Monday, August 11, 2025
Home Blog Page 1391

Honoring of war dead looks different south of the Mason-Dixon Line

4

By ART CHANCE
SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

I didn’t grow up honoring Memorial Day on the last Monday of May.

In the South of the 1950s and 1960s, Memorial Day was April 26 in most states; that was the day that Johnson surrendered the Army of The Tennessee to Sherman.

I remember people turning their backs to “Battle Hymn of The Republic” because we knew whose vineyards those Yankees SOBs were bragging about trampling.

I have plenty to remember about America’s wars. My fifth great-grandfather, Pleasant Crump, died in British service in the French and Indian War, leaving a widow and two young sons from whence cometh I.

My ancestral lands in Georgia came from a Captain John Durden who served with Virginia Militia troops in the Southern campaign under Greene in the Revolution. His forebears had come to Virginia in 1640 and he made his way to Georgia in the Creek Cession Lottery of 1795; I’ve never figured out whether he got land in the lottery or on headright for Revolutionary War service, but anyway; he got a good chunk of Georgia.

Family stories have my first Chance ancestors named LaChance, which simply means “luck” in French, who came as adventurers or mercenaries during The Revolution.   The odds are pretty good that they were outlaws, bastards, or both.  Despite a lot of pretentious claims, that RS is really hard to document unless your ancestor was formally enlisted in either the Continental Army or a colonial militia.

Most of the men who fought in The Revolution in The South were just common men who grabbed their gun and answered the call of local leaders, so there is little or no record of their service. My gg/grandfather John M. Chance made it through The War with the 51stGeorgia Infantry but left Georgia in the 1890s one step ahead of the sheriff, who wanted to talk to him about a man who’d been killed in a dispute over just who owned some cattle.

My grandfather suffered through winters in a wood-heated house due to lung injuries from gas in WWI and ultimately met an early death due to pneumonia.  My father was draft-exempt in WWII because of a disability but spent his war building Liberty Ships for the US.

I only know some of my family; the Durdens were old family in the South and pretty well off. The Riners, my mother’s side, were old hill country, North Carolina and South. They had a family clan community in Eastern Emanuel County, Georgia that they got in the Creek Cession Lottery.

The Rowells, Curls, and Chances I know much less about; there is little record of common rural Southerners other than memories and surviving memorabilia.   If you want to wade through Census records be prepared to work out all the different permutations of spelling your family’s names that semi-literate Census workers could come up with.

All of my lineal male ancestors served in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States, Army of Northern Virginia, some were captured, some died of disease, some died of wounds, some survived to return to shattered lives.   Ten members of the Riner clan “volunteered” for service on March 4, 1862.

On April 12, 1865, the day the ANV surrendered, three were still alive; one a paroled POW, one on “French leave” as he had heeded the family’s entreaties and come home to take care of the place after Sherman’s visit in late November 1864, and one who after the ANV’s debacle at Saylor’s Creek on April 6, 1865 decided to “study war no more” and deserted to the Yankees to get a meal.

They all lived peacefully in the South in the first half of the 19th Century. They lived the lives of subsistence farmers; they didn’t have much, but they had enough. My great-great grandfather Joseph Sherrod seemed to have done the best.  Somewhere along the way he got something of a university education, as that had meaning in those days, and became a teacher in a plantation academy.  He and my great-great-grandmother had a pretty nice farm from what I can tell, and a pretty nice life.  They’re also the only ones of my ancestry who owned slaves; they owned a family of slaves who lived with them and worked the place with them.

My great-great-grandfather Sherrod was educated and somewhat political. He was opposed to secession and went so far as to go to appeal to Georgia Gov. Joe Brown to try to get an appointment to Georgia service to avoid service in the Confederate Army. His entreaties failed and on March 4, 1862, like so many reluctant Southern men, he “volunteered” for service in the Army of the Confederate States.

Because he was an educated man, he managed to get detailed to service in Confederate hospitals for much of the war. He was in the ranks at Chancellorsville. I have a letter he wrote home. After Chancellorsville, he was detailed to a Confederate hospital in Tallahassee, Florida.

My great-grandfather, Amos Riner, my mother’s side, wasn’t so fortunate as to get a detail. He advanced with Wright’s Brigade late in the evening of the second day of Gettysburg. He took a .58 ball in his shoulder in Wright’s Brigades withdrawal from Cemetery Ridge.

Since he was walking wounded he was treated in a field hospital and got to walk back to Richmond. Sixteen days later he made it to Chimborrazzo Hospital in Richmond.  After treatment there he was given 30 days leave to recover. His wife had died, so he married a much younger woman, from whence commeth I, a generation closer to most descendants of Confederate veterans.

My great-great-grandfather remained on his administrative detail until the spring of 1864.  By this time the Confederacy was robbing both the cradle and the grave for men.  I have many of Joseph’s letters home and he clearly doesn’t want to return to the ranks, wants to purchase a substitute, the going price of which was around $10,000, and he apparently has the money. It is equally clear that my gg/grandmother is having none of her husband lying abed while others are still fighting, though I don’t have her letters to him.

He returned to the ranks with the 48th Georgia for the Overland Campaign of 1864. He made it through The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and the battles around the Petersburg perimeter.  His luck ran out in Mahone’s counterattack at the Battle of The Crater. He was probably killed by friendly artillery fire. His grave isn’t marked but he probably lies in the mass grave of thought-to-be Georgia soldiers buried in the mass grave at Blandfield Church at Petersburg, Virginia.

I have a copy of his lieutenant’s letter to my great-great grandmother informing her of his death.  It is remarkably cold and impersonal, but by that time there had been a lot of dying.  I have many of his letters to my gg/grandmother, which were always closed with, “Kiss my children.”   I also have the blood-stained Testament that was in his breast pocket when he was killed.

By January of 1868, my great-great-grandmother and her children were on the “Indigent Soldier’s Widows and Orphans Relief List” for the county.   The county courthouse has conveniently burned a couple of times in the ensuing 150 years so I’ve never been able to figure out just how she lost the place when her late husband’s lawyer brother was the executor of the estate.   The South was a cruel place after The War.

I don’t know how we work this out; there are Yankees who think that Confederate soldiers are traitors who deserve no recognition.

Some are destroying or removing monuments and even gravestones.

Others think of them as just men who were fighting for hearth and home.

My ancestors fought for hearth and home. Confederate State companies were raised from a community or county, and regiments mostly from a geographical region of a state. Every man knew or knew of almost all the men in his company and regiment. The officers below Brigade, 10 regiments, command were all elected.

In his Civil War series Ken Burns asks author Shelby Foote how Lee’s Army could have made what all the men knew to be a desperate charge on the Third Day at Gettysburg.  Foote replied, “Because it would have taken more courage not to.”

Art Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska, formerly of Juneau and now living in Anchorage. He is the author of the book, “Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance,” available at Amazon. 

U.S. Attorney General William Barr in Alaska this week

U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr is in Alaska this week to speak to leaders around the state regarding public safety and justice issues.

He arrived late this afternoon at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson.

Barr will begin his speaking tour in Anchorage at the Alaska Native Justice Roundtable at Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium on Wednesday at 1:45 pm.

Barr is also expected to visit the Alaska State Crime Lab on Thursday.

Must Read Alaska has learned that Barr is expected to appear on the Fairbanks show “Problem Corner” show hosted by Dave Pruhs on KFAR 660 between 11-12 am on Friday. But his schedule has been a closely guarded secret.

Last month, Sen. Lisa Murkowski invited Barr to visit Alaska to witness the state of tribal justice on the Last Frontier. In response, Barr said he had already planned a trip to look into the problem of violence against Native women, a topic that Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan have been highlighting lately.

The visit is being coordinated with Murkowski’s and Sullivan’s offices and Barr is expected to spend most of Wednesday with Sen. Sullivan. Must Read Alaska has not confirmed that Gov. Michael Dunleavy or Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson will be meeting with Barr.

Dunleavy is speaking at the Alaska Oil and Gas Association annual meeting in Anchorage on Thursday, the same day Barr will also be in Anchorage.

Supreme Court rules against Arctic Man attendee who mouthed off

2

The U.S. Supreme Court said today that Russell Bartlett’s First Amendment rights were not violated and that his arrest was not a retaliatory action by Alaska State Troopers at the 2014 Arctic Man.

Arctic Man is the annual spring break snow machine, skiing/snowboarding, and drinking party in at Summit Lake in the Hoodoo Mountains. It is attended by thousands of outdoor enthusiasts and partiers, many of whom are known to be rowdy.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the 7-2 opinion, which was agreed to in part by most members of the court, although Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas disagreed with parts of the ruling; Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Last year, when the court heard the case, Roberts said the event was a challenge to law enforcement because it is “10,000 mostly drunk people in the middle of nowhere” and few officers are on hand.

Bartlett was arrested by Alaska State Troopers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight after he at first ignored Sergeant Nieves and refused to talk to him. Nieves had requested that Bartlett stow the keg of beer in his RV, but Bartlett refused to acknowledge the Nieves, because it’s not illegal to have a keg sitting outside. Bartlett knew that Nieves had no cause to suspect him of criminal activity, so he ignored the request.

A little while later, Trooper Weight had been attempting to determine the age of a young person who was consuming alcohol, when Bartlett intervened and told him to stop talking to the young person. Nieves noticed the confrontation was escalating and started to arrest Bartlett, who was slow to comply with police commands. Whether he was drunk has been a point of contention.

After he was arrested, Bartlett said that Nieves said to him, “Bet you wish you would have talked to me now.” That was the evidence in the case concerning retaliation.

The State charges against Bartlett were dropped. But Bartlett sued, saying his first First Amendment rights were violated and that he was arrested in retaliation for refusing to initially speak with Nieves, who had earlier told him to put his alcohol inside of his recreational vehicle.

The District Court ruled in favor of the officers, and the Ninth Circuit Court reversed that ruling, holding that probable cause does not “defeat” a retaliatory arrest claim.

But the court did leave room for further rulings on retaliatory arrests, giving an example of a jaywalker who had been complaining about police conduct prior to being arrested or ticketed. The justices said that if the person could prove other jaywalkers were not being arrested, he or she might have a case regarding retaliatory arrest.

Bartlett had been supported by First Amendment and media organizations, including The ACLU, the National Police Accountability Project, and Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center.

Today’s ruling can be read at this link.

Don Young pays respects in Normandy

0

VISITS AMERICAN CEMETERY IN ADVANCE OF 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Congressman Don Young visited the American Cemetery in Normandy, France over the Memorial Day weekend to honor American troops who died in Europe during World War II.

Accompanied by his wife Ann Young, Alaska’s congressman traveled to Normandy without making a public announcement in advance, and only posted a brief note on Facebook about his visit upon his return:

“It was an incredibly humbling experience to spend part of the Memorial Day weekend on the beaches of Normandy, and later in the day, to pay respects to the fallen at the Normandy American Cemetery. Scores of American service members were lost at Normandy during one of World War II’s darkest days, and we will forever be indebted to their sacrifice and memory.”

June 6, 2019 marks the start of the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings and the Battle of Normandy; the date this year in locations around the country is expected to be the last large gathering of World War II D-Day veterans, all of whom are advanced in years.
President Donald Trump and other world leaders will travel next week to Normandy to mark the anniversary of the invasion that led to the freeing of France from Nazi occupation.

House, Senate agree to sue governor over forward funding of education

The House and Senate today agreed to delegate authority to the Legislative Council to proceed with a lawsuit that should determine if forward appropriating education is constitutional, when money is not actually set aside for that purpose.

In other words, is a Legislature’s promissory note for future fiscal years something that holds water in constitutional terms?

Alaska does not have a biennial budget, like some other states. It does its budget every year; the 2020 fiscal year starts July 1. The FY 2020 budget is so far, unfunded because the operating budget has not passed. But last year, the Legislature forward-appropriated funding for the FY 2020 education budget.

But the governor says that action is not legal. He has asked the Legislature to put the FY 2020 appropriation into this year’s budget. And his Attorney General has backed him up on the assertion.

What happens next? The Legislative Council will meet and direct the Legislature’s attorney Megan Wallace to file a lawsuit against the governor. The Attorney General will defend the governor’s position.

Meanwhile, the courts may decide that education must be funded while the question is decided.

The last time the Legislature sued the Office of the Governor was in 2015, when Gov. Bill Walker expanded Obamacare-Medicaid via executive order, after the Legislature had balked on such an expansion. The case was dropped by the Legislative Council after losing in Superior Court. The case cost the Legislature $300,000 and cost the Walker Administration $137,000 in legal expenses. It dragged on for months.

In that lawsuit, lawmakers framed it as a constitutional question of who had the power to appropriate — the Legislature or the governor.

In this lawsuit, Rep. Tammie Wilson, co-chair of House Finance, said it was the governor who had picked a fight: “That’s on them,” she said. “We fund our budget this way all the time.” She made it a point to criticize Dunleavy on the House floor.

But Sen. Gary Stevens sees it differently.

“This is no attempt to poke the governor in the eye,” said Sen. Stevens, co-chair of Legislative Council. “This is a separation of powers issue. We will not do anything until the governor withholds the money for education.”

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon explained that the governor has invited the question to be decided, and that since the governor does not have the ability to sue the Legislature, the Legislature must initiate the lawsuit.

“Let’s settle this issue. Does the authority of the legislature include forward funding of the Legislature?” said Senate President Cathy Giessel.

Rep. Lance Pruitt, who leads the House Republican Minority, said the consequences are monumental if the Legislature wins the case, as it will allow the body to appropriate for as many years ahead as it wishes and for as many departments as it chooses, with no funding or budget projections to back up the promise.

The governor has said numerous times he would not veto the education budget but wanted it to be actually appropriated in this year’s budget. At this stage, there is no budget for him to veto since it has not been transmitted to him, but he’s likely to veto the entire budget if it does not contain education funding.

Letter to the editor: Alaska has a spending problem

3

Editor,

I would like to thank Karl Monetti for giving me credit for the fact that Alaskans have not had to pay state income tax for the last 39 years.

That has left approximately $50 billion in the pockets of Alaskan families to spend or invest as they saw fit, a fact of which I’m very proud to have had a significant part in achieving. If the political system had kept that $50 billion, it would have been used to build an even bigger unsustainable bureaucracy and we would be in a deeper hole then we are now.

Contrary to Karl’s other so-called fact, Alaska does have and has had a major spending problem since the advent of immense surplus wealth going directly into the public treasury and being allocated politically, not subject to rational market forces.

This has left us with by far the most expensive state government per capita in the United States. The State of Alaska has a surplus of wealth of roughly $80-$90 billion, and the people are struggling to pay their bills. There is something wrong with this picture.

I do of course also disagree with another of Karl Monetti’s so-called facts: Socialism or Democratic Socialism to use a more current vernacular is bad and up until recently the vast majority of Alaskans and Americans knew that and were aware of the untold suffering those systems ultimately lead to.

The only way that the socialistic programs that exist in the United States today can survive is because of what’s left of our traditional capitalistic, free-market system which supports them. Ask yourself; what wealth does socialism produce? All socialistic programs spend money, they do not create it. Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote;” Socialism works only until you run out of other people’s money” fits our circumstances perfectly.

Another question to ask yourself: After spending incalculable billions of dollars what has the current Alaska system created that is economically sustainable once the oil money is gone? The bottom line is that capitalism/free markets create wealth, while Socialism, of all stripes, spend wealth.

Richard (Dick) Randolph

Fairbanks

 

Supreme Court upholds abortion for eugenics

6

MOM CAN END BABY’S LIFE DUE TO GENDER, RACE, DISABILITY

The U.S. Supreme Court today let stand a ruling that allows mothers in Indiana to terminate the life of a baby due to a genetic disability such as Down Syndrome, gender, or race preference.

The nondiscrimination law had been signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, who is now the vice president.

Indiana had requested that the high court review the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled against the state’s anti-discrimination abortion laws.

The Supreme Court declined to review the 7th Circuit’s decision on that portion of law, writing briefly:

“Our opinion likewise expresses no view on the merits of the second question presented, i.e., whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex-, race-, and disability- selective abortions by abortion providers. Only the Seventh Circuit has thus far addressed this kind of law. We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals.”

In other words, another appeals court must take up the question of eugenics — whether a mother can abort a child if it is not her desired gender or race, or if it has a genetic disability.

In the same decision, the court ruled that Indiana could enforce its law that requires aborted fetuses to be treated with dignity, and not as merely medical waste.

The Indiana law was passed after it became known that a medical waste firm was disposing of fetuses the same way it handled medical waste, via an incinerator mixed in with other medical waste. The Indiana law requires either burial or cremation of the fetus.

The case is Kristina Box, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Public Health vs. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

Trump stopping through again tonight, pilots advised

0

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will be stopping at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson as they make their way back to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, in the wee hours of the morning.

A temporary flight restriction has been issued to pilots for the airspace around Anchorage from 1:45 am until 4:15 am on Tuesday. No official activities have been announced and it’s unlikely the president will leave the aircraft at that hour.

[Read: Trump arrives, greets troops, meets governor, departs for Japan and Sumo wrestling]

The principle behind “the dividend”

DEBATE RAGES AS TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT BEHIND ANNUAL CHECK

Alaskans have debated it for years, but even more so since the Permanent Fund dividend was politicized by Gov. Bill Walker in 2016, when he unceremoniously cut it in half, and put the unspent half into the Earnings Reserve Account for future government purposes.

  • What was the purpose of the dividend itself?
  • Why did Alaskans create a dividend, rather than just pour all of the oil money into the principal of the Permanent Fund?

It’s a debate that has all sides quoting the late Gov. Jay Hammond, who proposed that 50 percent of all mineral leases, bonuses, royalties, and severance taxes be deposited into an investment account. Then, each year one-half of the account’s earnings would be dispersed among Alaska residents, each of whom would receive one share of dividend-earning stock. The other half of the earnings could be used for essential government services.

Hammond’s rationale? He wrote about that in “Diapering the Devil: How Alaska Helped Staunch Befouling by Mismanaged Oil Wealth: A Lesson for Other Oil Rich Nations”:

“My rationale for creating such an investment account and making shareholders of Alaskans was many fold:

1. I wanted to encourage contributions into the investment account and to protect against its invasion by politicians by creating a militant ring of dividend recipients who would resist any such usage if it affected their dividends.

2. I wanted to transform oil wells pumping oil for a finite period into money wells pumping money for infinity. It was apparent that unless we did so, politicians would spend every windfall to satisfy insatiable short-term needs and demands, only to find themselves in a world-of-hurt when oil wealth declined. Such had been the experience of virtually every oil-rich state and nation. Not only Pérez Alfonso’s Venezuela had been defiled by the devil s excrement.

3. To put it crudely, I wanted to pit collective greed against selective greed. In the past, those who knew how to play the game were able to secure subsidies for their pet projects, many times at the collective expense of all other Alaskans. One example of this was a program granting loans not based on need at an interest rate far less than what that money could have earned in an investment account such as proposed in Alaska, Inc. In one year alone, more money had been lost to the state through subsidized loans not based on need than was paid out that year in dividends, and those loans went to but 6 percent of the people.

4. I wanted to remove a number of Alaskans from welfare. (The legislature subsequently frustrated this effort by exempting dividends from consideration as income when determining one’s eligibility for welfare.)

5. By issuing shares of dividend-earning stock annually and allowing Alaskans to accumulate them over time, I hoped to eliminate the magnetic attraction for others from elsewhere who might otherwise be inclined to flock to Alaska in order to receive dividends. Few would do so for the mere $50 dividend per share we initially set arbitrarily, but many might if everyone received a few thousand.

6. I wanted to install a sense of ownership in all Alaskans that would incline them to support healthy resource development and resist unhealthy versions.”

[Read “Diapering the Devil at this link]

At the Permanent Fund’s inception, the dividend was not part of the equation, however. The fund itself was to grow and eventually be used to help fund State government in times of budget shortfalls. But the details of how it would be used were not clearly detailed in the original constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1976.

In 1980, the Alaska Legislature enacted the dividend program by statute and Hammond signed it into law. The Legislature laid out the lawmakers’ purpose of the fund itself:

  1. The fund should provide a means of conserving a portion of the state’s revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans;
  2. The fund’s goal should be to maintain safety of principal while maximizing total return;
  3. The fund should be used as a savings device managed to allow the maximum use of disposable income from the fund for purposes designated by law.
“This statute at least created a semblance of Alaska, Inc., but fell far short of what I had hoped for. The 50 percent contribution of oil lease bonuses, royalties, and severance taxes that I had proposed was cut to 25 percent, and severance taxes, which constitute roughly half of our oil wealth income, were eliminated and instead funneled into the general fund. Moreover, no stock-sharing dividend program was included in the legislature’s statute,” Hammond wrote.

The plan, at the time, was to give every adult Alaskan $50 for every year of residency since statehood. That was litigated as a violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by Ron and Penny Zobel, who had moved to Alaska in 1978. It went  to the U.S. Supreme Court and was ruled unconstitutional. Every Alaskan would get the same amount, regardless of how many years they had called Alaska home. A one-year residency was set.

The first check, cut in 1982, was for $1,000, and was not from investments but from surplus oil revenues.

A poll run by Must Read Alaska on Facebook last week asked participants what they believed was the greater driving factor in the creation of the Permanent Fund dividend: Was it meant to be Alaskans’ share of the oil wealth (owner state concept), or was it to give Alaskans a stake in the Permanent Fund so they’d never let their legislators drain the principal?

Those responding favored the first answer:

A Facebook poll is unscientific, but this one shows a strongly held belief that the dividend does not actually belong to the government, which then distributes it through an appropriation as it sees fit, but that it is the average citizen’s share of the sale of Alaska’s oil. For these respondents, the government is merely the holding company of that money, which is then distributed based on a set calculation.

The other 22 percent feel the dividend is in place to ensure that Alaskans are always holding their lawmakers accountable, and will vote them out of office if they dip into the money that belongs to the people.

In September of 1999, Alaska lawmakers put an advisory question on the ballot asking Alaskans if the state should spend some of the earnings of the Permanent Fund for government. The overwhelming vote was 84 percent against that concept, even though the “vote yes” side had spent heavily to sway public opinion.

The way the question was worded on that advisory 1999 ballot gives a clue to how Alaskans perceived the dividend 20 years ago:

Permanent Fund Dividends: Guarantee a dividend to eligible Alaskan residents at a minimum of $1,700 in 1999 and $1,700 in 2000. Thereafter, the dividend will be approximately $1,340 and will continue to grow with the value of the permanent fund. After accounting for inflation-proofing, the dividend will be based on 50 percent of the annual earnings payment.

“Funding for Essential Public Services: After payment of permanent fund dividends and inflation-proofing the fund, prioritize the annual investment earnings payment for essential public services.”

[Read the entire ballot language here]

Two decades later, the earnings are, in fact, finally being used to patch the budget gap. Alaskans still seem to resent the idea that the government should take their dividends away.

After a lengthy debate, SB 26 (dubbed by Gov. Walker “The Permanent Fund Protection Act”) passed in 2018. It was a plan to draw from Permanent Fund earnings — not principal — to pay for state government. It was the first time in Permanent Fund history that state government would draw on the fund’s earnings for budgetary shortfalls.

The plan was to take 5.25 percent of the Permanent Fund’s value each year. For the 2019 budget cycle ending July 1 of this year, that amount is $2.7 billion. It was known as a “structured draw.” Fifty percent of that structured draw was to go to the Permanent Fund Dividend fund.

But SB 26 did not clearly specify how dividends would be calculated. Language in SB 26 describes a “transfer” under AS 37.13.145(b) from the earnings reserve account to the dividend fund. Former Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth said it requires an annual appropriation in order to accomplish the transfer of permanent fund income.

During the debate over SB 26, critics warned that the “structured draw” would allow lawmakers to spend more on general government, and divert cash from the dividend program.

Indeed, last year’s dividend was set at $1,600, half of what it would have been under the previous formula the state used, based on return on investments.

This year, Gov. Michael Dunleavy is in office, elected in large part by people who want a full dividend. Even his primary opponent Mark Begich promised a full dividend during his campaign. Only former Gov. Bill Walker, who was a vestigial remnant on the November General Election ballot, wanted to stay with the half-a-dividend program; he won 2 percent of the vote.

The full dividend under the traditional calculation would be $3,000 for this year, in a check or deposit issued in October.

Today, lawmakers are debating HB 1005 in special session, which would again revisit how the dividend is calculated. It would take the 50 percent of the 5.25 percent that goes into the dividend program, and cut that in half. Alaskans would get 25 percent of oil revenue instead of 50 percent; government would take 75 percent for services.

[Read: HB 1005 gets pounded by public testimony]

With HB 1005, Alaskans would get a $3,000 dividend, but in subsequent years, they’d get half of whatever the original 50 percent formula would have given them, and the rest would go toward government.

This scenario is playing out just as critics of SB 26 said it would.

HB 1005, offered by Reps. Tammie Wilson and Neal Foster, is back on the calendar for House Finance for 8 am Tuesday, after taking a beating in public testimony last week. The meeting will be televised at 360North.org.