got to know what thenumbers are.

SPEAKER_01 (28:22):
Right.
And we're and and and articleslike this and the and the caucus
and all that, and the caucusmeeting.
I followed the caucus meetingwhere they had everybody come
up, or they had Glenn Farn andothers come up and testify about
the status and how great thingswere and how it was looking
good.
All of those are are are they'retrying to get our toe in the
water and say, oh yeah, okay,this is gonna work.

(28:44):
You know, we want to besupportive of it.
Uh, we this is a great thing.
And then gradually they're gonnastart rolling out, you know, how
much Alaska's got to contributeto to get all this benefit.
This is sort of the first shotof that.
Well, Alaskans need to pay forall the workforce development
for Alaska's.
You don't need a broader revenuebase for that.

SPEAKER_00 (29:04):
Well, that's why there's no price tag, because
they want to slow roll it on usand try and slowly, slowly turn
the temperature up in the potuntil you realize that it's on a
full rolling boil and you're inthe middle of it.
That's what they want to do.
There is no there is no economicway to be able to pay for this
gas line uh if they don't haveoutside investment.
And what it's telling me rightnow, because they're refusing to

(29:27):
put those price tags out, theinvestment's too damn high.
And they don't they can't getany investors on it.
That's what it sounds like tome.

SPEAKER_01 (29:35):
Yeah, you know, if they were confident, if they
were confident this was going towork, uh they would they would
have those numbers out there,they would have the cost numbers
out there, or at least some someballpark figure on the cost
numbers so people could sort ofbe absorbing that.
But it's it's all it's allcheerleading, right?
I mean the governor's gotteninvolved in it too.
There it's all cheerleadingabout this project, it's all

(29:58):
cheerleading about how importantit is.
How essential it is, how greatthings it's gonna do without any
economics related to it.
And then after everybody getswhipped into this froth of, oh
yeah, yeah, gotta have a gaslight, gotta have a gas line,
and then boom, you gotta paythis, this, this, this, this,
you got to give up on propertytaxes, you gotta make these
concessions.
Oh, but but you know, we're allexcited about this.

(30:19):
So, okay, okay, okay.
We'll do all that.
And it's just, I mean, you cansee you can see how they're
trying to play this.
Mia's article is a piece ofthat.
Mia's op-ed is a piece of thattrying to whip up, oh, yes, we
need these workforce developmentbecause there's gonna be all
these jobs.
The state needs to get ahead ofit, needs to be educating people
now.
Uh, and and it's all gonna begreat.

(30:40):
We're gonna get these programsout there.
How are you gonna pay for it?
Yeah.
And and, you know, there's justradio silence.

SPEAKER_00 (30:47):
Well, that's the thing.
There's such a fervor going on,and everybody is all frothing at
the mouth, and they're allready.
But the problem is that it'sgonna be more of the same
because we can't get theeconomic part of it right, and
just because it can't be itcan't be done.
And it'll be, you know, my fearis that three years from now
we'll be looking back going,wow, how did we get all stirred

(31:07):
up about this gas line when wereally didn't have any
underpinnings for this wholeargument?
It's just um, it's it's crazy,it's absolutely crazy.
I want to loop back because Idon't subscribe to the Fairbanks
Daily News miner because it justirritates me so bad.
Did you say that they literallyhave an article saying that they

(31:29):
have a drop in school enrollmentand their answer is to spend
more to attract those peopleback?
Is that what you is that is thatwhat you're saying?

SPEAKER_01 (31:40):
Enrollment in the FNSB school district is down.
Now what?
And and let's see if I can piecedown to where they have a list
of solutions.
Looking inward, make publicschools more appealing, expand

(32:01):
specialized programs, improvestudent engagement and outcomes
by investing in modern relevantcurriculum, recruit and retain
high-quality educators,competitive pay, professional
development, supportiveenvironments, enhance
communication with the I mean itjust goes on.

SPEAKER_00 (32:16):
This is that's all the stuff that they that's all
the stuff that they said thatthey've been doing.
We're getting the cutting-edgecurriculums and we're we're
doing the best to get theretained teachers, and we're
doing the best for training.
Barbara Haney said, surprise youdidn't pick up on the request by
the Fairbanks North Star BoroughSchool District to build a new
middle school.
They got a declining enrollmentand they want to build a new

(32:37):
middle school on top of that.
I mean, this this is justnuttiness at this point.

SPEAKER_01 (32:44):
Well, I mean, it it but it's it's Fairbanks North
Star because I happen to belooking at the at the at the
news miner when I was when I waspreparing for the show.
But I could go to Anchorage andsee the same thing.
I could go to I probably couldgo to Kenai um and um and see
the same thing.
These list of priorities, theselists of of proposals on how to

(33:06):
deal with school issues or howto deal with you know uh uh any
sort of other uh issues is justspend more, spend more in this
in this way.
And and maybe sometimes you'llsee, oh, maybe we ought to cut
someplace, but without specificson where to cut, uh maybe we
just ought to cut someplacetheoretically, uh, but nothing

(33:27):
on how you pay for it, uh on howyou positively come up with
additional revenue uh to pay forit.
And and it's usually it'susually we want the state to pay
more, right?
I mean the the Fairmarks uhNorth Star Borough uh Assembly
sets initial legislative capitalpriorities for 2026.
Well, those were all they wantthe state to pay for it.

(33:49):
Um so it's I mean it's it it's Iget it.
I mean, when you think you havean open-ended pot of money, you
you you just list a bunch ofthings.
Oh, I I prioritize.
This is the most importantthing, but you don't think
through, you know, the the thepluses and minuses of how you're

(34:09):
gonna pay for it.
You just list things.
And and maybe you cut the listoff a little bit early one year
to say, I'm being conservative.
I didn't list the top 15 things,I only listed the top 10.
Uh, but none of this has howyou're gonna pay, how you want
the state to how you how youenvision the state to pay for
it.
They just get to send in theirtheir request form, they get to

(34:29):
send in their give us this list,uh, but but without stepping up
to the bar and saying, and wethink you ought to pay for it
this way.
No, not even not even not evenbeing upfront about it and
saying we ought to you ought topay for it through P additional
PFD cuts.
No, can't even say that.
It's just we ought to think you,we we need you need us to give
us more money uh for thesethings.

SPEAKER_00 (34:54):
I mean, I just you know, doomed.
We're doomed, Brad.
These people cannot see theforest through the trees.
They cannot just, you know,there is we are rapidly reaching
that point where I've I've beensaying it the last few weeks,
but we're rapidly reaching thatpoint where there is no more
road to kick the can down.

(35:15):
Like what, what, what, what areyou not paying attention?
We're about to reach the end ofthe road because there is no
more money.
And what's gonna happen then?
Are are the politicians justgonna, I mean, the ones that are
in, they're just gonna retireand bail out and head out of
state and say, see ya, leave youholding the bag.
I keep saying it's a game ofmusical chairs, and there's one

(35:37):
freaking chair in the middle ofthe room, and that's it.
And I guarantee you, Alaskansaren't gonna get their seats in
that butt or butts in that seat.
It's gonna be the politiciangonna be the last one standing
when it's all said and done.

SPEAKER_01 (35:49):
Did you say that Andy Josephson's retiring?
I did.

SPEAKER_00 (35:52):
I saw that, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 (35:53):
I saw that.
I mean, if if if he's get ifhe's getting out of town, I it's
uh that's an indicator ofsomething.
Uh not I'm not quite sure what,but he was co-chair of finance.
Uh is co-chair of finance.
We'll be through the throughthis coming year, but not
running for re-election.
Maybe, maybe reality in the roleof co-chair finally caught up

(36:14):
with it, but he's saying, Ohshit, I don't want to be here
here for what's coming next.

SPEAKER_00 (36:18):
Yeah, well, I mean, and maybe that's it.
Maybe this is the perfectopportunity to bail out and be
like, let me pull the ripcord onthis before things get really
gnarly, uh, because that'sthat's what we're looking at.
Um, and uh yeah, rats fleeing aship, says Brian.
That's exactly it.
I mean, you get Stevens is gonnabail out, Josephson's gonna bail

(36:39):
out a bunch of these people whowere big spenders all over the
place.
They're just gonna pull theripcord and they'll be like, see
you, Charlie, as they go out theas they go out the back door.
Uh, and you're the ones that'sgoing down with the plane.

SPEAKER_01 (36:52):
Uh as it's uh but but just to go back to the
beginning of this, it's theRepublicans that are adding to
it.
Oh Mia's op-ed of spend more,but don't talk about where the
revenues are going to come from.
It's just adding to thissituation.

SPEAKER_00 (37:08):
Welcome back to the uh program, Brad Keithley,
Alaskan's four sustainablebudgets, the weekly top three.
Woo! We were into a hot andheavy there in the break, coming
back into it.
So frustrating to watch all thisstuff going on.
And we were just talking aboutrats fleeing the sinking ship,
uh, which I think is a goodanalogy for what we've been

(37:28):
talking about here uh for what'shappening in the state.
And we can get into that uh alittle bit later.
But let's get on to numberthree, which was uh our
discussion uh on the permanentfund and more the corporation
and everything.
John Faulkner may need to startover, is what Brad said.
We started last week with hispart one, and now we're working

(37:50):
on to the great debate of thepermanent fund, part two.
Brad, what do you what do yousay here?

SPEAKER_01 (37:56):
So last week, John, last week we talked about John's
first piece on the permanentfund that was on inflation
proofing.
And John essentially was makingarguments that both a feed in
and support those who want tocollapse the two account fund,
which actually protects thecorpus, into a single account,

(38:17):
which would create a backdoorinto the corpus and allow the
legislatures to start drainingdown the corpus when the
permanent fund corporation isnot earning enough to cover the
uh to cover the withdrawals.
And John's argument last weekwas in was directly in support
of that, uh, by saying we needto cover inflation proofing with
cash, uh, which we don't, uhtaking out of the earnings

(38:38):
reserve, which also feeds intothe argument of having to cut
the PFD because there's notenough cash in the PFD to uh
both cover the inflationproofing in cash and and uh and
the PFD.
This week he goes on and hetalks uh about the about
following the money.
The the title of this is followthe money.
And he lays out just sort ofwhere what how the permanent

(39:01):
fund works, but he leaves out ahuge, a huge component of it.
Um as he's talking about theearnings reserve account and the
and calls it the legislature'smain piggyback and goes through
what the earnings reserveaccount, he says this the
legislature can appropriateearnings reserve account funds
for any lawful purpose, providedwithdrawals stay within the

(39:24):
percent of market value cap, aformula designed to limit
spending.
Within that limit, however, thelegislature exercises broad
discretion.
That is why the ERA is describedby many as the primary revenue
source for our state budget.
Well, that's not the way thestatute works, John.
The way the statute works is theway the the existing statute

(39:44):
works has worked since the early1980s and continues to work
today, not been amended.
The way the statute works is thePOMV draw is the POMV draw is
calculated.
Then from that, and this is indescending order in the statute,
from that, you're supposed toset aside the permanent fund
dividend at the at the statutorylevel, and then the remainder

(40:07):
after withdraw after deductingthe stat the permanent fund the
statute the statutory permanentfund dividend, the remainder is
what's available to the state.
And it's not much.
It's not in the in the bigscheme of spending, it's not
that much.
And so if you withdrew thepermanent fund dividend,
according to statutory, uh,according to the statutory uh uh

(40:28):
uh uh method, if you withdrewthe permanent fund dividend as
the statute provides, that wouldbe a constraint on spending
because the amount remainingwould be limited, uh, the amount
remaining that the legislaturewould have would be would be
limited.
Uh, and we begin to see someconstraints on spending because
you'd have to talk about raisingrevenues other ways.

(40:50):
And when you start talking aboutraising revenues other ways in
the form of a tax or some othersome other mechanism, people
start pushing back on spending.
By allowing the by allowing themto use the permanent fund
dividend, you're only affecting,really only affecting middle and
lower income Alaska families,and they don't have a big, a big
political voice.
That's a huge step in this inthe way the statute works, the

(41:13):
way the statute's supposed towork.
And John just completely missesit, just completely ignores it.
The legislature can'tappropriate, what he says is the
legislature can appropriate ERAfunds for any lawful purpose,
provided withdrawals stay withinthe percent of market value cap,
a formula designed to limitspending.
Within that limit, however, thelegislature exercises broad

(41:34):
discretion.
It doesn't.
I mean, that's the way thestatute works, um, it doesn't.
And it it also irritates me whenpeople talk about the POMB, the
statutory limit of the POMB, andsay, well, that's not that's a
statutory limit.
We've got to observe thatstatutory limit.
We've got to, we've got torespect that because it's in
statute.
The PFD is in statute.

(41:56):
Indeed, it's the same statute.
And and and we don't respectthat.
I mean, we just ignore that andkeep and and keep on going.
So why does anybody think thatwe're gonna that that when push
comes to show, we're gonnarespect the the POMB uh uh
statute?
Or conversely, if you want toargue that we need to respect
the POMV statute because that'sa hard limit in statute, then we

(42:19):
ought to respect the the PFDcalculation because that's uh
also a hard calculation um instatute.
I think John, I'm not sure whatJohn's trying to do with this
series uh on the on the on thepermanent fund, uh, but but so
far the first two are the firsttwo uh pieces of it have have

(42:40):
not really been veryconservative or not been very uh
uh uh uh straightforward interms of how the permanent fund
uh works or what the realprotections in the case of the
earnings reserve, what the realprotections are from requiring
the the uh two account system.

SPEAKER_00 (42:58):
Yeah, no, um again, I was I'm I'm trying to figure
out what what he's tracking toum with this.
And again, the fact that he'skind of got the the ERA
component of it, but you know,backwards as far as the what the
POMV does and how much money itdraws in there.
And again, the fact that we'reignoring the statute, that's the
thing that just, you know, Imean, but but but but the POMV

(43:20):
is so important and so sacred.
Again, it's a statute, it's nota constitutional mandate, it's a
statute, and they can changeanything that they want, just
like they're ignoring thecurrent statutory formula, they
could ignore the POMV draw atany time.
That that's they could, youknow, if they wanted to, they
don't have to, they could do itwhatever they want out of the

(43:42):
ERA.

SPEAKER_01 (43:43):
And if you think the POMV draw, if you think the POMV
statute is important and weought to respect it and we ought
to uphold it, and we ought notto do anything to undercut it,
then we ought not to beundercutting the PFD statute
because that it's in the same,it's in the same damn statute.
It's in the same, it's it's gotthe same status, legal status,

(44:03):
as the as the POMV CAP.
It's got the same impact oncalculations as the POMV CAP.
We ought to we ought to berespecting the PFD statute.
And if you don't like it, changeit.
Have the cuts to change it.
But but just ignoring itundercuts the rule of law,
undercuts respect for law, andand is undercutting the hell out

(44:24):
of uh out of the POMV statute atthe same time.

SPEAKER_00 (44:27):
Brad Keithley, Alaskans for sustainable
budgets, the weekly top three.
We're down to the last uh twominutes here uh for the program
today.
So, Brad, you want to summatewith all your thoughts uh on all
this?
I mean, we've talked about, youknow, uh is the PFD, is this the
the bullet, the magic bulletthat goes into it?
How do we pay for all of it?

(44:48):
And of course, can we get allthe details right?
That's uh kind of the big thinghere.
So hit us with it.

SPEAKER_01 (44:54):
We don't have responsible fiscal policy in the
state.
We don't have legislators whotalk responsibly, responsibly
about fiscal policy on both theR side and the D side.
We don't have people who, whenthey write articles about the
permanent fund or other things,who don't think responsibly
about the uh about the uh thefiscal policy in the state.

(45:18):
We have Bryce, going back to thefirst segment, we have uh
Speaker Edgman, who is you knowjust saying, as a matter of
fact, that it looks like we'regonna have to cut the PFD more,
as opposed and take money out ofthe pockets of the very people
we're trying to help, take moneyout of middle and lower income
Alaska families, take money outof Bush families, take dollars
out of Bush families, throw someBush families into poverty,

(45:42):
which is what cutting the PFDdoes, throw some uh Bush
families into poverty in orderto help.
Uh when you've got a broad arrayof other revenue sources, uh uh
the top 20% contributing anequitable share, oil companies
getting old tax rates back up tothe constitutional mandate, uh

(46:05):
non-residents, when you've got abroad array of other revenue
sources that could helpcontribute to it and reduce the
impact on middle and lowerincome Alaska families and
reduce the impact on the verypeople you're trying to help,
the people from the Westerncommunity, uh Western Alaska
communities that have been thathave been impacted.
We don't have people who talkresponsibly about fiscal policy.

(46:26):
They just they just come in andsay, I want to spend, or I I I,
you know, just over look, justlook past the PFD statute and
let me have all that revenue.
We've got to have people, we'vegot to have candidates, we've
got to have legislators thatthink and talk responsibly about
fiscal policy in the years aheadbecause it's going to become
even more important.

SPEAKER_00 (46:46):
I mean, yeah, I mean, at this point, fiscal
policy, what is that?
I mean, this is this is ayear-to-year thing, Brad.
I mean, they're like they'relike running from one house of
fire to the next.
There's no planning ahead.
That's like, what is this year'scrisis?
And can we go, can we go throughit and uh and keep going?

(47:07):
You know, that's the that's thethat's the issue.
There is no planning ahead.
And of course, that also meansthat they have no, you know,
they have no qualms takingwhatever money's on the table,
and and they just want to keeptaking it at this point.
Final thoughts here for you.

SPEAKER_01 (47:23):
Well, yeah, it's that it is that, Michael.
I mean, they're just sittingyear to year.
That's exactly right.
And it's the it's the crisis ofthe moment, and and they've just
let the PFD sit there as a pot.
And John's column just sort ofreinforces that.
You just let this PFD sit thereas a pot, and and you know, I'll
go dip in that for this becausethis is important.

(47:43):
I'll go dip in it for this, butthis is important, I'll go dip
in it for this because uhbecause this is important.
Instead of treating it as astructured piece of of the
overall state fiscal policy,they've just opened the door to
it um and started dipping intoit.
These are the same people whosay, who say, we really want to,
we do we we should combine thetwo accounts, the two permanent

(48:05):
fund accounts into one, uh andtrust us, you know, we won't we
won't dip into that becausewe'll be you know governed by
these strict rules.
At the same time that in thosestrict rules are opening up a
back door, they're creating aback door to be able to get into
uh to be able to get into thecorpus.
So yeah, I'd if we can't trustthem in how they've treated the

(48:26):
PFD, if we can't trust them inhow they've treated a statute, I
don't think we ought to betrusting them with respect to
anything else, uh, where theytell us uh where the where the
response is, trust us, we won'tdo that.

SPEAKER_00 (48:37):
Yeah, no, I mean uh again, and like I said, they
they they have no plan beyondthis next year.
I mean, even I mean, it stillboils my my oats that uh that
Bryce that not that notSteadman, sorry, with Stedman.
Um, it really just chaps me thathe's you know, we were talking
about how bad next year is goingto be.

(48:58):
And then he says, but we don'twant to focus on that.
We want to focus on right now.
Well, should you not have along-term?
We're talking about a crisismoment that is coming that
should inform all of ourdecisions leading up to it.
So anything we're doing now willhave an effect, either positive

(49:20):
or negative, on the future.
And your answer is pay noattention to the man behind the
curtain.
Look at what my look over here.
This is what I'm doing overhere.
I mean, literally at a pressconference, he said that.
And I'm like, what is going on?

SPEAKER_01 (49:35):
Well, and and and who you would who you would want
to be leading the discussion onthat would be the governor.
The governor's checked out.
I mean, it's all it all of hisactions are are focused on how
he's going to run against Lisain two years, if it, if indeed
Lisa runs in two years.
I mean, it's just it's it's wedon't have anybody.
We don't have anybody who'sfocused on fiscal policy.

(49:58):
And you look at the at the 11candidates or 12 or 13 or 25 or
whatever, however manycandidates we got for governor
now, and none of those arefocused on on uh on fiscal
policy.
They're not they're not focusedon the whole.
You know, you've got Bernadettetalking about the PFD, you got
Begage talking about, you know,we need to we need to invest
more in this and that and theother thing in education and in

(50:20):
renewables and in variousvarious other uh areas, you've
got Dolstrom talking aboutwhatever the hell she's talking
about.
I mean, you you've gotcandidates talking about bits
and pieces, but we don't have acandidate who's talking about
fiscal policy as a whole andgetting this state back on track
on some sort of defined, uh uhdedicated track.

(50:42):
And that's a problem.
So, you know, if there's anybodyout there thinking about running
for governor, this is youropening.
You could, you could, you could,you'll have the field uh in
terms of talking about acomprehensive fiscal policy.

SPEAKER_00 (50:55):
Well, and and that that's the problem.
If they get up there and theytalk about the comprehensive
fiscal policy, they are going tobe at odds with every other
politician out there who says,I'm gonna give you your full
PFD.
I mean, Will Stapp was on theother day, and I don't know if
you saw the show, but he was ahundred percent right on when
he's like, I'm so sick ofpoliticians saying, We're gonna

(51:15):
give you the full PFD, and Isay, Okay, how do we pay for it?
And there's no answers, there'scrickets.
I mean, if you get up there witha true fiscal plan, you're gonna
have some hard truths, right?
You're gonna have some hardtruths like there's gonna have
to be some cuts, there's gonnahave to be some new revenues,
there's gonna have to be somechanges, it's not gonna be
comfortable.

(51:36):
That's gonna be the message tothe Alaskan people, and that's
not gonna be a popular message.
You know what will be a popularmessage?
Oh, don't worry, we'll give youa gas line, and don't worry,
we'll give you your full PFD.
And don't worry, we'll give youa pony on top of it all, and
that's gonna be the problem.

SPEAKER_01 (51:52):
Or in the case of Beggage, I mean, we're gonna
give you education, we're gonnaincrease K through 12 space.
Right, right.
How are you gonna pay for it?
How are you gonna pay for it,Tom?

SPEAKER_00 (52:00):
Yeah, I don't know.

SPEAKER_01 (52:02):
I'm I'm gonna we just they're not they're not
even honest, they're not thosepeople aren't even honest in
saying, I'm gonna take away yourPFD.
Because that's the only way I'vegot to pay for it.
Yeah, they but they don't wantthey don't want to say that, so
it's just I'm gonna give you, orin the case of Mia with her
op-end, I'm gonna give youwithout saying how they're gonna

(52:23):
pay for it, without withoutdoing the right hand of the
ledger at the same time you'redoing the left hand.

SPEAKER_00 (52:30):
Oh, I'm so glad we have these little conversations,
Brad.
I'm just so glad I can eliminateall the salt from my diet for
the rest of the week at thispoint.
All right.
Uh thanks, Brad.
I hope you enjoy your final daysthere in Cape Brenton.
And I don't mean final in theway.
I hope you enjoy your finaldays.
I hope you enjoy your last fewdays there in Cape Breton.

(52:52):
Uh enjoy yourself.
Appreciate you come on board.
And um, and and thanks forthanks for sharing with us.
I mean, again, this is it'sbrutal, man.
I don't know, I don't know whatto do.
We just got to keep pumping thepump, I guess.
That's all we can do.

SPEAKER_01 (53:06):
Yep, exactly right, Michael.
That's that's that's our role touh keep identifying where the
goal should be.

SPEAKER_00 (53:13):
Yeah, town criers, that's what we are.
Town criers with less hair.
All right, we will see you.
We will see you next time, Brad.
Thanks so much, appreciate it.

SPEAKER_01 (53:22):
As always, thanks for having me, Michael.
Well, that's a wrap for anotherweek's edition of the weekly top
three from Alaskans forSustainable Budgets.
Thank you again for joining us.
Remember that you can find pastepisodes on our YouTube,
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages, and keep track
of us during the week onFacebook and Twitter.

(53:43):
This has been Brad Keith Lake,Managing Director of Alaskans
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the weekly
top three.