July 15, 2025 • 52 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 July 14, 2025.
This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) while the OBBA increases access to potential new oil fields on federal lands, we discuss whether it will actually result in new development and, more importantly, additional state revenues (2:17), 2) we discuss the fundamental economic issue we believe the candidates for Governor need to address in the coming election cycle (21:20), and 3) we explain why we think one journalist should listen to himself and follow his own advice that he recently gave in an op-ed piece (36:01).
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 1 (00:10):
Hi, this is Brad Keithley, managing Director of
Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets.
Welcome to the weekly top three, the top three things on our
mind here at Alaskans forSustainable Budgets for the week
of July 14th 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 am.
I join Michael weekly in thefirst hour of Tuesday's show
from 610 to 7 am for adiscussion between the two of us
about our three issues.
We post the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, youtube,
(00:57):
soundcloud, spotify and Substackpages, also on the Alaskans for
Sustainable Budgets website, aswell as the projects page on
national blog site mediumcom.
You can find past episodes ofthe weekly top three also at the
same locations.
Keep in mind that, in additionto these podcasts during the
(01:19):
week, you also can 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, while the One
(01:40):
Big Beautiful Act increasesaccess to potential new oil
fields on federal lands.
We discuss whether it willactually result in new
development and, moreimportantly, additional state
revenues.
Second, we discuss thefundamental economic issue that
we believe the candidates forgovernor need to address in the
(02:02):
coming election cycle forgovernor need to address in the
coming election cycle.
And third, we explain why wethink one journalist should
listen to himself and follow hisown advice that he recently
gave in an op-ed piece.
And now let's join Michael.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
We're going to start off with number one, which
includes the one big beautifulbill, or as Brad calls it, the
one big bad beautiful bill, thebadass beautiful bill.
And we're going to talk aboutthe details on this, and the big
question is number one fortoday is it going to provide the
(02:38):
development we need?
And I guess the question iswill it provide the development
we need in the time frame thatwe need it?
I think that's probably thebigger, more precise question,
brad.
Good morning, my friend, goodmorning, sir.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
It's interesting.
The real question is will itprovide the revenues we need?
Right Development's important,but does that development turn
into revenues for the state inthe timeframe that we need?
There have been a series ofarticles that people have been
talking about and I've hadquestions about including one
(03:18):
from Alex DeMarmid, who's thebusiness reporter for the
Anchorage Daily News.
It starts with there's anarticle in the Alaska Beacon,
but also in the ADN andelsewhere.
The headline is USGS reportsays federal lands in Alaska
hold large share of undiscoveredoil and gas.
(03:40):
And then the first paragraphsays about half of what's known
as the estimated undiscovered,technically recoverable oil
lying below federal lands is inAlaska source that there's a lot
of oil and gas sittingunderneath Alaska lands.
But that's only the startingpoint of any analysis of whether
(04:19):
we're going to do better.
The next question is whetheryou can have access to those
lands.
You may have a huge, hugeamount of oil someplace, but if
you don't have access to thoselands it really doesn't do you
any good.
And that's where the one bigbeautiful bill John Hendricks is
the one who called it the onebig bad beautiful bill, or
(04:41):
something like that but that'swhere the one big beautiful bill
comes in.
It opens up access to Alaskalands in a way that we really
haven't had before.
It requires leasing not only onthe North Slope, not only in
(05:01):
NPRA and in ANWR, but also inCook Inlet, and really opens up
access to potential access interms of leases issued to
additional lands.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Sorry about that, Brad.
We had a little bit of aninternet slurp there for a
second.
There you were saying it'stechnically recoverable, but
that's where the hitch is yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
So the question is whether you can get access to.
The first question of severalis whether you can get access to
those lands, and that's wherethe one big beautiful bill comes
in in terms of providingadditional access.
Beautiful bill comes in interms of providing additional
access.
It requires sets up leasingboth in NPRA and in ANWR,
additional leasing both in NPRAand in ANWR, and sets up
(05:54):
additional leasing also in theCook Inlet.
And so access.
The one big beautiful billaddresses access in the sense
that it opens the potential foraccess to what may be
significant additional reserves.
But that's only the second step.
The third step is does thegeology prove that there's
(06:18):
really oil there?
What the USGS study is is anevaluation of estimated
undiscovered technicallyrecoverable, and what that's
really talking about ispotential, that potentially
there's additional oil on theseAlaska lands.
And the question is, first, canyou get access to it?
(06:40):
And then, geologically, is theoil actually recoverable as
opposed to technologicallyrecoverable, theoretically
recoverable?
And then the final question iswhether it's economic to produce
, and we won't know that for along period of time and, as you
and I have discussed, thatreally in a significant way
(07:03):
depends upon the next election.
These development horizons orthese development timelines are
fairly long, even if you havegood permitting, even if the
permitting times go well.
The development times arefairly long and the question is
(07:24):
whether producers feel confidentenough that they're going to
have long-term access that is,if the next election cycle isn't
going to snap back and all of asudden shut down access to
these lands whether they'regoing to have long-term access
in a way that justifies thesignificant upfront investment
they have to make in order torecover these reserves.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
And that's part of the problem with the
politicization of this wholeprocess back and forth right.
What used to be kind of more ofa market-driven approach has
become so heavily regulated andso involving the government in
every aspect.
It's been politicized at everyturn.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yep, exactly right, and so that's a.
I mean, that's a big issuewhether, when in this cycle,
producers begin to feelconfident, they can step out.
Now I noticed the other daythat Conoco had announced or
yesterday actually Conoco hadannounced plans for additional
development around Willow,additional development in their
(08:24):
share of MPRA on lands they'vealready leased, and so they feel
confident making someadditional exploration decisions
, some additional developmentexploration decisions around
Willow.
But that's really, I mean, theydon't have to set up much.
Willow's already there, theinfrastructure's already there,
and so that's a relatively shortcycle development that they can
(08:48):
go out and explore for andpotentially development.
So that's a good sign certainly, of additional development.
But I truly think some of thisis going to hinge on how the
2026 elections go, how thecongressional elections go,
whether the Republicans holdboth houses and whether there's
(09:11):
an indication that they're goingto continue to hold the
presidency after Trump, afterthis term.
And so we're not there wherethere's a confidence level, I
think, where producers are goingto be making long-term
development decisions.
But you know we've got a to bemaking long-term development
decisions.
But you know, we've got a waysto go, they've got access, and
so that's the first step of many.
The final step is does thattranslate into revenues for the
(09:34):
state?
The one big beautiful bill doesprovide additional royalties
going to the state from theadditional development, but NPRA
additional development in NPRAis still subject to the local
preference.
So even though the NPRA revenuesharing steps up under the One
(10:01):
Big Beautiful Bill after aperiod of time, steps up under
the One Big Beautiful Bill, itis that additional revenue that
additional royalty would go towould be subject to local
preference and really go to theNorth Slope, borough and other
localities on the North Slope.
(10:21):
It really doesn't help stategeneral fund revenues.
It's different in ANWR.
Anwr is not subject to the localpreference and so any
development over in ANWR wouldbe the increased royalty that
the bill provides fordevelopment from ANWR would go
(10:41):
to the state.
Development from ANWR would goto the state and that's a good
thing.
But ANWR is several years off.
Even if everything worksperfectly, even if the leases go
off, players significantplayers take the leases, even if
the geology proves that there'soil there, the development
(11:02):
timeframe for ANWR and theconfidence level they're going
to need to develop ANWR is stillquite a period off.
So, yes, it does provide forpotential additional revenues to
the state, I mean, opens up theopportunity for that, but but
that's a ways off and subject toyou know.
Are the producers going to haveconfidence in the next election
(11:25):
cycle?
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah, and that raises the question.
I mean, of course, one of thebig pushes was even the
president, and Nick Vega justtalked about that and everything
else.
Now is the time for Congress toact, while they still have some
of these priorities, toactually solidify some of these
decisions.
But is there the political willin Congress to do these things,
to lock them in for a longerterm so they can't just be
(11:49):
subject to presidential whims?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, and, as we found out, that's hard to do.
I mean, trump is proving thatexecutive power is much broader,
I think, than some anticipatedin prior administrations and is
proving the power of executiveorders in a way that, frankly,
we haven't seen before.
So, or demonstrating the powerof executive orders in a way we
(12:14):
haven't seen before.
So you're not certain, anduncertainty is not a friend to
development.
I mean, producers don't want toput a whole lot of money down
in, in pursuing a project ifthey're uncertain.
I mean, geologic uncertainty isone thing, technical
(12:37):
uncertainty is another thing,but if you've got political
uncertainty about whether you'regoing to continue to have
access to to those lands orcontinue to be able to develop
those lands, uh, that's a hugeamount of uncertainty, uh, that
that producers aren't willing toundertake.
I mean, given, given theopportunities available in the
world.
Um, there are other, morecertain plays that you can
(13:01):
pursue than uh, than than onethat's been so subject to, to uh
, a yo-yo, a political yo-yoover the year.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Somebody just said have a little faith, brad.
I don't think this is aboutBrad having faith.
I think this is about therealistic.
You know what's going on.
That's like saying we, you know, let's just get a gas line now,
okay, well, that's great.
But there's this little realitycalled economics that we have
to deal with as well.
I mean, I'd love to see it, I'dlove to see the drilling, I'd
love to see all that stuff.
(13:29):
But no company or privateindividual or investment firm is
going to dump tens of millions,hundreds of millions of dollars
into a prospect that five yearsfrom now could be 100% reversed
through executive order.
That's part of the problem here.
We've got to have congressionalunderwriting of the direction
(13:50):
that the president's going.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Yeah and continued underwriting.
I mean it doesn't do any goodfor Congress to pass the law now
if Congress is going to undo it, if we're going to have a
different Congress in four yearsor a different Congress in two
years and they're going to startchipping away at it.
So there's a lot of political.
(14:12):
I mean people say that oh,america is a safe political
region, the safe legal regionthat you can rely on decisions.
You can't.
I mean we've seen that we arethe poster child.
Alaska is the poster child forthat about how you get yo-yoed
back and forth.
So I think what we're going tosee is gradual steps.
(14:36):
First in NPRA Conoco'sannouncement is a good one.
First in NPRA, because we'vegot existing kit, we've got
existing footprint in NPRA thatyou can just sort of gradually
step out on.
I think we're going to seegradual sort of testing the
(14:58):
waters and stepping out a bit.
If there's another president ofsimilar bent with President
Trump in 28, from a resourcedevelopment standpoint, then I
think you'll see moresignificant steps.
But it's going to be a gradualprocess.
The mere fact that the USGSsays there's oil there and that
(15:21):
the One Big, beautiful Billprovides additional access to it
, that isn't enough.
The economics are important andthe economics are subject to
the political uncertainty.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
That was Kim saying.
Have a little faith, brad.
I mean again, it's not aboutfaith, we can have faith.
It's just the question of whatis the reality of what is coming
around to it.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Investors don't operate on faith.
Investors operate on relativedegrees of certainty.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
And they want a lot more than just faith before they
put the money down.
Well, we could be nothing butsterling optimists around here,
and it's not going to change athing unless we address some of
the issues that cause thatuncertainty.
That's the thing.
That's why we keep diving intothese things.
Brian had asked early on but isthere a market for all these
big, beautiful barrels?
Can they be extracted at aprofit?
(16:21):
Can they be extracted at aprofit?
And that's the big question.
Because all this potential oil?
The USGS report.
It does not talk about theeconomics.
It just talks about technicallyrecoverable, which means with
modern technology, and it's aguesstimate right, but it
doesn't deal with the economicsof it at all.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yeah, it doesn't deal with the economics.
Yeah, it doesn't deal with theeconomics.
(17:09):
Interestingly enough, o millionbarrels a day currently to
about 150 million barrels a dayby 2050.
You remember during COVID andduring the early phases of
climate concerns, theexpectations were that we'd hit
peak oil or would hit peak oilsomewhere along in here and then
start declining in terms ofdemand peak oil in terms of
demand.
But OPEC's announcement is, orOPEC's analysis is, that oil is
(17:31):
going to continue to grow.
Now you know that's self-servingin a way.
Opec wants oil to continue togrow and wants investors and
wants others to believe that oildemand is going to continue to
grow.
But it was an interestinganalysis and it wasn't even that
we were plateauing, it was thatwe were growing.
Oil demand was growing by 2050.
(17:54):
So there's a range of positionsout there.
Iea, international EnergyAgency, who has been the most
successful pessimistic about oilgrowth, most optimistic about
the replacement of oil withrenewables and other sources of
energy, has gradually tilted itsexpectations of the future back
(18:19):
up to where oil is plateauingmaybe a slight increase for a
significant period into thefuture.
So, to answer Brian's question,there's a higher expectation of
overall oil demand, global oildemand going forward than there
has been in the past and theeconomics of Alaska are good.
(18:41):
Once you get past the upfrontinvestment you have to make for
Alaska barrels.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
So then it becomes stable once the oil is actually
pumping.
It's up until that point thatit kind of screws you.
Brian also said brad, have youheard a report that santos may
be purchased by adnoc?
Speaker 1 (18:59):
I don't know what that is, but adnock, it's abu
dhabi, the abu dhabi nationaloil company, um, and that's a
AdNoc's play.
From AdNoc's side, that's anLNG play.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
We're going to answer Brian's question about the
Santos purchase by Abu Dhabi.
What's going on there?
Speaker 1 (19:18):
So AdNoc is becoming big in LNG, wants to become big
in LNG, global LNG and Santos is, although we know it in Alaska
for the PICA development, theoil development on the North
Slope.
Globally Santos is a big LNGplayer and when they acquired
(19:40):
Oilsearch, which was one of thepredecessors of the PICA field,
when Santos acquired Oilsearchthey acquired a big PNG well, a
big LNG project in Papua NewGuinea, png what's referred to
in the industry as PNG and sothey have.
(20:00):
Santos really has a big LNGside and AdNoc's interest in
Santos is really to scoop upthose LNG assets, join them with
the LNG assets that AdNocalready has and become an even
bigger player in the LNGindustry.
It's unclear what that mightmean for PICA, but look, pica is
(20:22):
a good field.
It's way down the road in termsof development.
It's had previous owners andit's sort of, you know,
continued on despite the changes.
And even if AdNoc for somereason decided that PICA wasn't
a strategic fit with its overallview of where it's going, pica
(20:45):
would be easily saleable on themarket.
So an ad doc really wouldn'tdemand that high a price.
I don't think, because ad docsare going to be focused on
developing the LNG assets thatit would get with Santos.
So yeah, it's something that'soccurring.
Ad docs made a bid, santos hasessentially accepted the bid,
(21:06):
subject to a lot of conditions,and it's proceeding forward.
And yes, it may affect PICA,but I don't think it's going to
be a big adverse impact on PICAgoing forward.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
We move on to number two, which is going to be the
big question we're going to beasking ourselves for the next 18
months Will any candidatesactually articulate and face the
problems that we're facing?
They actually address the realproblems, Brad.
What made you dive into thisone?
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Well, there's an article that Nat Hertz, I think,
published yesterday and so itwill work its way through the
various publications.
He published it on his NorthernJournal, which is his website,
but it typically works throughthe other publications.
The headline of it is NationalDemocrats are salivating over a
(22:00):
Mary Paltola bid for US Senate.
But Alaska's governor's racecould be wide open too, and the
article is really about could bewide open too, and the article
is really about.
You know what influences are atplay with Peltola's decision on
whether she runs for the Senaterace or the governor's race.
I've heard people speculate onboth sides that oh, she's
definitely running for theSenate against Dan Sullivan, or
(22:22):
oh, she's definitely running forthe open governor seats where
she doesn't have to face anincumbent.
And it's an interesting article.
For those who are into thepolitical end of things, it's a
good read.
There is one interesting tidbitin there.
They asked Tom Begich for hisreaction to all this and he said
(22:44):
if Mary runs for Senate, I amdefinitely.
I, tom Begich, am definitelyrunning for governor.
If Mary runs for governor, I amdefinitely supporting Mary for
governor.
So Begich essentially impliesthat he's not the fallback for
the Senate race.
But if Mary, if Paltoa runs forthe Senate, then Begich, tom
Begich is the fallback for the,for the for the governor's race,
(23:06):
the Democrat fallback for theuh uh for the for the governor's
race, the Democrat, uh,fallback for the governor's race
.
And so we're really, I meanwe're, we're beginning to get in
this season where candidatesare forming.
There's something, what likefive candidates announced,
republican candidates announcedalready.
There was another one, um uh,another one announcing this week
(23:26):
a doctor who, uh, uh somespeculate can self-fund his
campaign like Bill Walker didback in the day.
So we're beginning to get a lotof discussion about it.
But the question I have is isany of these candidates going to
discuss the issues thatordinary Alaskans are facing?
(23:49):
The middle and lower income,middle income Alaska families
that sort of make up the bulk ofthe state, the middle 60
percent, with the 20 percentdown at the low end, 20 percent
at the high end, the middle 60percent, and there's several
articles or several publicationsthat have that have raised
issues that those middle-incomeAlaska families are facing.
(24:10):
One, the Fairbanks News Minor,picked up a report from the
Alaska Department of Labor thatsays, the headline of which is
Economic Report Alaska InflationStabilizes, yet Prices Remain
High and that's picking up onthe Alaska trends.
It's a monthly publication fromthe Alaska Department of Labor
(24:32):
economic publication.
It's picking up on a story inthe most recent Alaska trends
that talks about the fact thatinflation is sort of leveling
off.
Alaska inflation is levelingoff, which is sort of the good
news, but the bad news is thatwe've had substantial inflation
over the last several yearswhich has elevated prices.
(24:55):
So the fact is from where theywere before COVID.
So the fact that we'rereturning to a normal rate of
inflation growth is good news,but the bad news is the prices
that have elevated substantiallyover the past few years due to
high inflation are sort ofsticking.
(25:16):
We're not having deflationwhere those prices go down.
We're just going to continue toexperience the impact of the
elevation of prices over thepast few years.
And the Trends article makes agood point about the fact that
you really need to continue tofocus on the impact of past
inflation and where those priceshave gotten to For Alaskans.
(25:42):
You need to continue to focuson that as much as the fact that
we're having moderatinginflation going forward and the
impact that has on Alaskaconsumers.
There's another article in theFrontiersman that says Alaska
job growth appeared to slow inMay, according to state data.
(26:03):
Another in the Alaska Beaconthat says health.
Healthcare takes big toll oncost of living in Alaska cities.
Report shows and it discussesthe fact that healthcare in
Alaska's major cities Juneau,anchorage, fairbanks is
substantially higher than in thenation as a whole and has a
(26:27):
huge impact on cost of living inthose locations.
It's not that it isn't higherelsewhere in the state as well.
Also, it's simply that thereport focused on the major
municipalities and so that's whythe report or the article
focuses on the majormunicipalities.
It very well could be a bigdriver and likely is a big
(26:49):
driver elsewhere in the state aswell.
So we've got we've got big costdrivers, cost of living drivers,
past inflation, health care andand other things that are that
are affecting middle incomeAlaska families.
And the question is are thegubernatorial candidates really
(27:11):
going to address that?
I'm concerned that what we'regoing to see is sort of
particularized focus, like Iwould not be surprised if
Peltola or Begich says I'm goingto bring your healthcare down
through more governmentregulation or through more
government controls on healthcare costs.
(27:34):
I wouldn't be surprised ifRepublican candidates said I'm
going to bring up jobs or I'mgoing to bring up the
opportunities from jobs throughmore resource development and
I'm going to work with the Trumpadministration on more resource
development.
Those are all sort ofparticularized little nuances,
(27:54):
but the question is whether,generally speaking, politicians
are going to speak to the broadswath of middle Alaska families
in the concerns that they'rehaving dealing with the
economics.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Which would mean that they would have to focus on the
private economy.
I mean, that's part of theproblem.
They would have to focus on theprivate economy instead of it
all being about the governmentsector.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yeah, and it also brings us back to the PFD.
I mean, one of the things thatI've continued to harp on and
will continue to harp on is theregressive nature of PFD cuts
funding government, whatgovernment we have funding
government through PFD cutsbecause that is having a big
impact, certainly on lowerincome Alaska families.
You see the big impact,certainly on lower-income Alaska
(28:47):
families.
You see the big impact there.
But it's also having adisproportionate impact on
middle-income Alaska families.
And so we're really, you know,as costs are going up, we're
sort of taking out through PFDcuts, we're sort of taking out
the base, a component of baseincome, a component of base
revenue to Alaska families byusing PFD cuts as the way to
(29:14):
fund government.
And so, to deal with whatAlaska families are facing, we
not only need to talk about thecost impact but we also need to
talk about what government'sdoing to make the income side of
Alaska families worse off thanthrough PFD cuts, to replace PFD
(29:53):
cuts and eliminate thedisproportionate adverse effect
on middle-income Alaska familiesthat they are experiencing
through the use of PFDs as a wayof funding government.
A couple of ways that I thinkthat we need to be talking about
.
One is oil taxes.
I think that, as we've talkedabout on the show before, I
think there is room, there iscapacity to reform oil taxes
(30:19):
without adversely impactingfuture development.
We are getting significantlyless as a share of gross
revenues in this decade fromSB21 than we got in the prior
decade, in the 2010s, and wecertainly had investment going
(30:39):
on that's resulting inproduction in this decade, but
we certainly had investmentgoing on then.
So I think there's room on oiltaxes that Canada ought to be
talking about and I thinkthere's room.
I wrote an article that wasreleased yesterday in the
landmine yesterday, one of theweekly columns I write, talking
(31:00):
about the performance of thePermanent Fund Corporation.
We've talked about it on theshow before that the Permanent
Fund Corporation issignificantly underperforming
relative to where it could beand that's costing revenues in
terms of the level of POMB draws.
That's costing significantrevenues to government and I
think those are things that wecan talk about before we ever
(31:23):
get to taxes.
I mean reforming the taxstructure.
I think those are things thatwe can talk about to relieve the
pressure on using the PFD as arevenue source, the cost
standpoint and talking about,you know, things that affect all
of us in terms of cost, butalso from the income standpoint,
(31:59):
and what the state has done interms of PFD cuts to
regressively reduce the incomesof middle-income Alaska families
by using PFD cuts as thestate's primary revenue source.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Well, and this is the 12 million pound gorilla in the
room, right?
I mean, if we could only get acontrol of our taxation or of
our spending, we could pull allthis down, but again, there's
got to be the political will todo it.
And there's a lot of platitudesthat go around from all these
different politicians at thevarious levels, but nobody
really seems to be taking a stabat the real problem, which, of
(32:29):
course, is that the privateeconomy is continuing to
struggle.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Yeah, and I know Bernadette's talked about
restoring the PFD and makingthat a principal's standard for
campaign.
But you can't do thatRealistically, you can't do that
.
If you don't have replacementrevenues you can't restore.
I mean, that's what Dunleavyran into you can't restore the
PFD if you don't havereplacement revenues to cover at
(32:57):
least some of the spending.
We can cut spending some, butat least some of the spending
that's going on.
And so to realistically discussthe issue, at the same time as
you discuss restoring the PFD,you're going to have to discuss
where replacement revenues aregoing to come from.
And if you're not doing that,you're being as disingenuous on
(33:19):
the issue as Dunleavy's turnedout to be.
I mean, Dunleavy talks a lotabout restoring the PFD right, I
mean his budget came outrestoring the PFD but he doesn't
.
But without replacementrevenues it's unrealistic, it's
just rhetoric.
So we need candidates who aregoing to deal realistically with
this issue, recognize theadverse impact that PFD cuts
(33:40):
have had on middle income Alaskafamilies from the income side,
work to alleviate whatgovernment has done to those
families in terms of theregressive taxation of cutting
PFDs, but also, at the same time, address where they're going to
develop replacement revenues toreplace the state's reliance on
(34:04):
PFD cuts.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Which, of course, is the one thing that they don't
want to do at this point.
You know the biggest thing here, brad, we got about two minutes
, but the biggest thing withthis whole deal, all the things
we've been talking about, isalways if we could just get the
politicians to open their eyesto see the long term
consequences.
Right, that's the thing.
It seems like everybody's sofocused on giving people what
(34:27):
they want in the short term sothey get reelected.
Nobody's looking at the longterm costs, the impact on, you
know, private economy people.
You know anything else, andthis is the short sightedness
that is politics.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
I mean it has been for 3000 years.
Yeah, you play, you play to thecrowd, you play to the immediacy
, but you know, we've got theopportunity on this show at
least to talk about the longterm and we've got the
opportunity to evaluatecandidates on whether they have
a long-term vision that'srealistic and a long-term vision
that meets the needs of the 60%of Alaskans that are sort of
(35:08):
the baseline of the state.
And I think they just get lostin the noise.
I think that segment of Alaskagets lost in the noise about, oh
, I'm going to appeal to thissegment or I'm going to appeal
to that segment or I'm going toappeal to this segment.
I think that the base of Alaskasort of gets lost in the noise.
(35:28):
And one of the things that whenI read articles about Peltola
or Tom Begich or, you know, thefive Republicans that have
already announced and the morethat are likely to come, when I
read those articles I'm going tobe looking for and talking
about on the show, talking aboutwhether they're really focusing
on the fundamentals that affectmiddle-income Alaska families.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, we'll see.
We'll see if our little chatshere every Tuesday bring about
any more future change.
Fingers crossed we could seesome of that going on.
We're on to number three.
This is the one that I've beenlooking forward to, because I
read this, I thought blood wasgoing to shoot out of my eyes as
I read this opinion piece.
I thought blood was going toshoot out of my eyes as I read
(36:13):
this opinion piece.
Brad's got his top three.
His three of the top three isone journalist should take his
own advice, and we're talkingabout Tim Bradner who, generally
speaking, is pretty even keeledon most of his reporting and
talking and things like that.
Pretty even keeled on most ofhis reporting and talking and
things like that.
But this opinion piece uh inthe, uh in the adn and in other
various outlets is just uh, sotone deaf.
(36:36):
It says now more than ever,alaska needs civics education in
our schools.
And uh and brad is like maybepot and kettle should meet here
somewhere in the middle.
Right, br?
You want to hit me with yourthoughts on this?
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Look, tim Bradner is a good reporter.
I read his stuff.
I read everything that hepublishes publicly.
At least when I read theFrontiersman, I go through and I
make sure that I've read allthe articles that have been
bylined by Tim, even if they'relocal Mat-Su politics articles,
(37:13):
because he just has some greatinsights, some great economic
insights.
He follows some good economicsources and uses those in his
stories in a way that I think isvery good.
But every once in a while hegoes off on these tangents,
mostly in op-eds, but I'm goingto come back and say it creeps
(37:35):
into his stories also.
Mostly in these op-eds he goesoff on these tangents that get a
little preachy and a littlewell preachy Tone deaf, tone
deaf, about his subjects, wellpreachy about Tone deaf, tone
deaf, about his subjects.
And this one you read the titleNow More Than Ever, alaska Needs
(37:58):
Civic Education in Our Schoolsis one of those.
It starts with focusing on abill that Senate President Gary
Stevens and LB Jackson Gray haveproposed that would require a
civics course as part of theAlaska K-12 curriculum and would
(38:25):
require students to take thecivics courses.
And, as as Tim writes the story, there's a.
He says there's a good reasonfor this?
Because we we're we're in themidst of a of a situation where
people aren't paying attentionto the constitution, people
aren't paying attention to theseparation of powers that that
that we're, that we're becominga more dictatorial nation, sort
(38:49):
of goes down this road.
That, uh, that more dictatorialnation sort of goes down this
road that you would expect froma strong Democrat, or you've
seen from strong Democrats,about the dangers of this
administration, about theconcentration of executive power
in the office of the presidentand various things.
And Tim's focus is, yes, weneed civics education because we
(39:12):
need to come back to the basicsabout separation of powers and
about why separation of powersare important and about why
constraints on the executive areimportant, and sort of goes
down that road and that peopleought to be paying attention to
the Constitution.
Well, the thing that alwaysstrikes me when I read one of
these things by Tim is that heis part of the problem, not part
(39:37):
of the solution, at least inone respect.
Whenever you read one of Tim'sstories about the PFD, tim
always goes out of his way inthe story to say that that the,
that the pfd, the as as itexists now, is an obsolete
statute, and and he rationalizesand justifies the legislature
(40:03):
ignoring that statute.
That's on the book, still onthe books, never been amended,
never been changed, about howthe PFD is to be calculated,
that the legislature isjustified in ignoring that
statute.
He uses that words, he usesthose words ignoring the statute
that the legislature isjustified in ignoring that.
(40:26):
Again another word he usesobsolete statute and it strikes
me as just sort of pot callingkettle black.
I mean, Tim writes this columnthat goes off on this screed
about people not payingattention to the Constitution,
not paying attention toseparation of powers, not paying
attention to the constraintsthat the executive is supposed
(40:50):
to operate under, not payingattention to various things that
are in statutes andconstitutions and otherwise, and
saying you know, we need torestore, we need to have a
course that emphasizes thatpeople ought to pay attention to
the laws, ought to payattention to the Constitution,
ought to pay attention to theConstitution, ought to pay
attention to the statutes thatemphasize all those things.
(41:12):
At the same time, tim is writingstories that says you can
ignore statutes because they'reobsolete, not because they've
been changed, not because amajority of the legislature,
with concurrence to the governor, have changed the statute and
made it something different,that you just ignore a statute
because it's been around toolong or it's inconvenient or it
doesn't work or whateverrationalization he brings up at
(41:35):
any given point in time.
Tim's part of the problem, Imean he is in those stories.
He is preaching that you canignore statutes.
He is preaching that you can,you know, self-categorize a
statute as obsolete and justignore it and go on about your
(41:58):
business.
He is advocating, when he doesthat, he is advocating ignoring
law, right, ignoring, ignoring,uh, provisions of law.
And I just think I just alwaysthink it's really, it's really
humorous, it's just, it's just,it's just inconsistent it's
hypocritical.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
You're way too nice.
It's hypocritical.
I mean, at that point I meanwelcome to the irish democracy.
Right, we're just going toignore the laws we don't like,
oh, but this guy, if he doesanything, that we even, oh, oh,
man, civics the fall ofcivilization.
I mean, that's again thehypocrisy of this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
It is, and and I just I I don't know if Tim
recognizes it, to be honest Uh,and Tim, if you listen to this
segment, uh, along the way, Imean again, you write great
stuff.
I read everything you write, butthis is just sort of silly.
I mean, it's silly for you towrite into your stories how that
you can ignore statutes andit's okay for the legislature to
(42:57):
ignore the statutes becausethey're obsolete or because they
don't fit the times anymore,when those statutes are still on
the books.
What I would suggest you do isfocus on the fact the statute's
still on the books and point outthat the legislature is
ignoring it, just like you wantus to point out that the
(43:22):
Congress or the President orwhoever is ignoring separation
of powers, is ignoring theconstitution, is ignoring this,
that or other thing.
You want us to point that out.
We need civics education to beable to identify and point that
out.
Well, you need to point outalso when the legislature is
doing the very same thing, whenthey're when they're ignoring
(43:43):
statutes that they wrote notchanging them, not amending them
, but just ignoring them, thestatutes that they wrote that
are still on the books.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
No, it's frustrating to watch again.
And he does write well.
I've read a lot of his stuff,but again this one, your bias,
your slip, is showing.
I mean, it's just like it's soblatantly clear and, like you
said, it actually bleeds backinto his other writings.
Now, the more you see it, themore you can't unsee it, which
is unfortunate Because, again,he does a pretty good job on a
(44:15):
lot of things, but this one isjust so tone deaf.
I read this and I read throughit a couple of times, because
I'm like do you not see theabsolute hypocrisy of what
you're talking about here?
You know, you, you advocate forall these things to happen in
the state simply because youthink it's the right thing to do
, and just because they can getaway with it doesn't mean that
(44:39):
they should.
And at the same time, thingsthat are falling within the law
but are unpopular with you nowbecome the end of civilization.
The fate of civilization as weknow it is, then, tied to this.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Yeah, and and it's really.
I mean, I don't want to, Idon't want to blow this too much
out of proportion, but but whenyou write an article, when you
write a news article was wassupposed to be a news article,
and you call a stash, a statuteobsolete, you, the writer,
believe the statute is obsolete,so you call it obsolete and you
rationalize and justify thelegislature ignoring that
(45:14):
statute as part of your newsarticle.
Well, you're having, you'reinfluencing your readers to say
well, you know, we can call thatstatute obsolete, then that
statute's obsolete.
Then that you know that we cancall that statute obsolete, then
that statute's obsolete.
Then that you know thattradition about how the
president ought to act and theconstraints the president ought
to be under, that that'sobsolete.
And you can.
(45:35):
You just lead the reader atleast you know, I think you lead
the reader to have a much moreblasé reaction to you know
people ignoring the lawelsewhere, when you yourself are
writing an article and saidthat you can ignore the law
(45:55):
because it's obsolete, good forthe goose, good for the gander.
If you want us to pay attentionto all the traditions, if you
want us to pay attention to thestrict separation of powers, if
you want us to pay attention toall the traditions, if you want
us to pay attention to thestrict separation of powers, if
you want us to pay attention toall of the stuff over here
that's still written down, thathasn't been changed, then you
should pay attention to thestuff over here that's still
(46:16):
written down and hasn't beenchanged.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
Well, it's almost like he's championing it right
at that point.
It's like when he says it's theopposite, he's championing the
behavior of the legislature, atthe same time castigating what's
going on with the president orwhatever else, uh, and kind of
falling into that same trap.
And it, and and again, yourslip is showing.
You know, your, your bias isshowing and it if it was just in
(46:40):
an op-ed it'd be one thing, but, as you said, it bleeds into
all these other things and itbecomes very obvious that this
is kind of the tact that they'recoming from.
It's, it's kind of frustrating,because one of the things that
I've been critical of is that wejust don't have enough
journalistic Depth in this state.
Maybe journalistic integrity,but also ambition.
(47:02):
Journalistic ambition wherethey actually dig into an
article instead of justparaphrasing a press release.
They're actually getting okay.
They said this let me go overhere and get the opposite side
and then have a balanced start.
You know, that's just nothappening for the most part.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Yeah, yeah, and I agree with that, but that's
really, I mean, that's sort of aseparate issue, right.
I mean that's sort of a.
That sort of a are you?
Are you telling the full storyissue here?
In this situation, tim is isbecoming an advocate in the
middle of the news story bytalking about and rationalizing
(47:38):
the legislature, ignoring thestatute and calling the statute
obsolete.
It almost gets to the point.
Frankly, when I read one of hisnews stories, I'm, you know,
going through with my brain andsaying, okay, this is news, this
is analysis, this is legitimatestuff.
Well, here's Tim's opinion overhere.
And you got to set that asideand look for the hardcore stuff
(48:04):
in there.
And it's difficult sometimes,particularly when he's talking
about how the state is settingup the budget, because all of
this, you know, the, the PFDdoesn't count, it's obsolete,
it's, it's out of date.
All of this doesn't.
All of that permeates any story.
He does, right, he does on thebudget.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
I got about two minutes here.
I did want to comment becauseyou've been supporting
candidates and I saw your postthe other day where it was
wasn't Jubilee Underwood, it wasAlexi Moore who was under fire
for some of the things and youwere like good job, and you
actually wrote her a checkbecause she's taken a lot of
different heat.
Can you comment on that realquick, because I thought that
(48:42):
was, I mean it's, it's.
I thought that was a lot ofmuch ado about nothing.
I think there's a facultycontingency out there that's
really banging on her about somestuff.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
But what's your take on that?
So her district I forget whatdistrict number it is, but her
district Republican Partysanctioned her for different
things or different things, butone of them was supporting Rob
Yunt's Senate Bill 133, which isthe digital tax what some try
to discount, saying the Etsy tax, but is a tax on digital
(49:19):
services being provided in thestate.
Just like we have a sales taxon goods provided in the state,
it would have a tax on digitalservices being provided in the
state.
The state it would provide itwould have a tax on digital
services being provided in thestate.
And she, alexi, had supportedRob's bill, which I thought was
a good thing, because we needalternative revenue sources.
(49:40):
We need to reduce our relianceon PFD cuts and I thought Alexi
supported that.
So when the district sanctionedher for that I mean, you and I
have had this discussion on theshow, but there are very few
bills out there that have assmall an impact, if any revenue
impact, on the state as thedigital services tax when her
(50:01):
district sanctioned her for thatand told her she could no
longer claim to be a Republican,the district Republican said
you can no longer claim to be aRepublican.
No longer use Republican in youradvertising, that sort of stuff
.
You no longer claim to be aRepublican because you supported
this bill.
Oh, that was just outrageousBecause, look, we need people
who talk realistically, as wetalked about in the second
(50:23):
segment today.
We need people who talkrealistically about what we're
going to do on the revenue sideif we're going to restore the
PFD, and and we need people whotalk realistically about that.
So I thought you know, Ithought the district's actions
was outrageous, and so I decidedto do something about it, and
which was write the check at the, at the, at the new maximum
(50:45):
that would be set by theinitiative that's going to go
before the voters in 26.
Write a check and say, look,not only am I going to talk the
game, I'm going to put my moneywhere my mouth is and posted
that.
Speaker 2 (51:01):
Anyway, we're out of time.
Brad Keithley Alaskans forSustainable Budgets the weekly
top three.
Brad, thanks for coming onboard this morning.
Speaker 1 (51:13):
Michael, as always, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
Thank you.
I hope you enjoy your concertthis Friday.
That's what it's all about.
Speaker 1 (51:21):
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 and Substackpages, and keep track of us
during the week on Facebook andTwitter.
This has been Brad Keithley,managing Director of Alaskans
(51:42):
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the Weekly
Top Three.
Hi, this is Brad Keithley, managing Director of
Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets.
Welcome to the weekly top three, the top three things on our
mind here at Alaskans forSustainable Budgets for the week
of July 14th 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 am.
I join Michael weekly in thefirst hour of Tuesday's show
from 610 to 7 am for adiscussion between the two of us
about our three issues.
We post the podcast of ourdiscussion following the show on
the Alaskans for SustainableBudgets Facebook, youtube,
(00:57):
soundcloud, spotify and Substackpages, also on the Alaskans for
Sustainable Budgets website, aswell as the projects page on
national blog site mediumcom.
You can find past episodes ofthe weekly top three also at the
same locations.
Keep in mind that, in additionto these podcasts during the
(01:19):
week, you also can 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, while the One
(01:40):
Big Beautiful Act increasesaccess to potential new oil
fields on federal lands.
We discuss whether it willactually result in new
development and, moreimportantly, additional state
revenues.
Second, we discuss thefundamental economic issue that
we believe the candidates forgovernor need to address in the
(02:02):
coming election cycle forgovernor need to address in the
coming election cycle.
And third, we explain why wethink one journalist should
listen to himself and follow hisown advice that he recently
gave in an op-ed piece.
And now let's join Michael.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
We're going to start off with number one, which
includes the one big beautifulbill, or as Brad calls it, the
one big bad beautiful bill, thebadass beautiful bill.
And we're going to talk aboutthe details on this, and the big
question is number one fortoday is it going to provide the
(02:38):
development we need?
And I guess the question iswill it provide the development
we need in the time frame thatwe need it?
I think that's probably thebigger, more precise question,
brad.
Good morning, my friend, goodmorning, sir.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
It's interesting.
The real question is will itprovide the revenues we need?
Right Development's important,but does that development turn
into revenues for the state inthe timeframe that we need?
There have been a series ofarticles that people have been
talking about and I've hadquestions about including one
(03:18):
from Alex DeMarmid, who's thebusiness reporter for the
Anchorage Daily News.
It starts with there's anarticle in the Alaska Beacon,
but also in the ADN andelsewhere.
The headline is USGS reportsays federal lands in Alaska
hold large share of undiscoveredoil and gas.
(03:40):
And then the first paragraphsays about half of what's known
as the estimated undiscovered,technically recoverable oil
lying below federal lands is inAlaska source that there's a lot
of oil and gas sittingunderneath Alaska lands.
But that's only the startingpoint of any analysis of whether
(04:19):
we're going to do better.
The next question is whetheryou can have access to those
lands.
You may have a huge, hugeamount of oil someplace, but if
you don't have access to thoselands it really doesn't do you
any good.
And that's where the one bigbeautiful bill John Hendricks is
the one who called it the onebig bad beautiful bill, or
(04:41):
something like that but that'swhere the one big beautiful bill
comes in.
It opens up access to Alaskalands in a way that we really
haven't had before.
It requires leasing not only onthe North Slope, not only in
(05:01):
NPRA and in ANWR, but also inCook Inlet, and really opens up
access to potential access interms of leases issued to
additional lands.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Sorry about that, Brad.
We had a little bit of aninternet slurp there for a
second.
There you were saying it'stechnically recoverable, but
that's where the hitch is yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
So the question is whether you can get access to.
The first question of severalis whether you can get access to
those lands, and that's wherethe one big beautiful bill comes
in in terms of providingadditional access.
Beautiful bill comes in interms of providing additional
access.
It requires sets up leasingboth in NPRA and in ANWR,
additional leasing both in NPRAand in ANWR, and sets up
(05:54):
additional leasing also in theCook Inlet.
And so access.
The one big beautiful billaddresses access in the sense
that it opens the potential foraccess to what may be
significant additional reserves.
But that's only the second step.
The third step is does thegeology prove that there's
(06:18):
really oil there?
What the USGS study is is anevaluation of estimated
undiscovered technicallyrecoverable, and what that's
really talking about ispotential, that potentially
there's additional oil on theseAlaska lands.
And the question is, first, canyou get access to it?
(06:40):
And then, geologically, is theoil actually recoverable as
opposed to technologicallyrecoverable, theoretically
recoverable?
And then the final question iswhether it's economic to produce
, and we won't know that for along period of time and, as you
and I have discussed, thatreally in a significant way
(07:03):
depends upon the next election.
These development horizons orthese development timelines are
fairly long, even if you havegood permitting, even if the
permitting times go well.
The development times arefairly long and the question is
(07:24):
whether producers feel confidentenough that they're going to
have long-term access that is,if the next election cycle isn't
going to snap back and all of asudden shut down access to
these lands whether they'regoing to have long-term access
in a way that justifies thesignificant upfront investment
they have to make in order torecover these reserves.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
And that's part of the problem with the
politicization of this wholeprocess back and forth right.
What used to be kind of more ofa market-driven approach has
become so heavily regulated andso involving the government in
every aspect.
It's been politicized at everyturn.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yep, exactly right, and so that's a.
I mean, that's a big issuewhether, when in this cycle,
producers begin to feelconfident, they can step out.
Now I noticed the other daythat Conoco had announced or
yesterday actually Conoco hadannounced plans for additional
development around Willow,additional development in their
(08:24):
share of MPRA on lands they'vealready leased, and so they feel
confident making someadditional exploration decisions
, some additional developmentexploration decisions around
Willow.
But that's really, I mean, theydon't have to set up much.
Willow's already there, theinfrastructure's already there,
and so that's a relatively shortcycle development that they can
(08:48):
go out and explore for andpotentially development.
So that's a good sign certainly, of additional development.
But I truly think some of thisis going to hinge on how the
2026 elections go, how thecongressional elections go,
whether the Republicans holdboth houses and whether there's
(09:11):
an indication that they're goingto continue to hold the
presidency after Trump, afterthis term.
And so we're not there wherethere's a confidence level, I
think, where producers are goingto be making long-term
development decisions.
But you know we've got a to bemaking long-term development
decisions.
But you know, we've got a waysto go, they've got access, and
so that's the first step of many.
The final step is does thattranslate into revenues for the
(09:34):
state?
The one big beautiful bill doesprovide additional royalties
going to the state from theadditional development, but NPRA
additional development in NPRAis still subject to the local
preference.
So even though the NPRA revenuesharing steps up under the One
(10:01):
Big Beautiful Bill after aperiod of time, steps up under
the One Big Beautiful Bill, itis that additional revenue that
additional royalty would go towould be subject to local
preference and really go to theNorth Slope, borough and other
localities on the North Slope.
(10:21):
It really doesn't help stategeneral fund revenues.
It's different in ANWR.
Anwr is not subject to the localpreference and so any
development over in ANWR wouldbe the increased royalty that
the bill provides fordevelopment from ANWR would go
(10:41):
to the state.
Development from ANWR would goto the state and that's a good
thing.
But ANWR is several years off.
Even if everything worksperfectly, even if the leases go
off, players significantplayers take the leases, even if
the geology proves that there'soil there, the development
(11:02):
timeframe for ANWR and theconfidence level they're going
to need to develop ANWR is stillquite a period off.
So, yes, it does provide forpotential additional revenues to
the state, I mean, opens up theopportunity for that, but but
that's a ways off and subject toyou know.
Are the producers going to haveconfidence in the next election
(11:25):
cycle?
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah, and that raises the question.
I mean, of course, one of thebig pushes was even the
president, and Nick Vega justtalked about that and everything
else.
Now is the time for Congress toact, while they still have some
of these priorities, toactually solidify some of these
decisions.
But is there the political willin Congress to do these things,
to lock them in for a longerterm so they can't just be
(11:49):
subject to presidential whims?
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Well, and, as we found out, that's hard to do.
I mean, trump is proving thatexecutive power is much broader,
I think, than some anticipatedin prior administrations and is
proving the power of executiveorders in a way that, frankly,
we haven't seen before.
So, or demonstrating the powerof executive orders in a way we
(12:14):
haven't seen before.
So you're not certain, anduncertainty is not a friend to
development.
I mean, producers don't want toput a whole lot of money down
in, in pursuing a project ifthey're uncertain.
I mean, geologic uncertainty isone thing, technical
(12:37):
uncertainty is another thing,but if you've got political
uncertainty about whether you'regoing to continue to have
access to to those lands orcontinue to be able to develop
those lands, uh, that's a hugeamount of uncertainty, uh, that
that producers aren't willing toundertake.
I mean, given, given theopportunities available in the
world.
Um, there are other, morecertain plays that you can
(13:01):
pursue than uh, than than onethat's been so subject to, to uh
, a yo-yo, a political yo-yoover the year.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Somebody just said have a little faith, brad.
I don't think this is aboutBrad having faith.
I think this is about therealistic.
You know what's going on.
That's like saying we, you know, let's just get a gas line now,
okay, well, that's great.
But there's this little realitycalled economics that we have
to deal with as well.
I mean, I'd love to see it, I'dlove to see the drilling, I'd
love to see all that stuff.
(13:29):
But no company or privateindividual or investment firm is
going to dump tens of millions,hundreds of millions of dollars
into a prospect that five yearsfrom now could be 100% reversed
through executive order.
That's part of the problem here.
We've got to have congressionalunderwriting of the direction
(13:50):
that the president's going.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Yeah and continued underwriting.
I mean it doesn't do any goodfor Congress to pass the law now
if Congress is going to undo it, if we're going to have a
different Congress in four yearsor a different Congress in two
years and they're going to startchipping away at it.
So there's a lot of political.
(14:12):
I mean people say that oh,america is a safe political
region, the safe legal regionthat you can rely on decisions.
You can't.
I mean we've seen that we arethe poster child.
Alaska is the poster child forthat about how you get yo-yoed
back and forth.
So I think what we're going tosee is gradual steps.
(14:36):
First in NPRA Conoco'sannouncement is a good one.
First in NPRA, because we'vegot existing kit, we've got
existing footprint in NPRA thatyou can just sort of gradually
step out on.
I think we're going to seegradual sort of testing the
(14:58):
waters and stepping out a bit.
If there's another president ofsimilar bent with President
Trump in 28, from a resourcedevelopment standpoint, then I
think you'll see moresignificant steps.
But it's going to be a gradualprocess.
The mere fact that the USGSsays there's oil there and that
(15:21):
the One Big, beautiful Billprovides additional access to it
, that isn't enough.
The economics are important andthe economics are subject to
the political uncertainty.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
That was Kim saying.
Have a little faith, brad.
I mean again, it's not aboutfaith, we can have faith.
It's just the question of whatis the reality of what is coming
around to it.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Investors don't operate on faith.
Investors operate on relativedegrees of certainty.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
And they want a lot more than just faith before they
put the money down.
Well, we could be nothing butsterling optimists around here,
and it's not going to change athing unless we address some of
the issues that cause thatuncertainty.
That's the thing.
That's why we keep diving intothese things.
Brian had asked early on but isthere a market for all these
big, beautiful barrels?
Can they be extracted at aprofit?
(16:21):
Can they be extracted at aprofit?
And that's the big question.
Because all this potential oil?
The USGS report.
It does not talk about theeconomics.
It just talks about technicallyrecoverable, which means with
modern technology, and it's aguesstimate right, but it
doesn't deal with the economicsof it at all.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Yeah, it doesn't deal with the economics.
Yeah, it doesn't deal with theeconomics.
(17:09):
Interestingly enough, o millionbarrels a day currently to
about 150 million barrels a dayby 2050.
You remember during COVID andduring the early phases of
climate concerns, theexpectations were that we'd hit
peak oil or would hit peak oilsomewhere along in here and then
start declining in terms ofdemand peak oil in terms of
demand.
But OPEC's announcement is, orOPEC's analysis is, that oil is
(17:31):
going to continue to grow.
Now you know that's self-servingin a way.
Opec wants oil to continue togrow and wants investors and
wants others to believe that oildemand is going to continue to
grow.
But it was an interestinganalysis and it wasn't even that
we were plateauing, it was thatwe were growing.
Oil demand was growing by 2050.
(17:54):
So there's a range of positionsout there.
Iea, international EnergyAgency, who has been the most
successful pessimistic about oilgrowth, most optimistic about
the replacement of oil withrenewables and other sources of
energy, has gradually tilted itsexpectations of the future back
(18:19):
up to where oil is plateauingmaybe a slight increase for a
significant period into thefuture.
So, to answer Brian's question,there's a higher expectation of
overall oil demand, global oildemand going forward than there
has been in the past and theeconomics of Alaska are good.
(18:41):
Once you get past the upfrontinvestment you have to make for
Alaska barrels.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
So then it becomes stable once the oil is actually
pumping.
It's up until that point thatit kind of screws you.
Brian also said brad, have youheard a report that santos may
be purchased by adnoc?
Speaker 1 (18:59):
I don't know what that is, but adnock, it's abu
dhabi, the abu dhabi nationaloil company, um, and that's a
AdNoc's play.
From AdNoc's side, that's anLNG play.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
We're going to answer Brian's question about the
Santos purchase by Abu Dhabi.
What's going on there?
Speaker 1 (19:18):
So AdNoc is becoming big in LNG, wants to become big
in LNG, global LNG and Santos is, although we know it in Alaska
for the PICA development, theoil development on the North
Slope.
Globally Santos is a big LNGplayer and when they acquired
(19:40):
Oilsearch, which was one of thepredecessors of the PICA field,
when Santos acquired Oilsearchthey acquired a big PNG well, a
big LNG project in Papua NewGuinea, png what's referred to
in the industry as PNG and sothey have.
(20:00):
Santos really has a big LNGside and AdNoc's interest in
Santos is really to scoop upthose LNG assets, join them with
the LNG assets that AdNocalready has and become an even
bigger player in the LNGindustry.
It's unclear what that mightmean for PICA, but look, pica is
(20:22):
a good field.
It's way down the road in termsof development.
It's had previous owners andit's sort of, you know,
continued on despite the changes.
And even if AdNoc for somereason decided that PICA wasn't
a strategic fit with its overallview of where it's going, pica
(20:45):
would be easily saleable on themarket.
So an ad doc really wouldn'tdemand that high a price.
I don't think, because ad docsare going to be focused on
developing the LNG assets thatit would get with Santos.
So yeah, it's something that'soccurring.
Ad docs made a bid, santos hasessentially accepted the bid,
(21:06):
subject to a lot of conditions,and it's proceeding forward.
And yes, it may affect PICA,but I don't think it's going to
be a big adverse impact on PICAgoing forward.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
We move on to number two, which is going to be the
big question we're going to beasking ourselves for the next 18
months Will any candidatesactually articulate and face the
problems that we're facing?
They actually address the realproblems, Brad.
What made you dive into thisone?
Speaker 1 (21:39):
Well, there's an article that Nat Hertz, I think,
published yesterday and so itwill work its way through the
various publications.
He published it on his NorthernJournal, which is his website,
but it typically works throughthe other publications.
The headline of it is NationalDemocrats are salivating over a
(22:00):
Mary Paltola bid for US Senate.
But Alaska's governor's racecould be wide open too, and the
article is really about could bewide open too, and the article
is really about.
You know what influences are atplay with Peltola's decision on
whether she runs for the Senaterace or the governor's race.
I've heard people speculate onboth sides that oh, she's
definitely running for theSenate against Dan Sullivan, or
(22:22):
oh, she's definitely running forthe open governor seats where
she doesn't have to face anincumbent.
And it's an interesting article.
For those who are into thepolitical end of things, it's a
good read.
There is one interesting tidbitin there.
They asked Tom Begich for hisreaction to all this and he said
(22:44):
if Mary runs for Senate, I amdefinitely.
I, tom Begich, am definitelyrunning for governor.
If Mary runs for governor, I amdefinitely supporting Mary for
governor.
So Begich essentially impliesthat he's not the fallback for
the Senate race.
But if Mary, if Paltoa runs forthe Senate, then Begich, tom
Begich is the fallback for the,for the for the governor's race,
(23:06):
the Democrat fallback for theuh uh for the for the governor's
race, the Democrat, uh,fallback for the governor's race
.
And so we're really, I meanwe're, we're beginning to get in
this season where candidatesare forming.
There's something, what likefive candidates announced,
republican candidates announcedalready.
There was another one, um uh,another one announcing this week
(23:26):
a doctor who, uh, uh somespeculate can self-fund his
campaign like Bill Walker didback in the day.
So we're beginning to get a lotof discussion about it.
But the question I have is isany of these candidates going to
discuss the issues thatordinary Alaskans are facing?
(23:49):
The middle and lower income,middle income Alaska families
that sort of make up the bulk ofthe state, the middle 60
percent, with the 20 percentdown at the low end, 20 percent
at the high end, the middle 60percent, and there's several
articles or several publicationsthat have that have raised
issues that those middle-incomeAlaska families are facing.
(24:10):
One, the Fairbanks News Minor,picked up a report from the
Alaska Department of Labor thatsays, the headline of which is
Economic Report Alaska InflationStabilizes, yet Prices Remain
High and that's picking up onthe Alaska trends.
It's a monthly publication fromthe Alaska Department of Labor
(24:32):
economic publication.
It's picking up on a story inthe most recent Alaska trends
that talks about the fact thatinflation is sort of leveling
off.
Alaska inflation is levelingoff, which is sort of the good
news, but the bad news is thatwe've had substantial inflation
over the last several yearswhich has elevated prices.
(24:55):
So the fact is from where theywere before COVID.
So the fact that we'rereturning to a normal rate of
inflation growth is good news,but the bad news is the prices
that have elevated substantiallyover the past few years due to
high inflation are sort ofsticking.
(25:16):
We're not having deflationwhere those prices go down.
We're just going to continue toexperience the impact of the
elevation of prices over thepast few years.
And the Trends article makes agood point about the fact that
you really need to continue tofocus on the impact of past
inflation and where those priceshave gotten to For Alaskans.
(25:42):
You need to continue to focuson that as much as the fact that
we're having moderatinginflation going forward and the
impact that has on Alaskaconsumers.
There's another article in theFrontiersman that says Alaska
job growth appeared to slow inMay, according to state data.
(26:03):
Another in the Alaska Beaconthat says health.
Healthcare takes big toll oncost of living in Alaska cities.
Report shows and it discussesthe fact that healthcare in
Alaska's major cities Juneau,anchorage, fairbanks is
substantially higher than in thenation as a whole and has a
(26:27):
huge impact on cost of living inthose locations.
It's not that it isn't higherelsewhere in the state as well.
Also, it's simply that thereport focused on the major
municipalities and so that's whythe report or the article
focuses on the majormunicipalities.
It very well could be a bigdriver and likely is a big
(26:49):
driver elsewhere in the state aswell.
So we've got we've got big costdrivers, cost of living drivers,
past inflation, health care andand other things that are that
are affecting middle incomeAlaska families.
And the question is are thegubernatorial candidates really
(27:11):
going to address that?
I'm concerned that what we'regoing to see is sort of
particularized focus, like Iwould not be surprised if
Peltola or Begich says I'm goingto bring your healthcare down
through more governmentregulation or through more
government controls on healthcare costs.
(27:34):
I wouldn't be surprised ifRepublican candidates said I'm
going to bring up jobs or I'mgoing to bring up the
opportunities from jobs throughmore resource development and
I'm going to work with the Trumpadministration on more resource
development.
Those are all sort ofparticularized little nuances,
(27:54):
but the question is whether,generally speaking, politicians
are going to speak to the broadswath of middle Alaska families
in the concerns that they'rehaving dealing with the
economics.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Which would mean that they would have to focus on the
private economy.
I mean, that's part of theproblem.
They would have to focus on theprivate economy instead of it
all being about the governmentsector.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yeah, and it also brings us back to the PFD.
I mean, one of the things thatI've continued to harp on and
will continue to harp on is theregressive nature of PFD cuts
funding government, whatgovernment we have funding
government through PFD cutsbecause that is having a big
impact, certainly on lowerincome Alaska families.
You see the big impact,certainly on lower-income Alaska
(28:47):
families.
You see the big impact there.
But it's also having adisproportionate impact on
middle-income Alaska families.
And so we're really, you know,as costs are going up, we're
sort of taking out through PFDcuts, we're sort of taking out
the base, a component of baseincome, a component of base
revenue to Alaska families byusing PFD cuts as the way to
(29:14):
fund government.
And so, to deal with whatAlaska families are facing, we
not only need to talk about thecost impact but we also need to
talk about what government'sdoing to make the income side of
Alaska families worse off thanthrough PFD cuts, to replace PFD
(29:53):
cuts and eliminate thedisproportionate adverse effect
on middle-income Alaska familiesthat they are experiencing
through the use of PFDs as a wayof funding government.
A couple of ways that I thinkthat we need to be talking about
.
One is oil taxes.
I think that, as we've talkedabout on the show before, I
think there is room, there iscapacity to reform oil taxes
(30:19):
without adversely impactingfuture development.
We are getting significantlyless as a share of gross
revenues in this decade fromSB21 than we got in the prior
decade, in the 2010s, and wecertainly had investment going
(30:39):
on that's resulting inproduction in this decade, but
we certainly had investmentgoing on then.
So I think there's room on oiltaxes that Canada ought to be
talking about and I thinkthere's room.
I wrote an article that wasreleased yesterday in the
landmine yesterday, one of theweekly columns I write, talking
(31:00):
about the performance of thePermanent Fund Corporation.
We've talked about it on theshow before that the Permanent
Fund Corporation issignificantly underperforming
relative to where it could beand that's costing revenues in
terms of the level of POMB draws.
That's costing significantrevenues to government and I
think those are things that wecan talk about before we ever
(31:23):
get to taxes.
I mean reforming the taxstructure.
I think those are things thatwe can talk about to relieve the
pressure on using the PFD as arevenue source, the cost
standpoint and talking about,you know, things that affect all
of us in terms of cost, butalso from the income standpoint,
(31:59):
and what the state has done interms of PFD cuts to
regressively reduce the incomesof middle-income Alaska families
by using PFD cuts as thestate's primary revenue source.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
Well, and this is the 12 million pound gorilla in the
room, right?
I mean, if we could only get acontrol of our taxation or of
our spending, we could pull allthis down, but again, there's
got to be the political will todo it.
And there's a lot of platitudesthat go around from all these
different politicians at thevarious levels, but nobody
really seems to be taking a stabat the real problem, which, of
(32:29):
course, is that the privateeconomy is continuing to
struggle.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Yeah, and I know Bernadette's talked about
restoring the PFD and makingthat a principal's standard for
campaign.
But you can't do thatRealistically, you can't do that
.
If you don't have replacementrevenues you can't restore.
I mean, that's what Dunleavyran into you can't restore the
PFD if you don't havereplacement revenues to cover at
(32:57):
least some of the spending.
We can cut spending some, butat least some of the spending
that's going on.
And so to realistically discussthe issue, at the same time as
you discuss restoring the PFD,you're going to have to discuss
where replacement revenues aregoing to come from.
And if you're not doing that,you're being as disingenuous on
(33:19):
the issue as Dunleavy's turnedout to be.
I mean, Dunleavy talks a lotabout restoring the PFD right, I
mean his budget came outrestoring the PFD but he doesn't
.
But without replacementrevenues it's unrealistic, it's
just rhetoric.
So we need candidates who aregoing to deal realistically with
this issue, recognize theadverse impact that PFD cuts
(33:40):
have had on middle income Alaskafamilies from the income side,
work to alleviate whatgovernment has done to those
families in terms of theregressive taxation of cutting
PFDs, but also, at the same time, address where they're going to
develop replacement revenues toreplace the state's reliance on
(34:04):
PFD cuts.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Which, of course, is the one thing that they don't
want to do at this point.
You know the biggest thing here, brad, we got about two minutes
, but the biggest thing withthis whole deal, all the things
we've been talking about, isalways if we could just get the
politicians to open their eyesto see the long term
consequences.
Right, that's the thing.
It seems like everybody's sofocused on giving people what
(34:27):
they want in the short term sothey get reelected.
Nobody's looking at the longterm costs, the impact on, you
know, private economy people.
You know anything else, andthis is the short sightedness
that is politics.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
I mean it has been for 3000 years.
Yeah, you play, you play to thecrowd, you play to the immediacy
, but you know, we've got theopportunity on this show at
least to talk about the longterm and we've got the
opportunity to evaluatecandidates on whether they have
a long-term vision that'srealistic and a long-term vision
that meets the needs of the 60%of Alaskans that are sort of
(35:08):
the baseline of the state.
And I think they just get lostin the noise.
I think that segment of Alaskagets lost in the noise about, oh
, I'm going to appeal to thissegment or I'm going to appeal
to that segment or I'm going toappeal to this segment.
I think that the base of Alaskasort of gets lost in the noise.
(35:28):
And one of the things that whenI read articles about Peltola
or Tom Begich or, you know, thefive Republicans that have
already announced and the morethat are likely to come, when I
read those articles I'm going tobe looking for and talking
about on the show, talking aboutwhether they're really focusing
on the fundamentals that affectmiddle-income Alaska families.
Speaker 2 (35:52):
Well, we'll see.
We'll see if our little chatshere every Tuesday bring about
any more future change.
Fingers crossed we could seesome of that going on.
We're on to number three.
This is the one that I've beenlooking forward to, because I
read this, I thought blood wasgoing to shoot out of my eyes as
I read this opinion piece.
I thought blood was going toshoot out of my eyes as I read
(36:13):
this opinion piece.
Brad's got his top three.
His three of the top three isone journalist should take his
own advice, and we're talkingabout Tim Bradner who, generally
speaking, is pretty even keeledon most of his reporting and
talking and things like that.
Pretty even keeled on most ofhis reporting and talking and
things like that.
But this opinion piece uh inthe, uh in the adn and in other
various outlets is just uh, sotone deaf.
(36:36):
It says now more than ever,alaska needs civics education in
our schools.
And uh and brad is like maybepot and kettle should meet here
somewhere in the middle.
Right, br?
You want to hit me with yourthoughts on this?
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Look, tim Bradner is a good reporter.
I read his stuff.
I read everything that hepublishes publicly.
At least when I read theFrontiersman, I go through and I
make sure that I've read allthe articles that have been
bylined by Tim, even if they'relocal Mat-Su politics articles,
(37:13):
because he just has some greatinsights, some great economic
insights.
He follows some good economicsources and uses those in his
stories in a way that I think isvery good.
But every once in a while hegoes off on these tangents,
mostly in op-eds, but I'm goingto come back and say it creeps
(37:35):
into his stories also.
Mostly in these op-eds he goesoff on these tangents that get a
little preachy and a littlewell preachy Tone deaf, tone
deaf, about his subjects, wellpreachy about Tone deaf, tone
deaf, about his subjects.
And this one you read the titleNow More Than Ever, alaska Needs
(37:58):
Civic Education in Our Schoolsis one of those.
It starts with focusing on abill that Senate President Gary
Stevens and LB Jackson Gray haveproposed that would require a
civics course as part of theAlaska K-12 curriculum and would
(38:25):
require students to take thecivics courses.
And, as as Tim writes the story, there's a.
He says there's a good reasonfor this?
Because we we're we're in themidst of a of a situation where
people aren't paying attentionto the constitution, people
aren't paying attention to theseparation of powers that that
that we're, that we're becominga more dictatorial nation, sort
(38:49):
of goes down this road.
That, uh, that more dictatorialnation sort of goes down this
road that you would expect froma strong Democrat, or you've
seen from strong Democrats,about the dangers of this
administration, about theconcentration of executive power
in the office of the presidentand various things.
And Tim's focus is, yes, weneed civics education because we
(39:12):
need to come back to the basicsabout separation of powers and
about why separation of powersare important and about why
constraints on the executive areimportant, and sort of goes
down that road and that peopleought to be paying attention to
the Constitution.
Well, the thing that alwaysstrikes me when I read one of
these things by Tim is that heis part of the problem, not part
(39:37):
of the solution, at least inone respect.
Whenever you read one of Tim'sstories about the PFD, tim
always goes out of his way inthe story to say that that the,
that the pfd, the as as itexists now, is an obsolete
statute, and and he rationalizesand justifies the legislature
(40:03):
ignoring that statute.
That's on the book, still onthe books, never been amended,
never been changed, about howthe PFD is to be calculated,
that the legislature isjustified in ignoring that
statute.
He uses that words, he usesthose words ignoring the statute
that the legislature isjustified in ignoring that.
(40:26):
Again another word he usesobsolete statute and it strikes
me as just sort of pot callingkettle black.
I mean, Tim writes this columnthat goes off on this screed
about people not payingattention to the Constitution,
not paying attention toseparation of powers, not paying
attention to the constraintsthat the executive is supposed
(40:50):
to operate under, not payingattention to various things that
are in statutes andconstitutions and otherwise, and
saying you know, we need torestore, we need to have a
course that emphasizes thatpeople ought to pay attention to
the laws, ought to payattention to the Constitution,
ought to pay attention to theConstitution, ought to pay
attention to the statutes thatemphasize all those things.
(41:12):
At the same time, tim is writingstories that says you can
ignore statutes because they'reobsolete, not because they've
been changed, not because amajority of the legislature,
with concurrence to the governor, have changed the statute and
made it something different,that you just ignore a statute
because it's been around toolong or it's inconvenient or it
doesn't work or whateverrationalization he brings up at
(41:35):
any given point in time.
Tim's part of the problem, Imean he is in those stories.
He is preaching that you canignore statutes.
He is preaching that you can,you know, self-categorize a
statute as obsolete and justignore it and go on about your
(41:58):
business.
He is advocating, when he doesthat, he is advocating ignoring
law, right, ignoring, ignoring,uh, provisions of law.
And I just think I just alwaysthink it's really, it's really
humorous, it's just, it's just,it's just inconsistent it's
hypocritical.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
You're way too nice.
It's hypocritical.
I mean, at that point I meanwelcome to the irish democracy.
Right, we're just going toignore the laws we don't like,
oh, but this guy, if he doesanything, that we even, oh, oh,
man, civics the fall ofcivilization.
I mean, that's again thehypocrisy of this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
It is, and and I just I I don't know if Tim
recognizes it, to be honest Uh,and Tim, if you listen to this
segment, uh, along the way, Imean again, you write great
stuff.
I read everything you write, butthis is just sort of silly.
I mean, it's silly for you towrite into your stories how that
you can ignore statutes andit's okay for the legislature to
(42:57):
ignore the statutes becausethey're obsolete or because they
don't fit the times anymore,when those statutes are still on
the books.
What I would suggest you do isfocus on the fact the statute's
still on the books and point outthat the legislature is
ignoring it, just like you wantus to point out that the
(43:22):
Congress or the President orwhoever is ignoring separation
of powers, is ignoring theconstitution, is ignoring this,
that or other thing.
You want us to point that out.
We need civics education to beable to identify and point that
out.
Well, you need to point outalso when the legislature is
doing the very same thing, whenthey're when they're ignoring
(43:43):
statutes that they wrote notchanging them, not amending them
, but just ignoring them, thestatutes that they wrote that
are still on the books.
Speaker 2 (43:52):
No, it's frustrating to watch again.
And he does write well.
I've read a lot of his stuff,but again this one, your bias,
your slip, is showing.
I mean, it's just like it's soblatantly clear and, like you
said, it actually bleeds backinto his other writings.
Now, the more you see it, themore you can't unsee it, which
is unfortunate Because, again,he does a pretty good job on a
(44:15):
lot of things, but this one isjust so tone deaf.
I read this and I read throughit a couple of times, because
I'm like do you not see theabsolute hypocrisy of what
you're talking about here?
You know, you, you advocate forall these things to happen in
the state simply because youthink it's the right thing to do
, and just because they can getaway with it doesn't mean that
(44:39):
they should.
And at the same time, thingsthat are falling within the law
but are unpopular with you nowbecome the end of civilization.
The fate of civilization as weknow it is, then, tied to this.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
Yeah, and and it's really.
I mean, I don't want to, Idon't want to blow this too much
out of proportion, but but whenyou write an article, when you
write a news article was wassupposed to be a news article,
and you call a stash, a statuteobsolete, you, the writer,
believe the statute is obsolete,so you call it obsolete and you
rationalize and justify thelegislature ignoring that
(45:14):
statute as part of your newsarticle.
Well, you're having, you'reinfluencing your readers to say
well, you know, we can call thatstatute obsolete, then that
statute's obsolete.
Then that you know that we cancall that statute obsolete, then
that statute's obsolete.
Then that you know thattradition about how the
president ought to act and theconstraints the president ought
to be under, that that'sobsolete.
And you can.
(45:35):
You just lead the reader atleast you know, I think you lead
the reader to have a much moreblasé reaction to you know
people ignoring the lawelsewhere, when you yourself are
writing an article and saidthat you can ignore the law
(45:55):
because it's obsolete, good forthe goose, good for the gander.
If you want us to pay attentionto all the traditions, if you
want us to pay attention to thestrict separation of powers, if
you want us to pay attention toall the traditions, if you want
us to pay attention to thestrict separation of powers, if
you want us to pay attention toall of the stuff over here
that's still written down, thathasn't been changed, then you
should pay attention to thestuff over here that's still
(46:16):
written down and hasn't beenchanged.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
Well, it's almost like he's championing it right
at that point.
It's like when he says it's theopposite, he's championing the
behavior of the legislature, atthe same time castigating what's
going on with the president orwhatever else, uh, and kind of
falling into that same trap.
And it, and and again, yourslip is showing.
You know, your, your bias isshowing and it if it was just in
(46:40):
an op-ed it'd be one thing, but, as you said, it bleeds into
all these other things and itbecomes very obvious that this
is kind of the tact that they'recoming from.
It's, it's kind of frustrating,because one of the things that
I've been critical of is that wejust don't have enough
journalistic Depth in this state.
Maybe journalistic integrity,but also ambition.
(47:02):
Journalistic ambition wherethey actually dig into an
article instead of justparaphrasing a press release.
They're actually getting okay.
They said this let me go overhere and get the opposite side
and then have a balanced start.
You know, that's just nothappening for the most part.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Yeah, yeah, and I agree with that, but that's
really, I mean, that's sort of aseparate issue, right.
I mean that's sort of a.
That sort of a are you?
Are you telling the full storyissue here?
In this situation, tim is isbecoming an advocate in the
middle of the news story bytalking about and rationalizing
(47:38):
the legislature, ignoring thestatute and calling the statute
obsolete.
It almost gets to the point.
Frankly, when I read one of hisnews stories, I'm, you know,
going through with my brain andsaying, okay, this is news, this
is analysis, this is legitimatestuff.
Well, here's Tim's opinion overhere.
And you got to set that asideand look for the hardcore stuff
(48:04):
in there.
And it's difficult sometimes,particularly when he's talking
about how the state is settingup the budget, because all of
this, you know, the, the PFDdoesn't count, it's obsolete,
it's, it's out of date.
All of this doesn't.
All of that permeates any story.
He does, right, he does on thebudget.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
I got about two minutes here.
I did want to comment becauseyou've been supporting
candidates and I saw your postthe other day where it was
wasn't Jubilee Underwood, it wasAlexi Moore who was under fire
for some of the things and youwere like good job, and you
actually wrote her a checkbecause she's taken a lot of
different heat.
Can you comment on that realquick, because I thought that
(48:42):
was, I mean it's, it's.
I thought that was a lot ofmuch ado about nothing.
I think there's a facultycontingency out there that's
really banging on her about somestuff.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
But what's your take on that?
So her district I forget whatdistrict number it is, but her
district Republican Partysanctioned her for different
things or different things, butone of them was supporting Rob
Yunt's Senate Bill 133, which isthe digital tax what some try
to discount, saying the Etsy tax, but is a tax on digital
(49:19):
services being provided in thestate.
Just like we have a sales taxon goods provided in the state,
it would have a tax on digitalservices being provided in the
state.
The state it would provide itwould have a tax on digital
services being provided in thestate.
And she, alexi, had supportedRob's bill, which I thought was
a good thing, because we needalternative revenue sources.
(49:40):
We need to reduce our relianceon PFD cuts and I thought Alexi
supported that.
So when the district sanctionedher for that I mean, you and I
have had this discussion on theshow, but there are very few
bills out there that have assmall an impact, if any revenue
impact, on the state as thedigital services tax when her
(50:01):
district sanctioned her for thatand told her she could no
longer claim to be a Republican,the district Republican said
you can no longer claim to be aRepublican.
No longer use Republican in youradvertising, that sort of stuff
.
You no longer claim to be aRepublican because you supported
this bill.
Oh, that was just outrageousBecause, look, we need people
who talk realistically, as wetalked about in the second
(50:23):
segment today.
We need people who talkrealistically about what we're
going to do on the revenue sideif we're going to restore the
PFD, and and we need people whotalk realistically about that.
So I thought you know, Ithought the district's actions
was outrageous, and so I decidedto do something about it, and
which was write the check at the, at the, at the new maximum
(50:45):
that would be set by theinitiative that's going to go
before the voters in 26.
Write a check and say, look,not only am I going to talk the
game, I'm going to put my moneywhere my mouth is and posted
that.
Speaker 2 (51:01):
Anyway, we're out of time.
Brad Keithley Alaskans forSustainable Budgets the weekly
top three.
Brad, thanks for coming onboard this morning.
Speaker 1 (51:13):
Michael, as always, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (51:14):
Thank you.
I hope you enjoy your concertthis Friday.
That's what it's all about.
Speaker 1 (51:21):
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 and Substackpages, and keep track of us
during the week on Facebook andTwitter.
This has been Brad Keithley,managing Director of Alaskans
(51:42):
for Sustainable Budgets.
We look forward to you joiningus again next week on the Weekly
Top Three.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.