October 28, 2025 • 55 mins
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 27, 2025.
This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) we explain why Legislators should ask those pushing for more spending to clarify at the same time how the proponents propose to pay for it(2:09); 2) we explain why one of the most prominent champions of PFD cuts is the very definition of hypocrisy (19:34); and 3) we discuss why, after taking some odd turns, MustRead Alaska’s Jon Faulkner seems to be coming to the right conclusion on the ill-advised proposal to consolidate the two Permanent Fund accounts into one (39:02).
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:10):
Hi, this is Brad Keithly, Managing Director of
Alaskans for SustainableBudgets.
Welcome to the Weekly Top Three,the Top Three Things on Our Mind
here at Alaskans for SustainableBudgets for the week of October
27th, 2025.
The Weekly Top Three is aregular segment on the Michael
Duke Show.
The show broadcasts on bothFacebook Live and YouTube Live,
(00:32):
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 the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, YouTube,
(00:53):
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages.
Also on the Alaskans forSustainable Budgets website, as
well as the projects page onNationalBlogsite 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,
(01:15):
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.
This week, our top three issuesare these.
First, we explain whylegislators should ask those
(01:36):
pushing for more spending toclarify at the same time how it
should be paid for.
Second, we explained why one ofthe most prominent champions of
PFD cuts is the very definitionof hypocrisy.
And third, we discuss why, aftertaking some odd turns, Must Reed
Alaska's John Faulkner seems tobe coming to the right
(02:00):
conclusion on the ill-fatedproposal to combine the two
permanent fund accounts intoone.
And now let's join Michael.
SPEAKER_01 (02:09):
Well, Brad, we got the weekly top three, so let's
uh let's dive right into it.
I know you have a lot to sayabout a lot of stuff, so let's
uh let's get down to the to thenitty-gritty here and get
started uh with this week, uh,which is uh how legislators
should be asking those who uhpush for more spending to say
(02:31):
exactly how they're supposed topay for it.
Let's uh let's get started.
SPEAKER_00 (02:36):
Michael, when uh back in 2013, when we started
talking about, when I startedtalking about spending cuts and
the need for spending cuts uh asa way of balancing the budget,
because you could see from theforecast, even the Rosie
forecast back then, you can seefrom the forecast that we
weren't growing revenues at therate we were growing spending,
(02:56):
uh, and that we were going tohit the wall at some point.
And I started talking aboutspending cuts.
And I recall one of the one ofthe first public sessions when I
talked about that, the pushbackwas, well, where would you cut
spending?
And it was a good question, butalso sort of a trick question,
because what it what it wasintended to do was to activate
(03:18):
those constituencies that wouldoppose spending cuts in that
area to start pushing back anduh and start uh uh uh saying,
well, we can't do spending cutsin this area, uh, without, of
course, them giving analternative area to do spending
cuts.
They just oppose spending cutsin their area.
And it's and it and it was apretty effective tool back then,
(03:41):
uh, and it's continued to be apretty effective tool with
respect to uh with respect tothe response to uh spending
cuts.
Where would you cut spending?
Um uh and uh as we've seen,that's not uh there's there's
not been a good answer to thatin the intervening decade.
We need to start, in my opinion,and as we've discussed on the
(04:03):
show before, we need to startpushing back on those who say
they want to increase spendingand ask them sort of the flip
side of the same question, wherewould you increase revenues?
Because we don't have enoughrevenues uh to pay for even the
spending we have now, much lessincreased spending.
And so where would you uh wherewould you increase revenues?
(04:25):
Or in the alternative, wherewould you cut spending if they
wanted to go down that road?
But but but mostly where wouldyou increase revenues?
As as we've gone through theshow over the last few weeks,
I've seen various articles popup with uh the legislative, with
the local uh boroughs and thelocal assemblies, local cities,
municipalities uh uh puttingtogether their legislative wish
(04:49):
list for the for the comingyear.
Um, and I see you know longlists from some Fairbanks,
Fairbanks North Stark Borough.
I see short lists from others.
Uh, but there's a generallyspeaking, there's just a broad
list of uh of requests forincreased spending that are
going to come to legislatorswhen they meet with the local
(05:10):
bodies before they go beforethey go down to Juno.
And I think I think thelegislators ought to be prepared
to to push back in the sense of,okay, we don't have enough money
to pay for what we got.
You're asking us to increasespending in certain areas.
Where would you come up with therevenues?
And at least start getting thesebodies and others, other special
(05:35):
interests who are going to cometo the legislators during the
course of the session, at leaststart getting them to think
about that they have toresponsibly when they ask for
increased spending, they have totalk about, they have to talk
about where would they come upuh with the additional revenues.
Right.
The other the other thing that'sinteresting about looking at all
of these or following all ofthese local bodies and and the
(05:59):
legislative uh wish list thatthey're coming up with is
they're all different.
I mean, what we found in 2018when or 20, yeah, 2019, when
Governor Dunley we tried to dothe spending cuts, the deep
spending cuts at the beginningof his administration.
What we found was legislatorssort of uniformly would say
uniformly would say, yeah, youcan cut spending, but don't cut
(06:21):
spending in this area, becausethis area is important to me.
And by the time you add it up 60uh legislators, you pretty much
wiped out any any spending cutsbecause legislator X would say,
you can cut you can cut spendingacross the board, but don't cut
it in this area.
And then the next legislatorwould say, Well, don't cut it in
the next area.
And then the legislator, thenext legislator would say, Don't
(06:42):
cut it in the next area.
By the time by the time you addall those up.
And I was reminded of that whenI was reading the Frontiersman
uh the article on the MatsuBorough, uh, their spending, uh,
their priorities.
And this is the um, this is uhTim Bradner's uh summation of
it.
The final list for state fundingwas adopted in borough
resolution RS 25072.
(07:04):
A key priority for the Matsu isfor the legislature to fully
fund the state's share of schoolbond debt reimbursement.
The borough is carrying a heavyload of debt from construction
of schools, all of which, by theway, occurred with a footnote in
the in the in the bonding thatsaid the state may or may not uh
uh fund this.
Uh, but the borough is carryinga heavy load of debt from
(07:27):
construction of schools.
And while the state has promisedto pick up a significant share,
promised a significant share ofthe annual school bond payments,
this isn't legally guaranteed.
No shit.
Um and so, and so you you findthis.
This is the this is the MatsuBorough.
You find something differentfrom the Fairbanks North Star
(07:48):
Borough, you find somethingdifferent from the Fairbanks
Assembly, you find somethingdifferent from Homer, Ken Eye
all over the place, Juno.
Uh they all have somethingdifferent.
And so it reminds you as you gothrough these, it reminds you
that that while everybody, well,generally people will say, yeah,
spending cuts, there is justnever a consensus on where the
spending cuts um should be.
(08:09):
But in any event, the the thethe pushback legislators, when
legislators hear these things, Iwould encourage them if they
aren't already, and I know someare, but if they aren't already,
the pushback should be, okay,fine.
Yeah, okay, I got I got yourspending now, where you want
increased spending.
But where would how would youpay for it?
What what's what's the what'sthe area, what's the revenue
(08:31):
source you would use to pay forit?
And maybe they'll get some goodideas of that out of that.
I recall in the early days,2013, 2014, there were some
decent ideas, particularly aboutthe university system.
Uh there were some decent ideasabout about where to cut where
to cut spending.
So I I I it it's time, it's pasttime, but it's time for pushback
(08:54):
on this increased spending, notjust saying, no, we don't have
the money, but where would youcome up with the revenue?
And I and I think it will, Ithink if it's done effectively,
I think it will start, it willsober people up to the reality
that this isn't free stuff, thatthat you've got to pay for it
somehow.
And you, by talking aboutwanting increased spending, you
(09:17):
are on the hook responsibly totalk about where the revenues
would come from.
SPEAKER_01 (09:21):
Well, and I think you bring up the valid point
again that 2018-2019, whenDunleavy was pushing to cut the
budget, you know, it was alwaysthere was always a bunch of
budget warriors up there whowere like, We're with you, boss.
We're we're with you, we'll cutthe thing, except, oh, don't
wait, don't cut that.
That's in my backyard.
Oh, oh, wait, don't don't cutthat.
That's it.
I mean, this is the again, theyou know, don't tax him, or
(09:43):
don't tax him, don't tax me, taxthe man behind the tree kind of
thing.
It's always somebody else thathas to pick up the bill.
And this is the politician'sdisease of not only do we know
better than you how to spendyour money, but we know better
than you how to, we shouldprotect all this spend, but this
other spend.
And we, I, you know, inprinciple, we agree with the
(10:03):
idea of cuts, just as long as wedon't get hurt.
I mean, they don't understandthat we've created such a
dependency state that no matterwhat you do, no matter where you
cut, somebody is going to be uhis going to be injured.
I mean, Will Stapp was talkingabout that one program that he
has been he was trying to cut.
It was, I think he said it was a$50,000 program, wasn't serving
(10:25):
anybody, had hadn't, hadn't hada constituency served in years,
couldn't get the thing cutbecause somebody might need it
one day, somewhere, somehow.
And it was just a simple$50,000,wouldn't even affect anybody.
I mean, that's the point thatwe're at today in state
government.
Yep.
SPEAKER_00 (10:45):
So I think the pushback on that is how do you
how do you pay for it then?
What who do you want to tax?
Who who pays for this program,this additional program that
that, or this program that youwant to keep, this additional
program that that you want toadd, who pays for it?
Who are you suggesting pay foryour spending?
And if some of the Matsuboroughs say, well, it ought to
(11:06):
be done through PFD cuts, thenokay, they're at least they're
on the record saying that.
But they're also saying at thatpoint they want they want middle
and lower income Alaska familiesstatewide to pay for theirs to
pay for their spending programum in the Matsu.
So I so I, you know, it's notit's gonna be the it's not gonna
be the end-all cure cure-all,but at least it's going to
(11:29):
create a a sense ofresponsibility on the part of
those asking for increasedspending to come up with
legitimate ideas on on how youuh how you uh how you pay for
it.
Back in 2013, 2014, my responseat that time, and my response
really consistently since hasbeen across the board.
(11:50):
Everybody shares in the burdenuh across the board.
Frankly, that would be myresponse also uh uh on the
revenue side, just like thefiscal policy, the 2021
legislative fiscal policyworking group said, it's a
little bit of everything.
It's a little bit of PFD cuts byrestructuring it down to POMV
5050 from the current statutorymethod.
(12:11):
It's a little bit of broad-basedtaxes, it's a little bit of oil
taxes, it's a little bit ofspending cuts, a little, it's a
little bit of this and that.
You spread the burden, and as aresult of that, you limit the
burden on any one given onegiven uh constituency or one
given class.
I think that's I think that thefiscal policy working group, I
(12:31):
think, had had a great idea inthat regard.
And I think it's also a greatidea in with regard to uh with
regard to spending cuts thateverybody shares the burden a
little bit instead of focusingit on just on just one group.
But it's a question that I thinkneeds to be asked.
Where would you come up uh withthe additional revenues to pay
for the spent the additionalspending that you're proposing?
SPEAKER_01 (12:52):
We've already seen this new crop of uh
gubernatorial candidates come inand the ones that we've
interviewed, we've asked, we'vetalked a lot about a lot of this
stuff, and we're hearing kind ofthis strident call from many of
them of, well, no, no taxes.
I'm not interested in tax.
I'm not interested in this atall.
I'm not, I just, you know, butagain, this is a this is a
collaborative effort.
(13:13):
And if the legislature has nointerest in cuts, which it
obviously doesn't, and there'sno interest in generating new
revenue, we're back to the sameold, same old, only this time
there's no more deep pockets topull the money out of.
There's no more piggy banksleft, there's no more couch
cushions to flip over.
Uh, and so what do we end upwith in these uh you know, for
(13:34):
these candidates?
SPEAKER_00 (13:35):
Yeah.
So what the candidates arereally saying, when a candidate
tells you no taxes, I'm notinterested in any new revenues,
I'm just I'm I'm against allthat, what they're really saying
is PFD cuts because there's noplace else to go.
There's no other revenue sourcethat that is available to the
legislature is available to tothe state as a whole.
What they're really saying whenthey when they when they don't
(13:57):
say anything else is they'rereally saying saying PFD cuts.
And if, like Bernadette, theysay no PFD cuts, then they're
just off in la la landsomeplace.
They're off they're you knowvisiting Disneyland, fantasy
land, uh uh in in the course oftheir campaigns.
Because that we we saw that in2018, we saw that in 2019.
Not gonna happen.
The only way that would possiblyhappen is if you is if you is if
(14:21):
a gubernatorial candidate ranwith a collection of legislative
candidates that were allcommitted to that principle,
that we're gonna do it by cuts,and here's here's the cuts we're
gonna do.
But a gubernatorial candidate,we saw this with Dunley, a
gubernatorial candidate on theirown saying that they're gonna do
this through spending cuts justdoesn't work because you don't
see in the legislature the thepolitical will, the collective
(14:43):
political will to agree on toagree on those spending cuts.
SPEAKER_01 (14:48):
Kevin just talked about how resource development
is is the uh is the is you knowis the long-term solution.
But again, just like I've saidto many legislators, um the the
problem with resourcedevelopment is that it is a I
mean it's a longer-term fix.
(15:08):
How do we get over the next fiveto ten years?
That's my question, right?
I mean, how do we get throughthe next five to ten years where
we're already predicted to haveall those things uh, you know,
have have these these hugedeficits and everything else?
How do we make it?
That's the problem.
I agree.
Resource development's a greatidea, but I mean, we need money
(15:31):
tomorrow.
That's like, you know, I'll payyou, I'll pay you Tuesday for a
hamburger today kind of thing,right?
SPEAKER_00 (15:37):
Yeah.
And and and Michael, I mean, theonly resource development that
under any anything approachingthe current tax schemes that
produces the kind of revenuethat we're that we need to be
talking about is oil.
See, only I mean, gas does eveneven the LNG project wouldn't
produce that type of revenue.
It's oil.
And under the current oil taxcode, we lose money.
(16:00):
The state loses money fromresource development because of
the way the tax code works withall of the deductions and the
exclusions and the and thecredits, the state loses money.
You can see that.
If anybody wants to disputethat, go to the current, go to
the spring revenue forecast andlook at the production tax
revenue line across the next 10years.
(16:22):
It goes down dramatically.
Production's going up by 40%,resource development.
Revenues from production taxesare going down by over 30%.
I think it's closer to 40%.
They're going down by by thatpercent.
Why is that?
Because with all of the resourcedevelopment, the deductions,
(16:45):
exclusions, the credits, the theall of the all of the things
that flip in, it reducesproduction taxes.
So, you know, people who saypeople who say resource
development, uh, it's the samething as saying spending cuts.
It's it's it's not gonna happenin terms it if you want to
change the oil tax code, that'dbe great.
(17:05):
But it's not gonna happen underthe current oil tax code.
It's not gonna happen withcurrent current uh mineral
development under the under thesmall royalties and taxes we get
from that.
It's not gonna happen.
And so, you know, you're justyou're just trying to you're
trying to deflect theconversation away from of away
from things that are going tohappen.
And I just uh it's a it's awaste of time.
(17:27):
I mean, I appreciate Kevinsaying it.
I appreciate that legislature,but it's just a waste of time
because it isn't gonna producethe type of revenues we're
talking about.
And particularly in the case ofoil, of oil, it's gonna reduce
the revenues.
Additional development is gonnareduce the development, uh
reduce the revenues that we getat least in the next 15 years.
And you and I'll be done bythen, or I'll be done by then at
(17:49):
least.
SPEAKER_01 (17:51):
What, you're putting a timeline on it?
Wait, Brad, wait.
That's uh that's it uh you know,but it is you know, I had a lot
of conversations this lastweekend with people who were
asking the question, you know,how do we get out of this?
How do we, you know, how are wegoing to you know pull out of
this tailspin uh that we can seeyou know where the state is
going, how do we how do we doit?
(18:11):
And the the the bottom line isis that it's gonna hurt one way
or the other.
You're either gonna have to cutor you're gonna have to create
new revenues.
And we're the ones that aregonna end up paying the bill one
way or the other.
And um I mean that's that's kindof where we're at right now.
SPEAKER_00 (18:30):
Yeah, my my point has been, and I and I continue
to think it's true, my point hasbeen if you structure revenues
in a way that it affectseverybody, including the top
20%, the oil companies and thenon-resident industries, if you
structure revenues in that way,they'll start pushing back on
spending.
Right now, they're getting afree shot because all of the
(18:51):
burdens being shifted to middleand lower income Alaska
families, they're getting off,as Hammond put it, scot-free.
If you shift the burden so thatthey have to pay, so that as
spending goes up, the oilcompanies have to pay more, the
top 20% have to pay,non-resident industries,
tourism, fishing, uh uh, andoil, uh, they have to pay more.
(19:12):
If you shift the burden so thatas spending goes up, they have
to pay.
They will start using theirlobbyists to push back on
spending.
But right now they don't.
Right now they get that rightnow, they get a free shot.
SPEAKER_01 (19:23):
No, and uh Kevin just said something about
long-term planning.
I agree.
Like I said, I think resourcedevelopment is great for
long-term planning, but we haveto have a short-term plan to get
us out of where we're at rightnow, and that's part of the
problem.
We are ready to go.
Uh, jumping into it with numbertwo, Brad Keithly, Alaskans for
sustainable budgets, the weeklytop three.
(19:45):
You can find him at ak4sb.com ishis website.
Of course, he writes a columnfor the Alaska Landmine every
week, the chart of the weekcolumn.
You can go out and see thatthere.
And he loves to uh he loves toargue with you on Twitter and X
and Facebook.
So go out there and do allthose.
You can argue with himeverywhere you want to go.
(20:05):
Uh, so Brad, uh, number two ofthe weekly top three, you want
to talk about the verydefinition of irony.
Hit me with it.
SPEAKER_00 (20:15):
Yeah, I mean actually maybe hypocrisy, as I
thought through this morning,which issy it is.
Um, so you know how your eyeswill roll back in your head when
you read something and and youjust go, oh my god, this is just
so stupid.
Well, I think my eyes did a 360yesterday when I was reading the
letters to the uh editor in thein the ADN to prepare for
(20:38):
today's program.
There's a letter in there fromRepresentative Andy Josephson.
Um, and and this is theheadline: A Nation of Laws with
Checks and Balances.
And in the letter, Josephsoncriticizes the current federal
Trump administration for beinglawless and for not having
checks and balances and forCongress, you know, rolling over
(21:01):
the usual stuff that we'rehearing these days for Congress
rolling over and not acting as acheck on the administration.
And so, you know, basically thetheme is we are now a lawless
nation with uh with no checksand balances.
And I sat there for a moment andI and I sat there and said, Andy
Josephson, he's one of thebiggest advocates for using PFD
(21:22):
cuts, right?
P non-statutory, violate thestatute, contrary to statute,
PFD cuts, non-le, non-lawful,non-law uh uh PFD cuts.
One of the biggest advocates forthat.
And also, what PFD cuts do areavoid checks and balances
(21:42):
because the governor, unlike onthe spending side, where the
governor can veto uh uh spendingcuts on the or spending,
increased spending, can vetoincreased spending.
On the PFD side, the governorhas no balance, the governor has
no check on the legislature'sdecision to reduce PFDs.
I mean, the governor can'tincrease uh the PFD, the
(22:05):
allocation of the PFD when thebill comes to him.
His the only choice is to vetothe entire appropriation bill
and send it back and say, I'mnot gonna pass it, I'm not gonna
approve it until uh until youincrease the PFD.
And that's never happened.
And and Dunleavy has reasons whyhe's never done it.
And so there's no there's nocheck on the legislature's
unchecked, I guess to use theword twice, the legislature's
(22:29):
unchecked decision on how to, onhow to set uh on the level at
which to set PFDs.
The governor has no role in itbecause it because of the way uh
the bill comes to him.
So when we're talking aboutlawlessness, when we're talking
about not following the laws,and when we're talking about a
(22:49):
system without checks andbalances, a step that that one
political body can take withoutchecks and balances from the
other, we're talking that thePFD is the poster child for
that.
There is, there is, it it thelaw says you will do one thing,
the legislature hasn't done itsince 2017.
The the checks and balances ofthe governor stepping in and and
(23:12):
and reversing what thelegislature's done or modifying
what the legislature's donehasn't been there since 2017
because of the way thelegislature does it.
So, so the very thing thatJosephson's complaining about at
the federal level is the verything he's doing, he and other
legislators are doing at thestate level.
(23:33):
Uh, they are acting in a mannerthat contrary to statutes, and
they're acting in a manner thatthat has no has no checks.
Uh they're setting it up in away that has no checks and
balances on the decisionsthey're making.
To me, respect for law, respectfor process, respect for checks
and balances begins at home,right?
(23:54):
If you if you're if you're gonnawant to complain about something
at the federal level, be damnsure you're doing it uh at the
state level.
And and so, you know, I I readJustice's letter, I Justiceson's
letter, I read it two or threeor four or five times.
And and there's just nothing inthere.
There's no synapses firing thatrecognizes what he's complaining
(24:15):
about at the federal level isthe very thing he's doing, um,
very thing he's doing at this atthe state level.
I've got to say he has nocredibility with me on these
issues when he's talking aboutthese issues at the federal
level because he's not doing itat the state level.
He was co-chair of housefinance, he was chair of the of
the house uh of the operatingbudget, uh bringing the
(24:38):
operating budget forward forwardto house finance.
He was on the conferencecommittee uh that uh that
addressed uh the the budget.
And and in none of those did herespect the law that's on the
books with respect to the PFD.
And in none of those did he setit up in a way that the governor
could effectively have a checkand balance on uh on what the
(24:59):
legislature was doing with thewith the PFD.
So those those at the statelevel, and and Andy just
happened to catch my attentionyesterday, but there have been
others.
Those at the state level, at thestate representative level,
state legislature level, who arecomplaining about what's going
on in at the federal level interms of lawlessness and in
(25:19):
terms of absence of checks andbalances, they better check
themselves, right?
Their own positions at home withrespect to what they're doing
because they are doing the very,very same thing uh at home that
they're complaining about at thefederal level.
And and frankly, guys, you haveno credibility when you complain
about it at the federal level ifyou're not living up to it at
(25:40):
the state level.
SPEAKER_01 (25:41):
But but wait, Brad, this is different.
I mean, they know better than ushow that money should be spent
in this case, and so they shouldbe, you know, that's that's how
it is.
I mean, again, you'll you'llnever get them to admit that
what they're doing is wrong inany way.
It's it's always for the commongood, it's always for the
betterment of the state, or it'salways, you know, well, we've
(26:02):
got this, uh, you know, we'vegot this other stuff, we're
following the other statute.
I mean, this whole thing is isuh is just crazy.
I mean, and but you know, again,for those of you who don't know,
they could have changed the lawin 2017 when this was first when
this first came about and itstarted being a conflict.
They could have changed it, butthey refused to do it because
(26:22):
they know it's a political hotpotato and they don't want to
they don't want to jump diveinto that.
SPEAKER_00 (26:27):
You know, it's worse than that, Michael.
When they passed the POM Vstatute, up until the final
days, the POMV statute did havea provision changing the PFD.
It did have essentially subjectis subjugating the PFD to um to
uh the POMV draw creating thisthis this you know uh leftover
(26:50):
PFD that they now that they'renow operating under.
They had that in the statute.
They couldn't pass it.
They couldn't pass the statutewith that provision in it.
So so they took it out and thenpassed the POMB statute, and
then immediately turned aroundand start claiming, started
claiming there was an ambiguityin it.
(27:10):
There wasn't.
It was clear what they weretrying to do in the days leading
up to the final passage of thePOMB statute.
It was clear they couldn't passit.
They took it out, they passedit, and left the existing PFD
statute in there.
And that is that is as clear asas day in terms of what that
(27:31):
means.
It means the PFD statutesurvived.
They couldn't get the votes tochange it.
And so it's it it has remainedin the law.
There is no ambiguity in thatstatute.
That it has remained the law onthe books since 2017 because
they couldn't get the votes tochange it, and yet they ignore
it.
So next time you know alegislator says, Oh my God,
(27:54):
isn't it horrible what's goingon at the federal level?
And isn't it horrible that youknow Congress is rolling over
and there's no checks andbalances?
Hey, buddy, look at look in yourown, look in your own state.
Look at your own actions in yourown state, and uh, and and look
at what you're doing withrespect uh with respect to PFDs.
You're not following the law asas it's been on the books since
(28:15):
19 in since the early 1980s.
Um you're not paying attentionto, you're not creating checks
and balances because of the wayyou figured out how to do this.
So, you know, don't lecture meon what's going on at the
federal level if you can't dothe same thing that you're
trying to lecture me about atthe state level.
SPEAKER_01 (28:32):
Well, we won't have to worry about Josephson and
anything because you heard he'she's he's not going to uh stick
around for the next, you know,he he's one of those guys that
sees the handwriting on the walland realizes the music is about
to stop.
And so he's going to uh removehimself from the dance floor.
And we're seeing that with someof the more preeminent members
of uh of the legislature whohave had a hand in creating this
(28:54):
crisis, and you can see now thatthey're getting ready to uh uh
that they're getting ready tobow out and head off to greener
pastures to let somebody else uhyou know, leave somebody else
holding the bag.
Um, but that's that's you knownot surprising at this point.
SPEAKER_00 (29:10):
Yep.
Yep.
But but don't, I mean, don'tlecture me on the on the on the
on your way out the door.
So Andy doesn't get a free shotbecause he's leaving the
legislature.
Andy has, Andy has time and timeand time and time and time again
pushed for PFD cuts, enacted PFDcuts, voted for PFD cuts, voted
against the statute time andtime and time again.
They've structured the budget ina way that the governor doesn't
(29:32):
have a check and balance on it.
Don't lecture me on your way outthe door about now about the
federal, the federal governmentnot doing the same thing because
you haven't lived up to ityourself at the state level and
you had the opportunity to doso.
SPEAKER_01 (29:46):
What how do we reverse this, Brad?
I mean, do you have any idea?
I mean, I I just I'm trying to,you know, I'm trying to be
positive here and and try andcome up with solutions to some
of these problems.
I mean, is it just Replacingpeople like Josephson with
people who will respect the lawor have a solution or don't just
(30:06):
see the money as a way toconglomerate power or do
whatever.
I mean, I don't what what's thesolution here?
SPEAKER_00 (30:12):
Yeah, I don't know, Michael.
I mean, you you've got thestatistics on how much turnover
we've had in the legislaturesince 2017.
And we've elected people, youknow, Dunley twice.
We've elected people that havesaid they're gonna uphold the
law, they're gonna follow thelaw with respect to the the PFD,
they're gonna make the harddecisions on the cuts, and then
they get in office.
They get the special intereststhat, you know, start stopping
(30:33):
by at their door, and uh, andthey're they don't do it.
Um, they don't put Alaskafamilies first, they put the
special interests first, theyput the oil companies first in
terms of not taxing them uh upto the constitutional standard
of of maximum uh maximum uh uhbenefit.
They they let the non-residenceindustries skate with no taxes,
(30:56):
no taxes uh on non-residents,not even small taxes, not even
the trivial taxes that the top20% pay through PFD cuts, the
non-residents pay nothing uh interms of in terms of
contributions towards stategovernment.
The only state in the entirenation where non-residents pay
nothing uh toward uh toward uhuh the costs of uh cost of state
(31:19):
government.
They let them skate.
So, you know, we elect peoplewho say they're gonna write do
the right thing.
We elect people who walk intooffice saying, I know I'm here
to to put Alaska families first,and then they don't.
They put the special interestfirst.
So I I don't know.
I mean, I I don't, you know,every two years you sort of you
sort of want it to change, andyou sort of, you know, elect
(31:40):
people who who you think aregonna change, who are you think
are gonna change it, who havethe best shot at changing it,
but then they go into office andthey don't.
So I'm um I'm I'm a little um Idon't know, I'm a little
skeptical about about whether uhwhether that does it.
I I we we we have to, I mean,what we had in 2021 to go back
(32:00):
to that again, what we had in2021 is a recognition that we
had to solve the problem, and weset up the fiscal, the
legislature set up the fiscalpolicy working group to solve
that problem.
Sort of like the old that to me,that was sort of like the
equivalent of the old bricks,right?
The old the old baserealignment, whatever the heck
it was, that that Congress setup at one point when we were
spending too much on defense andwe had too many military bases.
(32:23):
Congress set up a uh acommission that said, these are
the these are the changes weneed to make, and Congress
endorsed them.
And and we got military spendingunder control.
We got the reduction in themilitary bases, we found a way
to do it.
That's what the 2021 legislativepolicy working group was to me.
It was the BRIC commission foruh uh for dealing with the state
(32:44):
uh fiscal policy, and they cameup with very solid
recommendations.
Came back to the legislature andAdam Wool, who was on finance at
the time and others, said, Oh,we're not gonna do that.
Yeah, I know we set up thiscommission, I know we set up
this fiscal policy workinggroup, I know we empowered it to
come up with recommendations,and by God, somehow they did,
but we're not gonna payattention to that.
(33:05):
And and so, you know, you sortof at that point you sort of
lose faith.
So I I the only way this isgonna happen is having the
fiscal policy working group,another, another addition of the
fiscal policy working group.
And then when it comes back tothe legislature, the legislature
adopting it, people making thehard choices, people making the
hard recommendations, and comingback to the legislature and the
(33:27):
legislature adopting them.
SPEAKER_01 (33:29):
Brian said, and this is such a you're such a downer,
Brian.
Brian said, honestly, we have tocollectively reach bottom like
any other addict.
That's you know, and I meanthat's the thing, Brad, right?
I mean, we're trying, so how dowe fit, you know, how do we do
it?
Do we vote harder?
Do we, you know, what does ittake?
And and I think Brian might beright.
(33:49):
I mean, we literally will haveto run the well dry, and then
something's gonna have tohappen.
Now, the worst part is is thatthat, you know, when you're
working from a crisis position,that's the worst place to make
long-term, you know, solidlong-term decisions.
When you're in the middle of acrisis, it's always better to
make those plans, you know, whenyou're not there.
(34:12):
But apparently that's what it'sgonna take to get some of these
people on board, I guess.
SPEAKER_00 (34:17):
The problem is I'm not sure where bottom is.
I mean, the bottom should havebeen in 2014 when we ran the CB
the SBR dry and and started, andand the only thing we had left
was the CBR.
And but but that wasn't bottombecause then we started tapping
the CBR, tapped it hard, drainedit, um, and and and ran that
(34:38):
dry.
Okay, that should be the bottom,right?
Uh now we should have hitbottom.
Nope.
Now we're gonna start in on thePFD and we're gonna start
cutting the PFD, you know, usingthese these made-up excuses that
oh, there's ambiguity, and thePFD was always intended to be a
was always intended to be afail-safe and all that sort of
stuff.
And and so we started runningthe PFD, and now we're gonna run
the PFD dry.
(34:59):
And then we're gonna get intothis in the in the in the third
segment, but but the concern isnow that we're about to run the
PFD dry, there still isn'tbottom because they're looking
for a way to tap into thepermanent fund corpus and start
draining the permanent fundcorpus out the back door.
So, you know, where is thebottom?
Is the bottom, you know, 50years, 20 years from now when we
(35:21):
finally drain the permanentfund?
Is that when we finally hitbottom?
And and at that point, where arewe?
I mean, we got nothing.
Um, at that point, yeah.
So it's the the the let's justwe'll let it go till it hits
bottom.
I don't know where the bottomis.
And and and and the bottom justkeeps dropping it out.
I mean, we just keep going downand down and down the rabbit
(35:43):
hole.
SPEAKER_01 (35:44):
Yeah, Donna agrees with you.
Donna just said Alaska won't hitbottom until the permanent fund
is gone.
Um, and that's that's part ofthe problem.
I mean, and they'll neverthey'll never acknowledge that
they're again, going back to theaddict analogy, you'll never
acknowledge that there's aproblem until you hit rock
bottom, and yet we have a lot ofrock bottom left to go.
(36:05):
Um if it if it they do combinethe funds and they get access to
that, uh and they get access tothe corpus of the fund, then
we'll just again, all of asudden, we've built a whole new
road to kick that can down foras many years as you get, which
will just make the inevitablecrash even worse now for our
children.
Because I mean, then they'llhave nothing.
(36:26):
There'll be nothing to fall backon.
There will be no more revenuegenerator in the background
cranking out money.
It will be all on the backs ofAlaskans directly from then on.
SPEAKER_00 (36:38):
The the five Alaskans that remain at that
point.
I mean, you talk about outmigration, you know, with no
cushion, with with with havingto make dramatic cuts to
government at that point,because we build it up to this
huge level, and with no cushionsitting behind you, no SBR, no
CBR, no, you know, evenpermanent fund earnings, uh, uh,
(36:59):
and no uh uh and the corpusgone, you know, who will stay?
I mean, you it will it will be acrashing nightmare at that
point.
Yet that's what we're doing.
You can see it with draining theSBR, the scene, see it with
draining the CBR, seeing withnow with the with the effort to
drain the permanent thepermanent fund dividend.
(37:20):
You can just see it coming.
And but it's everybody,everybody's in it for
themselves, right?
I gotta get this done today.
This is today.
This is I don't care abouttomorrow.
This is today.
I gotta do it today.
And that's you know, that's thementality that we're that we're
you know sliding rapidly intothe abyss on.
SPEAKER_01 (37:37):
Yeah, it's um it's it's a it's a cry and shame.
I mean, it's a crisis at thispoint.
Uh, and yet nobody really wantsto uh nobody really wants to
dive into it and uh and talkabout it.
Um I I just uh let's see, whereyeah, quick Kevin just said
we're 80 billion from thebottom.
That's where we are.
We're 80 plus billion from thebottom.
(37:59):
Junkies are relentless, uh, wasthe other comment uh from uh
from uh Brian uh as well.
And I know Tim says that uh, youknow, hey, it wasn't true out of
state pay bed taxes, but youagain we're not talking about
we're not talking aboutvisitors.
We're not talking about, and bythe way, that all goes to the
local economies.
It doesn't do anything for thestate economy, but I mean we're
(38:21):
talking, we're not talking aboutvisitors and tourists, we're
talking about people who workinside the state but live
somewhere else.
That's what we're talking about,which is I mean, there's
hundreds of thousands of ofdollars uh uh that are that's
going out of state every yearbecause of that.
40 seconds, Brad.
SPEAKER_00 (38:36):
Yeah, and I'll and and I I'll you know I'll I'll
say visitors.
Visitors ought to contributealso like they do in 49 of the
other of the of the other theother 49 states.
But it is that you're exactlyright.
That doesn't go to the state,and what we're talking about is
state revenues and statespending.
SPEAKER_01 (38:54):
Yeah, no, it's uh it's a it's a challenge, and I
just didn't want people tomisunderstand.
You're talking specificallyabout out-of-state workers, not
visitors.
Okay, Brad Keithly, Alaskans forsustainable budgets.
Again, you can find him atak4sp.com.
The weekly top three, the bigthree things that he thinks we
should be looking at.
Number three has to do with thisuh series that John Faulkner has
(39:17):
been putting out in Moss Reed,Alaska, talking about the
permanent fund.
And uh Brad's had some issueswith uh over the last couple
articles on this, just takingsome just taking some umbrage
with some of the things inthere, but he's finally found
something that he can agree withJohn Faulkner on.
Uh Brad, what's this?
SPEAKER_00 (39:34):
It's like it's like John took the high road and I
took the low road, or maybe it'sthe reverse, whatever, but we're
all getting we're all getting tothe same place, thank God.
Uh uh edition three or or or orthird piece of this of his uh uh
series um uh gets us to the sameplace.
The third for for those whohaven't focused on this yet, one
(39:57):
of the big issues in the nextlegislature, next session is
going to be uh whether or notthe the legislature adopts the
constitutional amendment thatwould merge the two accounts of
the permit fund uh into a singleaccount.
And John uh uh calls it by itsname, what what some call it,
the 49 forward plan, uh is theis the name of this of the
(40:22):
proposal to merge uh to mergethe two together.
And and my concern has been inJohn's previous articles, uh the
previous parts of the series,he's been setting up, he's been
supporting the argument invarious ways that those who are
behind the 49-forward plan uhhave uh have been advocating,
(40:42):
which is that you need to mergethe two accounts together
because the earnings reserve isotherwise running out of money.
That's because we're using cashto pay inflation proofing or to
contribute toward inflationproofing when we don't have to,
when we can use the non-cashearnings of the uh the
appreciated assets of thepermanent fund to pay for uh to
pay for inflation proofing.
(41:03):
Um, and and John also in lastweek's uh uh uh column or last
week's piece of it uh was talkedabout the earnings reserve in a
way that left out the role ofthe permanent fund dividend uh
in taking out money out of thepermanent fund earnings and the
and the disciplining effect thatwould have by limiting the cash
that would go to thelegislature, the disciplining
(41:26):
effect that would have.
And John left that out of thearticle.
So I was I've been gettingconcerned that where he was
headed with all this.
But this week he talksspecifically about the about the
49 forward plan, about theproposal to merge the two
together.
And he has um this paragraph.
Present or these two paragraphs,presently, the corpus of the
(41:47):
fund is untouchable.
The earnings reserve accountcollects and holds all
investment income from which thelegislature draws under the
percent of market value formula.
The state now relies on thesedraws for over half of UGF
revenues.
The CBR still exists and acts asan emergency fund that requires
the three-quarters vote majorityto tap.
This structure has servedAlaskans well for 25 years.
(42:08):
Legislative lawmakers can drainthe ERA in a crisis, even tap
the CBR, but cannot touch thecorpus.
Fund managers now separatenon-expendable principal from
earnings, thus supporting thefirewall.
Merge the accounts, adopt the 49forward plan, bring the two
accounts together, and thislegal firewall vanishes.
(42:33):
Um, and with that, with thelegal firewall between the
earnings reserve and thepermanent fund corpus vanishing,
you create a situation in whichthe legislature can straw down,
start drawing down the corpus ofthe of the permanent fund.
Those who advocate the 49forward plan say, oh, that will
never happen because we have a5% cap on the POMB draw.
(42:57):
And so that that will protectthe fund.
SPEAKER_01 (43:00):
Statutory cap.
SPEAKER_00 (43:02):
That will some are even willing to put in the
constitution.
That will protect the fund frombeing drained down.
The problem is the permanentfund corporation has not for
several years, several years outof the out of the last several
years, does not consistentlyearn enough to replace a 5% POMB
(43:24):
draw.
Between inflation um and the andthe low earnings they've been
achieving, they are earning lesson the permanent fund than five
than 5% real.
And so when you start drainingat a 5% POMB rate, uh you are
actually, and and the permanentfund isn't earning enough to
(43:44):
replace the 5%, you are actuallystarting into the corpus, what's
now the corpus, and starting todrain the corpus out.
And so the protection that thatthat those who you know walk
around saying that they're infavor of this, of this plan, the
protection that those claim isthere, that that those that they
claim is there isn't there.
It it it it depends on what thepermanent fund corporation is
(44:07):
doing.
And the permanent fundcorporation, as we've talked a
lot uh in previous shows, isn'tearning enough on a consistent
basis to fund that 5%.
So you're just setting up asituation in which the draining
can occur.
I'm also concerned, frankly,that once you set up this
system, once you merge the twoaccounts, once you take away the
firewall, even if you put the 5%in the constitution, that can be
(44:29):
drained, that can be changed byby additional actions uh as we
go along, by additionalconstitutional amendments as we
go along.
5%, well, that's really notenough.
Let's go to 5.5%.
That's really not enough.
Let's go to 6%.
Well, we really need 7% to coverthe kind of spending that that
you want out there.
And you can just see thatincrementally over time you
(44:49):
increase the amount, the gap uhbetween what the permanent fund
corporation is earning and whatthe per and what's being drained
out of the POMB.
And the corpus is going fartherand farther and farther down.
The the the genius, true geniusbehind the original, the behind
the original permanent fundcorporation, excuse me, the
original permanent fundamendment was this separation
(45:12):
into two accounts.
That the corpus was permanent,inviolate, protected, can never,
can never touch it under anycircumstances.
The and and so all you couldspend is out of the earnings
reserve.
And you could only spend whatwas in the earnings reserve.
You couldn't spend any any morethan that.
So if you drain the earningsreserve, too bad you're done.
(45:33):
Uh that's the genius of the ofthe original of the original
permanent fund.
We shouldn't be changing it.
And and finally, John Faulknerand I are on the same wavelength
with respect with respect tothat key provision that's going
to be a big issue in the nextlegislature.
SPEAKER_01 (45:47):
And can't you see the handwriting on the wall
already?
If they get this plan where theycombine the funds, and even if
they enshrine the the drawamount in the constitution,
can't you see them coming backin a few years and saying, well,
you know, five is just notenough.
We need five and a half.
Otherwise, we're gonna have totax you.
They found the magic button.
We're gonna have to tax you.
So have to vote for this to doit.
(46:08):
And again, in theshort-sightedness of what
Alaskans are showing me rightnow, that's what'll happen.
And it'll go from five to fiveand a half to six to six and a
half.
And then, you know, in a fewshort years, then it'll all be
gone.
And then our kids will be leftwith nothing, absolutely
nothing.
unknown (46:27):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (46:28):
So, so the the the way to deal with that, I mean,
because we can see it right nowat five percent.
We can already see that itdoesn't, that you're drawing
more than than the than thepermanent fund corporation is
replacing.
The way to deal with that isjust never to start down that
road.
Always keep the the permanentfund corporation, the permanent
fund corpus in a box inviolate,can't get at it, nothing,
(46:51):
nothing you can do can break,can break into it.
Keep that in a box and keep thespending to the earnings reserve
account.
And if the earnings res, if thelegislature is gonna drain the
earnings reserve account, maybethat will finally be the
discipline that will stop themspending more, or the finally be
the discipline that says, hey,we're gonna need to find
(47:12):
alternative revenues uh that,you know, now we've drained the
CBR, the SBR, and the permanentfund dividend, we're gonna need
to find alternative revenuesthat will hit the top 20% oil
companies and the non-residentindustries, and they'll finally
push back on spending.
But but breaking thatdiscipline, letting them have
this side door, this back doorinto the permanent fund
(47:33):
corporation is just a recipe fordisaster.
And John and I are on the samepage with respect to that.
Brad, final thoughts.
Uh just over a minute now.
Uh the final thoughts, Michael,is is we need to get back to
where we were in 2021 with theestablishment of a fiscal policy
working group.
(47:54):
And then we need the legislatureto adopt it, just like Congress
did with the BRIC commissions.
We need the legislature to adoptit.
SPEAKER_01 (48:01):
They have to act.
I mean, they had a blueprint,they had it laid out.
I mean, it was left and right,both sides.
I mean, everybody, you know,everybody ate a little bit of
crow on that whole thing, andthey had a plan, and yet they
refused to enact it.
And here we are, four yearslater, still struggling with the
same thing.
I mean, this is so painful, man.
(48:22):
This is so painful.
I had conversations with severallegislators this weekend.
And um, I mean, nobody, I mean,because I'm like, how how are we
gonna fix this?
And they just I just I justdon't I don't know.
I just don't know.
And that's the problem, is thatyou know, nobody, they're all
(48:44):
isolated insular islands untothemselves, and they can't all
come together and get it uh andget it fixed.
And that is just painful towatch.
It's like we're watching theslow motion train wreck of what
the state is gonna do, and it'sit's I mean, I I don't know what
the answer is at this point,Brad.
SPEAKER_00 (49:03):
Yeah, well, I my my uh my theme for a while at least
is gonna be go back to 2021,reset the the fiscal policy
working group, have them come upwith the recommendations, and
then just like the BRICS vote,uh in the in the what it was
that 1980s, 1990s.
(49:23):
I'm dating myself now, but justlike the BRICS votes, uh, have
the have the legislature adoptit.
Um we're not we're not gonna getit done otherwise.
If everybody's out for their ownself-interest, if every
legislator is out for their ownself-interest, we're not gonna
get it done because everybody'sgot you know something they got
to protect, even theRepublicans.
You know, Julie Cologne comesthe comes to mind immediately
(49:46):
about her child care proposals.
Even the Republicans, everybodyhas something that that the that
they want to protect.
And as long as we allow thatdiffusion and allow each of them
to you know have something theywant to protect, just like back
in the 1980s, if we would havelet you know everybody defend
their own military base.
Oh no, you can't close that,right?
(50:06):
Because that's in my district.
Um, it it it as long as we're asas long as we're in that, we're
not gonna get it done becauseeverybody's gonna vote their own
self-interest, their own specialinterest, and and we'll never
get it done.
So 2021 was was was was a geniuspoint in the sense of setting up
that committee, was a geniuspoint instead of in set in in
(50:27):
the sense of them comingtogether on a set of
recommendations.
The failure was not in the theworking group, the failure was
in the failure of thelegislature to follow through um
and adopt it.
SPEAKER_01 (50:41):
Yeah, the BRAC, the base realignment and closure
committee.
That's what the BRAC was, yeah.
But I mean BRICS is somethingelse, then yeah.
BRICS is the exit, right?
BRICS is that's a Brazilia,Russia, India, and China.
That's the BRICS.
But I mean, you're right.
I mean, it's a it's a perfectthing.
It was in the 90s there, and Iremember that whole time was
that was definitely uh thing.
(51:02):
And no, not Frank, 40% of ourstate budget does not come from
non-residents.
I mean, there's no there's nofra it's not even fractional
coming from non-residents.
I don't know what you're whereyou're where you're getting your
numbers, but that it uh thatain't right.
SPEAKER_00 (51:17):
You may be talking maybe maybe talking about oil
taxes.
I mean, but that's not even 40%anymore.
So I don't know.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (51:24):
Um, Brad, uh, you know, again, I I just I don't
know, you know, again, maybe ithas to hit the bottom, but
you're making a valid point whenyou say hitting the because I
kept thinking that maybe that'syou know, once the PFD's gone,
maybe we'll wake up is what Ikeep thinking.
And then I realize that's whythey're pushing so hard on this
one account thing, because thenif they get access to that, they
(51:47):
don't have to the gravy traindoesn't have to stop.
They don't have to be the badguys and make the hard calls
because then they can just youknow leave it to there and it'll
just it'll just keep going.
SPEAKER_00 (51:57):
And you're exactly right, Michael.
The subsequent elections, thesubsequent amendments on
amending five to five point fiveto five point you know, seven
five to six, those are all abouttaxes.
Do you want taxes or do you wantjust changes a little bit, just
a little bit, just a 5.5, notnot too much, just a little bit.
And and those votes will go asyou anticipate them.
(52:19):
They'll they'll they'll bepassed, uh, passed each time.
And then ultimately, you know,somebody will get tired of doing
those and will say, oh, let'sjust set it by statute, and then
we're done.
Then we're completely done atthat point.
So it's um uh don't don't thinkthat we're gonna that that we're
gonna cure this when we hitbottom because there is no
(52:39):
bottom for a for a long timeuntil the state is completely,
totally, absolutely wrecked uhby draining, uh, by draining the
permanent fund.
We need to stop it before westart before we head towards the
bottom.
SPEAKER_01 (52:53):
And I don't I don't know how, yeah, and again, I
don't know how we how we getthere from here.
Um, all right, uh Brad, finalthoughts here as we get ready.
Oh, he was talking about itcoming from federal dollars.
40% from federal dollars, andfederal dollars come from
non-residents.
Okay, well that's not what we'retalking about, but okay, all
right.
Uh twist it in in uh in in theway you want to twist it.
(53:15):
Uh final thoughts here, Brad.
I got about a minute.
SPEAKER_00 (53:19):
Oh, what I'm writing this week's column on, how about
that?
What I'm writing this week'scolumn on is looking at the
impact by PFD of PFD cuts byhouse district, by legislative
district.
And it's an eye-opener.
I've I've been deep into thecensus data over the weekend,
and I put together the numbers,and it's it's gonna be a big
(53:40):
eye-opener about uh about whatthe impact is by house district.
Uh, and you're gonna reallywonder about what the why the
Bush Caucus is pushing for forPFD cuts after after you look at
the numbers.
That's that's gonna be theFriday column this week.
SPEAKER_01 (53:53):
You must be really fun at parties.
What'd you do all weekend?
I was down in the census game.
It was amazing.
Man, Brad, he's a ball at party.
So all right, Brad.
Well, thank you.
We appreciate you, and weappreciate you coming on board
as always.
This is uh um, yeah, this is uhthis is it's just madness.
I I don't even know, I don'teven know how to put it any
(54:14):
other way at this point.
It's just absolute madness.
So uh thank you for coming onboard, and we will chat with you
again uh next week, my friend.
I look forward to it, Michael.
SPEAKER_00 (54:23):
Take care.
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.
This has been Brad Keithley,Managing Director of Alaskans
(54:45):
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the weekly
top three.
Hi, this is Brad Keithly, Managing Director of
Alaskans for SustainableBudgets.
Welcome to the Weekly Top Three,the Top Three Things on Our Mind
here at Alaskans for SustainableBudgets for the week of October
27th, 2025.
The Weekly Top Three is aregular segment on the Michael
Duke Show.
The show broadcasts on bothFacebook Live and YouTube Live,
(00:32):
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 the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, YouTube,
(00:53):
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages.
Also on the Alaskans forSustainable Budgets website, as
well as the projects page onNationalBlogsite 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,
(01:15):
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.
This week, our top three issuesare these.
First, we explain whylegislators should ask those
(01:36):
pushing for more spending toclarify at the same time how it
should be paid for.
Second, we explained why one ofthe most prominent champions of
PFD cuts is the very definitionof hypocrisy.
And third, we discuss why, aftertaking some odd turns, Must Reed
Alaska's John Faulkner seems tobe coming to the right
(02:00):
conclusion on the ill-fatedproposal to combine the two
permanent fund accounts intoone.
And now let's join Michael.
SPEAKER_01 (02:09):
Well, Brad, we got the weekly top three, so let's
uh let's dive right into it.
I know you have a lot to sayabout a lot of stuff, so let's
uh let's get down to the to thenitty-gritty here and get
started uh with this week, uh,which is uh how legislators
should be asking those who uhpush for more spending to say
(02:31):
exactly how they're supposed topay for it.
Let's uh let's get started.
SPEAKER_00 (02:36):
Michael, when uh back in 2013, when we started
talking about, when I startedtalking about spending cuts and
the need for spending cuts uh asa way of balancing the budget,
because you could see from theforecast, even the Rosie
forecast back then, you can seefrom the forecast that we
weren't growing revenues at therate we were growing spending,
(02:56):
uh, and that we were going tohit the wall at some point.
And I started talking aboutspending cuts.
And I recall one of the one ofthe first public sessions when I
talked about that, the pushbackwas, well, where would you cut
spending?
And it was a good question, butalso sort of a trick question,
because what it what it wasintended to do was to activate
(03:18):
those constituencies that wouldoppose spending cuts in that
area to start pushing back anduh and start uh uh uh saying,
well, we can't do spending cutsin this area, uh, without, of
course, them giving analternative area to do spending
cuts.
They just oppose spending cutsin their area.
And it's and it and it was apretty effective tool back then,
(03:41):
uh, and it's continued to be apretty effective tool with
respect to uh with respect tothe response to uh spending
cuts.
Where would you cut spending?
Um uh and uh as we've seen,that's not uh there's there's
not been a good answer to thatin the intervening decade.
We need to start, in my opinion,and as we've discussed on the
(04:03):
show before, we need to startpushing back on those who say
they want to increase spendingand ask them sort of the flip
side of the same question, wherewould you increase revenues?
Because we don't have enoughrevenues uh to pay for even the
spending we have now, much lessincreased spending.
And so where would you uh wherewould you increase revenues?
(04:25):
Or in the alternative, wherewould you cut spending if they
wanted to go down that road?
But but but mostly where wouldyou increase revenues?
As as we've gone through theshow over the last few weeks,
I've seen various articles popup with uh the legislative, with
the local uh boroughs and thelocal assemblies, local cities,
municipalities uh uh puttingtogether their legislative wish
(04:49):
list for the for the comingyear.
Um, and I see you know longlists from some Fairbanks,
Fairbanks North Stark Borough.
I see short lists from others.
Uh, but there's a generallyspeaking, there's just a broad
list of uh of requests forincreased spending that are
going to come to legislatorswhen they meet with the local
(05:10):
bodies before they go beforethey go down to Juno.
And I think I think thelegislators ought to be prepared
to to push back in the sense of,okay, we don't have enough money
to pay for what we got.
You're asking us to increasespending in certain areas.
Where would you come up with therevenues?
And at least start getting thesebodies and others, other special
(05:35):
interests who are going to cometo the legislators during the
course of the session, at leaststart getting them to think
about that they have toresponsibly when they ask for
increased spending, they have totalk about, they have to talk
about where would they come upuh with the additional revenues.
Right.
The other the other thing that'sinteresting about looking at all
of these or following all ofthese local bodies and and the
(05:59):
legislative uh wish list thatthey're coming up with is
they're all different.
I mean, what we found in 2018when or 20, yeah, 2019, when
Governor Dunley we tried to dothe spending cuts, the deep
spending cuts at the beginningof his administration.
What we found was legislatorssort of uniformly would say
uniformly would say, yeah, youcan cut spending, but don't cut
(06:21):
spending in this area, becausethis area is important to me.
And by the time you add it up 60uh legislators, you pretty much
wiped out any any spending cutsbecause legislator X would say,
you can cut you can cut spendingacross the board, but don't cut
it in this area.
And then the next legislatorwould say, Well, don't cut it in
the next area.
And then the legislator, thenext legislator would say, Don't
(06:42):
cut it in the next area.
By the time by the time you addall those up.
And I was reminded of that whenI was reading the Frontiersman
uh the article on the MatsuBorough, uh, their spending, uh,
their priorities.
And this is the um, this is uhTim Bradner's uh summation of
it.
The final list for state fundingwas adopted in borough
resolution RS 25072.
(07:04):
A key priority for the Matsu isfor the legislature to fully
fund the state's share of schoolbond debt reimbursement.
The borough is carrying a heavyload of debt from construction
of schools, all of which, by theway, occurred with a footnote in
the in the in the bonding thatsaid the state may or may not uh
uh fund this.
Uh, but the borough is carryinga heavy load of debt from
(07:27):
construction of schools.
And while the state has promisedto pick up a significant share,
promised a significant share ofthe annual school bond payments,
this isn't legally guaranteed.
No shit.
Um and so, and so you you findthis.
This is the this is the MatsuBorough.
You find something differentfrom the Fairbanks North Star
(07:48):
Borough, you find somethingdifferent from the Fairbanks
Assembly, you find somethingdifferent from Homer, Ken Eye
all over the place, Juno.
Uh they all have somethingdifferent.
And so it reminds you as you gothrough these, it reminds you
that that while everybody, well,generally people will say, yeah,
spending cuts, there is justnever a consensus on where the
spending cuts um should be.
(08:09):
But in any event, the the thethe pushback legislators, when
legislators hear these things, Iwould encourage them if they
aren't already, and I know someare, but if they aren't already,
the pushback should be, okay,fine.
Yeah, okay, I got I got yourspending now, where you want
increased spending.
But where would how would youpay for it?
What what's what's the what'sthe area, what's the revenue
(08:31):
source you would use to pay forit?
And maybe they'll get some goodideas of that out of that.
I recall in the early days,2013, 2014, there were some
decent ideas, particularly aboutthe university system.
Uh there were some decent ideasabout about where to cut where
to cut spending.
So I I I it it's time, it's pasttime, but it's time for pushback
(08:54):
on this increased spending, notjust saying, no, we don't have
the money, but where would youcome up with the revenue?
And I and I think it will, Ithink if it's done effectively,
I think it will start, it willsober people up to the reality
that this isn't free stuff, thatthat you've got to pay for it
somehow.
And you, by talking aboutwanting increased spending, you
(09:17):
are on the hook responsibly totalk about where the revenues
would come from.
SPEAKER_01 (09:21):
Well, and I think you bring up the valid point
again that 2018-2019, whenDunleavy was pushing to cut the
budget, you know, it was alwaysthere was always a bunch of
budget warriors up there whowere like, We're with you, boss.
We're we're with you, we'll cutthe thing, except, oh, don't
wait, don't cut that.
That's in my backyard.
Oh, oh, wait, don't don't cutthat.
That's it.
I mean, this is the again, theyou know, don't tax him, or
(09:43):
don't tax him, don't tax me, taxthe man behind the tree kind of
thing.
It's always somebody else thathas to pick up the bill.
And this is the politician'sdisease of not only do we know
better than you how to spendyour money, but we know better
than you how to, we shouldprotect all this spend, but this
other spend.
And we, I, you know, inprinciple, we agree with the
(10:03):
idea of cuts, just as long as wedon't get hurt.
I mean, they don't understandthat we've created such a
dependency state that no matterwhat you do, no matter where you
cut, somebody is going to be uhis going to be injured.
I mean, Will Stapp was talkingabout that one program that he
has been he was trying to cut.
It was, I think he said it was a$50,000 program, wasn't serving
(10:25):
anybody, had hadn't, hadn't hada constituency served in years,
couldn't get the thing cutbecause somebody might need it
one day, somewhere, somehow.
And it was just a simple$50,000,wouldn't even affect anybody.
I mean, that's the point thatwe're at today in state
government.
Yep.
SPEAKER_00 (10:45):
So I think the pushback on that is how do you
how do you pay for it then?
What who do you want to tax?
Who who pays for this program,this additional program that
that, or this program that youwant to keep, this additional
program that that you want toadd, who pays for it?
Who are you suggesting pay foryour spending?
And if some of the Matsuboroughs say, well, it ought to
(11:06):
be done through PFD cuts, thenokay, they're at least they're
on the record saying that.
But they're also saying at thatpoint they want they want middle
and lower income Alaska familiesstatewide to pay for theirs to
pay for their spending programum in the Matsu.
So I so I, you know, it's notit's gonna be the it's not gonna
be the end-all cure cure-all,but at least it's going to
(11:29):
create a a sense ofresponsibility on the part of
those asking for increasedspending to come up with
legitimate ideas on on how youuh how you uh how you pay for
it.
Back in 2013, 2014, my responseat that time, and my response
really consistently since hasbeen across the board.
(11:50):
Everybody shares in the burdenuh across the board.
Frankly, that would be myresponse also uh uh on the
revenue side, just like thefiscal policy, the 2021
legislative fiscal policyworking group said, it's a
little bit of everything.
It's a little bit of PFD cuts byrestructuring it down to POMV
5050 from the current statutorymethod.
(12:11):
It's a little bit of broad-basedtaxes, it's a little bit of oil
taxes, it's a little bit ofspending cuts, a little, it's a
little bit of this and that.
You spread the burden, and as aresult of that, you limit the
burden on any one given onegiven uh constituency or one
given class.
I think that's I think that thefiscal policy working group, I
(12:31):
think, had had a great idea inthat regard.
And I think it's also a greatidea in with regard to uh with
regard to spending cuts thateverybody shares the burden a
little bit instead of focusingit on just on just one group.
But it's a question that I thinkneeds to be asked.
Where would you come up uh withthe additional revenues to pay
for the spent the additionalspending that you're proposing?
SPEAKER_01 (12:52):
We've already seen this new crop of uh
gubernatorial candidates come inand the ones that we've
interviewed, we've asked, we'vetalked a lot about a lot of this
stuff, and we're hearing kind ofthis strident call from many of
them of, well, no, no taxes.
I'm not interested in tax.
I'm not interested in this atall.
I'm not, I just, you know, butagain, this is a this is a
collaborative effort.
(13:13):
And if the legislature has nointerest in cuts, which it
obviously doesn't, and there'sno interest in generating new
revenue, we're back to the sameold, same old, only this time
there's no more deep pockets topull the money out of.
There's no more piggy banksleft, there's no more couch
cushions to flip over.
Uh, and so what do we end upwith in these uh you know, for
(13:34):
these candidates?
SPEAKER_00 (13:35):
Yeah.
So what the candidates arereally saying, when a candidate
tells you no taxes, I'm notinterested in any new revenues,
I'm just I'm I'm against allthat, what they're really saying
is PFD cuts because there's noplace else to go.
There's no other revenue sourcethat that is available to the
legislature is available to tothe state as a whole.
What they're really saying whenthey when they when they don't
(13:57):
say anything else is they'rereally saying saying PFD cuts.
And if, like Bernadette, theysay no PFD cuts, then they're
just off in la la landsomeplace.
They're off they're you knowvisiting Disneyland, fantasy
land, uh uh in in the course oftheir campaigns.
Because that we we saw that in2018, we saw that in 2019.
Not gonna happen.
The only way that would possiblyhappen is if you is if you is if
(14:21):
a gubernatorial candidate ranwith a collection of legislative
candidates that were allcommitted to that principle,
that we're gonna do it by cuts,and here's here's the cuts we're
gonna do.
But a gubernatorial candidate,we saw this with Dunley, a
gubernatorial candidate on theirown saying that they're gonna do
this through spending cuts justdoesn't work because you don't
see in the legislature the thepolitical will, the collective
(14:43):
political will to agree on toagree on those spending cuts.
SPEAKER_01 (14:48):
Kevin just talked about how resource development
is is the uh is the is you knowis the long-term solution.
But again, just like I've saidto many legislators, um the the
problem with resourcedevelopment is that it is a I
mean it's a longer-term fix.
(15:08):
How do we get over the next fiveto ten years?
That's my question, right?
I mean, how do we get throughthe next five to ten years where
we're already predicted to haveall those things uh, you know,
have have these these hugedeficits and everything else?
How do we make it?
That's the problem.
I agree.
Resource development's a greatidea, but I mean, we need money
(15:31):
tomorrow.
That's like, you know, I'll payyou, I'll pay you Tuesday for a
hamburger today kind of thing,right?
SPEAKER_00 (15:37):
Yeah.
And and and Michael, I mean, theonly resource development that
under any anything approachingthe current tax schemes that
produces the kind of revenuethat we're that we need to be
talking about is oil.
See, only I mean, gas does eveneven the LNG project wouldn't
produce that type of revenue.
It's oil.
And under the current oil taxcode, we lose money.
(16:00):
The state loses money fromresource development because of
the way the tax code works withall of the deductions and the
exclusions and the and thecredits, the state loses money.
You can see that.
If anybody wants to disputethat, go to the current, go to
the spring revenue forecast andlook at the production tax
revenue line across the next 10years.
(16:22):
It goes down dramatically.
Production's going up by 40%,resource development.
Revenues from production taxesare going down by over 30%.
I think it's closer to 40%.
They're going down by by thatpercent.
Why is that?
Because with all of the resourcedevelopment, the deductions,
(16:45):
exclusions, the credits, the theall of the all of the things
that flip in, it reducesproduction taxes.
So, you know, people who saypeople who say resource
development, uh, it's the samething as saying spending cuts.
It's it's it's not gonna happenin terms it if you want to
change the oil tax code, that'dbe great.
(17:05):
But it's not gonna happen underthe current oil tax code.
It's not gonna happen withcurrent current uh mineral
development under the under thesmall royalties and taxes we get
from that.
It's not gonna happen.
And so, you know, you're justyou're just trying to you're
trying to deflect theconversation away from of away
from things that are going tohappen.
And I just uh it's a it's awaste of time.
(17:27):
I mean, I appreciate Kevinsaying it.
I appreciate that legislature,but it's just a waste of time
because it isn't gonna producethe type of revenues we're
talking about.
And particularly in the case ofoil, of oil, it's gonna reduce
the revenues.
Additional development is gonnareduce the development, uh
reduce the revenues that we getat least in the next 15 years.
And you and I'll be done bythen, or I'll be done by then at
(17:49):
least.
SPEAKER_01 (17:51):
What, you're putting a timeline on it?
Wait, Brad, wait.
That's uh that's it uh you know,but it is you know, I had a lot
of conversations this lastweekend with people who were
asking the question, you know,how do we get out of this?
How do we, you know, how are wegoing to you know pull out of
this tailspin uh that we can seeyou know where the state is
going, how do we how do we doit?
(18:11):
And the the the bottom line isis that it's gonna hurt one way
or the other.
You're either gonna have to cutor you're gonna have to create
new revenues.
And we're the ones that aregonna end up paying the bill one
way or the other.
And um I mean that's that's kindof where we're at right now.
SPEAKER_00 (18:30):
Yeah, my my point has been, and I and I continue
to think it's true, my point hasbeen if you structure revenues
in a way that it affectseverybody, including the top
20%, the oil companies and thenon-resident industries, if you
structure revenues in that way,they'll start pushing back on
spending.
Right now, they're getting afree shot because all of the
(18:51):
burdens being shifted to middleand lower income Alaska
families, they're getting off,as Hammond put it, scot-free.
If you shift the burden so thatthey have to pay, so that as
spending goes up, the oilcompanies have to pay more, the
top 20% have to pay,non-resident industries,
tourism, fishing, uh uh, andoil, uh, they have to pay more.
(19:12):
If you shift the burden so thatas spending goes up, they have
to pay.
They will start using theirlobbyists to push back on
spending.
But right now they don't.
Right now they get that rightnow, they get a free shot.
SPEAKER_01 (19:23):
No, and uh Kevin just said something about
long-term planning.
I agree.
Like I said, I think resourcedevelopment is great for
long-term planning, but we haveto have a short-term plan to get
us out of where we're at rightnow, and that's part of the
problem.
We are ready to go.
Uh, jumping into it with numbertwo, Brad Keithly, Alaskans for
sustainable budgets, the weeklytop three.
(19:45):
You can find him at ak4sb.com ishis website.
Of course, he writes a columnfor the Alaska Landmine every
week, the chart of the weekcolumn.
You can go out and see thatthere.
And he loves to uh he loves toargue with you on Twitter and X
and Facebook.
So go out there and do allthose.
You can argue with himeverywhere you want to go.
(20:05):
Uh, so Brad, uh, number two ofthe weekly top three, you want
to talk about the verydefinition of irony.
Hit me with it.
SPEAKER_00 (20:15):
Yeah, I mean actually maybe hypocrisy, as I
thought through this morning,which issy it is.
Um, so you know how your eyeswill roll back in your head when
you read something and and youjust go, oh my god, this is just
so stupid.
Well, I think my eyes did a 360yesterday when I was reading the
letters to the uh editor in thein the ADN to prepare for
(20:38):
today's program.
There's a letter in there fromRepresentative Andy Josephson.
Um, and and this is theheadline: A Nation of Laws with
Checks and Balances.
And in the letter, Josephsoncriticizes the current federal
Trump administration for beinglawless and for not having
checks and balances and forCongress, you know, rolling over
(21:01):
the usual stuff that we'rehearing these days for Congress
rolling over and not acting as acheck on the administration.
And so, you know, basically thetheme is we are now a lawless
nation with uh with no checksand balances.
And I sat there for a moment andI and I sat there and said, Andy
Josephson, he's one of thebiggest advocates for using PFD
(21:22):
cuts, right?
P non-statutory, violate thestatute, contrary to statute,
PFD cuts, non-le, non-lawful,non-law uh uh PFD cuts.
One of the biggest advocates forthat.
And also, what PFD cuts do areavoid checks and balances
(21:42):
because the governor, unlike onthe spending side, where the
governor can veto uh uh spendingcuts on the or spending,
increased spending, can vetoincreased spending.
On the PFD side, the governorhas no balance, the governor has
no check on the legislature'sdecision to reduce PFDs.
I mean, the governor can'tincrease uh the PFD, the
(22:05):
allocation of the PFD when thebill comes to him.
His the only choice is to vetothe entire appropriation bill
and send it back and say, I'mnot gonna pass it, I'm not gonna
approve it until uh until youincrease the PFD.
And that's never happened.
And and Dunleavy has reasons whyhe's never done it.
And so there's no there's nocheck on the legislature's
unchecked, I guess to use theword twice, the legislature's
(22:29):
unchecked decision on how to, onhow to set uh on the level at
which to set PFDs.
The governor has no role in itbecause it because of the way uh
the bill comes to him.
So when we're talking aboutlawlessness, when we're talking
about not following the laws,and when we're talking about a
(22:49):
system without checks andbalances, a step that that one
political body can take withoutchecks and balances from the
other, we're talking that thePFD is the poster child for
that.
There is, there is, it it thelaw says you will do one thing,
the legislature hasn't done itsince 2017.
The the checks and balances ofthe governor stepping in and and
(23:12):
and reversing what thelegislature's done or modifying
what the legislature's donehasn't been there since 2017
because of the way thelegislature does it.
So, so the very thing thatJosephson's complaining about at
the federal level is the verything he's doing, he and other
legislators are doing at thestate level.
(23:33):
Uh, they are acting in a mannerthat contrary to statutes, and
they're acting in a manner thatthat has no has no checks.
Uh they're setting it up in away that has no checks and
balances on the decisionsthey're making.
To me, respect for law, respectfor process, respect for checks
and balances begins at home,right?
(23:54):
If you if you're if you're gonnawant to complain about something
at the federal level, be damnsure you're doing it uh at the
state level.
And and so, you know, I I readJustice's letter, I Justiceson's
letter, I read it two or threeor four or five times.
And and there's just nothing inthere.
There's no synapses firing thatrecognizes what he's complaining
(24:15):
about at the federal level isthe very thing he's doing, um,
very thing he's doing at this atthe state level.
I've got to say he has nocredibility with me on these
issues when he's talking aboutthese issues at the federal
level because he's not doing itat the state level.
He was co-chair of housefinance, he was chair of the of
the house uh of the operatingbudget, uh bringing the
(24:38):
operating budget forward forwardto house finance.
He was on the conferencecommittee uh that uh that
addressed uh the the budget.
And and in none of those did herespect the law that's on the
books with respect to the PFD.
And in none of those did he setit up in a way that the governor
could effectively have a checkand balance on uh on what the
(24:59):
legislature was doing with thewith the PFD.
So those those at the statelevel, and and Andy just
happened to catch my attentionyesterday, but there have been
others.
Those at the state level, at thestate representative level,
state legislature level, who arecomplaining about what's going
on in at the federal level interms of lawlessness and in
(25:19):
terms of absence of checks andbalances, they better check
themselves, right?
Their own positions at home withrespect to what they're doing
because they are doing the very,very same thing uh at home that
they're complaining about at thefederal level.
And and frankly, guys, you haveno credibility when you complain
about it at the federal level ifyou're not living up to it at
(25:40):
the state level.
SPEAKER_01 (25:41):
But but wait, Brad, this is different.
I mean, they know better than ushow that money should be spent
in this case, and so they shouldbe, you know, that's that's how
it is.
I mean, again, you'll you'llnever get them to admit that
what they're doing is wrong inany way.
It's it's always for the commongood, it's always for the
betterment of the state, or it'salways, you know, well, we've
(26:02):
got this, uh, you know, we'vegot this other stuff, we're
following the other statute.
I mean, this whole thing is isuh is just crazy.
I mean, and but you know, again,for those of you who don't know,
they could have changed the lawin 2017 when this was first when
this first came about and itstarted being a conflict.
They could have changed it, butthey refused to do it because
(26:22):
they know it's a political hotpotato and they don't want to
they don't want to jump diveinto that.
SPEAKER_00 (26:27):
You know, it's worse than that, Michael.
When they passed the POM Vstatute, up until the final
days, the POMV statute did havea provision changing the PFD.
It did have essentially subjectis subjugating the PFD to um to
uh the POMV draw creating thisthis this you know uh leftover
(26:50):
PFD that they now that they'renow operating under.
They had that in the statute.
They couldn't pass it.
They couldn't pass the statutewith that provision in it.
So so they took it out and thenpassed the POMB statute, and
then immediately turned aroundand start claiming, started
claiming there was an ambiguityin it.
(27:10):
There wasn't.
It was clear what they weretrying to do in the days leading
up to the final passage of thePOMB statute.
It was clear they couldn't passit.
They took it out, they passedit, and left the existing PFD
statute in there.
And that is that is as clear asas day in terms of what that
(27:31):
means.
It means the PFD statutesurvived.
They couldn't get the votes tochange it.
And so it's it it has remainedin the law.
There is no ambiguity in thatstatute.
That it has remained the law onthe books since 2017 because
they couldn't get the votes tochange it, and yet they ignore
it.
So next time you know alegislator says, Oh my God,
(27:54):
isn't it horrible what's goingon at the federal level?
And isn't it horrible that youknow Congress is rolling over
and there's no checks andbalances?
Hey, buddy, look at look in yourown, look in your own state.
Look at your own actions in yourown state, and uh, and and look
at what you're doing withrespect uh with respect to PFDs.
You're not following the law asas it's been on the books since
(28:15):
19 in since the early 1980s.
Um you're not paying attentionto, you're not creating checks
and balances because of the wayyou figured out how to do this.
So, you know, don't lecture meon what's going on at the
federal level if you can't dothe same thing that you're
trying to lecture me about atthe state level.
SPEAKER_01 (28:32):
Well, we won't have to worry about Josephson and
anything because you heard he'she's he's not going to uh stick
around for the next, you know,he he's one of those guys that
sees the handwriting on the walland realizes the music is about
to stop.
And so he's going to uh removehimself from the dance floor.
And we're seeing that with someof the more preeminent members
of uh of the legislature whohave had a hand in creating this
(28:54):
crisis, and you can see now thatthey're getting ready to uh uh
that they're getting ready tobow out and head off to greener
pastures to let somebody else uhyou know, leave somebody else
holding the bag.
Um, but that's that's you knownot surprising at this point.
SPEAKER_00 (29:10):
Yep.
Yep.
But but don't, I mean, don'tlecture me on the on the on the
on your way out the door.
So Andy doesn't get a free shotbecause he's leaving the
legislature.
Andy has, Andy has time and timeand time and time and time again
pushed for PFD cuts, enacted PFDcuts, voted for PFD cuts, voted
against the statute time andtime and time again.
They've structured the budget ina way that the governor doesn't
(29:32):
have a check and balance on it.
Don't lecture me on your way outthe door about now about the
federal, the federal governmentnot doing the same thing because
you haven't lived up to ityourself at the state level and
you had the opportunity to doso.
SPEAKER_01 (29:46):
What how do we reverse this, Brad?
I mean, do you have any idea?
I mean, I I just I'm trying to,you know, I'm trying to be
positive here and and try andcome up with solutions to some
of these problems.
I mean, is it just Replacingpeople like Josephson with
people who will respect the lawor have a solution or don't just
(30:06):
see the money as a way toconglomerate power or do
whatever.
I mean, I don't what what's thesolution here?
SPEAKER_00 (30:12):
Yeah, I don't know, Michael.
I mean, you you've got thestatistics on how much turnover
we've had in the legislaturesince 2017.
And we've elected people, youknow, Dunley twice.
We've elected people that havesaid they're gonna uphold the
law, they're gonna follow thelaw with respect to the the PFD,
they're gonna make the harddecisions on the cuts, and then
they get in office.
They get the special intereststhat, you know, start stopping
(30:33):
by at their door, and uh, andthey're they don't do it.
Um, they don't put Alaskafamilies first, they put the
special interests first, theyput the oil companies first in
terms of not taxing them uh upto the constitutional standard
of of maximum uh maximum uh uhbenefit.
They they let the non-residenceindustries skate with no taxes,
(30:56):
no taxes uh on non-residents,not even small taxes, not even
the trivial taxes that the top20% pay through PFD cuts, the
non-residents pay nothing uh interms of in terms of
contributions towards stategovernment.
The only state in the entirenation where non-residents pay
nothing uh toward uh toward uhuh the costs of uh cost of state
(31:19):
government.
They let them skate.
So, you know, we elect peoplewho say they're gonna write do
the right thing.
We elect people who walk intooffice saying, I know I'm here
to to put Alaska families first,and then they don't.
They put the special interestfirst.
So I I don't know.
I mean, I I don't, you know,every two years you sort of you
sort of want it to change, andyou sort of, you know, elect
(31:40):
people who who you think aregonna change, who are you think
are gonna change it, who havethe best shot at changing it,
but then they go into office andthey don't.
So I'm um I'm I'm a little um Idon't know, I'm a little
skeptical about about whether uhwhether that does it.
I I we we we have to, I mean,what we had in 2021 to go back
(32:00):
to that again, what we had in2021 is a recognition that we
had to solve the problem, and weset up the fiscal, the
legislature set up the fiscalpolicy working group to solve
that problem.
Sort of like the old that to me,that was sort of like the
equivalent of the old bricks,right?
The old the old baserealignment, whatever the heck
it was, that that Congress setup at one point when we were
spending too much on defense andwe had too many military bases.
(32:23):
Congress set up a uh acommission that said, these are
the these are the changes weneed to make, and Congress
endorsed them.
And and we got military spendingunder control.
We got the reduction in themilitary bases, we found a way
to do it.
That's what the 2021 legislativepolicy working group was to me.
It was the BRIC commission foruh uh for dealing with the state
(32:44):
uh fiscal policy, and they cameup with very solid
recommendations.
Came back to the legislature andAdam Wool, who was on finance at
the time and others, said, Oh,we're not gonna do that.
Yeah, I know we set up thiscommission, I know we set up
this fiscal policy workinggroup, I know we empowered it to
come up with recommendations,and by God, somehow they did,
but we're not gonna payattention to that.
(33:05):
And and so, you know, you sortof at that point you sort of
lose faith.
So I I the only way this isgonna happen is having the
fiscal policy working group,another, another addition of the
fiscal policy working group.
And then when it comes back tothe legislature, the legislature
adopting it, people making thehard choices, people making the
hard recommendations, and comingback to the legislature and the
(33:27):
legislature adopting them.
SPEAKER_01 (33:29):
Brian said, and this is such a you're such a downer,
Brian.
Brian said, honestly, we have tocollectively reach bottom like
any other addict.
That's you know, and I meanthat's the thing, Brad, right?
I mean, we're trying, so how dowe fit, you know, how do we do
it?
Do we vote harder?
Do we, you know, what does ittake?
And and I think Brian might beright.
(33:49):
I mean, we literally will haveto run the well dry, and then
something's gonna have tohappen.
Now, the worst part is is thatthat, you know, when you're
working from a crisis position,that's the worst place to make
long-term, you know, solidlong-term decisions.
When you're in the middle of acrisis, it's always better to
make those plans, you know, whenyou're not there.
(34:12):
But apparently that's what it'sgonna take to get some of these
people on board, I guess.
SPEAKER_00 (34:17):
The problem is I'm not sure where bottom is.
I mean, the bottom should havebeen in 2014 when we ran the CB
the SBR dry and and started, andand the only thing we had left
was the CBR.
And but but that wasn't bottombecause then we started tapping
the CBR, tapped it hard, drainedit, um, and and and ran that
(34:38):
dry.
Okay, that should be the bottom,right?
Uh now we should have hitbottom.
Nope.
Now we're gonna start in on thePFD and we're gonna start
cutting the PFD, you know, usingthese these made-up excuses that
oh, there's ambiguity, and thePFD was always intended to be a
was always intended to be afail-safe and all that sort of
stuff.
And and so we started runningthe PFD, and now we're gonna run
the PFD dry.
(34:59):
And then we're gonna get intothis in the in the in the third
segment, but but the concern isnow that we're about to run the
PFD dry, there still isn'tbottom because they're looking
for a way to tap into thepermanent fund corpus and start
draining the permanent fundcorpus out the back door.
So, you know, where is thebottom?
Is the bottom, you know, 50years, 20 years from now when we
(35:21):
finally drain the permanentfund?
Is that when we finally hitbottom?
And and at that point, where arewe?
I mean, we got nothing.
Um, at that point, yeah.
So it's the the the let's justwe'll let it go till it hits
bottom.
I don't know where the bottomis.
And and and and the bottom justkeeps dropping it out.
I mean, we just keep going downand down and down the rabbit
(35:43):
hole.
SPEAKER_01 (35:44):
Yeah, Donna agrees with you.
Donna just said Alaska won't hitbottom until the permanent fund
is gone.
Um, and that's that's part ofthe problem.
I mean, and they'll neverthey'll never acknowledge that
they're again, going back to theaddict analogy, you'll never
acknowledge that there's aproblem until you hit rock
bottom, and yet we have a lot ofrock bottom left to go.
(36:05):
Um if it if it they do combinethe funds and they get access to
that, uh and they get access tothe corpus of the fund, then
we'll just again, all of asudden, we've built a whole new
road to kick that can down foras many years as you get, which
will just make the inevitablecrash even worse now for our
children.
Because I mean, then they'llhave nothing.
(36:26):
There'll be nothing to fall backon.
There will be no more revenuegenerator in the background
cranking out money.
It will be all on the backs ofAlaskans directly from then on.
SPEAKER_00 (36:38):
The the five Alaskans that remain at that
point.
I mean, you talk about outmigration, you know, with no
cushion, with with with havingto make dramatic cuts to
government at that point,because we build it up to this
huge level, and with no cushionsitting behind you, no SBR, no
CBR, no, you know, evenpermanent fund earnings, uh, uh,
(36:59):
and no uh uh and the corpusgone, you know, who will stay?
I mean, you it will it will be acrashing nightmare at that
point.
Yet that's what we're doing.
You can see it with draining theSBR, the scene, see it with
draining the CBR, seeing withnow with the with the effort to
drain the permanent thepermanent fund dividend.
(37:20):
You can just see it coming.
And but it's everybody,everybody's in it for
themselves, right?
I gotta get this done today.
This is today.
This is I don't care abouttomorrow.
This is today.
I gotta do it today.
And that's you know, that's thementality that we're that we're
you know sliding rapidly intothe abyss on.
SPEAKER_01 (37:37):
Yeah, it's um it's it's a it's a cry and shame.
I mean, it's a crisis at thispoint.
Uh, and yet nobody really wantsto uh nobody really wants to
dive into it and uh and talkabout it.
Um I I just uh let's see, whereyeah, quick Kevin just said
we're 80 billion from thebottom.
That's where we are.
We're 80 plus billion from thebottom.
(37:59):
Junkies are relentless, uh, wasthe other comment uh from uh
from uh Brian uh as well.
And I know Tim says that uh, youknow, hey, it wasn't true out of
state pay bed taxes, but youagain we're not talking about
we're not talking aboutvisitors.
We're not talking about, and bythe way, that all goes to the
local economies.
It doesn't do anything for thestate economy, but I mean we're
(38:21):
talking, we're not talking aboutvisitors and tourists, we're
talking about people who workinside the state but live
somewhere else.
That's what we're talking about,which is I mean, there's
hundreds of thousands of ofdollars uh uh that are that's
going out of state every yearbecause of that.
40 seconds, Brad.
SPEAKER_00 (38:36):
Yeah, and I'll and and I I'll you know I'll I'll
say visitors.
Visitors ought to contributealso like they do in 49 of the
other of the of the other theother 49 states.
But it is that you're exactlyright.
That doesn't go to the state,and what we're talking about is
state revenues and statespending.
SPEAKER_01 (38:54):
Yeah, no, it's uh it's a it's a challenge, and I
just didn't want people tomisunderstand.
You're talking specificallyabout out-of-state workers, not
visitors.
Okay, Brad Keithly, Alaskans forsustainable budgets.
Again, you can find him atak4sp.com.
The weekly top three, the bigthree things that he thinks we
should be looking at.
Number three has to do with thisuh series that John Faulkner has
(39:17):
been putting out in Moss Reed,Alaska, talking about the
permanent fund.
And uh Brad's had some issueswith uh over the last couple
articles on this, just takingsome just taking some umbrage
with some of the things inthere, but he's finally found
something that he can agree withJohn Faulkner on.
Uh Brad, what's this?
SPEAKER_00 (39:34):
It's like it's like John took the high road and I
took the low road, or maybe it'sthe reverse, whatever, but we're
all getting we're all getting tothe same place, thank God.
Uh uh edition three or or or orthird piece of this of his uh uh
series um uh gets us to the sameplace.
The third for for those whohaven't focused on this yet, one
(39:57):
of the big issues in the nextlegislature, next session is
going to be uh whether or notthe the legislature adopts the
constitutional amendment thatwould merge the two accounts of
the permit fund uh into a singleaccount.
And John uh uh calls it by itsname, what what some call it,
the 49 forward plan, uh is theis the name of this of the
(40:22):
proposal to merge uh to mergethe two together.
And and my concern has been inJohn's previous articles, uh the
previous parts of the series,he's been setting up, he's been
supporting the argument invarious ways that those who are
behind the 49-forward plan uhhave uh have been advocating,
(40:42):
which is that you need to mergethe two accounts together
because the earnings reserve isotherwise running out of money.
That's because we're using cashto pay inflation proofing or to
contribute toward inflationproofing when we don't have to,
when we can use the non-cashearnings of the uh the
appreciated assets of thepermanent fund to pay for uh to
pay for inflation proofing.
(41:03):
Um, and and John also in lastweek's uh uh uh column or last
week's piece of it uh was talkedabout the earnings reserve in a
way that left out the role ofthe permanent fund dividend uh
in taking out money out of thepermanent fund earnings and the
and the disciplining effect thatwould have by limiting the cash
that would go to thelegislature, the disciplining
(41:26):
effect that would have.
And John left that out of thearticle.
So I was I've been gettingconcerned that where he was
headed with all this.
But this week he talksspecifically about the about the
49 forward plan, about theproposal to merge the two
together.
And he has um this paragraph.
Present or these two paragraphs,presently, the corpus of the
(41:47):
fund is untouchable.
The earnings reserve accountcollects and holds all
investment income from which thelegislature draws under the
percent of market value formula.
The state now relies on thesedraws for over half of UGF
revenues.
The CBR still exists and acts asan emergency fund that requires
the three-quarters vote majorityto tap.
This structure has servedAlaskans well for 25 years.
(42:08):
Legislative lawmakers can drainthe ERA in a crisis, even tap
the CBR, but cannot touch thecorpus.
Fund managers now separatenon-expendable principal from
earnings, thus supporting thefirewall.
Merge the accounts, adopt the 49forward plan, bring the two
accounts together, and thislegal firewall vanishes.
(42:33):
Um, and with that, with thelegal firewall between the
earnings reserve and thepermanent fund corpus vanishing,
you create a situation in whichthe legislature can straw down,
start drawing down the corpus ofthe of the permanent fund.
Those who advocate the 49forward plan say, oh, that will
never happen because we have a5% cap on the POMB draw.
(42:57):
And so that that will protectthe fund.
SPEAKER_01 (43:00):
Statutory cap.
SPEAKER_00 (43:02):
That will some are even willing to put in the
constitution.
That will protect the fund frombeing drained down.
The problem is the permanentfund corporation has not for
several years, several years outof the out of the last several
years, does not consistentlyearn enough to replace a 5% POMB
(43:24):
draw.
Between inflation um and the andthe low earnings they've been
achieving, they are earning lesson the permanent fund than five
than 5% real.
And so when you start drainingat a 5% POMB rate, uh you are
actually, and and the permanentfund isn't earning enough to
(43:44):
replace the 5%, you are actuallystarting into the corpus, what's
now the corpus, and starting todrain the corpus out.
And so the protection that thatthat those who you know walk
around saying that they're infavor of this, of this plan, the
protection that those claim isthere, that that those that they
claim is there isn't there.
It it it it depends on what thepermanent fund corporation is
(44:07):
doing.
And the permanent fundcorporation, as we've talked a
lot uh in previous shows, isn'tearning enough on a consistent
basis to fund that 5%.
So you're just setting up asituation in which the draining
can occur.
I'm also concerned, frankly,that once you set up this
system, once you merge the twoaccounts, once you take away the
firewall, even if you put the 5%in the constitution, that can be
(44:29):
drained, that can be changed byby additional actions uh as we
go along, by additionalconstitutional amendments as we
go along.
5%, well, that's really notenough.
Let's go to 5.5%.
That's really not enough.
Let's go to 6%.
Well, we really need 7% to coverthe kind of spending that that
you want out there.
And you can just see thatincrementally over time you
(44:49):
increase the amount, the gap uhbetween what the permanent fund
corporation is earning and whatthe per and what's being drained
out of the POMB.
And the corpus is going fartherand farther and farther down.
The the the genius, true geniusbehind the original, the behind
the original permanent fundcorporation, excuse me, the
original permanent fundamendment was this separation
(45:12):
into two accounts.
That the corpus was permanent,inviolate, protected, can never,
can never touch it under anycircumstances.
The and and so all you couldspend is out of the earnings
reserve.
And you could only spend whatwas in the earnings reserve.
You couldn't spend any any morethan that.
So if you drain the earningsreserve, too bad you're done.
(45:33):
Uh that's the genius of the ofthe original of the original
permanent fund.
We shouldn't be changing it.
And and finally, John Faulknerand I are on the same wavelength
with respect with respect tothat key provision that's going
to be a big issue in the nextlegislature.
SPEAKER_01 (45:47):
And can't you see the handwriting on the wall
already?
If they get this plan where theycombine the funds, and even if
they enshrine the the drawamount in the constitution,
can't you see them coming backin a few years and saying, well,
you know, five is just notenough.
We need five and a half.
Otherwise, we're gonna have totax you.
They found the magic button.
We're gonna have to tax you.
So have to vote for this to doit.
(46:08):
And again, in theshort-sightedness of what
Alaskans are showing me rightnow, that's what'll happen.
And it'll go from five to fiveand a half to six to six and a
half.
And then, you know, in a fewshort years, then it'll all be
gone.
And then our kids will be leftwith nothing, absolutely
nothing.
unknown (46:27):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (46:28):
So, so the the the way to deal with that, I mean,
because we can see it right nowat five percent.
We can already see that itdoesn't, that you're drawing
more than than the than thepermanent fund corporation is
replacing.
The way to deal with that isjust never to start down that
road.
Always keep the the permanentfund corporation, the permanent
fund corpus in a box inviolate,can't get at it, nothing,
(46:51):
nothing you can do can break,can break into it.
Keep that in a box and keep thespending to the earnings reserve
account.
And if the earnings res, if thelegislature is gonna drain the
earnings reserve account, maybethat will finally be the
discipline that will stop themspending more, or the finally be
the discipline that says, hey,we're gonna need to find
(47:12):
alternative revenues uh that,you know, now we've drained the
CBR, the SBR, and the permanentfund dividend, we're gonna need
to find alternative revenuesthat will hit the top 20% oil
companies and the non-residentindustries, and they'll finally
push back on spending.
But but breaking thatdiscipline, letting them have
this side door, this back doorinto the permanent fund
(47:33):
corporation is just a recipe fordisaster.
And John and I are on the samepage with respect to that.
Brad, final thoughts.
Uh just over a minute now.
Uh the final thoughts, Michael,is is we need to get back to
where we were in 2021 with theestablishment of a fiscal policy
working group.
(47:54):
And then we need the legislatureto adopt it, just like Congress
did with the BRIC commissions.
We need the legislature to adoptit.
SPEAKER_01 (48:01):
They have to act.
I mean, they had a blueprint,they had it laid out.
I mean, it was left and right,both sides.
I mean, everybody, you know,everybody ate a little bit of
crow on that whole thing, andthey had a plan, and yet they
refused to enact it.
And here we are, four yearslater, still struggling with the
same thing.
I mean, this is so painful, man.
(48:22):
This is so painful.
I had conversations with severallegislators this weekend.
And um, I mean, nobody, I mean,because I'm like, how how are we
gonna fix this?
And they just I just I justdon't I don't know.
I just don't know.
And that's the problem, is thatyou know, nobody, they're all
(48:44):
isolated insular islands untothemselves, and they can't all
come together and get it uh andget it fixed.
And that is just painful towatch.
It's like we're watching theslow motion train wreck of what
the state is gonna do, and it'sit's I mean, I I don't know what
the answer is at this point,Brad.
SPEAKER_00 (49:03):
Yeah, well, I my my uh my theme for a while at least
is gonna be go back to 2021,reset the the fiscal policy
working group, have them come upwith the recommendations, and
then just like the BRICS vote,uh in the in the what it was
that 1980s, 1990s.
(49:23):
I'm dating myself now, but justlike the BRICS votes, uh, have
the have the legislature adoptit.
Um we're not we're not gonna getit done otherwise.
If everybody's out for their ownself-interest, if every
legislator is out for their ownself-interest, we're not gonna
get it done because everybody'sgot you know something they got
to protect, even theRepublicans.
You know, Julie Cologne comesthe comes to mind immediately
(49:46):
about her child care proposals.
Even the Republicans, everybodyhas something that that the that
they want to protect.
And as long as we allow thatdiffusion and allow each of them
to you know have something theywant to protect, just like back
in the 1980s, if we would havelet you know everybody defend
their own military base.
Oh no, you can't close that,right?
(50:06):
Because that's in my district.
Um, it it it as long as we're asas long as we're in that, we're
not gonna get it done becauseeverybody's gonna vote their own
self-interest, their own specialinterest, and and we'll never
get it done.
So 2021 was was was was a geniuspoint in the sense of setting up
that committee, was a geniuspoint instead of in set in in
(50:27):
the sense of them comingtogether on a set of
recommendations.
The failure was not in the theworking group, the failure was
in the failure of thelegislature to follow through um
and adopt it.
SPEAKER_01 (50:41):
Yeah, the BRAC, the base realignment and closure
committee.
That's what the BRAC was, yeah.
But I mean BRICS is somethingelse, then yeah.
BRICS is the exit, right?
BRICS is that's a Brazilia,Russia, India, and China.
That's the BRICS.
But I mean, you're right.
I mean, it's a it's a perfectthing.
It was in the 90s there, and Iremember that whole time was
that was definitely uh thing.
(51:02):
And no, not Frank, 40% of ourstate budget does not come from
non-residents.
I mean, there's no there's nofra it's not even fractional
coming from non-residents.
I don't know what you're whereyou're where you're getting your
numbers, but that it uh thatain't right.
SPEAKER_00 (51:17):
You may be talking maybe maybe talking about oil
taxes.
I mean, but that's not even 40%anymore.
So I don't know.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (51:24):
Um, Brad, uh, you know, again, I I just I don't
know, you know, again, maybe ithas to hit the bottom, but
you're making a valid point whenyou say hitting the because I
kept thinking that maybe that'syou know, once the PFD's gone,
maybe we'll wake up is what Ikeep thinking.
And then I realize that's whythey're pushing so hard on this
one account thing, because thenif they get access to that, they
(51:47):
don't have to the gravy traindoesn't have to stop.
They don't have to be the badguys and make the hard calls
because then they can just youknow leave it to there and it'll
just it'll just keep going.
SPEAKER_00 (51:57):
And you're exactly right, Michael.
The subsequent elections, thesubsequent amendments on
amending five to five point fiveto five point you know, seven
five to six, those are all abouttaxes.
Do you want taxes or do you wantjust changes a little bit, just
a little bit, just a 5.5, notnot too much, just a little bit.
And and those votes will go asyou anticipate them.
(52:19):
They'll they'll they'll bepassed, uh, passed each time.
And then ultimately, you know,somebody will get tired of doing
those and will say, oh, let'sjust set it by statute, and then
we're done.
Then we're completely done atthat point.
So it's um uh don't don't thinkthat we're gonna that that we're
gonna cure this when we hitbottom because there is no
(52:39):
bottom for a for a long timeuntil the state is completely,
totally, absolutely wrecked uhby draining, uh, by draining the
permanent fund.
We need to stop it before westart before we head towards the
bottom.
SPEAKER_01 (52:53):
And I don't I don't know how, yeah, and again, I
don't know how we how we getthere from here.
Um, all right, uh Brad, finalthoughts here as we get ready.
Oh, he was talking about itcoming from federal dollars.
40% from federal dollars, andfederal dollars come from
non-residents.
Okay, well that's not what we'retalking about, but okay, all
right.
Uh twist it in in uh in in theway you want to twist it.
(53:15):
Uh final thoughts here, Brad.
I got about a minute.
SPEAKER_00 (53:19):
Oh, what I'm writing this week's column on, how about
that?
What I'm writing this week'scolumn on is looking at the
impact by PFD of PFD cuts byhouse district, by legislative
district.
And it's an eye-opener.
I've I've been deep into thecensus data over the weekend,
and I put together the numbers,and it's it's gonna be a big
(53:40):
eye-opener about uh about whatthe impact is by house district.
Uh, and you're gonna reallywonder about what the why the
Bush Caucus is pushing for forPFD cuts after after you look at
the numbers.
That's that's gonna be theFriday column this week.
SPEAKER_01 (53:53):
You must be really fun at parties.
What'd you do all weekend?
I was down in the census game.
It was amazing.
Man, Brad, he's a ball at party.
So all right, Brad.
Well, thank you.
We appreciate you, and weappreciate you coming on board
as always.
This is uh um, yeah, this is uhthis is it's just madness.
I I don't even know, I don'teven know how to put it any
(54:14):
other way at this point.
It's just absolute madness.
So uh thank you for coming onboard, and we will chat with you
again uh next week, my friend.
I look forward to it, Michael.
SPEAKER_00 (54:23):
Take care.
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.
This has been Brad Keithley,Managing Director of Alaskans
(54:45):
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the weekly
top three.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.