October 7, 2025 • 50 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 6, 2025.
This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) we explain how the current candidates for Governor have lost sight of former Governor Jay Hammond’s vision for Alaska that put Alaska families first (2:05); 2) we explain how some in the oil industry are trying to rewrite the history behind SB21 (21:21); and 3) we discuss how Governor Dunleavy is failing to do his part to help resolve the state’s fiscal problems (39:35).
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_01 (00:10):
Hi.
This is Brad Gaelley, ManagingDirector of Alaskans for
Sustainable Budgets.
Welcome to the Weekly Top Three.
The top three things on our mindhere at Alaskans for Sustainable
Budgets for the week of October6th, 2025.
The weekly top three is aregular segment on the Michael
Duke Show.
The show broadcasts on bothFacebook Live and YouTube Live,
(00:33):
as well as via streaming audiofrom the show's website weekdays
from 6 to 8 a.m.
I join Michael weekly in thefirst hour of Tuesday show from
6.10 to 7 a.m.
for a discussion between the twoof us about our three issues.
We post the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, YouTube,
(00:54):
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages.
Also on the Alaskan's forSustainable Budgets website, as
well as the project page onnational blog site, medium.com.
You can find past episodes ofthe weekly top three also at the
same locations.
Keep in mind that in addition tothese podcasts, during the week,
(01:16):
you can also unfollow 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 how thecurrent candidates for governor
(01:37):
have lost sight of formerGovernor Jay Hammond's vision
for Alaska and put Alaskafamilies first.
Second, we explain how some inthe oil industry are trying to
rewrite the history behind SB21.
And third, we discussed howGovernor Dunleady is failing to
(01:57):
do his part to resolve thestate's fiscal problems.
And now let's join Michael.
SPEAKER_00 (02:05):
Let's get started.
Number one of the weekly topthree.
And um the biggest problem Ithink that we have right now,
and you kind of summate it here,is that we don't have a Jay
Hammond anymore.
And I think it's showing.
Let's see what's going on here.
Let's get started, Brad.
SPEAKER_01 (02:23):
Well, over the past week we've seen a number of
candidates speaking.
We had a forum.
There was a forum for thecandidates up in Fairbanks.
There's been Dave Bronson'sannounced and had uh had various
statements.
And start of what I'm startingto realize is we don't have a
Jay Hammond anywhere in thisgroup.
(02:44):
Jay Hammond, when you go backand read Diping Diapering the
Devil and all of the variouswritings that he did, Jay
Hammond had a had a had a corevision.
And that core vision was aboutthe PFD, about the about the
state's wealth.
That's a PFD was like theequivalent of a lower 48 family
(03:04):
oil trust.
These things are fairly commonin the lower 48.
When a family uh owns uh oilroyalties or own owns working
interests, the the proceeds arecollected in a trust.
Trust proceeds are sometimesinvested like we do with the
permanent fund.
The trust proceeds ultimatelyare distributed to the to the
(03:26):
family uh on a distributionalbasis similar to the PFD.
And so the the PFD is sort oflike a family trust.
We're collecting all the all thewealth, the collectively, the
wealth that the family owns, andthen we're distributing a
portion of it, uh, at least aportion of it, to uh to the
family through a mechanism thatlooks a lot like the PFD.
It distributes commonly ownedwealth to designated
(03:49):
beneficiaries.
It ensures, and like the PFD, itensures that at least some share
of the wealth reaches all in thefamily, uh, in rather than being
diverted to the benefit of onlysome.
That's sort of the coreprinciple of the PFD, that that
a portion of the state's wealthis supposed to be distributed so
(04:12):
that the benefit so that Alaskafamilies all benefit to some
degree from the state's wealth,uh instead of it being diverted
as as as Jay and others, Hammondand others were concerned,
instead of it being diverted bythe legislature or by government
to only a select few that atleast through the PFD Corps was
(04:33):
going to be distributed toAlaska families and benefit
Alaska families.
It is a way of looking at Alaskafamilies first, Alaska families
first, Alaska families uh at thecenter.
Uh what this state is about islooking out for Alaska families
and taking care of Alaskafamilies and ensuring that a
(04:55):
portion of the commonly heldwealth goes to all uh Alaska
families.
None of the candidates, none ofthe candidates in the various
statements they've made over thecourse of the last week, or at
least since I've been followingthem since they made their
announcements, none of thecandidates have that core
belief.
All of them are talking aboutvarious things like resource
(05:19):
development.
They're talking about issues outthere, resource development, a
capital budget, uh uh somethingelse, something else, something
else, education in the case ofTom Begage.
And they're taking those andthen saying, oh, these benefit
Alaska families like this.
They're backing into benefits toAlaska families out of and and
(05:42):
to some degree making them up uhout of out of these various
things that that they support orthey propose.
None of them are starting at thecore of Alaska families and
saying, okay, Alaska families atleast get some share of the
commonly held wealth, period.
And then we're gonna look, we'rewe're gonna do other things and
(06:04):
look out for Alaska families inother ways.
None of them are starting withAlaska families at the center
like Hammond did and and lookingoutward.
They're all starting with theseother things, these various
other interests, and then tryingto make up some story about how
that improves the lives ofAlaska families.
That's just that's disturbing.
(06:25):
I mean, we've lost Hammond.
If we don't, if we don't, if wedon't get a candidate, a
candidate that starts looking atAlaska families first, um, and
then looks out for Alaskafamilies and and and builds from
there, we're gonna have lost JayHammond.
We're gonna have lost the geniusthat Jay Hammond that Jay
(06:45):
Hammond brought to this state.
And we're gonna just we're justgonna divide up into all of
these various special intereststhat everybody's looking out for
and trying to back in about howthat relates to Alaska families,
and then just sort of battle outabout which special interest
gets the most votes.
SPEAKER_00 (07:00):
Well, it's a justifying Alaska families sort
of get lost in the process.
Yeah, it becomes a justificationfor all the government spend.
No matter what you wear on yourlapel, what your animal is on
your lapel, it's all about, youknow, kind of, it seems like,
about protecting the governmentspend, and here's our
justification for it.
SPEAKER_01 (07:17):
Or in in Sydney Canada's case, protecting the
resource industries.
The resource industries, I mean,Hammond's vision was the
resource industries there arethere to enhance Alaska
families.
They are there to help supportAlaska and help support Alaska
families.
It was Alaska families first,resources.
(07:38):
We have resources, great, let'sdevelop them, let's improve the
lives of Alaska families withAlaska resources.
It some of these candidates havejust sort of taken that and gone
off in let's do the resources,let's protect the resources,
let's protect resourcedevelopment.
And oh yeah, maybe there's somebenefits to Alaska families out
of that later on.
But but but you know, the thethe benefit is to resources
(08:01):
first.
So it's not just not just thespend, it's not just K-12 or the
capital budget and clickBishop's case or or you know
various other things AdamCrumb's resource development and
and and so on and so forth.
It's not it's not it's not justthe spend, it's resource
development, it's all theseother special interests out
(08:24):
there that that they try to backin and say, oh, well, this
protects Alaska families thisway.
But it doesn't.
Hammond had the vision that Ithink is is unique, makes Alaska
unique, uh, and is and istremendously strong for Alaska
families of putting them at thecenter of this.
None of the candidates are doingthat.
(08:45):
None of the candidates that thatI've seen thus far are doing
this.
Jeff Lanfield had a quote.
I've got Lanfield and I arehaving this debate about PFTs
anyway, but Lan Lanfield hadthis quote about Dave Bronson
that I just thought uh uh uh waswas very telling.
When he was done, he's talkingabout Bronson, when he was done
(09:07):
speaking, speaking at his at hisannouncement, he took questions
from the crowd, he did a decentjob answering them.
When I asked, when I Lanfieldasked his position about the
dividend, which at two and ahalf billion would cost the
state nearly half its revenuesthis year, and so on and so
forth.
Like other Republicancandidates, uh uh uh Bronson
struggled.
(09:27):
He said he wants to see a largedividend, but acknowledged the
state also has to pay for itsobligations.
He also joked that no one in theroom needed the dividend.
There is the core of ourproblem.
It's it's the top 20% don't needthe dividend, the resource
industries don't need thedividend, the the non-residents
(09:48):
don't need the non-residenceindustry, tourism, fishing, and
so on don't need the dividend.
I guess oil's a big non-residentindustry too.
Don't need the dividend.
So why do we care?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We'd like a dividend, yeah,yeah, yeah.
We'd like to back it and helplast the families, but it's not
at the core of how we thinkabout these issues.
We think about these issuesabout resource development,
(10:10):
capital improvement, capitalspending, K through 12.
Just, you know, we think aboutthese, uh, about these issues
about how to do governmentspending, or in the case of the
resource industries, how tolimit government revenue.
And and and we've forgotten whatthe Hammond vision of looking
after Alaska families first.
So I I I really, you know, as Ias I as this has dawned on me
(10:33):
over the course of the lastweek, I've really started to
despair that we're gonna find away out of this box uh uh in
this election cycle.
Because we don't have a lot, wedon't have candidates who who
who have that who have thatvision.
SPEAKER_00 (10:47):
Well, if I hear one more candidate, and this is the
really the the this has becomethe the uh uh the you know the
soup de jour for all theRepublican candidates when you
start talking about, well, howdo we pay for it all?
Because we are asking thatquestion of every candidate, how
do you pay for what's going on?
And if I hear one more persontalk about how, oh, we're gonna
develop the resources, well,that's great 10 years down the
(11:10):
road.
How does that help us betweennow and the 10-year mark?
And it just seems like these,again, they have no, they have
no grasp, they have no idea whatthey're gonna do in the interim.
Um, I mean, I think Berta Debtis probably the only one that's
come up with at least any kindof fractional plan, which
includes zero-based budgetingand some other things, which I
(11:30):
think are good.
But again, if you're going topay a full PFD, there's going to
have to be a whole lot cut outof government, or it's going to
have to be a whole new revenuestream to make it work.
And nobody seems to have thatanswer.
Hammond, Hammond had it clear.
SPEAKER_01 (11:46):
Hammond was the PFD comes first.
Sharing the wealth, the commonlyowned wealth, with Alaska
families so that they at leasthave some benefit out of the
commonly owned wealth.
It's not all diverted to specialinterests.
Hammond had that vision clear.
You start with the PFD.
And then he said, look, if youwant to spend more than that,
(12:08):
then you're going to have to taxpeople.
You don't cut the PFD.
You don't take out of thepeople's hands the share of the
wealth that that has beencreated by the PFD to make sure
that they get at least someshare of it.
What's going on is is the exactreverse of Hammond.
We're saying PFD cuts first,take the wealth out of the hands
(12:32):
of Alaska families and divert itto the special interests.
And so we're we're just we'readrift on the PFD.
I mean, everybody now says, oh,you can't tax to pay a PFD.
We don't tax to pay a PFD.
(12:53):
The PFD comes from the permanentfund, earnings off the permanent
fund.
It's already paid for.
We don't need taxes to pay thePFD.
What taxes are for are to payfor the additional government
that that we've created along.
SPEAKER_00 (13:09):
Right.
And what instead what they'redoing is taxing our PFD.
That's what they're doing.
They're taxing it.
They're just taking it at thepoint at the source point so
that you don't see it.
They're withholding it so youdon't see it.
And then they start screamingabout, well, if you want more,
then we'll have to tax you forit.
So it's a show game.
It is.
SPEAKER_01 (13:28):
It's a it's they've they've managed, and it's the
top 20% who don't care.
I mean, Robson was clear, it'sthe top 20% who don't care about
the top about the PFD, thenon-residents and the
non-resident industries and theand the resource industries that
don't care about the PFD.
They just care about making surethey don't get taxed.
And so and so they've managed toreverse the narrative having to
(13:52):
be growing rolling over in hisgrave.
They managed to reverse thenarrative so that so that the
PFD comes last.
And if you and if and if the PFDis being cut, the only way to
save the PFD is through taxingsomebody else to cover the PFD.
That's not how the PFD is set uplegally.
That's not how the PFD wasenvisioned.
(14:14):
It was not the genius behindHammond's behind Hammond's
vision.
The genius behind Hammond'svision was look, we got
resourced wealth, it's commonlyowned.
We're going to make sure thatAlaska families get a share of
it before we start giving it upto all the special interests,
the legislatively approvedspecial interests.
(14:34):
We're going to make sureAlaskans get a share of it.
Period.
End of statement.
And if government needs morethan tax to pay for the
additional government.
That's the way the statute's setup.
That's the way, that's the wayit operated up until Bill
Walker, you know, decided tochange it.
But now that Walker decided tochange it, we've got everybody's
(14:54):
brother jumping on that.
And all the Republicancandidates, from what from what
you look at, all the Republicancandidates saying, well, it's
too bad, but but you know, itcomes last and we don't want to
raise taxes to pay for it.
You shouldn't have to raisetaxes to pay for it because it's
already paid for.
And and and all this, all thisjunk is just, well, we've lost
(15:17):
the vision.
SPEAKER_00 (15:18):
Well, that's a critical point.
The fact that it's already paidfor.
That's the thing that I thinkyou know, you and I have
probably been missing more thananything else, is that it you
don't have to tax for the PFDbecause it's already been paid
for.
But what's happened is they'vesnuck in there and they've taken
the money out of the cookie jar,and now they say, well, if you
want that, you got a tax to payfor.
We already took it.
And so we didn't have to fightthe fight over taxes and have a
(15:41):
battle over each and everyspending item because we just
took it from you.
And now if you want it back, nowyou got to tax yourself.
And that's that's the falsedichotomy.
That's a that's a brilliant uhdeduction there.
SPEAKER_01 (15:53):
Yeah, it I it and all you have to do to understand
that is to go back to Hammond.
Hammond said it's like a familytrust, a lower 48 family trust.
We have set up a trust that'sfor the benefit of Alaska
families, that provides for thedistribution, sets rules for the
distribution of to Alaskafamilies.
Now it's set by statute, so itcan be changed, but until it's
(16:13):
changed, these are the rules ofthe trust in how that portion of
the wealth is to be is to bedistributed.
Period.
End of statement.
Done.
That's the core.
Now, if you want to do thisother stuff, then then go raise
taxes to pay for this otherstuff.
You'll find that you can't raisetaxes to pay for this other
stuff.
And so you won't do all thatstuff.
(16:33):
But don't mess with the core.
And we've got no candidates tounderstand who understand that
concept.
SPEAKER_00 (16:38):
Okay, Brad Keithley, Alaskans for sustainable
budget's the weekly topic.
I mean, that's kind of a again abrilliant, you know, a brilliant
take on that is that, you know,the PFD is already paid for.
It's already, I mean, we didn'thave to generate, and now
they're again they're they'representing us with this false
dichotomy of do you want to uhdo you want to be taxed to get
(17:02):
that full PFD instead of weshould have gotten the PFD
first, and then there shouldhave been an argument about all
this other stuff that they wantto pay for.
That's where the taxes shouldhave come from.
SPEAKER_01 (17:11):
Yeah, and that was Hammond.
I mean, that was Hammond'svision.
You go back and you readDiabring the Devil.
He says that.
He says, look, PFD comes first,PFD's poor.
If you want to pay, if you wantadditional government on top of
what traditional revenues andand the portion of the permanent
fund earnings that would go togovernment, if you want
(17:31):
additional, if you wantadditional spending on top of
that, then you tax for it.
There's a great line in there,and I'm not going to get it
exactly correct, but the but thesum of the substance of it is
there's no greater curb onspending than taxation.
And if you have to tax for thatadditional money, you're going
to curb spending because peopleare going to say, no, I don't
(17:53):
want to pay a tax for that, or Idon't want to pay this much tax,
you know, figure it out withinwithin within this revenue
structure.
And and Hammond understood thatthat the curb was on spending
would be through, would bethrough the taxes.
And so, you know, and and sothose who would be taxed, the
(18:13):
resource industries, the thenon-residents in the top 20%,
who get taxed very lightly usingPFP cuts, those who would be
taxed said, uh-uh, we don't wantto be taxed.
Let's figure out a way to curbthis back.
And it's, you know, 2017 withWalker or 2016 with Walker, and
2017 with Natasha von Emhoff andClick Bishop and uh in the
(18:35):
Senate that that flip thisaround and say, oh no, PFD
spending.
PFD isn't PFD isn't a a uh uh uhdesignated income that goes to
Alaska families.
PFD spending and it comes last.
It's the last is the marginalspend.
And so whatever we have leftover can go to the PFD.
(18:57):
That is not the vision thatHammond had.
That is not what the statutesays, but it's what it got
corrupted into being.
And none of these candidates, Imean, so 2018, one of the
reasons I supported Dunleavy in2018 was he talked a lot about
Hammond and he still had thatvision.
He's long since lost it, but hestill had that vision in 2018.
(19:18):
We had a candidate in 2018 thatwas a Hammond candidate.
We don't have a Hammondcandidate in uh in this election
cycle yet.
None of these candidates aretalking, are are talking are are
starting with the Hammond visionand building out from that.
None of these candidates arestarting with Alaska families at
the core.
SPEAKER_00 (19:37):
Yeah.
Well, and that's again part andparcel of the problem is that
they've all lost the, you know,they get down there and they get
subsumed into the machine, andand the next thing you know,
they're, you know, they're orthey're they get the recall
effort or whatever it was, theyget it, they get frightened and
nobody wants to fight itanymore.
They all start, they all startlooking the same.
Like I said, all the Republicancandidates now are talking about
(19:59):
resource development instead ofcontrolling spending uh or
anything else.
It's all about resource.
Well, well, we just we'll justfeed more money into the
machine.
Well, what about all the otherparts of it?
What about the spending?
What about a revenue cap?
What about a uh a co?
What about you know, puttingmore money in and getting more
money out of the uh oil,revisiting the oil taxation?
(20:20):
I mean, these are things that wewere supposed to do every 10
years, and now it'santithetical.
Every time this happens, we haveto have some kind of huge fight
about how the oil companies aregoing to pick up and take their
toys and go somewhere else every10 years.
And, you know, it's it's justit's sad that we keep coming
back to this.
Do you not remember this fight10 years ago?
Now they're benefiting.
(20:41):
We all need to we need to keepopening up the hood and looking
under the hood.
This thing's got to go.
SPEAKER_01 (20:46):
Yep.
And we need to start with thecore.
I mean, we need to go back toand and reread Diaping the Devil
and reread Hammond again.
We need to start at the corewith Alaska families.
The resources are great.
They're great for the for theimpact they can have on Alaska
families.
And and the PFD is central tothat in terms of distributing a
(21:06):
portion of that commonly heldwealth, making sure Alaska
families get it uh before beforethe the fights start about how
to diverting it to specialinterests.
We need to start at the corewith Alaska families and what
the impact is on Alaskafamilies.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (21:21):
Let's uh continue on here.
Brad Keithley, Alaskans fullsustainable budgets.
The weekly top three continueson with number two.
On with number two, which issomebody and some people are
trying to rewrite history.
What do you mean by that, Brad?
What do you mean they're tryingto rewrite the history?
What's what's going on here?
SPEAKER_01 (21:42):
So, Rebecca Logan, who's the executive director of
the uh Alaska uh industry uhalliance, uh, the term, the
brief term we used uh around thestate for to describe that group
as the alliance.
Rebecca Logan wrote uh a pieceuh in the landmine, uh the head
of the headline of which isAlaska's oil projects deliver
(22:05):
revenue and jobs we depend on.
And it's really sort of a itdoesn't identify it as such, but
it's sort of a rebuttal to apiece I wrote the week before,
uh pointing out that that theshare of revenues under SB21,
the share of revenues thatAlaskans are receiving, share of
growth revenues that Alaska'sAlaskans are receiving under
(22:28):
SB21 as it's playing out in itssecond decade is declining
significantly, not only from notonly from the sort of the
baseline of the prior period ofthe prior 10 years under SB21,
but also from the pre-ACESperiod, which is sort of what
people who were working on SB21back in the early 2010s said we
(22:50):
want to get back to.
We want to move back away fromACES back to where from where
ACES took us back over to wherewe were before ACES.
And and my column pointed out,or my article pointed out, that
we're not getting back toanything.
We're not even revenues undergross uh the Alaskan share of
gross revenues are decliningfurther under the second decade
(23:13):
of ACES, not or second decade ofSB21, uh not even reaching what
they were what they were in thefirst decade of SP21 and not
reaching what they were uh inthe in the pre-ACES period.
So, and pointing out that it'sthe provisions of SB21, the
various provisions of SB21 thatare causing that to occur, and
that we need to go in, we needto lift the hood under SB21 and
(23:37):
and and re-jigger it to get itback to where it was at least in
the first 10 years in terms ofthe amount of state revenue
being produced, uh, andre-jigger it and and make sure
that it works as it wasintended.
We recall the battle cry back in2013, 2014 when we were going
through the legislative sessionthat passed SP21 and then the
(24:00):
the initiative to undo SP21, therecall petition in 2014 to redo
SP21.
The battle cry was we're yes,we're taking a hit in terms of
production taxes from uh fromACEs, but don't worry about
that.
It's going to result inincreased production, and when
it results in increasedproduction, we're gonna have
increased revenues out of that.
(24:20):
And that and we're not and we'renot doing that.
We're in fact, as we've talkedon the show, production tax
revenues are going are goingdown significantly over this
decade and continue going downover the over the next decade.
So Rebecca wrote a response tothat and and and basically said
it doesn't address thefundamental argument of the
(24:41):
point of all tax reform was toincrease production, which we've
done, which we're doing in theprocess of doing, to increase
production, which would thenbenefit Alaska families.
Go back to the Hammond division,would benefit Alaska families by
increasing revenues to Alaskafamilies.
Her article really doesn't, hercommentary doesn't really uh
(25:03):
respond to that point.
What it says is that we'regetting some revenues.
We're getting we're gettingproduction taxes, we're getting
royalties, and and and we'regetting jams from from all of
this.
But it doesn't, it doesn't meetthe argument that was that that
that was raised in 2013 and2014, increased production is
(25:26):
going to mean increasedrevenues.
It doesn't meet that at all.
It just says, look, you'regetting some.
Be happy.
SPEAKER_00 (25:32):
You're getting some revenue.
Yeah.
When I read it, that's what mytakeaway was.
Oh, we should just be happywe're getting something was
essentially the gist of theentire article.
Not it didn't deliver on thepromises that we were supposedly
put on there, but hey, look, weare getting this and this and
this.
And you know, it's kind ofmisleading because other
projects always take more timeto get the money.
(25:54):
You know, I mean, it just itseems like excuse itis, is what
it seems like.
SPEAKER_01 (25:58):
Yeah, it's changed, it's changing, it's an attempt
to change the argument thatunderpinned SP21 back in 2013
and 2014, which is reducedproduction taxes for maces
levels will result in eachincreased production and will
benefit Alaska's throughincreased revenue.
It's trying to change thatargument.
(26:19):
It's trying to say, it's tryingto say the argument now is
reduced production taxes willresult in increased uh increased
uh production levels, which it'sdoing, and you'll get something
out of that.
You Alaskans will get somethingout of that.
Just be happy with what withwhatever you get out of that.
It's take it's trying to rewritehistory to write out the piece
(26:40):
where a you will benefit,benefit, you Alaskans will
benefit from from increasedrevenues along with along with
that uh increased production.
There's another thing, and thisgets into a little bit of the
weeds about why SB21 is isworking differently in its
second decade, but it it there'sa piece in here that says second
(27:00):
or third, the eight years withno production tax point talking
point is misleading.
Large projects everywhere,Alaska, Asia, Latin America,
North Sea, typically recovertheir spent development costs
before paying production taxes.
That's not entirely correct.
There's usually an amortizationof production taxes as opposed
to a complete recovery.
But but but what that art whatthat misses and what and what
(27:24):
she doesn't mention anywhere inthe commentary is the
compounding effect on top ofthat, on top of recovering your
production costs of what'scalled the gross value reduction
provision in SV21.
And what the gross valuereduction provision is
essentially doing as it kicks inis creating a seven-year
(27:47):
tax-free holiday for producerson new on new production.
Not a reduction in productiontaxes, but but essentially a
tax-free holiday uh over theover the first seven years.
That's not that's unlikeanything else that I've seen uh
in the international sector interms of in terms of incentives
(28:10):
for uh in terms of incentivesfor oil development.
So not only, I mean, the theargument is, well, you're just
you're we're we're getting whathappens internationally.
No, we're not.
We're giving what happensinternationally, basically.
Alaskans are giving what happensinternationally.
No, we're not.
We're giving more than that.
We're giving a can thiscompounding effect of the of the
(28:30):
G VR that's creating a hugeamount of production tax holiday
during the early years of the ofthe production cycle on these
fields.
And that's when most of theproduction occurs.
You and I talked on a on theshow before that 75% of PICA,
the projected peak of productionuh is going to occur before
(28:54):
production taxes ever kick in.
Uh seven years down the road,eight years down the road.
So it's this defense is youknow, you're getting something,
be happy.
Well, we're not getting Alaskansto go back to the Hammond, the
Hammond visions.
Let's start with Alaskans.
Alaskans are not getting whatthey were promised in 2013 and
(29:16):
2014.
And we need to go in.
We don't need to, we don't needto go back to ACEs.
Nobody's arguing about goingback to ACES, but we need to go
in and we need to revise SB21 toensure that Alaskans get what
they were promised at the timethat they, at the time that the
legislature voted for SB21 andat the time that Alaskans
(29:37):
defeated the effort to undoSB21.
SPEAKER_00 (29:39):
Well, I mean, this is no surprise that Rebecca,
Rebecca Logan from the Allianceis making these arguments
because that's what she getspaid for, right?
I mean, they are looking out fortheir best interest.
That's what they that's whatcompanies are supposed to do
when they're in these kind of uhthings.
They're supposed to argue fromtheir best position for their
shareholders.
So kudos to her.
Unfortunately.
(30:00):
Unfortunately, like you said,she's only telling about half
the story and spinning it justthe right way.
And shame on us if we take it atcomplete and total face value.
I mean, again, I don't rememberwho it was that said it, but
somebody has said that we shouldbe looking under the hood every
10 years at oil.
I think it was Stedman actuallythat said something along the
lines of we should open crack itopen and look at it every 10
(30:20):
years to make sure that it'sworking the way that it was
intended for both parties.
And yet every time we starttalking about this, the the
industry, the alliance, the theAoga, the all the other, you
know, all the other differententities, they all start
screaming bloody murder, like,and we're gonna take our toys
and go.
To which I say, okay, you know,if that's what you want to do,
(30:42):
but we we have a finiteresource.
We should all be getting what wedeserve in that regard.
SPEAKER_01 (30:47):
Well, we should all be getting at least what was
promised in that regard, right?
I mean, SB21, the industrywasn't shy.
When when when ACES was puttinginvestment away from Alaska and
was disincentivizing developmentin Alaska, the industry wasn't
shy about standing up andsaying, look, we got to change.
This has gone wrong.
(31:09):
This this oil tax regime isgoing wrong.
We need to change it.
And they weren't shy aboutpushing for that, and they
weren't shy about uh aboutadvocating for that.
Well, now the SP 21 regime hasgone wrong in terms of what it's
delivering for Alaskans.
It's not delivering the promiseof 2013 and 14 that if we
increase that that we will thatwe will reduce production taxes,
(31:32):
that'll result in an increase inproduction levels, and it will
result the the the you know,sort of the back-end piece for
Alaskans, it will result inincreased revenues for Alaska.
It's not.
It's resulting in some revenues,yes, but it's not resulting in
increased revenues for Alaska.
You can see that from easilyfrom both the 10-year revenue
(31:53):
forecast from DOR and from theanalysis that DOR did of the
Pika and Willow fields.
It's not increasing revenue forAlaska.
And it's the compounding effect.
It's the compounding, we we gavea lot.
I mean, we we created a lot ofincentives, a lot of different
incentives.
Sort of, it was sort of like,you know, throw it on the wall
and see what works in terms ofincentives to get to get dollars
(32:16):
coming back into Alaska.
And we threw a bunch ofincentives on the wall.
And now what's happening isthey're having this compounding
effect of reducing revenues,reducing tax revenues uh below
the levels, uh, below the levelsthat they were.
SPEAKER_00 (32:31):
It remind me, wasn't there something well, because we
were throwing a lot of stuff atthe wall to see what would
stick.
Wasn't there some conversationabout one time when they
basically said, well, you know,we'll just try it.
And if it doesn't work, we canalways come back, right?
We can always re you know,wasn't there always a discussion
of this can be changed in thefuture if it doesn't work out
quite right?
I seem to remember some kind ofconversation about that.
(32:52):
And yet when we come back aroundto revisit, they're like, you
can't do that.
SPEAKER_01 (32:56):
Yeah, let's it there was a conversation like that in
2013.
I I want to say it was Machethat was saying that in 2013,
uh, during the legislativecycle.
But also there was that sameconversation.
When did we go through when didwe have that um uh initiative to
try to un to try to change theoil tax code?
In 2020 or 2022, my my memory.
(33:20):
2020, I think.
All right.
Whenever it was, we had peoplethen, and I and I remember the
chairman of Doyan or thepresident of Doyan specifically
saying this look, if it doesn'twork, we'll change it.
We'll be we'll be among thefirst advocates for changing it.
If it's not if it's notresulting in in what in what you
know the statute, what what thegoals were in 2013 and 14, we'll
(33:42):
be among the first advocates forchanging that.
Never heard from them againsince.
Yeah, but we can see but we canclearly see the revenues going
down.
So it's it's yeah, we're gettingrevenues, yeah, we're getting
jobs, but we're not getting whatwe were promised in 2013 and 14.
SPEAKER_00 (33:59):
Brian's comment is maybe you should be happy you
are getting something shouldbecome the tagline of the Juno
clown posse.
That should you and that's kindof what they've said along the
whole lines, right?
I mean, you've got a robust$1,000 PFD, right?
You've got a robust PFD.
That was Natasha von Treggithere that dropped that little
(34:22):
bomb on us, you know.
Oh, your PFD is robust.
Thank you.
Thank you, Calvin, Calvin vonImhoff, uh, for your uh for your
gracious gift to us, the uhcommunity.
Uh, but yeah, maybe we shouldjust be happy we're getting
something, should be the newbattle cry of the legislature.
SPEAKER_01 (34:42):
And that's what they're that's what they're
trying to tell us.
We should be happy we're gettingthe PFD we're getting.
Oh, aren't you lucky?
I mean, as opposed to Hammond'svision, uh, we start with the
PFD.
That's every Alaska family'sshare of the commonly held
wealth.
Period.
End of statement.
But we're gonna make sure thateverybody gets something before
we before we you know use therest of it off on all these on
(35:05):
all the special interests.
And Hammond went through a listof special interests that he
anticipated would would wouldgrab for it, and sure enough,
they've been grabbing for it.
But but you know, instead ofthat, instead of that vision,
and and and in 2013 and 14,we're gonna get, you know, as as
the industry gets increasedproduction and increased
revenues from that increasedproduction, we're gonna get an
(35:26):
increased uh uh same share.
Our share of that of that ofthose revenues are gonna are
gonna go up as well.
Asking share of those revenuesare gonna go up as well.
Now you're you're you know,Brian's exactly right.
Now it's be happy.
Be happy you're gettinganything.
Be happy you're getting theportion of the PFD of the of the
of the commonly owned wealth.
Be happy you're getting thechair of it you're getting, be
(35:48):
happy you're getting you knowthe alliance, be happy you're
getting any revenues, be happyyou're getting jobs.
Just just just take it.
Just just be satisfied with whatyou're getting.
And um, and that's I mean,that's just 180 degrees out of
out of sync that we're havingstarted this.
SPEAKER_00 (36:03):
That makes me think of close your eyes and think of
England, dear.
I mean, that's what it feelslike sometimes is just close
your eyes and think of England.
Uh, you know, be happy that thatthis is all we're doing to you,
kind of thing.
I I mean, that's what it feelslike.
Uh and again, going back to whatyou were first talking about
with all this different, youknow, machinations of the
special interests, you know, belucky that we give you any of
(36:25):
this and we should be doing itbecause we know better than you
how all that money should bespent, and you couldn't possibly
make your own decisions with it.
Only we in our infinite wisdomcan create the programs that
will make your life better.
SPEAKER_01 (36:38):
Yeah.
And and and you know, to go backto the first segment again, I
all the candidates are buyinginto that.
All the candidates are buyinginto that.
I mean, the candidates heresaying, oh, additional oil
development, that'll do it.
Additional resource development,that'll do it.
Have they looked the revenues atthe impact on Alaskans of
(36:58):
additional resource developmentunder the oil code?
Additional oil developmentactually takes actually reduces
production taxes even furtherbecause it keeps generating all
of those additional deductionsand credits out there that that
compounding deductions andcredits that uh SB21 provides
for.
Have they looked at what thatreally does to Alaskans?
Have they looked at the mineralcode and see the minute share of
(37:23):
mineral revenues that Alaskansget out of that?
It's just like, you know, behappy you're having some
activity in your state.
Hammond's vision was we startwith Alaska families, we start
with worrying about them first,and and then, you know, all that
stuff, all the rest of stuff isfor the benefit of Alaska
families.
Resource development is for thebenefit of Alaska families.
(37:46):
Start at that core.
Now it seems like all of thosethings are the center of the
universe.
And Alaska families just sort ofbe happy.
You're getting any part of itbecause the because the center
of the universe is resourcedevelopment.
That's that's really what wewant.
You're the center of thereforce, center of the universe
is the capital budget.
That's really what we want todo.
And a lot and and I'll tell youhow that sort of benefits Alaska
(38:07):
family somewhere along the way.
It's backwards.
We've got this backwards.
SPEAKER_00 (38:12):
Yeah.
Um, Leila just said, in the1960s, my parents paid 25% of
their income to the state, andthe state provided almost no
services, some wildlifemanagement, boarding schools for
village students, and really badroads.
That's our future if we try andfund the state on income taxes.
That's exactly where we'reheaded.
Only with the current servicelevel of state, income taxes
will need to be considerablymore than 25%, and good luck
(38:34):
living on what's left after thefeds take that cut, too.
SPEAKER_01 (38:38):
No, no.
Income taxes don't need to be25%.
Income taxes, it depends on howyou do them.
Sales taxes would be about twoto three percent.
I think um uh uh uh BenCarpenter's sales tax was two or
three percent.
I can't remember which.
Yeah.
Sales taxes would need to beabout that level to cover the
(38:58):
deficit.
Income taxes would need to beabout four to five percent.
What people don't understand isthat is that when you tax, a big
portion of the revenue you'reyou're generating through tax is
coming from non-residents, 10 to15 percent, depending upon how
you structure the tax.
And that's reducing the burdenon Alaska families, and it's
(39:19):
broadening the base so that theoverall level of tax needed
across that broader base is muchlower than uh than people
speculate.
So I mean it's a scare monscaremongering to start talking
about 25% taxes.
That's not that's not what'srequired.
SPEAKER_00 (39:35):
Okay, uh, we're continuing one final segment.
Brad Keithly, our guest.
We got about uh eight, nineminutes here for number three,
uh, which is a whole lot of toolittle, too late from the
governor.
All of a sudden he's gonna starttalking tough.
Uh, Brad, what do you got here?
SPEAKER_01 (39:54):
So in the last week, the governor did uh a veto of
the uh out-of-state business taxthat uh the internet tax that
had passed the legislature withwith fairly healthy majorities,
not veto-proof majorities, butfairly healthy majorities.
Uh and the governor uh uh vetoedthat, uh, saying he's not going
(40:17):
to engage in sort of this one ata time tax uh tax uh policy.
Uh he's only going to do it inconnection with a total fiscal
plan and put together a totalfiscal plan.
If you want to do these taxes,you need to do it as part of a
total fiscal plan.
Um and referred again to youknow this hope, this this letter
(40:39):
that he put out at the end oflast session saying, I want a
joint fiscal plan team betweenthe administration and the
legislature.
The problem with this is thegovernor has not come to the
table with his part of the ofthe fiscal plan.
He got very, very close in 2023,sort of as a follow-up to the
(41:01):
2021 uh uh uh legislative,fiscal policy working group.
They came up with a bunch ofrecommendations.
The governor in 2023, during the2023 legislature came,
legislative session came very,very close.
A uh article from April 27th,2023, headlined long and
opponent of tax hikes.
(41:22):
Alaska Governor Mike Dunley nowbelieves they are needed.
Uh, says Alaska governor, AlaskaGovernor Mike Dunley, once a
staunch opponent of taxincreases, said Thursday that
they are now a core part of anylong-term fiscal plan.
Speaking in a news conference,the governor said that there's a
broad recognition in thelegislature and in his office
that the state can no longerrely on commodities such as oil
(41:43):
to balance the state's budget.
Dunley confirmed prior reportsthat he intends to propose a
statewide sales tax, saying workon the proposal could be done
today or Friday.
It was not clear when this ideawould be introduced in the
legislature.
Dunley said I would start offwith a low percentage of sales
tax, probably one percent.
And the reason I say that isit's really about stabilizing uh
(42:07):
our fiscals instead of raiseinstead of raising new revenues
was the was the context of that.
The governor almost came to thetable in 2023 with with his aunt
into the game of how we weregoing to resolve the state's
fiscal situation.
But then he backed off.
That never got introduced.
(42:31):
That he was speaking, it nevergot introduced.
And he since backed off, andthey've since made comments
about various other uh revenueproposals that had been put on
the table in 2021 by uh his umuh commissioner of revenue were
no longer on the table, and orshe had misspoken about talking
about those revenue options.
I mean, they just backedcompletely away from that.
(42:54):
So when the governor talks nowabout about you know the leg
we're I'm not gonna approve theinternet tax or any other taxes
on a standalone basis, then wehave a complete fiscal plan.
Well, the governor's got to cometo the table with his ante as
part of that fiscal plan.
And he laid it out.
I mean, if you want to know whatthat ante is, if if if the
governor's people are watchingand want to know what the hell
(43:16):
I'm talking about, it's 2023.
Live up to what you said youwere gonna do in 2023.
Once you come to the table withthat, then you've got the
ability to say, okay, any otherideas?
And and the ability to say,look, I'm willing to put this on
the table, but we're also gonnahave a spending cap and other
things uh associated with it.
(43:37):
Until he does that, he's justhe's he's part of the problem.
He's not part of the solution.
This one-off, this one-off vetoof efforts that the legislature
is making to build pieces of afiscal plan because vetoing them
because they're not a wholefiscal plan is just is part of
the problem.
I mean, what happens is thelegislature says, hey, what if
(43:59):
we do this and and raiseadditional revenues this way?
Governor says, no, it's not partof the total fiscal plan.
What happens in the nextlegislature?
More PFD cuts.
He's just we're we're backingcontinually into deeper and
deeper PFD cuts the longer weput this off.
Governor was there.
If we're if he's really seriousabout about this, about having a
(44:22):
fiscal plan, if he's reallyserious about bringing this
together, he needs to put thatback on the table.
He needs to go back to where hewas in 2023 and put that back on
the table.
You know, Ben Carpenter pickedup on that and tried to push
that in the legislature, triedto push that as sales tax in the
legislature.
And he got out in front and hegot shot by being out in front
(44:43):
because the governor backed offof it uh uh after after making
that statement.
So you're gonna find it.
SPEAKER_00 (44:52):
Yeah, no, he tried to take it even further because
he was very clear.
This has to be part of a full afull fiscal plan.
He wasn't advocating just for atax in and of itself.
He was saying he took thegovernor's call and said, we
need to do it as a full fiscalplan.
This is just part of it.
And they still riddled him fullof bullets, right?
I mean, that was, you know, thatwas the thing.
I don't I don't think thatthere's any political will to
(45:14):
deal with any of this in thelegislature.
They're gonna ride this blimpright into the ground, is what
they're gonna do.
SPEAKER_01 (45:20):
Yep, maybe so.
But if the governor's seriousabout leading on this issue,
which he says he is, if thegovernor is serious about
stepping forward and and asgovernor, as governors are
supposed to do, making thingshappen, making the government
function, making it work, asgovernors are supposed to do to
do that, uh, if he's reallyserious about doing that, he
(45:42):
needs to go back and get a holdof his 2023 self.
Um and and and fulfill thepromise he made then about it
was gonna be on the table uh byFriday of that week.
I mean, evidently they'vewritten it, or evidently they've
written most of it.
Um and and if you don't, if ifyou've lost that draft, go pick
up Ben's uh because he hadwritten it in legislation and
(46:02):
and use that.
Put that on the table and say,okay, this is part of how we're
gonna go forward.
I'm gonna couple it with thespending cap and this stuff and
that stuff, and and and and andstart taking the initiative to
get this resolved as opposed tositting back and just kicking
off the legislature one at atime.
There's not only not only nowill in the legislature to solve
(46:24):
this thing because you're gonnaget shot by the governor if you
do, or or you're not gonna getbacked up by the governor if you
do, Ben Carpenter's experience.
There's not only no will in thelegislature to do this, there's
no will in the governor's officeto do this.
I mean, he's just sitting backand picking off the
legislature's efforts at atsingle shots one at a time, uh,
uh saying they aren't part of acomplete plan.
(46:44):
We were there in 2023.
Go back, go back there if youwill, if you really want to
solve this.
SPEAKER_00 (46:52):
Uh all right, Brad Keithley, final thoughts here.
We're about 90 seconds uh finalthoughts on this week's top
three.
SPEAKER_01 (46:58):
We need a Hammond.
We need a Hammond that putsAlaska families first.
You know, just like Donald Trumpsays we need to put Americans
first, we need we need somebodyin this state that we're gonna
put Alaska families first, notthe Alaska resource industry,
not the Alaska capital budget,not this, not that.
We're gonna start with Alaskafamilies, just like Hammond did.
We're gonna make sure that theyhave a share of the commonly
(47:19):
held wealth.
And then we're gonna we're gonnabuild out from there.
But we're gonna start in thebeginning with Alaska families,
and we're gonna think about whatbenefits Alaska families as
opposed to all these otherspecial interests who then come
in with back-end stories about,oh, well, I think this benefits
Alaska families.
This way.
SPEAKER_00 (47:37):
Are we gonna find somebody like that?
Is the question, Brad, though.
I mean, right?
I mean, I have some hopes, but Imean, I just don't know if we
have enough time to changepeople's, you know, to change
the direction or hearts andminds or whatever.
I'm doing my best, but even someof the candidates that I'm
encouraged by are not seeing thefull vision of what you're
talking about.
And that is that is a problem.
(47:57):
All right, Brad.
Well, um, don't lose hope, myfriend.
We could just keep we just keeppumping the pump.
That's all we can do, right?
SPEAKER_01 (48:05):
Yeah, well, yeah.
I mean, it's we can keeppointing out the issues.
But what I think, what I thinkwe're doing on this program is
pointing out the issues andpointing out where where things
are things are going wrong.
I mean, the industry, the oldindustry said with SP21, look,
Alaskans are gonna benefit inthis way.
You're gonna you're gonna get asproduction levels increase,
(48:26):
revenues are gonna increase as aresult of the way the production
production tax is gonna work.
It hasn't happened.
Alaskans didn't get what theygot.
So, you know, we're gonna keepcalling out when when when that
happens and pointing out how youactually put Alaskans first.
As opposed to all of these, allof these special interests out
there.
SPEAKER_00 (48:46):
Well, that would be unique.
Putting Alaskans first, that'suh I mean, I'm sure they say
that to themselves, but at thesame time they're at the
cocktail parties with all thetop 20% donors, and they're
like, Oh, yes, we're we'reputting Alaskans first, just uh
hand me another caveat.
SPEAKER_01 (49:01):
So or or like or like the mayor didn't and said,
Well, there's nobody in thisroom that needs a dividend.
So y'all y'all know what I'msaying, right?
SPEAKER_00 (49:11):
Yeah, y'all know what I'm saying.
So we don't really care aboutthe PFD.
We're just saying it because youknow we need to for election
purposes.
Um, all right.
Well, it is what it is.
All right, Brad.
Thank you so much for coming onboard.
We appreciate it.
Uh, thanks for being part of ittoday.
Absolutely, Michael.
See you later.
SPEAKER_01 (49:30):
Well, that's a wrap for another week's edition of
the weekly top three fromAlaskans for Sustainable
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 theweek on Facebook and Twitter.
This has been Brad Keithley,Managing Director of Alaskans
(49:51):
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the weekly
top three.
Hi.
This is Brad Gaelley, ManagingDirector of Alaskans for
Sustainable Budgets.
Welcome to the Weekly Top Three.
The top three things on our mindhere at Alaskans for Sustainable
Budgets for the week of October6th, 2025.
The weekly top three is aregular segment on the Michael
Duke Show.
The show broadcasts on bothFacebook Live and YouTube Live,
(00:33):
as well as via streaming audiofrom the show's website weekdays
from 6 to 8 a.m.
I join Michael weekly in thefirst hour of Tuesday show from
6.10 to 7 a.m.
for a discussion between the twoof us about our three issues.
We post the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, YouTube,
(00:54):
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages.
Also on the Alaskan's forSustainable Budgets website, as
well as the project page onnational blog site, medium.com.
You can find past episodes ofthe weekly top three also at the
same locations.
Keep in mind that in addition tothese podcasts, during the week,
(01:16):
you can also unfollow 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 how thecurrent candidates for governor
(01:37):
have lost sight of formerGovernor Jay Hammond's vision
for Alaska and put Alaskafamilies first.
Second, we explain how some inthe oil industry are trying to
rewrite the history behind SB21.
And third, we discussed howGovernor Dunleady is failing to
(01:57):
do his part to resolve thestate's fiscal problems.
And now let's join Michael.
SPEAKER_00 (02:05):
Let's get started.
Number one of the weekly topthree.
And um the biggest problem Ithink that we have right now,
and you kind of summate it here,is that we don't have a Jay
Hammond anymore.
And I think it's showing.
Let's see what's going on here.
Let's get started, Brad.
SPEAKER_01 (02:23):
Well, over the past week we've seen a number of
candidates speaking.
We had a forum.
There was a forum for thecandidates up in Fairbanks.
There's been Dave Bronson'sannounced and had uh had various
statements.
And start of what I'm startingto realize is we don't have a
Jay Hammond anywhere in thisgroup.
(02:44):
Jay Hammond, when you go backand read Diping Diapering the
Devil and all of the variouswritings that he did, Jay
Hammond had a had a had a corevision.
And that core vision was aboutthe PFD, about the about the
state's wealth.
That's a PFD was like theequivalent of a lower 48 family
(03:04):
oil trust.
These things are fairly commonin the lower 48.
When a family uh owns uh oilroyalties or own owns working
interests, the the proceeds arecollected in a trust.
Trust proceeds are sometimesinvested like we do with the
permanent fund.
The trust proceeds ultimatelyare distributed to the to the
(03:26):
family uh on a distributionalbasis similar to the PFD.
And so the the PFD is sort oflike a family trust.
We're collecting all the all thewealth, the collectively, the
wealth that the family owns, andthen we're distributing a
portion of it, uh, at least aportion of it, to uh to the
family through a mechanism thatlooks a lot like the PFD.
It distributes commonly ownedwealth to designated
(03:49):
beneficiaries.
It ensures, and like the PFD, itensures that at least some share
of the wealth reaches all in thefamily, uh, in rather than being
diverted to the benefit of onlysome.
That's sort of the coreprinciple of the PFD, that that
a portion of the state's wealthis supposed to be distributed so
(04:12):
that the benefit so that Alaskafamilies all benefit to some
degree from the state's wealth,uh instead of it being diverted
as as as Jay and others, Hammondand others were concerned,
instead of it being diverted bythe legislature or by government
to only a select few that atleast through the PFD Corps was
(04:33):
going to be distributed toAlaska families and benefit
Alaska families.
It is a way of looking at Alaskafamilies first, Alaska families
first, Alaska families uh at thecenter.
Uh what this state is about islooking out for Alaska families
and taking care of Alaskafamilies and ensuring that a
(04:55):
portion of the commonly heldwealth goes to all uh Alaska
families.
None of the candidates, none ofthe candidates in the various
statements they've made over thecourse of the last week, or at
least since I've been followingthem since they made their
announcements, none of thecandidates have that core
belief.
All of them are talking aboutvarious things like resource
(05:19):
development.
They're talking about issues outthere, resource development, a
capital budget, uh uh somethingelse, something else, something
else, education in the case ofTom Begage.
And they're taking those andthen saying, oh, these benefit
Alaska families like this.
They're backing into benefits toAlaska families out of and and
(05:42):
to some degree making them up uhout of out of these various
things that that they support orthey propose.
None of them are starting at thecore of Alaska families and
saying, okay, Alaska families atleast get some share of the
commonly held wealth, period.
And then we're gonna look, we'rewe're gonna do other things and
(06:04):
look out for Alaska families inother ways.
None of them are starting withAlaska families at the center
like Hammond did and and lookingoutward.
They're all starting with theseother things, these various
other interests, and then tryingto make up some story about how
that improves the lives ofAlaska families.
That's just that's disturbing.
(06:25):
I mean, we've lost Hammond.
If we don't, if we don't, if wedon't get a candidate, a
candidate that starts looking atAlaska families first, um, and
then looks out for Alaskafamilies and and and builds from
there, we're gonna have lost JayHammond.
We're gonna have lost the geniusthat Jay Hammond that Jay
(06:45):
Hammond brought to this state.
And we're gonna just we're justgonna divide up into all of
these various special intereststhat everybody's looking out for
and trying to back in about howthat relates to Alaska families,
and then just sort of battle outabout which special interest
gets the most votes.
SPEAKER_00 (07:00):
Well, it's a justifying Alaska families sort
of get lost in the process.
Yeah, it becomes a justificationfor all the government spend.
No matter what you wear on yourlapel, what your animal is on
your lapel, it's all about, youknow, kind of, it seems like,
about protecting the governmentspend, and here's our
justification for it.
SPEAKER_01 (07:17):
Or in in Sydney Canada's case, protecting the
resource industries.
The resource industries, I mean,Hammond's vision was the
resource industries there arethere to enhance Alaska
families.
They are there to help supportAlaska and help support Alaska
families.
It was Alaska families first,resources.
(07:38):
We have resources, great, let'sdevelop them, let's improve the
lives of Alaska families withAlaska resources.
It some of these candidates havejust sort of taken that and gone
off in let's do the resources,let's protect the resources,
let's protect resourcedevelopment.
And oh yeah, maybe there's somebenefits to Alaska families out
of that later on.
But but but you know, the thethe benefit is to resources
(08:01):
first.
So it's not just not just thespend, it's not just K-12 or the
capital budget and clickBishop's case or or you know
various other things AdamCrumb's resource development and
and and so on and so forth.
It's not it's not it's not justthe spend, it's resource
development, it's all theseother special interests out
(08:24):
there that that they try to backin and say, oh, well, this
protects Alaska families thisway.
But it doesn't.
Hammond had the vision that Ithink is is unique, makes Alaska
unique, uh, and is and istremendously strong for Alaska
families of putting them at thecenter of this.
None of the candidates are doingthat.
(08:45):
None of the candidates that thatI've seen thus far are doing
this.
Jeff Lanfield had a quote.
I've got Lanfield and I arehaving this debate about PFTs
anyway, but Lan Lanfield hadthis quote about Dave Bronson
that I just thought uh uh uh waswas very telling.
When he was done, he's talkingabout Bronson, when he was done
(09:07):
speaking, speaking at his at hisannouncement, he took questions
from the crowd, he did a decentjob answering them.
When I asked, when I Lanfieldasked his position about the
dividend, which at two and ahalf billion would cost the
state nearly half its revenuesthis year, and so on and so
forth.
Like other Republicancandidates, uh uh uh Bronson
struggled.
(09:27):
He said he wants to see a largedividend, but acknowledged the
state also has to pay for itsobligations.
He also joked that no one in theroom needed the dividend.
There is the core of ourproblem.
It's it's the top 20% don't needthe dividend, the resource
industries don't need thedividend, the the non-residents
(09:48):
don't need the non-residenceindustry, tourism, fishing, and
so on don't need the dividend.
I guess oil's a big non-residentindustry too.
Don't need the dividend.
So why do we care?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We'd like a dividend, yeah,yeah, yeah.
We'd like to back it and helplast the families, but it's not
at the core of how we thinkabout these issues.
We think about these issuesabout resource development,
(10:10):
capital improvement, capitalspending, K through 12.
Just, you know, we think aboutthese, uh, about these issues
about how to do governmentspending, or in the case of the
resource industries, how tolimit government revenue.
And and and we've forgotten whatthe Hammond vision of looking
after Alaska families first.
So I I I really, you know, as Ias I as this has dawned on me
(10:33):
over the course of the lastweek, I've really started to
despair that we're gonna find away out of this box uh uh in
this election cycle.
Because we don't have a lot, wedon't have candidates who who
who have that who have thatvision.
SPEAKER_00 (10:47):
Well, if I hear one more candidate, and this is the
really the the this has becomethe the uh uh the you know the
soup de jour for all theRepublican candidates when you
start talking about, well, howdo we pay for it all?
Because we are asking thatquestion of every candidate, how
do you pay for what's going on?
And if I hear one more persontalk about how, oh, we're gonna
develop the resources, well,that's great 10 years down the
(11:10):
road.
How does that help us betweennow and the 10-year mark?
And it just seems like these,again, they have no, they have
no grasp, they have no idea whatthey're gonna do in the interim.
Um, I mean, I think Berta Debtis probably the only one that's
come up with at least any kindof fractional plan, which
includes zero-based budgetingand some other things, which I
(11:30):
think are good.
But again, if you're going topay a full PFD, there's going to
have to be a whole lot cut outof government, or it's going to
have to be a whole new revenuestream to make it work.
And nobody seems to have thatanswer.
Hammond, Hammond had it clear.
SPEAKER_01 (11:46):
Hammond was the PFD comes first.
Sharing the wealth, the commonlyowned wealth, with Alaska
families so that they at leasthave some benefit out of the
commonly owned wealth.
It's not all diverted to specialinterests.
Hammond had that vision clear.
You start with the PFD.
And then he said, look, if youwant to spend more than that,
(12:08):
then you're going to have to taxpeople.
You don't cut the PFD.
You don't take out of thepeople's hands the share of the
wealth that that has beencreated by the PFD to make sure
that they get at least someshare of it.
What's going on is is the exactreverse of Hammond.
We're saying PFD cuts first,take the wealth out of the hands
(12:32):
of Alaska families and divert itto the special interests.
And so we're we're just we'readrift on the PFD.
I mean, everybody now says, oh,you can't tax to pay a PFD.
We don't tax to pay a PFD.
(12:53):
The PFD comes from the permanentfund, earnings off the permanent
fund.
It's already paid for.
We don't need taxes to pay thePFD.
What taxes are for are to payfor the additional government
that that we've created along.
SPEAKER_00 (13:09):
Right.
And what instead what they'redoing is taxing our PFD.
That's what they're doing.
They're taxing it.
They're just taking it at thepoint at the source point so
that you don't see it.
They're withholding it so youdon't see it.
And then they start screamingabout, well, if you want more,
then we'll have to tax you forit.
So it's a show game.
It is.
SPEAKER_01 (13:28):
It's a it's they've they've managed, and it's the
top 20% who don't care.
I mean, Robson was clear, it'sthe top 20% who don't care about
the top about the PFD, thenon-residents and the
non-resident industries and theand the resource industries that
don't care about the PFD.
They just care about making surethey don't get taxed.
And so and so they've managed toreverse the narrative having to
(13:52):
be growing rolling over in hisgrave.
They managed to reverse thenarrative so that so that the
PFD comes last.
And if you and if and if the PFDis being cut, the only way to
save the PFD is through taxingsomebody else to cover the PFD.
That's not how the PFD is set uplegally.
That's not how the PFD wasenvisioned.
(14:14):
It was not the genius behindHammond's behind Hammond's
vision.
The genius behind Hammond'svision was look, we got
resourced wealth, it's commonlyowned.
We're going to make sure thatAlaska families get a share of
it before we start giving it upto all the special interests,
the legislatively approvedspecial interests.
(14:34):
We're going to make sureAlaskans get a share of it.
Period.
End of statement.
And if government needs morethan tax to pay for the
additional government.
That's the way the statute's setup.
That's the way, that's the wayit operated up until Bill
Walker, you know, decided tochange it.
But now that Walker decided tochange it, we've got everybody's
(14:54):
brother jumping on that.
And all the Republicancandidates, from what from what
you look at, all the Republicancandidates saying, well, it's
too bad, but but you know, itcomes last and we don't want to
raise taxes to pay for it.
You shouldn't have to raisetaxes to pay for it because it's
already paid for.
And and and all this, all thisjunk is just, well, we've lost
(15:17):
the vision.
SPEAKER_00 (15:18):
Well, that's a critical point.
The fact that it's already paidfor.
That's the thing that I thinkyou know, you and I have
probably been missing more thananything else, is that it you
don't have to tax for the PFDbecause it's already been paid
for.
But what's happened is they'vesnuck in there and they've taken
the money out of the cookie jar,and now they say, well, if you
want that, you got a tax to payfor.
We already took it.
And so we didn't have to fightthe fight over taxes and have a
(15:41):
battle over each and everyspending item because we just
took it from you.
And now if you want it back, nowyou got to tax yourself.
And that's that's the falsedichotomy.
That's a that's a brilliant uhdeduction there.
SPEAKER_01 (15:53):
Yeah, it I it and all you have to do to understand
that is to go back to Hammond.
Hammond said it's like a familytrust, a lower 48 family trust.
We have set up a trust that'sfor the benefit of Alaska
families, that provides for thedistribution, sets rules for the
distribution of to Alaskafamilies.
Now it's set by statute, so itcan be changed, but until it's
(16:13):
changed, these are the rules ofthe trust in how that portion of
the wealth is to be is to bedistributed.
Period.
End of statement.
Done.
That's the core.
Now, if you want to do thisother stuff, then then go raise
taxes to pay for this otherstuff.
You'll find that you can't raisetaxes to pay for this other
stuff.
And so you won't do all thatstuff.
(16:33):
But don't mess with the core.
And we've got no candidates tounderstand who understand that
concept.
SPEAKER_00 (16:38):
Okay, Brad Keithley, Alaskans for sustainable
budget's the weekly topic.
I mean, that's kind of a again abrilliant, you know, a brilliant
take on that is that, you know,the PFD is already paid for.
It's already, I mean, we didn'thave to generate, and now
they're again they're they'representing us with this false
dichotomy of do you want to uhdo you want to be taxed to get
(17:02):
that full PFD instead of weshould have gotten the PFD
first, and then there shouldhave been an argument about all
this other stuff that they wantto pay for.
That's where the taxes shouldhave come from.
SPEAKER_01 (17:11):
Yeah, and that was Hammond.
I mean, that was Hammond'svision.
You go back and you readDiabring the Devil.
He says that.
He says, look, PFD comes first,PFD's poor.
If you want to pay, if you wantadditional government on top of
what traditional revenues andand the portion of the permanent
fund earnings that would go togovernment, if you want
(17:31):
additional, if you wantadditional spending on top of
that, then you tax for it.
There's a great line in there,and I'm not going to get it
exactly correct, but the but thesum of the substance of it is
there's no greater curb onspending than taxation.
And if you have to tax for thatadditional money, you're going
to curb spending because peopleare going to say, no, I don't
(17:53):
want to pay a tax for that, or Idon't want to pay this much tax,
you know, figure it out withinwithin within this revenue
structure.
And and Hammond understood thatthat the curb was on spending
would be through, would bethrough the taxes.
And so, you know, and and sothose who would be taxed, the
(18:13):
resource industries, the thenon-residents in the top 20%,
who get taxed very lightly usingPFP cuts, those who would be
taxed said, uh-uh, we don't wantto be taxed.
Let's figure out a way to curbthis back.
And it's, you know, 2017 withWalker or 2016 with Walker, and
2017 with Natasha von Emhoff andClick Bishop and uh in the
(18:35):
Senate that that flip thisaround and say, oh no, PFD
spending.
PFD isn't PFD isn't a a uh uh uhdesignated income that goes to
Alaska families.
PFD spending and it comes last.
It's the last is the marginalspend.
And so whatever we have leftover can go to the PFD.
(18:57):
That is not the vision thatHammond had.
That is not what the statutesays, but it's what it got
corrupted into being.
And none of these candidates, Imean, so 2018, one of the
reasons I supported Dunleavy in2018 was he talked a lot about
Hammond and he still had thatvision.
He's long since lost it, but hestill had that vision in 2018.
(19:18):
We had a candidate in 2018 thatwas a Hammond candidate.
We don't have a Hammondcandidate in uh in this election
cycle yet.
None of these candidates aretalking, are are talking are are
starting with the Hammond visionand building out from that.
None of these candidates arestarting with Alaska families at
the core.
SPEAKER_00 (19:37):
Yeah.
Well, and that's again part andparcel of the problem is that
they've all lost the, you know,they get down there and they get
subsumed into the machine, andand the next thing you know,
they're, you know, they're orthey're they get the recall
effort or whatever it was, theyget it, they get frightened and
nobody wants to fight itanymore.
They all start, they all startlooking the same.
Like I said, all the Republicancandidates now are talking about
(19:59):
resource development instead ofcontrolling spending uh or
anything else.
It's all about resource.
Well, well, we just we'll justfeed more money into the
machine.
Well, what about all the otherparts of it?
What about the spending?
What about a revenue cap?
What about a uh a co?
What about you know, puttingmore money in and getting more
money out of the uh oil,revisiting the oil taxation?
(20:20):
I mean, these are things that wewere supposed to do every 10
years, and now it'santithetical.
Every time this happens, we haveto have some kind of huge fight
about how the oil companies aregoing to pick up and take their
toys and go somewhere else every10 years.
And, you know, it's it's justit's sad that we keep coming
back to this.
Do you not remember this fight10 years ago?
Now they're benefiting.
(20:41):
We all need to we need to keepopening up the hood and looking
under the hood.
This thing's got to go.
SPEAKER_01 (20:46):
Yep.
And we need to start with thecore.
I mean, we need to go back toand and reread Diaping the Devil
and reread Hammond again.
We need to start at the corewith Alaska families.
The resources are great.
They're great for the for theimpact they can have on Alaska
families.
And and the PFD is central tothat in terms of distributing a
(21:06):
portion of that commonly heldwealth, making sure Alaska
families get it uh before beforethe the fights start about how
to diverting it to specialinterests.
We need to start at the corewith Alaska families and what
the impact is on Alaskafamilies.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (21:21):
Let's uh continue on here.
Brad Keithley, Alaskans fullsustainable budgets.
The weekly top three continueson with number two.
On with number two, which issomebody and some people are
trying to rewrite history.
What do you mean by that, Brad?
What do you mean they're tryingto rewrite the history?
What's what's going on here?
SPEAKER_01 (21:42):
So, Rebecca Logan, who's the executive director of
the uh Alaska uh industry uhalliance, uh, the term, the
brief term we used uh around thestate for to describe that group
as the alliance.
Rebecca Logan wrote uh a pieceuh in the landmine, uh the head
of the headline of which isAlaska's oil projects deliver
(22:05):
revenue and jobs we depend on.
And it's really sort of a itdoesn't identify it as such, but
it's sort of a rebuttal to apiece I wrote the week before,
uh pointing out that that theshare of revenues under SB21,
the share of revenues thatAlaskans are receiving, share of
growth revenues that Alaska'sAlaskans are receiving under
(22:28):
SB21 as it's playing out in itssecond decade is declining
significantly, not only from notonly from the sort of the
baseline of the prior period ofthe prior 10 years under SB21,
but also from the pre-ACESperiod, which is sort of what
people who were working on SB21back in the early 2010s said we
(22:50):
want to get back to.
We want to move back away fromACES back to where from where
ACES took us back over to wherewe were before ACES.
And and my column pointed out,or my article pointed out, that
we're not getting back toanything.
We're not even revenues undergross uh the Alaskan share of
gross revenues are decliningfurther under the second decade
(23:13):
of ACES, not or second decade ofSB21, uh not even reaching what
they were what they were in thefirst decade of SP21 and not
reaching what they were uh inthe in the pre-ACES period.
So, and pointing out that it'sthe provisions of SB21, the
various provisions of SB21 thatare causing that to occur, and
that we need to go in, we needto lift the hood under SB21 and
(23:37):
and and re-jigger it to get itback to where it was at least in
the first 10 years in terms ofthe amount of state revenue
being produced, uh, andre-jigger it and and make sure
that it works as it wasintended.
We recall the battle cry back in2013, 2014 when we were going
through the legislative sessionthat passed SP21 and then the
(24:00):
the initiative to undo SP21, therecall petition in 2014 to redo
SP21.
The battle cry was we're yes,we're taking a hit in terms of
production taxes from uh fromACEs, but don't worry about
that.
It's going to result inincreased production, and when
it results in increasedproduction, we're gonna have
increased revenues out of that.
(24:20):
And that and we're not and we'renot doing that.
We're in fact, as we've talkedon the show, production tax
revenues are going are goingdown significantly over this
decade and continue going downover the over the next decade.
So Rebecca wrote a response tothat and and and basically said
it doesn't address thefundamental argument of the
(24:41):
point of all tax reform was toincrease production, which we've
done, which we're doing in theprocess of doing, to increase
production, which would thenbenefit Alaska families.
Go back to the Hammond division,would benefit Alaska families by
increasing revenues to Alaskafamilies.
Her article really doesn't, hercommentary doesn't really uh
(25:03):
respond to that point.
What it says is that we'regetting some revenues.
We're getting we're gettingproduction taxes, we're getting
royalties, and and and we'regetting jams from from all of
this.
But it doesn't, it doesn't meetthe argument that was that that
that was raised in 2013 and2014, increased production is
(25:26):
going to mean increasedrevenues.
It doesn't meet that at all.
It just says, look, you'regetting some.
Be happy.
SPEAKER_00 (25:32):
You're getting some revenue.
Yeah.
When I read it, that's what mytakeaway was.
Oh, we should just be happywe're getting something was
essentially the gist of theentire article.
Not it didn't deliver on thepromises that we were supposedly
put on there, but hey, look, weare getting this and this and
this.
And you know, it's kind ofmisleading because other
projects always take more timeto get the money.
(25:54):
You know, I mean, it just itseems like excuse itis, is what
it seems like.
SPEAKER_01 (25:58):
Yeah, it's changed, it's changing, it's an attempt
to change the argument thatunderpinned SP21 back in 2013
and 2014, which is reducedproduction taxes for maces
levels will result in eachincreased production and will
benefit Alaska's throughincreased revenue.
It's trying to change thatargument.
(26:19):
It's trying to say, it's tryingto say the argument now is
reduced production taxes willresult in increased uh increased
uh production levels, which it'sdoing, and you'll get something
out of that.
You Alaskans will get somethingout of that.
Just be happy with what withwhatever you get out of that.
It's take it's trying to rewritehistory to write out the piece
(26:40):
where a you will benefit,benefit, you Alaskans will
benefit from from increasedrevenues along with along with
that uh increased production.
There's another thing, and thisgets into a little bit of the
weeds about why SB21 is isworking differently in its
second decade, but it it there'sa piece in here that says second
(27:00):
or third, the eight years withno production tax point talking
point is misleading.
Large projects everywhere,Alaska, Asia, Latin America,
North Sea, typically recovertheir spent development costs
before paying production taxes.
That's not entirely correct.
There's usually an amortizationof production taxes as opposed
to a complete recovery.
But but but what that art whatthat misses and what and what
(27:24):
she doesn't mention anywhere inthe commentary is the
compounding effect on top ofthat, on top of recovering your
production costs of what'scalled the gross value reduction
provision in SV21.
And what the gross valuereduction provision is
essentially doing as it kicks inis creating a seven-year
(27:47):
tax-free holiday for producerson new on new production.
Not a reduction in productiontaxes, but but essentially a
tax-free holiday uh over theover the first seven years.
That's not that's unlikeanything else that I've seen uh
in the international sector interms of in terms of incentives
(28:10):
for uh in terms of incentivesfor oil development.
So not only, I mean, the theargument is, well, you're just
you're we're we're getting whathappens internationally.
No, we're not.
We're giving what happensinternationally, basically.
Alaskans are giving what happensinternationally.
No, we're not.
We're giving more than that.
We're giving a can thiscompounding effect of the of the
(28:30):
G VR that's creating a hugeamount of production tax holiday
during the early years of the ofthe production cycle on these
fields.
And that's when most of theproduction occurs.
You and I talked on a on theshow before that 75% of PICA,
the projected peak of productionuh is going to occur before
(28:54):
production taxes ever kick in.
Uh seven years down the road,eight years down the road.
So it's this defense is youknow, you're getting something,
be happy.
Well, we're not getting Alaskansto go back to the Hammond, the
Hammond visions.
Let's start with Alaskans.
Alaskans are not getting whatthey were promised in 2013 and
(29:16):
2014.
And we need to go in.
We don't need to, we don't needto go back to ACEs.
Nobody's arguing about goingback to ACES, but we need to go
in and we need to revise SB21 toensure that Alaskans get what
they were promised at the timethat they, at the time that the
legislature voted for SB21 andat the time that Alaskans
(29:37):
defeated the effort to undoSB21.
SPEAKER_00 (29:39):
Well, I mean, this is no surprise that Rebecca,
Rebecca Logan from the Allianceis making these arguments
because that's what she getspaid for, right?
I mean, they are looking out fortheir best interest.
That's what they that's whatcompanies are supposed to do
when they're in these kind of uhthings.
They're supposed to argue fromtheir best position for their
shareholders.
So kudos to her.
Unfortunately.
(30:00):
Unfortunately, like you said,she's only telling about half
the story and spinning it justthe right way.
And shame on us if we take it atcomplete and total face value.
I mean, again, I don't rememberwho it was that said it, but
somebody has said that we shouldbe looking under the hood every
10 years at oil.
I think it was Stedman actuallythat said something along the
lines of we should open crack itopen and look at it every 10
(30:20):
years to make sure that it'sworking the way that it was
intended for both parties.
And yet every time we starttalking about this, the the
industry, the alliance, the theAoga, the all the other, you
know, all the other differententities, they all start
screaming bloody murder, like,and we're gonna take our toys
and go.
To which I say, okay, you know,if that's what you want to do,
(30:42):
but we we have a finiteresource.
We should all be getting what wedeserve in that regard.
SPEAKER_01 (30:47):
Well, we should all be getting at least what was
promised in that regard, right?
I mean, SB21, the industrywasn't shy.
When when when ACES was puttinginvestment away from Alaska and
was disincentivizing developmentin Alaska, the industry wasn't
shy about standing up andsaying, look, we got to change.
This has gone wrong.
(31:09):
This this oil tax regime isgoing wrong.
We need to change it.
And they weren't shy aboutpushing for that, and they
weren't shy about uh aboutadvocating for that.
Well, now the SP 21 regime hasgone wrong in terms of what it's
delivering for Alaskans.
It's not delivering the promiseof 2013 and 14 that if we
increase that that we will thatwe will reduce production taxes,
(31:32):
that'll result in an increase inproduction levels, and it will
result the the the you know,sort of the back-end piece for
Alaskans, it will result inincreased revenues for Alaska.
It's not.
It's resulting in some revenues,yes, but it's not resulting in
increased revenues for Alaska.
You can see that from easilyfrom both the 10-year revenue
(31:53):
forecast from DOR and from theanalysis that DOR did of the
Pika and Willow fields.
It's not increasing revenue forAlaska.
And it's the compounding effect.
It's the compounding, we we gavea lot.
I mean, we we created a lot ofincentives, a lot of different
incentives.
Sort of, it was sort of like,you know, throw it on the wall
and see what works in terms ofincentives to get to get dollars
(32:16):
coming back into Alaska.
And we threw a bunch ofincentives on the wall.
And now what's happening isthey're having this compounding
effect of reducing revenues,reducing tax revenues uh below
the levels, uh, below the levelsthat they were.
SPEAKER_00 (32:31):
It remind me, wasn't there something well, because we
were throwing a lot of stuff atthe wall to see what would
stick.
Wasn't there some conversationabout one time when they
basically said, well, you know,we'll just try it.
And if it doesn't work, we canalways come back, right?
We can always re you know,wasn't there always a discussion
of this can be changed in thefuture if it doesn't work out
quite right?
I seem to remember some kind ofconversation about that.
(32:52):
And yet when we come back aroundto revisit, they're like, you
can't do that.
SPEAKER_01 (32:56):
Yeah, let's it there was a conversation like that in
2013.
I I want to say it was Machethat was saying that in 2013,
uh, during the legislativecycle.
But also there was that sameconversation.
When did we go through when didwe have that um uh initiative to
try to un to try to change theoil tax code?
In 2020 or 2022, my my memory.
(33:20):
2020, I think.
All right.
Whenever it was, we had peoplethen, and I and I remember the
chairman of Doyan or thepresident of Doyan specifically
saying this look, if it doesn'twork, we'll change it.
We'll be we'll be among thefirst advocates for changing it.
If it's not if it's notresulting in in what in what you
know the statute, what what thegoals were in 2013 and 14, we'll
(33:42):
be among the first advocates forchanging that.
Never heard from them againsince.
Yeah, but we can see but we canclearly see the revenues going
down.
So it's it's yeah, we're gettingrevenues, yeah, we're getting
jobs, but we're not getting whatwe were promised in 2013 and 14.
SPEAKER_00 (33:59):
Brian's comment is maybe you should be happy you
are getting something shouldbecome the tagline of the Juno
clown posse.
That should you and that's kindof what they've said along the
whole lines, right?
I mean, you've got a robust$1,000 PFD, right?
You've got a robust PFD.
That was Natasha von Treggithere that dropped that little
(34:22):
bomb on us, you know.
Oh, your PFD is robust.
Thank you.
Thank you, Calvin, Calvin vonImhoff, uh, for your uh for your
gracious gift to us, the uhcommunity.
Uh, but yeah, maybe we shouldjust be happy we're getting
something, should be the newbattle cry of the legislature.
SPEAKER_01 (34:42):
And that's what they're that's what they're
trying to tell us.
We should be happy we're gettingthe PFD we're getting.
Oh, aren't you lucky?
I mean, as opposed to Hammond'svision, uh, we start with the
PFD.
That's every Alaska family'sshare of the commonly held
wealth.
Period.
End of statement.
But we're gonna make sure thateverybody gets something before
we before we you know use therest of it off on all these on
(35:05):
all the special interests.
And Hammond went through a listof special interests that he
anticipated would would wouldgrab for it, and sure enough,
they've been grabbing for it.
But but you know, instead ofthat, instead of that vision,
and and and in 2013 and 14,we're gonna get, you know, as as
the industry gets increasedproduction and increased
revenues from that increasedproduction, we're gonna get an
(35:26):
increased uh uh same share.
Our share of that of that ofthose revenues are gonna are
gonna go up as well.
Asking share of those revenuesare gonna go up as well.
Now you're you're you know,Brian's exactly right.
Now it's be happy.
Be happy you're gettinganything.
Be happy you're getting theportion of the PFD of the of the
of the commonly owned wealth.
Be happy you're getting thechair of it you're getting, be
(35:48):
happy you're getting you knowthe alliance, be happy you're
getting any revenues, be happyyou're getting jobs.
Just just just take it.
Just just be satisfied with whatyou're getting.
And um, and that's I mean,that's just 180 degrees out of
out of sync that we're havingstarted this.
SPEAKER_00 (36:03):
That makes me think of close your eyes and think of
England, dear.
I mean, that's what it feelslike sometimes is just close
your eyes and think of England.
Uh, you know, be happy that thatthis is all we're doing to you,
kind of thing.
I I mean, that's what it feelslike.
Uh and again, going back to whatyou were first talking about
with all this different, youknow, machinations of the
special interests, you know, belucky that we give you any of
(36:25):
this and we should be doing itbecause we know better than you
how all that money should bespent, and you couldn't possibly
make your own decisions with it.
Only we in our infinite wisdomcan create the programs that
will make your life better.
SPEAKER_01 (36:38):
Yeah.
And and and you know, to go backto the first segment again, I
all the candidates are buyinginto that.
All the candidates are buyinginto that.
I mean, the candidates heresaying, oh, additional oil
development, that'll do it.
Additional resource development,that'll do it.
Have they looked the revenues atthe impact on Alaskans of
(36:58):
additional resource developmentunder the oil code?
Additional oil developmentactually takes actually reduces
production taxes even furtherbecause it keeps generating all
of those additional deductionsand credits out there that that
compounding deductions andcredits that uh SB21 provides
for.
Have they looked at what thatreally does to Alaskans?
Have they looked at the mineralcode and see the minute share of
(37:23):
mineral revenues that Alaskansget out of that?
It's just like, you know, behappy you're having some
activity in your state.
Hammond's vision was we startwith Alaska families, we start
with worrying about them first,and and then, you know, all that
stuff, all the rest of stuff isfor the benefit of Alaska
families.
Resource development is for thebenefit of Alaska families.
(37:46):
Start at that core.
Now it seems like all of thosethings are the center of the
universe.
And Alaska families just sort ofbe happy.
You're getting any part of itbecause the because the center
of the universe is resourcedevelopment.
That's that's really what wewant.
You're the center of thereforce, center of the universe
is the capital budget.
That's really what we want todo.
And a lot and and I'll tell youhow that sort of benefits Alaska
(38:07):
family somewhere along the way.
It's backwards.
We've got this backwards.
SPEAKER_00 (38:12):
Yeah.
Um, Leila just said, in the1960s, my parents paid 25% of
their income to the state, andthe state provided almost no
services, some wildlifemanagement, boarding schools for
village students, and really badroads.
That's our future if we try andfund the state on income taxes.
That's exactly where we'reheaded.
Only with the current servicelevel of state, income taxes
will need to be considerablymore than 25%, and good luck
(38:34):
living on what's left after thefeds take that cut, too.
SPEAKER_01 (38:38):
No, no.
Income taxes don't need to be25%.
Income taxes, it depends on howyou do them.
Sales taxes would be about twoto three percent.
I think um uh uh uh BenCarpenter's sales tax was two or
three percent.
I can't remember which.
Yeah.
Sales taxes would need to beabout that level to cover the
(38:58):
deficit.
Income taxes would need to beabout four to five percent.
What people don't understand isthat is that when you tax, a big
portion of the revenue you'reyou're generating through tax is
coming from non-residents, 10 to15 percent, depending upon how
you structure the tax.
And that's reducing the burdenon Alaska families, and it's
(39:19):
broadening the base so that theoverall level of tax needed
across that broader base is muchlower than uh than people
speculate.
So I mean it's a scare monscaremongering to start talking
about 25% taxes.
That's not that's not what'srequired.
SPEAKER_00 (39:35):
Okay, uh, we're continuing one final segment.
Brad Keithly, our guest.
We got about uh eight, nineminutes here for number three,
uh, which is a whole lot of toolittle, too late from the
governor.
All of a sudden he's gonna starttalking tough.
Uh, Brad, what do you got here?
SPEAKER_01 (39:54):
So in the last week, the governor did uh a veto of
the uh out-of-state business taxthat uh the internet tax that
had passed the legislature withwith fairly healthy majorities,
not veto-proof majorities, butfairly healthy majorities.
Uh and the governor uh uh vetoedthat, uh, saying he's not going
(40:17):
to engage in sort of this one ata time tax uh tax uh policy.
Uh he's only going to do it inconnection with a total fiscal
plan and put together a totalfiscal plan.
If you want to do these taxes,you need to do it as part of a
total fiscal plan.
Um and referred again to youknow this hope, this this letter
(40:39):
that he put out at the end oflast session saying, I want a
joint fiscal plan team betweenthe administration and the
legislature.
The problem with this is thegovernor has not come to the
table with his part of the ofthe fiscal plan.
He got very, very close in 2023,sort of as a follow-up to the
(41:01):
2021 uh uh uh legislative,fiscal policy working group.
They came up with a bunch ofrecommendations.
The governor in 2023, during the2023 legislature came,
legislative session came very,very close.
A uh article from April 27th,2023, headlined long and
opponent of tax hikes.
(41:22):
Alaska Governor Mike Dunley nowbelieves they are needed.
Uh, says Alaska governor, AlaskaGovernor Mike Dunley, once a
staunch opponent of taxincreases, said Thursday that
they are now a core part of anylong-term fiscal plan.
Speaking in a news conference,the governor said that there's a
broad recognition in thelegislature and in his office
that the state can no longerrely on commodities such as oil
(41:43):
to balance the state's budget.
Dunley confirmed prior reportsthat he intends to propose a
statewide sales tax, saying workon the proposal could be done
today or Friday.
It was not clear when this ideawould be introduced in the
legislature.
Dunley said I would start offwith a low percentage of sales
tax, probably one percent.
And the reason I say that isit's really about stabilizing uh
(42:07):
our fiscals instead of raiseinstead of raising new revenues
was the was the context of that.
The governor almost came to thetable in 2023 with with his aunt
into the game of how we weregoing to resolve the state's
fiscal situation.
But then he backed off.
That never got introduced.
(42:31):
That he was speaking, it nevergot introduced.
And he since backed off, andthey've since made comments
about various other uh revenueproposals that had been put on
the table in 2021 by uh his umuh commissioner of revenue were
no longer on the table, and orshe had misspoken about talking
about those revenue options.
I mean, they just backedcompletely away from that.
(42:54):
So when the governor talks nowabout about you know the leg
we're I'm not gonna approve theinternet tax or any other taxes
on a standalone basis, then wehave a complete fiscal plan.
Well, the governor's got to cometo the table with his ante as
part of that fiscal plan.
And he laid it out.
I mean, if you want to know whatthat ante is, if if if the
governor's people are watchingand want to know what the hell
(43:16):
I'm talking about, it's 2023.
Live up to what you said youwere gonna do in 2023.
Once you come to the table withthat, then you've got the
ability to say, okay, any otherideas?
And and the ability to say,look, I'm willing to put this on
the table, but we're also gonnahave a spending cap and other
things uh associated with it.
(43:37):
Until he does that, he's justhe's he's part of the problem.
He's not part of the solution.
This one-off, this one-off vetoof efforts that the legislature
is making to build pieces of afiscal plan because vetoing them
because they're not a wholefiscal plan is just is part of
the problem.
I mean, what happens is thelegislature says, hey, what if
(43:59):
we do this and and raiseadditional revenues this way?
Governor says, no, it's not partof the total fiscal plan.
What happens in the nextlegislature?
More PFD cuts.
He's just we're we're backingcontinually into deeper and
deeper PFD cuts the longer weput this off.
Governor was there.
If we're if he's really seriousabout about this, about having a
(44:22):
fiscal plan, if he's reallyserious about bringing this
together, he needs to put thatback on the table.
He needs to go back to where hewas in 2023 and put that back on
the table.
You know, Ben Carpenter pickedup on that and tried to push
that in the legislature, triedto push that as sales tax in the
legislature.
And he got out in front and hegot shot by being out in front
(44:43):
because the governor backed offof it uh uh after after making
that statement.
So you're gonna find it.
SPEAKER_00 (44:52):
Yeah, no, he tried to take it even further because
he was very clear.
This has to be part of a full afull fiscal plan.
He wasn't advocating just for atax in and of itself.
He was saying he took thegovernor's call and said, we
need to do it as a full fiscalplan.
This is just part of it.
And they still riddled him fullof bullets, right?
I mean, that was, you know, thatwas the thing.
I don't I don't think thatthere's any political will to
(45:14):
deal with any of this in thelegislature.
They're gonna ride this blimpright into the ground, is what
they're gonna do.
SPEAKER_01 (45:20):
Yep, maybe so.
But if the governor's seriousabout leading on this issue,
which he says he is, if thegovernor is serious about
stepping forward and and asgovernor, as governors are
supposed to do, making thingshappen, making the government
function, making it work, asgovernors are supposed to do to
do that, uh, if he's reallyserious about doing that, he
(45:42):
needs to go back and get a holdof his 2023 self.
Um and and and fulfill thepromise he made then about it
was gonna be on the table uh byFriday of that week.
I mean, evidently they'vewritten it, or evidently they've
written most of it.
Um and and if you don't, if ifyou've lost that draft, go pick
up Ben's uh because he hadwritten it in legislation and
(46:02):
and use that.
Put that on the table and say,okay, this is part of how we're
gonna go forward.
I'm gonna couple it with thespending cap and this stuff and
that stuff, and and and and andstart taking the initiative to
get this resolved as opposed tositting back and just kicking
off the legislature one at atime.
There's not only not only nowill in the legislature to solve
(46:24):
this thing because you're gonnaget shot by the governor if you
do, or or you're not gonna getbacked up by the governor if you
do, Ben Carpenter's experience.
There's not only no will in thelegislature to do this, there's
no will in the governor's officeto do this.
I mean, he's just sitting backand picking off the
legislature's efforts at atsingle shots one at a time, uh,
uh saying they aren't part of acomplete plan.
(46:44):
We were there in 2023.
Go back, go back there if youwill, if you really want to
solve this.
SPEAKER_00 (46:52):
Uh all right, Brad Keithley, final thoughts here.
We're about 90 seconds uh finalthoughts on this week's top
three.
SPEAKER_01 (46:58):
We need a Hammond.
We need a Hammond that putsAlaska families first.
You know, just like Donald Trumpsays we need to put Americans
first, we need we need somebodyin this state that we're gonna
put Alaska families first, notthe Alaska resource industry,
not the Alaska capital budget,not this, not that.
We're gonna start with Alaskafamilies, just like Hammond did.
We're gonna make sure that theyhave a share of the commonly
(47:19):
held wealth.
And then we're gonna we're gonnabuild out from there.
But we're gonna start in thebeginning with Alaska families,
and we're gonna think about whatbenefits Alaska families as
opposed to all these otherspecial interests who then come
in with back-end stories about,oh, well, I think this benefits
Alaska families.
This way.
SPEAKER_00 (47:37):
Are we gonna find somebody like that?
Is the question, Brad, though.
I mean, right?
I mean, I have some hopes, but Imean, I just don't know if we
have enough time to changepeople's, you know, to change
the direction or hearts andminds or whatever.
I'm doing my best, but even someof the candidates that I'm
encouraged by are not seeing thefull vision of what you're
talking about.
And that is that is a problem.
(47:57):
All right, Brad.
Well, um, don't lose hope, myfriend.
We could just keep we just keeppumping the pump.
That's all we can do, right?
SPEAKER_01 (48:05):
Yeah, well, yeah.
I mean, it's we can keeppointing out the issues.
But what I think, what I thinkwe're doing on this program is
pointing out the issues andpointing out where where things
are things are going wrong.
I mean, the industry, the oldindustry said with SP21, look,
Alaskans are gonna benefit inthis way.
You're gonna you're gonna get asproduction levels increase,
(48:26):
revenues are gonna increase as aresult of the way the production
production tax is gonna work.
It hasn't happened.
Alaskans didn't get what theygot.
So, you know, we're gonna keepcalling out when when when that
happens and pointing out how youactually put Alaskans first.
As opposed to all of these, allof these special interests out
there.
SPEAKER_00 (48:46):
Well, that would be unique.
Putting Alaskans first, that'suh I mean, I'm sure they say
that to themselves, but at thesame time they're at the
cocktail parties with all thetop 20% donors, and they're
like, Oh, yes, we're we'reputting Alaskans first, just uh
hand me another caveat.
SPEAKER_01 (49:01):
So or or like or like the mayor didn't and said,
Well, there's nobody in thisroom that needs a dividend.
So y'all y'all know what I'msaying, right?
SPEAKER_00 (49:11):
Yeah, y'all know what I'm saying.
So we don't really care aboutthe PFD.
We're just saying it because youknow we need to for election
purposes.
Um, all right.
Well, it is what it is.
All right, Brad.
Thank you so much for coming onboard.
We appreciate it.
Uh, thanks for being part of ittoday.
Absolutely, Michael.
See you later.
SPEAKER_01 (49:30):
Well, that's a wrap for another week's edition of
the weekly top three fromAlaskans for Sustainable
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 theweek on Facebook and Twitter.
This has been Brad Keithley,Managing Director of Alaskans
(49:51):
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.