By CLEM TILLION

Growing up in the period between the first and second World Wars, the language we used included some old-fashioned terms. Expressions like “cash on the barrelhead” and having “too many dead horses” were common in the commercial trades.

Cash on the barrelhead referred to sales made in a tent or store where the top of a barrel was the point of sale. One can easily imagine sales made like this during the Klondike Gold Rush.

The dead horse designation wasn’t specific to Alaska. Back in the day, such was the need for transportation, folks would often buy a horse on credit. Because horses were essential, it was common enough to go deep into debt to procure a horse. If the horse died from cholic, the seller still expected payment. The poor soul who now needed a new horse still had to pay off the dead horse.

Alaska has a lot of dead horses. Not like the literal ones found along the old White Pass route where hundreds died and remain in Dead Horse Gulch outside Skagway. No, the ones I’m thinking of are the dozens of “dead horses” that our state government signed up for in the last four decades. Alaska’s government spent too much and saved too little of the oil revenue bonanza we obtained from Prudhoe Bay and other public oil patches.

Like sailors hitting port after a long sea voyage, our politicians went wild with spending starting the 1970s. We increased spending on new programs, juiced up salaries for employees and built projects willy-nilly as though the oil revenue would never end.

We did some things right. We set up a Permanent Fund so every dime of revenue derived from oil lifted from public lands wasn’t spent.

Here is the key thing to remember — we only saved 25% of our massive oil wealth in the Permanent Fund. All the rest of our oil wealth was spent by the politicians and a lot of it was blown.

The Permanent Fund dividend, which is Alaskans’ little slice of earnings from their savings account, is paid from the earnings generated by the trustees of the Permanent Fund. The PFD payments have historically not been paid with oil revenue — the dividend is derived from earnings achieved on savings investments.

At this point, the politicians are hooked on spending even though oil revenues have fallen. With revenue down, the politicians are hell-bent on spending all the available funds, including earnings from the Permanent Fund investments. This means they’re content to short the PFD in their quest to spend, spend, spend. The ugly truth here is that even the Permanent Fund earnings are not sufficient to pay for a sensible PFD and for all the dead horses we bought over the years.

I believe in paying a decent wage and proper benefits for public employees, but we have way too many judges, administrators and bureaucrats who were given a platinum-plated retirement package. Our current retirement obligation for public employees and teachers exceeds $6 billion. That’s billions, not millions, and represents a lot of “dead horses.”

We expanded programs that were deemed desirable but not obviously essential or sustainable. More “dead horses.”

And all the while, we continue to elect too many politicians who promise the moon if elected, as if there were no need for change.

The situation we face as a people is tough but not beyond repair. Our fiscal house in Alaska is in shambles. Too many of our elected and appointed officials are content to carry on as if no change is needed.

We need to first make targeted cuts and consolidation of government. Anyone who claims we have “cut to the bone,” as is frequently said, isn’t paying attention and probably never field-dressed a moose. Trimming state government is not only possible, it is essential.

We also need to settle the annual brawl that takes place with regard to the Permanent Fund dividend. The dividend is not welfare or just another appropriation. The PFD is a modest portion of earnings that comes from the wealth generated by people’s Permanent Fund. The Legislature must adopt a resolution putting a constitutional PFD formula before the voters.

After making targeted consolidation and cuts and after protecting the rights of Alaskans to receive a PFD, then and only then should we consider just how to pay any additional costs necessary to support a right-sized state government. If that includes taxes, so be it. I lived in Alaska when we paid our way for the services we needed. I did it before and will gladly do it again.

This is the greatest state in our union, by far. We need to stop fooling around and get on with the task of governing this state in a mature manner. We need to do the best we can, even as we clear off the dead horses we are carrying on the ledger book. Working together and sacrificing together, we can get the job done.

Clem Tillion, former President of the Alaska Senate, lives in Halibut Cove.

By WIN GRUENING

Historically, Alaskans have always bristled at attempts by outsiders to control our state’s destiny to advance their own agenda.

We persevered as a territory while under the thumb of Seattle shipping and salmon canning special interests. We fought for equality for all residents resulting in the first anti-discrimination act of its kind in the United States. We were successful in our fight for statehood and adopted a unique and model state constitution that has served us well for sixty-one years.

Today, Alaskans are facing yet another challenge to our independence.

I’m referring to the two initiatives that will appear on Alaska’s November ballot: Ballot Measures 1 and 2.  Proponents claim these complex changes to our voting system and how we tax oil companies are urgent and necessary.

No, they are not.  Indeed, they actually pose a threat to Alaskan values and our economic well-being.  They are enthusiastically supported by outside interests that could care less about individual Alaskans.

Ballot Measure 1, mislabeled the “Fair Share Act”, proposes to increase the state oil production tax on North Slope legacy fields from 150-300%.  

Never mind that the oil industry has contributed an average of $3 billion annually in taxes and royalties to Alaska over the last 5 years while taking in about a third of that and that polls have consistently shown Alaskans overwhelmingly support responsible oil development.  

Never mind that oil demand and prices have sunk to historic lows.  Additionally, Alaska’s economy is in free-fall from a pandemic devastating the visitor industry and from a collapse of the fishing industry due to low salmon returns.

Why would we levy increased taxes on Alaska’s economic mainstay – when a 2020 study by the McDowell Group noted it created almost $5 billion in annual payroll, 77,000 jobs, and $4 billion in annual payments to Alaska businesses? This short-sighted tax increase might provide a small windfall in the near-term but would discourage exploration and investment, which is exactly what Alaska desperately needs over the long-term.

Equally as important, Alaskans should ask themselves who supports this effort and be aware that, recently, The Alaska Center endorsed and is encouraging support of this measure.

The group behind this proposal, “Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share”, is funded primarily by Robin Brena, an Anchorage litigator and major Democrat candidate contributor. He has gotten wealthy suing oil companies by, as his biography explains in part, focusing on oil and gas [and] pipeline…commercial litigation issues.” If Ballot Measure 1 passes, he will no doubt benefit from the inevitable litigation that will result.

The Alaska Center is an environmental group funded largely by outside donors who want to control Alaskan energy and environmental policy. Their interest is less in raising taxes than in preventing Alaskans from benefiting from our resources.  If Ballot Measure 1 passes, this lines up nicely with their goal of leaving much of Alaska’s remaining oil in the ground forever.  

Does this sound “fair” to Alaskans?

Ballot Measure 2, entitled “Alaska’s Better Elections Initiative,” is also a misnomer.  It proposes to completely overhaul Alaskan election law by changing how we conduct our primaries and how our votes are counted in a general election.  Its promise to simplify and “clean-up” our elections is contradicted by its nine separate objectives in a proposed bill which is 25 pages long.

Never mind that our state-level system of voting has worked – essentially unchanged – since statehood.  Some outside special interests don’t like the results of our elections, so their objective is to change the system to accomplish what they could not get done fairly at the ballot box.  And never mind that this proposal is opposed by high profile Alaskans of both major parties – most notably former Governor Sean Parnell and former Senator Mark Begich.

So who are the special interests promoting this measure?  Let’s follow the money.

In recent APOC reports, the group backing the measure, “Yes on 2 for Better Elections,” has received over $5 million from three groups: the Action Now Initiative, Unite America, and Represent.Us.

Those outside groups are funded mostly by a small number of out-of-state wealthy donors who want to use Alaska as a laboratory experiment in electoral politics. 

Does that sound “better” for Alaskans?

Regardless of intent, these two measures are misplaced. The deliberative body most representative of actual Alaskans, and thus best suited to decide complex oil tax and election law, is the State Legislature.

There are plenty of reasons to vote down both of these measures. But, even without reading the fine print, Alaskans should be suspicious of outside interests claiming to know what’s best for us.

Exercise the independence Alaskans are known for and vote NO on Ballot Measures 1 and 2.

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is active in community affairs as a 30-plus year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations.

By KELLY TSHIBAKA

Liberals should love Amy Coney Barrett. As an independent woman who has held prestigious positions in legal academia, private practice and the judiciary, she embodies the ideal of professional excellence for feminists. Equally impressive and inspiring was that she attained to these rarified heights, while also raising seven children and volunteering in her community.

If tenacious women like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prepared the way for women to practice law, formidable women like Judge Amy Coney Barrett have paved it. Judge Barrett is an incisive jurist who has developed an impressive body of thoughtful academic writing and legal opinions over the course of two decades. So, what is all the outcry about? While red herring arguments abound, it simply comes down to this: Judge Barrett is an originalist who will interpret the U.S. Constitution as the Founders intended, and a textualist who believes words mean what they say, not what you wish or want them to say.

A fierce intellectual debate rages between jurists who believe the role of the judge is simply to interpret the law as it is written and those who believe it is to help make law. Unfortunately, that debate has hyper-politicized the pursuit of justice. Activist judges and their liberal supporters have sought to rip off Lady Justice’s blindfold, thereby giving her a sneak peek at a judge’s pre-determined outcome of a case, while originalist judges like Judge Barrett have fought hard to keep that blindfold from being removed. Judge Barrett’s judicial philosophy champions civil rights — it seeks to protect citizens from a jurisprudence that, at bottom, is arbitrary, autocratic and authoritarian.

Yet, curiously, liberals instead view Judge Barrett as a threat to justice because, in 2017, her judicial philosophy led her to argue that Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion upholding Obamacare “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”

However, is not the real threat that Justice Roberts read into the law a meaning that simply was not there? Do Judge Barrett’s opponents really believe that any of them would be safe if a judge who bases her legal opinions on her political views and personal convictions, rather than on the law, were to hold such a powerful office? In truth, they do not.

Indeed, those who oppose Judge Barrett, including powerful senators like Dianne Feinstein, have articulated their concern that her faith might influence her legal opinions; they fear she might be a judicial activist with respect to causes they hold dear. Ironically, in so doing, they admit that they, too, are originalists and textualists. So, their opposition of a jurist who is one of the most respected originalists and textualists of our generation is puzzling.

Judge Barrett’s opponents are concerned she will gut health care, end legal abortion and destroy civil rights. On what basis? Amy Coney Barrett has a long track record that demonstrates her devotion to originalism, to not corrupting her interpretation of the law with her personal views. Indeed, because of prior precedent, she recently issued a ruling that supports buffer zones at abortion clinics.

Finally, it is truly perplexing that Judge Barrett’s opponents would think that a woman who adopted two Haitian children, and who advocated for one of her blind students, would seek to undermine people’s civil rights. These concerns are not reflective of the evidence of Judge Barrett’s life and legal record, but of the polarized and paralyzed political nature of the judicial confirmation process that Democrats, led by then-Sen. Joe Biden, initiated with the late Judge Robert Bork and continued with the “high-tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said legal “dissents speak to a future age.” One of the justice’s closest friends was Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Barrett’s mentor. With Judge Barrett’s nomination, we may now have stepped into that “future age” when those who heard, and even helped write, Scalia’s dissents are rising to take the place of their mentor. I imagine that at least part of Ginsburg would be overjoyed to see her seat filled by a woman who was her dear friend’s “favorite” mentee. That is something liberals and feminists should celebrate; it is something we all should celebrate.

Kelly Tshibaka, commissioner of the Department of Administration, is a Harvard Law School-educated government watchdog, national security attorney and civil liberties attorney who served in the Trump, Obama and Bush administrations. This column ran in the Washington Times.