The Weekly Top 3 (11.17.2025)

Welcome to The Weekly Top 3 — our look at the top 3 things on our mind here at Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets — for the week of November 17, 2025.

This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) we discuss why revenues — where the money is supposed to come from — should be an equal part of the discussion of the Legislature’s Task Force on Education Funding (2:15); 2) we explain why the Alaska fiscal policy debate sounds a lot like two kids fighting: it’s your fault, no, it’s your fault (19:24); and 3) we explain why the pre-session “priorities” discussions between local bodies and their legislators should be a two-way conversation, which includes a segment on “who pays” (37:51).

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

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_01 (00:10):
Hi, this is Brad Keithly, Managing Director of
Alaskans for SustainableBudgets.
Welcome to the Weekly Top Three,the Top Three Things on Our Mind
here at Alaskans for SustainableBudgets for the week of November
17th, 2025.
The Weekly Top Three is aregular segment on the Michael
Duke Show.
The show broadcasts on bothFacebook Live and YouTube Live,

(00:32):
as well as via streaming audiofrom the show's website,
weekdays from 6 to 8 a.m.
I join Michael weekly in thefirst hour of Tuesday show from
6.10 to 7 a.m.
for a discussion between the twoof us about our three issues.
We post the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, YouTube,

(00:54):
SoundCloud, Spotify, andSubstack pages, also on the
Alaskans for Sustainable Budgetswebsite, as well as the
project's page on national blogsite, 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 follow andparticipate in the discussion
with us of these and otherissues affecting Alaska's fiscal
and economic condition byfollowing us on the Alaskans for
Sustainable Budgets Facebookpage and through our posts on
Twitter.
This week, our top three issuesare these.
First, we discuss why revenues,where the money is supposed to

(01:39):
come from, should be an equalpart of the discussion of the
legislature's task force oneducation funding.
Second, we explain why theAlaska fiscal policy debate
sounds a lot like two kidsfighting.
It's your fault?
No, it's your fault.
No, it's your fault.
And third, we explain why thepre-session priorities

(02:02):
discussions between local bodiesand their legislators should be
a two-way conversation, whichincludes a segment on who pays.
And now, let's join Michael.

SPEAKER_00 (02:23):
This week we start off with a discussion on the
education task force.
What is the needed discussion?
Now, I will full caveat beforewe get started.
I feel like the I feel like theeducation task force is nothing
more than political cover.
They've already decided what theoutcome is that they want.
Now they're just looking to getpolitical cover to justify it.
But Brad, tell me what you thinkthis should, the dis big

(02:44):
discussion should be.

SPEAKER_01 (02:45):
Well, the education task force had another meeting
last week, and it was, asyou're, as you're describing it,
mostly political cover for whythey need to increase uh uh uh
K-12 spending uh and where andand various justifications, you
know, witness after witnessafter witness about various
justifications for why they needto increase it.

(03:07):
But there was one slide in themidst of this entire
presentation.
There was one slide that slippedin um that that talked about the
revenue side.
If they're gonna increasespending, or even if they're
gonna maintain the spendingthey've already increased to
last session, where the heck arethe revenues gonna come from?
And that's not been that's beenthe exception rather than the

(03:30):
rule in terms of in terms ofdiscussions by the task force so
far.
But in Matt Berman'spresentation from ICER, there
was one slide that slipped inthat uh essentially talked about
the revenue side.
And I found it interesting, andI think it's a I think it's a
focal point that that needs tobe the focal point of and an

(03:51):
equal focal point.
Revenues need to be where therevenue is going to come from,
needs to be an equal focal pointwith you know where what do we
need to be spending and where dowe need to be spending it.
Um and this one slide I justfound I found interesting.
It is it is sort of a follow-upto a discussion we had on a
previous show a few weeks ago,um, but it sort of encapsulates

(04:15):
it uh in one uh in one slide.
Matt was going through what whatthis slide is part of.
Matt was going through apresentation on how Alaska
compares to the the rest of thestates, um, to the United States
generally, in terms of mostly interms of spending level, mostly
in terms of uh spending levelper student and and all sorts of

(04:38):
uh criteria.
But this one slide gets in thereum uh talking about uh the
revenue side.
And it is it it sort ofencapsulates the problem we
have.
Alaska, the headline of it isAlaska relies more on state
revenue sources and less onlocal funding than schools uh

(04:59):
nationwide.
And it compares, it uses thelatest census data that we've
got, uh, Census Bureau data onschool uh school funding, both
the revenue side and thespending side, uses the latest
uh census data that we got tobreak down um uh uh revenue
levels into three categoriesfederal, state, and local.

(05:21):
Um and it shows Alaska on theleft-hand side what the revenue
sources are for Alaska on the onthe left-hand side.
And it shows what the U.S.
average is uh on the uh on theright hand side.
And the numbers are are starklydifferent.
On the Alaska side, uh 22% ofAlaska revenues in the latest

(05:41):
census numbers, the 2023 censusnumbers, 22% of Alaska's
revenues for schools comes fromthe federal, uh comes from
federal sources.
On the U.S.
average side, only 13% comesfrom uh federal sources.
So that's one difference.
The big difference, though, thatI want to talk about is that is
the the the relationship betweenlocal funding and state funding.

(06:05):
On the Alaska side, uh 55% ofall school funding comes from
the state.
On the federal, on the on theU.S.
average side, only 45%, 10% lessthan Alaska uh comes from the
state.
Uh on the on the Alaska side, uh23% comes from local sources.

(06:26):
23% of all funding comes fromlocal sources.
On the U.S.
average side, 43% comes from uhcomes from local service
sources, 20% higher uh than onAlaska.
The way I look at this, take outfederal and look what the
division between the state andthe and and the localities are,

(06:47):
the the source of funding comingfrom the state and the
localities.
On the U.S.
average level, it's 45 state, 43local, about even, about 50%, a
little over 50% coming from thestate side, a little under 50%
coming from the local side, butwhen you round them about 50-50
between state and local.
On Alaska, it's more than two toone.

(07:10):
Um uh it's more than two to thantwo to one on the state side
versus the local side.
The local side uh is uh uh issignificantly uh less.
And on a on a total average,let's see, between the two, uh
75%, according to the latestnumbers, 70, 75 percent is

(07:30):
coming, 76 percent is comingfrom Alaska, 24% or come from
the state side, 24% coming fromthe local side.
Some people look at this andsay, well, you can't really do
that because Alaska's got theREAAs.
It's got the it's got thoseschool districts that the that
the state funds entirely, andthat's what's distorting the
percentage.

(07:51):
That's not true.
I did a calculation, I ran acalculation using the state's
numbers uh and excluded theREAAs um and and took those out
of the calculation, and it'sstill 71% between the two,
between state and local, it'sstill 71% uh state funding and
roughly 30%, 20, 29 um uh localfunding.

(08:14):
So the ratio of dominant statefunding to local funding um uh
exists even after you take uhtake out the REAAs.
The reason is the REAAs reallydon't take that much money, and
so they don't distort theoverall percentages uh all that
much, even though they'retotally funded, even though
they're totally funded by thestate.

(08:35):
Here's the thing that that Iwant to focus on.
When a lot of people like tosay, oh, Alaska's funding its
schools at a lower level thanthe than the national average.
It's doing, you know, it's doingthis or it's doing that compared
to the national average.
Well, if we're gonna use that, Imean if if if if that's good for
looking at the at the spendingside, it ought to be good for

(08:56):
looking at the revenue side.
And Alaska is is is utilizinglocal revenues to a lot lower
extent than nationally.
That drives a lot of things.
When when when the localitiesdon't have to pick up a big part
of the tab of spending, whenit's all essentially to them

(09:17):
free money coming coming fromthe state, they're not very cost
conscious.
When they don't have to go totheir constituents and explain,
oh, we need more funding forthis or we need more funding for
that.
If if you want to do uh if youwant to build a new building or
if you want to expand programs,we're gonna need to increase the
uh local taxes.
They don't have to, they don'texperience that pushback that
goes on um at the nationallevel.

(09:40):
And and so when you when youalso talk about consolidation, I
mean I'm uh my mother lives inIllinois.
I spend a lot of time here nowwith her.
Um there's a there's a lotbigger local funding share in
Illinois than there is inAlaska.
And so you have consolidation ofschool districts in Illinois.
I mean, the localities have toface up to the fact that they

(10:01):
don't have enough revenue basewithin their within these
smaller school districts anymoreto uh to sustain themselves.
So they consolidate.
So they have to consolidate withnearby with with adjacent school
districts and build biggerschool districts that that that
have that have that bigger taxbase and can and can pay for the
type of schools that that peoplewant.
We don't have that pressure inAlaska because the state's

(10:24):
funding for it.
So the local school boardsessentially say, yeah, you know,
I well, we'll just go to thestate and lobby for more money.
We don't need to worry about thespending side.
We need to worry about therevenue side.
I mean, we'll spend everythingwe can get, and the revenue's
coming from the state largely.
So we need to focus, uh, we needto focus on lobbying the state.
That's where the that's wherethe revenues are.

(10:46):
We don't need to worry aboutselling it to our local
constituents because, and wedon't need to, and we don't have
any pushback from our localconstituents because the bulk of
the funding is coming from thestate.
So I think this slide and andthe issue of where are the
revenues going to come from uhin terms of funding not only the

(11:07):
increases that the task force ispushing for, but also just the
base funding, uh, I think thisslide should be, you know, sort
of its own presentation or itsown session around where what
the revenues are going to be andhow we're going to raise these
revenues.
And if and if looking atnational averages is good on the

(11:28):
spending side, it ought to begood on the revenue side.
And we ought to focus on if youwant to raise additional
revenues, it needs to be, itneeds to come from the from the
local level.
And let's talk about how we'regoing, how we're going to do
that.

SPEAKER_00 (11:40):
Now, part of this problem, of course, deals with
the uh the equity thing that thefederal government has put on us
over the PILT, right?
The payment in lieu of taxes andthings like that.
And so many of these places haveare capped.
They can't spend anymore locallybecause of this federal rule,
because we see we receive, what,$100 million or something,$124

(12:01):
million from the federalgovernment in payment in lieu of
taxes.
And to get that money, they say,okay, well, then you can't have
any disparity between what youspend in one district and
another up to a certain point.
And so we've got some placeswhere they're spending locally,
they're put they're contributingalmost to the cap.
Uh, and most places are arespending a significant amount

(12:22):
towards their cap, 75% plus.
But according, if we keep takingthis federal money, we can't
increase the local contributionanymore.

SPEAKER_01 (12:30):
So we're like the last state that takes federal
money, that uses federal moneyin this way.
It's not it's not that thefederal money doesn't come to
Alaska if we if we if we stopdoing the way we're doing it.
It's that the fed, it's that thefederal money will go to the
districts that that that arethat are creating the
entitlement to this money orcreating the the the claim on

(12:53):
this money, it will go directlyto those districts as opposed to
as opposed to coming through thestate.
If it doesn't come through thestate, if the state isn't the
one that's acting as the flowthrough, uh then the disparity
test, the federal disparity testgoes away.
And as I say, we are the laststate that is doing it this way,
and the last state that'ssubject to uh the disparity

(13:13):
test.
I think, I think it's time for,again, if we're going to compare
Alaska to the rest of thenation, I think it's time for
Alaska to be like the rest ofthe nation and and back off from
using the federal uh pilt moneyuh in the way we're using it.
And and the way we're using itis it's coming into the state,
and the state gets to back offwhat it's spending by

(13:35):
substituting the pilt money uhuh for uh uh for state revenues.
If we as part of the redesign,we say, okay, look, we need to
be more like the nationalaverage.
If we're gonna be more like thenational average on the spending
side, we need to be more likethe national average on the
revenue side.
And if if we as part of theredesign of this, uh uh we can

(13:55):
say, okay, the PILT money isgoing to go direct to those
districts.
A number of those districts thatthat that generate the Pilt
money or that create theentitlement to the PILT money
are the REAAs.
So that money would go direct tothe REAAs and and and would
reduce the amount that the stateis having to pay uh to the REAAs
because they would start gettingfederal money um directly.

(14:17):
So I it's it's part of the it'spart of the calculation, but
it's not a reason, it's not areason to keep this disparity
between the localities and thestate uh in place.
Other places have done away withit.
We can do away with it as aswell.

SPEAKER_00 (14:32):
Brad, Keith Lee, Alaska's for sustainable
budgets, the weekly top three.
Now, um, well, quick quickly,Brad, 30 seconds.
What do you think the chancesare that the education committee
actually takes anything, any alook at this in any way, shape,
or form?

SPEAKER_01 (14:47):
Maybe, maybe low, but I think it's an issue that
we ought to keep pressing.
I mean, what what they want todo is they want all of the
gravy, right?
They want all of the let's lookat the let's look at the
national average and we ought tobe like the national average.
Well, the pushback on that, partof the pushback on that needs to
be if you want to look at thenational average, let's look at
the national average on the onthe revenue side also.

SPEAKER_00 (15:07):
Donna says, I agree with Brad.
Every other state, Don Arduin inthe chat room.
Uh Harold said, where are yougoing to get your local
contributions in rural Alaska?
That was the whole point, wasthat the federal monies go
straight to rural Alaska in lieuof the local contributions,
right, Brad?

SPEAKER_01 (15:24):
Well, some of the REAA money goes to like
Anchorage and Fairbanks becauseof the uh the airport, because
of the military bases.
But it it follows where federallands are.
So those districts that havelarge federal lands would have a
large influx of the of the PILTmoney.
I'm I've not done an analysis ofwhere that shows up by district,
but it in some of the REAAdistricts, it shows up that way.

(15:46):
In terms of, in terms of the interms of Western Alaska, where's
the local contribution going tocome from?
Well, you know, they could usesales taxes to generate
revenues, local sales taxes togenerate revenues as opposed to
as opposed to property taxes.
There's there's a number ofways.
And then, as I said, inIllinois, one of the pressures
that results from that isconsolidation of districts,

(16:06):
reduction of administrativecosts, reduction of overhead
costs through consolidation.
So it would force the localdistricts, not only in the urban
areas, but also in the ruralareas, to look at how they're
doing things and and look at atreducing the cost structure of
what they've got in thosedistricts.
Absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 (16:24):
You know, Brad, the problem is that I am um, yeah,
I'm I I the problem is thatthey've already decided, I
think, what they want to do.
And now they're just that that'sreally the the whole impetus and
the whole appearance of thiswhole education task force thing
so far has been they don't wantany outside testimony.

(16:45):
It's all industry insiders andmunicipal, you know, municipal
league and all these other kindof guys, and it's all just
pushing for we need more.
Um and it's I don't thinkthere's really any deeper
analysis going on, and that'sthat's where I think that this
falls apart.
I agree with you, but I justdon't think that they're that
interested in looking at it.

SPEAKER_01 (17:03):
Well, there's two, there's a couple of things I'd
say, Michael.
One, we've got Cronk andRuffridge on the task force,
right?
And I would look to them to atleast raise the issue.
Maybe it's not an issue that'sraised by those who are pushing
for for more spending, but Cronkand Ruffridge are on the task
force.
And and and I would think thatwe should look to them to uh to
raise the revenue issue.

(17:23):
Ruffridge did in one of theearlier sessions, briefly.
Uh, but I think you know, as asmembers of the task force, they
have the right to ask questionsand have the right to to to
press on that issue.
The other is I I don't know thatwe've got a unified position uh
from from all of the specialinterests about about funding.
I mean, a AML, the AlaskaMunicipal League, testified in

(17:45):
favor of eliminating the caps onlocal funding, essentially
dealing with the disparity testby eliminating the state's use
of that, of that at the statelevel, eliminating the state's
use of those federal funds.
And and so I think there theremight be some support, even
among the special interests, uh,to uh to go to uh uh to go to

(18:05):
bigger uh local presence, localfunding on uh on education.

SPEAKER_00 (18:10):
Brad Keithley, Alaska's for sustainable
budgets, the weekly top three.
Um sorry, I'm just thinking, I'mjust I'm just I'm thinking how
how can we how can we get thisto Cronk and Ruffridge and guys
like that?
How can we show them this?
I I don't know.
I know Mike Kronk watches theshow occasionally, um, but I I I

(18:30):
I really wish that they wouldget into this.
Now you did say something, and Ididn't want people to hear what
you didn't say.
Rick said, Brad, quote, we don'tneed to worry about spending,
unquote, Brad, Brad, Brad.
Really?
That's not really what you weresaying, right?
You were saying that they weretalking about the comparative of
U.S.
average spending.
That's what you were talkingabout.
Yeah, I mean, they're focusingon spending.

SPEAKER_01 (18:51):
I'm not, um, people will worry about spending.
It's who worries about spending.
I want, I I think, I think wewould benefit as a state if we
pushed the who worries aboutspending levels down to the
local level.
If if you had to, if if thelocal school board members had
to look their uh their neighborsin the eye when they go to the
grocery store and and theneighbors are gonna have to pay

(19:13):
for that increased spending thatthe school board's pushing for,
I think we have a lot differentresult than uh than than we do
under the under the currentsystem.
So it's who pays for thespending is the big issue.
All right.

SPEAKER_00 (19:24):
Continuing now, Brad Keithly is our guest.
And this sounds like it's goingon number two of the weekly top
three.
Sounds like it's my house.
It's your fault.
No, it's my fault.
No, it's my fault.
No, it's your fault.
No, it's Brad.
What do you mean?
It's that we're we're playingthe back and forth game.
What's what's going on here?
Is it your fault, Brad, or is itmy fault?

SPEAKER_01 (19:43):
There was a there was an article in that I didn't
see anyplace else in the JuneauEmpire.
Um, and it was a report on apresentation gave by the Juneau
delegation, the the Juneau uhJesse Keel, the Juneau senator,
and Andy Story, I think it was,one of the representatives to
the Juneau Chamber of Commerce.
The headline of the story iswhat does the future hold for

(20:06):
the permanent fund dividend?
And of course, that immediatelygot my attention.
Um, and it's it's reallyreporting on what Keel said
about that issue uh at this atthis presentation.
Um I've heard the phrase, sohere's here's the the parts of
it, the part of the article thatI found interesting.
Keel said last year he wasdisappointed that the governor

(20:27):
did not release a more realisticbudget proposal, one that
wouldn't need to be drasticallyrewritten by the legislature.
Last week he said manylegislatures doubt that the new
plan will be substantiallydifferent, but he's choosing to
remain hopeful.
I've heard the phrase a leopardcan't change its spots a couple
of times.
Keel said, I choose optimism.
We live in Alaska, so I'm hopingwe got a ptarmigan that will

(20:48):
change uh that will change uh uhuh feathers uh again.
Still Keel warned that without aserious fiscal proposal from the
governor, the state's payoutprogram, the PFD, could be at
risk.
If the feathers don't change,and if we don't get a serious
proposal for a fiscal plan thatthe legislature can then act
upon, it'll be the end.

(21:09):
This is Keel, it'll be the endof the permanent fund dividend
check.
What we've got going on here isis is a game of it's not my
fault, it's your fault, and thenthe other guy says it's not my
fault, it's your fault.
Right.

(21:32):
That he will wait for somethingfrom the legislature to come up
on alternative revenues.
And without alternativerevenues, the PFD is dead.
I mean, what what we're doing iswe're essentially taxing the
PFD, taxing middle andlower-income Alaska families to
pay for the deficit gap, hugedeficit gap that we've developed
at the state level.
And if we don't have alternativerevenues to fit in to pay for

(21:53):
that gap, then the PFD graduallyis going to be totally totally
consumed.
The governor said, GovernorDunley said, I'm not that he's
not going to move forward onalternative revenues, substitute
revenues.
He's going to wait for thelegislature to do something and
bring that forward to him.
Now we got Keel, uh, one of theone of the most influential uh
senators on the Senate majorityside.

(22:16):
Keel saying, It's not our fault.
We're waiting for the governorto come forward with a proposal
uh on alternative revenues.
And if he doesn't come forwardwith an alternative with a
proposal on alternativerevenues, it'll be the end.
This is to quote Keel, it'll bethe end of the permanent fund
dividend check.
The last time I checked, both ofthem, either of them could put

(22:37):
something on the table.
The governor has the ability toput bills on the table uh
through the rules committee toput bills on the table.
He does that with the budgetevery year.
He does that with a variety ofadministration proposals, uh,
put bills on the table in thelegislature and trigger uh the
legislature's consideration uhof legislation.
The legislators certainly havethe ability to put in bills and

(23:01):
and to bring them up incommittee and pursue them um uh
uh themselves.
Uh and so you know what we'vegot here on the PFD is everybody
trying to blame, each sidetrying to blame the other for
not moving forward with a PFDfix, and each side saying, Well,
if the PFD ends, it's your faultfor not having moved forward

(23:23):
with legislation.
Sometimes I sometimes I hearlegislators say, Oh, well, even
if we did this, even if wepassed a bill, government veto
it, and so it'd be all fornothing.
Well, that didn't stop them oneducation funding.
I mean, I mean, the thepotential fear of administrative
push pushback, administrationput back didn't stop them on
education funding.
It it's a made, it's a made-upexcuse.

(23:45):
Right.
Nobody has the guts to step upand say there are more equitable
ways to fund to fund governmentthan what than what we're doing
right now, and to make that andto put that proposal on the
table.
They want to blame somebody elsefor uh for not uh for not going
first.
And I just think it's I mean, Ithink it's it's it's a testimony
to how gutless uh both sides,both the both the administration

(24:09):
and the legislature is uh havebecome on this issue.

SPEAKER_00 (24:12):
Well, and there's some deep irony here, first of
all, because Keel was such a keyplayer in the fiscal policy
working group, and he signed offon exactly the fiscal plan that
they that that would help fixthis.
And yet he didn't proposeanything, he didn't support any
of Ben Carpenter's thing, hedidn't put any of those things
forward.
He's looking at the governor.
The second part of irony thatAnthony just points out, that

(24:35):
it's ironically fitting thathe's comparing the government
and its ideas to a ptarmigan,the dumbest game bird in
history, the one game bird youcan kill with a rock if you're
if you're cautious.
I mean, you know, that's the wayto compare government to uh, you
know, to the button that's wherewe're at right now.
I mean, it it it is the oh, it'snot my fault, it's your fault,

(24:55):
even though I have the solutionright here in my pocket.
I'm just not willing to, likeyou said, they don't have the
guts to step up and say, wespent all this time producing
it, we all agreed on it, and nowwe're just gonna put it back in
the file cabinet and walk away.

SPEAKER_01 (25:08):
Yeah, that's an excellent, excellent point on
Keel.
I mean, he was part of thefiscal policy working group.
He lobbied to get himself onthere, uh, he lobbied to become
part of it.
He was part of those who signedoff on the comprehensive plan,
uh, which is what the fiscalpolicy working group is.
Uh a little bit, as we've talkedon previous shows, a little bit
of everything, a little bit ofoil company revenue, uh of

(25:30):
increased oil company revenues,uh, a little bit of spending
cuts, a little bit ofbroad-based revenues, a little
bit of PFD restructuring to godown to POMB 5050, a little bit
of everything, broaden the base,spread the burden, uh, and
everybody just takes a littlebit of the of the haircut needed
to resolve uh the fiscalsituation.

(25:50):
Keel was part of that, uhlobbied to get himself on there
uh and and was an influentialpart of the result.
And now he's just stepping backand saying, ah, not my fault.
Um uh, you know, it's thegovernor's fault for not for not
putting a plan on the floor.
I it's uh it it is it is theworst, the worst of government

(26:13):
from both sides for neither toput the plan on the floor.
I mean the governor, all thegovernor had would have to do is
say, okay, this you guys set upa fiscal policy working group.
This was your proposal, bam.
You know, here's your proposal.
I put it forward.
You want it as an administrationproposal?
Here it is, uh on the table.
Now, you know, live up to whatyour fiscal policy working group

(26:34):
uh uh proposed.
That's all he'd have to do.
The legislature on the same bythe same token, all they have to
do is say, okay, we did a fiscalpolicy working group, we came up
with a proposal, bam, let's doit and and let's go forward with
it.
Um, I mean, it's sitting therefor either side to use.
And and both sides areessentially saying, Oh, not
mine.

(26:55):
I'm I'm walking away from it,and letting the worst possible
solution, the most regressivetax ever proposed, to quote Matt
Berman again.
Yeah, let the worst possiblesolution be the one that they
continue to default to.

SPEAKER_00 (27:10):
Right.
Well, inaction is action,really.
I mean, that's really what itcomes down to.
They can just let it continue todribble along and point the
blame and you know, play theblame game and point fingers,
and they just can continue tolet uh government spend continue
to increase, and they're okay.
A lot of them are okay withthat.
They're just they're just finewith that.
Um, and and of course, we're notseeing uh we're not seeing a lot

(27:33):
of the candidates bring this upeither, a little bit.
They're touching on it, they'rebrushing by it, but they're not
embracing it, and they're not,you know, they're not coming out
with.
I mean, the plan is already laidout.
Even if you want to fold some ofyour new ideas into the same
plan or modify it, overall it'sa plan that everybody in the
legislature has signed theirname.
Well, not everybody, but a bunchof people in the legislature

(27:55):
have signed their name to thatthey agreed that this is what
they could do.
Well, now hold them to it.
I mean, if you presented this toKeel, it would be kind of hard
for him to go back and say,Well, but uh, you know, I mean,
he could, but it would be alittle eggy on the face-y, you
know, kind of thing.
Um, but I mean you did you didthat once.

SPEAKER_01 (28:12):
You had Keel on the show, and yeah, and you asked
him that question, and it was,oh, I, you know, somebody's got
to come forward and put the putthe you know, meat on the bone.
It was sort of just a bonesplan, and yeah, I agreed to
50-50 pomb, but it was it wascontingent on a bunch of other.
I mean, you he walked away fromit, but it's not just it's not

(28:32):
just him.
Shelly Hughes, Shelly Hughes wason the fiscal policy working
group, and she's running forgovernor, and she puts fiscal
policy as her number one issue,or first issue out of out of
three.
If you look, if you if you lookat her website, there's not a
word on there about the fiscalpolicy working group.
I I would think if I were her,I'd make that front and center

(28:53):
of my campaign, but she'swalking away from it.
So I it it is it it it is anexercise, it is a demonstration
of the gutlessness, how howgutless government can be uh on
in everybody in terms of uh interms of stepping up.

SPEAKER_00 (29:08):
This is the this is the whole, this is where that
stereotypical rule by committeekind of thing came out, right?
I mean, this is how what it'sabout when you get a bunch of
people and they can all pointfingers at each other and say
it's their fault, but they youknow nothing ever gets done and
it's the worst outcomespossible.
This is what happens when youbuild a you know an aircraft
carrier by committee orwhatever, and it sinks on the

(29:29):
first day.
This is where we're at, right?
This is this is kind of wherewe're at right now.
Nobody wants to take the blame,nobody wants to have the hard
truths, and nobody wants, nobodyhas the guts, as you said.
Nobody has the guts to tellpeople the crisis is coming, the
bridge is out, pull the leverright now when we can stop this
train instead of just shovelingmore coal into the hopper and

(29:51):
say we're gonna jump the gap.
It's just not gonna happen.

SPEAKER_01 (29:54):
Yeah, and and it's and Keel is I mean, I I first
read that article.
article and I thought, okay,good lord.
You know, it it's now now we'renow we're having people predict
that now we're havinglegislators predict the end of
the PFD.
But then the more I thoughtabout it, the more, well, Keel
Keel could do something aboutthis if he wanted to.
The governor sure, sure could dosomething about it, but Keel

(30:17):
could do something about italso.
And it's just it is it is it isthe worst possible the
demonstration of the worstpossible outcome.
Everybody running away fromfixing what is what is clearly
the worst possible solution tothe to the situation we've
gotten ourselves into.

SPEAKER_00 (30:34):
And unfortunately most Alaskans have no idea I was
having a conversation withsomebody last week uh about the
thing and I'm like well you knowthe things and then I said the
big deficit and they're like bigdeficit what are you talking
about?
They've got no idea.
They have no idea that this iscoming.
They have no idea that thecrisis that we're about to face
uh and the loss of the PFD.

(30:55):
So I had this 10 minuteexplainer with them and they're
like wow I mean they justthey're just not paying
attention to what's going onwhich is by design I guess I
it's it's frustrating to see.
And so I don't have much hope.
I mean the the session starts in60 days and I have very little
hope that anybody is going tothe governor or anybody else is

(31:17):
going to come forward with somekind of long-term fiscal plan.

SPEAKER_01 (31:20):
What do you think the give me a give me a Vegas
odds on this real quick Bradwell remember the governor said
last summer well said lastspring he was going to have a
fiscal plan out by the by by theend of the year.
Remember that I'm going to goback and find that quote so I
can start using that.
But he said he was going to havea fiscal plan out.
He was going to put a fiscalplan on the table by the end of
the year.
Well the governor's budget's duein 30 days a little under 30

(31:42):
days uh the the the revenueforecast is due the fall revenue
forecast is due in a littleunder 30 days if he's going to
come up with a fiscal plan as hesaid he was now's the time to do
it.
So I don't know I are are peopleas good as the word as their
word maybe not wow was that evena question I think that was

(32:06):
rhetorical at this point.

SPEAKER_00 (32:08):
Jeffrey says governing by committee makes it
so nobody is culpable.
And that's really that's againit's the finger pointing and
everything else and it's not myfault it's their fault it's you
know is it it's the governing bycommittee makes everyone
blameless and they can just playdumb and keep doing what they've
been doing.
Oh boy something I actuallyagree with on Harold he said I
watch Gavilla Gavel there'splenty of guts.

(32:30):
It's the backbone that'ssuspect.
True I mean they're pretty gutsyin some of the proposals that
they put out there to spend allyour money uh they got some guts
for that but they have nobackbone when it comes to
actually uh you know making someof those hard choices as well.
So they can they can make somegutsy moves but only when it
benefits them uh at that pointas well.

(32:50):
Uh Brad I mean I I feel likethis is where I'm coming to that
point of the year where I'm justexhausted from all the the
political stuff you knowwatching this.
And again I was so shocked thatthis guy had no clue that what I
was talking about because I meanI you know I know a lot of
people don't but I figured thisguy would know what was going
on.
I figured this person, oh,they're kind of in the no they

(33:11):
you know they they're they'replugged in and they just looked
at me with this blank glazedexpression and I was like holy
crap we are in so much trouble.
We are in so much problem we'rein so much trouble at this
point.

SPEAKER_01 (33:23):
Well it's it's the Orwellian use of language that
we've that that both thelegislators largely and uh and
the press have adopted right Imean surplus now is is the word
we use to describe excess PFDcuts.
Balance is that we've cut the Pwe've taxed middle and lower
income Alaska families throughPFD cuts enough that that

(33:46):
spending revenues equalsspending but you're not focusing
on where the revenues are comingfrom and you're not focusing on
the fact that there's this hugegap in the in the in the
traditional budget that's beingclosed by this tax this PFD tax
on middle and lower incomeAlaska families so we we've
adopted this Orwellian languageuh that that misleads people I

(34:07):
mean intentionally misleadspeople into thinking oh we're
doing okay we got a balancedbudget and sometimes we even
have a surplus um and and so thegovernment's doing okay it's
it's we we've adopted this newsspeak that that legislators use
and the press picks up on andthe press press uses and the

(34:27):
governor doesn't push back on itmuch um and even conservative
legislators don't put push backon as much on on it much so
you've got this whole languagethat misleads uh uh people like
your friend and you know you canread 1980 george orwell's 1984
and understand what that leadsto it leads to a this whole
surreal world built upon uh theuh the misuse of language up is

(34:52):
down down is up yep doesn'tmatter it's all it's all good
ministry of peace is actuallythe ministry of I mean it's it's
there you just you you just youknow you adopt newspeak that
that uses uses traditional wordsfor the opposite meaning of what
they traditionally meant.

SPEAKER_00 (35:10):
Exactly yeah no it's a it's a topsy turvy it's the
upside down Rick says are theygutless or they just don't have
enough knowledge for the jobI'll be honest I think that's
giving them a pass.
I think they have enoughknowledge at this point uh to
know what's going on uh andunderstand it I just think that
they don't want to be out at thepointy end of the spear and take
the slings and arrows I meanlook at everybody who's bailing

(35:31):
out of the legislature it's likethey can feel that the gravy
train is about to end and now'sthe time to get out before the
thing the real blame gamestarts.
You know what I mean?
That's what I feel anyway, Brad.

SPEAKER_01 (35:42):
Well there there's no one who knows more in the
legislature that knows moreabout these issues than the
people who are on that workinggroup fiscal policy working
group.
Keel was on the fiscal policyworking group I mean he
certainly understands uh whathe's saying that that what he's
and what he's saying is we'rejust going to continue taxing
the PFD until it is no moreunless if nobody comes up with

(36:03):
with substitute revenue.
So I don't think I don't I meanthere may be a few legislators
that are so clueless that theydon't understand it.
But I think uh I think it's I Ithink that's the exception
rather than the rule.

SPEAKER_00 (36:16):
Brad Keithly Alaskans for sustainable budgets
what did uh Corey say Corey saidso oh here it is seems like if
they put this one out therethey'll have to admit that
they're the ones that broke itto begin with.
And again that goes back to mywhole rats leaving the sinking
ship thing.
This is the pro the main peoplewho are the ones that have the
levers to be able to pull tomake this happen are the same

(36:38):
ones that broke it in the firstplace Brad and that she's right
they would have to admit thatthe that the tack that they took
and that and that theirsuppositions were wrong and
nobody wants to face that.

SPEAKER_01 (36:48):
Yeah maybe that's right.
Maybe that's right.
And and the governor certainlyyou know bears part of the
responsibility for breaking itum he didn't follow up his his
spending cuts of 2019 uh uh hegot strong pushback on that uh
and and never followed up withit again um and never followed
up with substitute revenue soyeah everybody would have to

(37:09):
admit that they're part of theproblem but it's a but but at
least you could say it's a totalproblem everybody's failed and
and I'm the one who's going tostand up and come up with a
solution.

SPEAKER_00 (37:19):
Yeah.
No and I cancel the fiscalpolicy working group has got all
the levers all of their yesHarold it's got the oil giveaway
it's got more money from oil yesit's got cuts yes it's got a
50-50 PFD yes it's got aspending cap it's got all the
components uh like you saideverybody's ox gets scored a
little bit but at least we comeaway with something that would

(37:40):
actually be workable uh butnobody and and of course you
know Ben Carpenter is almost acautionary tale at this point
for people I don't know ifanybody's gonna want to touch
it.
That's the worst part.
Welcome back to the program BradKeithly the weekly top three
these are the three big thingsthat Brad thinks we should be
watching out for this week.
And uh now we come to ourfavorite part of the show which

(38:03):
we seem to be repeating you knowquite with some regularity is
the discussion on how do we paythis is supposed to be like I
mean this should be like thenumber one question asked at
every discussion meetingcandidate event town hall
pre-session meeting peopleshould be asking how do they pay

(38:26):
and uh Brad what do you say?

SPEAKER_01 (38:28):
Well so I it this is a segment we've talked or this
is a subject we've talked abouton previous shows but I think it
one one it's one that bears uhrepeating uh the Fairbanks
there's a there's articles thenews miner there's articles on
Alaska News Source the the TVstation the uh uh website about
uh fairbanks coming to uhpreparing their uh legislative

(38:52):
and capital priorities uhpreparing to talk to the
legislators in the pre-sessionsession that they have uh
pre-session meeting that theyhave between the the the local
government and the legislatorsup in fairbanks and and it
occurs throughout the state uhabout what you know the
priorities are and and how theyshould be how the let what what
priorities the legislatureshould take legislators should

(39:14):
take in terms of terms of whatlocal government thinks is
important.
This ought to be a two-waydiscussion and my my point is
this ought to be a two-waydiscussion it's a one-way
discussion largely uh uh thesesessions are a one-way
discussion largely because it'slocal government telling
legislators this is what wethink is important that we spend

(39:35):
money on these are the issuesthat we think you ought to
prioritize uh as as you look atas you look at the coming
session some of it is definedbenefits some of it is K through
two K through 12 spending someof it is school bond
reimbursement some of it is it'sall around money issues that the
local government wants the stateto spend more on or you know

(39:58):
live up to or in the case ofschool bond reimbursement or or
or or other things but it'smostly the the legislat the
sessions are local governmentsaying we want you to prioritize
these spending levels this thisuh uh this legislation or or
that legislation in the in thein the coming session it ought

(40:18):
to be a two-way discussion andand the and the and the
legislators coming back theirpart of the discussion should be
all right how do you want us topay for it uh what what is your
from the local stand from thelocal level what is your
perspective on how we ought topay for this and if I were a
legislator probably willdemonstrate why I'm not but you

(40:39):
with with this response but if Iwere a legislator I would say
look the national average on onK through 12 funding is that
local government pays 50% uh ofthe of the state local
combination set aside thefederal level the state local
combination uh local governmentpays 50% in Alaska the average
is that that the state's payingtwo to one is paying you know

(41:02):
75% 70% while local government'sgetting off with uh uh with 35%
uh in terms of 33% whatever interms of in terms of the the
percentage of of of combinedpayment if you want us to if you
want us to authorize spendingmore we need you to tell us how
we ought to pay for it and iflocal government if those in

(41:25):
local government are going tosay well just additional PFD
cuts just wipe out the PFD thenlet them say that and and let
that be an issue then in theirlocal races that they're the
ones pushing to wipe out thePFD.
They're the ones that arepushing to push this burden off
on middle and lower incomeAlaska families.
If that's what they want to saylet them say it but at least put

(41:46):
the issue to them in terms ofhow do you how do you how are
you going to pay for it?
We think as a legislator I thinkthat local government when you
look at the national averages onK through 12 for example that
local government ought to becontributing more that if you
want to spend more or if youwant to you know just pay for
what we've already authorizedthat local government ought to

(42:07):
be ought to be paying more andlet and and have that discussion
with the local governments putthem on the spot to talk about
how they think from a localperspective it ought to be paid
for.
Some of them may say increaseduh uh in uh restructured taxes
on uh on oil companies some ofthem may say you know statewide

(42:29):
sales tax but but have them bepart of the discussion don't let
them off scot free just sayingoh we ought to spend more on
this spend more on that spendmore on this you ought to
reimburse us more for for schoolbonds uh you ought to you know
give us more for for K through12 uh don't let them off the
hook just saying saying all ofthis ought to come from right

(42:51):
all of the all of this ought tocome from the from the state
push back and ask them how theywant to pay for it.

SPEAKER_00 (42:56):
Because I mean we've they I mean we've created this
monster right I mean youmentioned school bonds and I
mean there's been plenty oftimes I remember many
discussions over school bondsover the years when I was in
Fairbanks where they wouldliterally look you in the eye
and go, oh don't worry won'tcost you a thing.
This is all state money you knowand where if people realize that
all of a sudden their propertytaxes are going to go up if the

(43:16):
state doesn't reimburse or ifthey had to pay for that
themselves as a community thatall their property taxes would
go up.
You know, I think that there'dbe some pushback.
But we've created we've createdthis dependency state in so many
ways and we talk aboutdependency and welfare on the
left in the social safety netand corporate you know corporate
welfare on the right with uh youknow contracts and everything

(43:38):
else but there's also thismunicipal welfare where they
said oh we want the state to payfor everything we have all these
grandiose plans and these broadideas and it's state money so
don't worry about it.
But now we should be worryingabout it.
That's the thing I mean I Istill I go back to the story of
the mayor's chief of staff whenI was on the borough assembly
and I remember there I don'tremember exactly what it was but

(44:00):
I remember that there was aprogram that the mayor's office
was pushing.
Oh we need this program oh it'sit's great it's this it's that
and I said why this is notsomething that the people have
asked for this is just well it'sand then and the chief of staff
pulled me aside and goes why areyou so reticent against this I
mean this is like free moneythis is federal money and I'm
like the money comes fromsomewhere it's not free and if

(44:22):
we don't if we don't take itsomebody else will well let them
at least we won't be part of theproblem you know but this is
again that dependency state yeahto some degree to some degree I
look at local school boardsanymore as what you're really
electing when you elect yourschool board is you're electing
lobbyists because the localschool board what the local
school board turns around anddoes and says we need more money

(44:44):
from the state we need moremoney from the state to fund
K-12.

SPEAKER_01 (44:47):
We need to fund more money from the state to uh uh to
uh uh build school yeah buildschool school bond reimbursement
and and so you're reallyelecting lobbyists you're not
electing administrators you'renot electing people who are who
are sort of weighing the thepros and the cons of anything
you're electing people who viewtheir job as to go down to the
state and lobby for more and ifwe got to close a school it's

(45:10):
the state's fault it's not myfault it's the state's fault
because the state didn't give usmore money for K through 12 or
if or in negotiations withteachers um uh you know teachers
want more money well the stateneeds to give us more money it's
not like it's not like oh mygosh we're gonna have to go
explain this to our constituentsit's it's it's a lobbying job uh

(45:32):
to go lobby the state uh formore money and I and and and so
what I'm suggesting is we needto push back on those local
governments that legislators andothers need to push back on
local governments when they saywe need more the the pushback is
well where do you expect themore to come from where do you
support the more coming from themore revenue to pay for this

(45:55):
more spending where do yousupport the more coming from and
and if they want to say PFD cutsif they want to say all taxes
let them say it at least they'resaying something but force them
on the record about where fromtheir perspective as an elected
official in the locality theyexpect the additional revenue to
come from this amorphous ohit'll just come from the state

(46:17):
uh is just it shouldn't be anacceptable answer because the
state doesn't have any moremoney the state's already
already running huge 30%deficits 30% of the budget is
deficit financed through throughPFD cuts.
The state's already runningthese huge deficits the state
doesn't have any more money.

SPEAKER_00 (46:35):
So the the these sessions that are portrayed in
the press and as they actuallyoccur uh in the few in the in
the ones I've gone to in as theyactually occur are the st are
local people saying we need morefrom the state we need the state
to do this we need the statethere there needs to be a
pushback on the localities andsay where do you support the

(46:57):
additional money coming from Imean I just don't see any
politician at this point andlet's face it Dunlevy is
aspirational for higher officesI think is is is my feeling on
this he's not going to be theone that has egg on his face
that uh wants to put time someput together some kind of fiscal
plan that's unpop I mean he'salready done this once right it

(47:19):
wasn't a fiscal plan but it wasjust the cuts in his first
budget and he already had the healready got the beat down from
the angry mob once he's notgoing to want to do that again.
And let's face it if you have toput out a fiscal plan where
everybody's gonna get theirtheir you know going to feel the
pain nobody's going to be happyhe's not gonna want to do that.

SPEAKER_01 (47:38):
You know and so and so you ask why the heck did the
guy want to be governor?
I mean if he doesn't want tostep up and take on the issues
that are important to the stateand fiscal policy is a huge
issue hugely important to thestate if he doesn't want to step
up and take on the issues thatare important to the state why
the heck did he want to begovernor?
Why does he want to be senator?
I mean it doesn't get any easierat the national level we're

(47:59):
running in huge deficits at thenational level also social
security is a mess and about tocrash and burn okay you're one
of a hundred if you're a senatorso you can't take the blame
personally that that might bethe only reason why maybe maybe
maybe so but but there areissues to confront and and
Dunleavy since 2019 has notdemonstrated he's good at

(48:21):
confronting issues he's good atpicking on things yeah I mean
he's he's he's been great onhe's been hard on social policy
uh but he's not confronted thebig issue of of of fiscal policy
and you know why did he want tobe governor if he does if he
didn't want to take this on yeahum Donna says he loves the

(48:41):
pageantry well maybe but that'snot going to get you far that
and a and a 25 cents will buyyou part of a cup of coffee at
this point.

SPEAKER_00 (48:49):
Rick asked a good question and I often wonder this
do you ever get called foradvice to politicians or
politics or people in the dothey ever call you and say what
do you think about this or whatdo you think about that?

SPEAKER_01 (49:00):
I get off the record uh emails and off the record
texts uh about various issuesfrom various people and then
they sort of ignore it uh somedo that's the worst isn't it
some do you like let me let mecompose this novel to answer
your question and then justcricket you never then never
none of it's ever incorporatednever discussed never anything

(49:22):
else it's got to be frustratingwell yeah yeah it's sort of like
it's sort of like you know talkto Brad Keith check did that
follow his advice no no no I'mnot gonna do that but I check I
talked to him I've talked tovarious people I've talked to
people from all sides yeah giveme a break no I mean I try and
tell everybody that you knowthey should be going back

(49:42):
listening to the podcast of yourshows you know talking to you
directly doing whatever becausethey'll be like even some
politicians I try and break thisdown for them they're like what
I'm just like are you not payingattention to what's going on I
mean you guys are supposed to bethe one you know what is you
know it's uh it's it's prettyit's uh it's it's it's crazy um

(50:05):
Bruce Tangerman I'm sorry BruceTangerman in the chat room Brad
what does the oil price need todip to$50 no doubt for the
entire POMV to be used forgovernment because the PFD will
then be needed to fund the ADFPCE higher ed and AHFC funds um
it's pretty well it's in the 50sum yeah I don't know I can

(50:28):
probably do that calculation butit's so we're at uh we're at 63
now basically uh for the yearand 61 and we're still showing
some PFD uh uh over the nextyear so it's got to it'll be in
the 50s someplace yeah becauseit's what 44 million dollars per

(50:51):
dollar barrel of oil somethinglike that 40 oh yeah it means
you talk about a ten dollar dropor ten dollar drop and it's
about 440 million dollars rightso it's between it's between 35
and it depends on whether you'reusing the administration's
numbers or ledge finance numbersuh it varies but it's um uh

(51:11):
between 35 and 40 dollars sosomewhere if you if we dropped
it if we drop down into the low50s we're we're 500 million less
in the hole already there goesthe rest of the PFD at that
point yeah we're probably we'reyeah uh we're probably 55 mid
50s maybe do it i mean not butit's it's speculation i haven't
i haven't run the numbers therethere'd be a five in front of

(51:32):
the number somewhere it would bea significant amount and and
granted the 660 million is aboutwhat the pay payout of the pfd
was at this point so it'll be uhit it'll be interesting to watch
uh but Bruce says there's a zerochance they escape june o next
spring without at least athousand dollar pfd which will
be entertaining to see whichpots of money they tap to fund

(51:55):
everything yeah because it's apolitical year nobody wants to
be the guy in the political yearthat uh that ended the PFD you
know the way I look at that theway the way I look at that the
way Bruce doesn't look at thatbut the way I look at that is a
a$2,500 tax$2,500 PFD cut.
It's not a$1,000 PFD it's a$2,500 PFD cut$2,500 plus next

(52:17):
year PFD cut that they need tothat they need to do to to
balance the budget.
That's how much in the whole thestate is that they need to tax
middle and lower income Alaskafamilies that much in order to
close the deficit.

SPEAKER_00 (52:29):
Well it's like I was saying earlier I thought that
this would be the last year ofthe PFD but then I can't
remember it was you or somebodyelse pointed out that it's an
election year and I thought okaywell maybe we'll get a PFD this
year.
But after that the the the thethe curve does not look great
from there, right?

SPEAKER_01 (52:44):
Yeah it it depends a lot on on who's elected governor
I suppose um you know I stillhope that there's a candidate
yet to come that actually has asolid fiscal policy.
Maybe there won't be and andmaybe and and I guess I hope on
top of that that candidate getselected maybe they won't be but
but I think in part it dependsexcuse me in part it depends on

(53:06):
who we elect as governor.

SPEAKER_00 (53:07):
Yeah no I would I would agree with that.

SPEAKER_01 (53:10):
60 seconds Bradless give me final thoughts for today
final thoughts are uh we're infor a heck of a session uh the
governor's budget is due in 30days we're gonna start focusing
on what we expect to see in thegovernor's budget what we should
see in the governor's budgetwhat the revenue forecast is
going to be in the fall revenueforecast and what that's gonna

(53:31):
lead to so it's it's it's gonnabe thin uh and if the governor
did what he did last year it'sgonna be an abrogation of his
responsibilities but he saidhe's gonna come up with a fiscal
plan.
So we're starting to look we'restarting to look for the
governor's fiscal plan.

SPEAKER_00 (53:47):
Okay we'll be we'll be looking out for that solid
fiscal plan that he's beenworking on all year.
We'll be pleasantly surprised ifhe actually delivers something.
Otherwise um yeah I I thinkit'll just be business as usual.
Brad Keithly Alaskans forsustainable budgets the weekly
top three that's hour one in thecan Brad thank you so much.

SPEAKER_01 (54:06):
Michael as always thanks for having me well that's
a wrap for another week'sedition of the weekly top three
from Alaskans for sustainablebudgets.
Thank you again for joining usremember that you can find past
episodes on our YouTube,SoundCloud, Spotify, and
Substack pages and keep track ofus during the week on Facebook
and Twitter.

(54:27):
This has been Brad KeithlyManaging Director of Alaskans
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the weekly
top three