Page 1565 – Must Read Alaska

Seaton moves to triple taxes on craft beer

-

May 3, 2017

FIRST THEY CAME AFTER OIL BARRELS, NOW IT’S BEER BARRELS

Look out, craft brewers. The Alaska House of Representatives is about to skim some foam off your profits.

Since 2002, Alaska’s micro-breweries have gotten a tax break from the State of Alaska to help jump-start an industry that in Alaska had lagged behind other states. The State has incentived other industries, such as oil and gas, and this is not dissimilar.

The craft brewers pay one one third of the taxes that are levied on beer coming from large manufacturers out of state.

With the tax breaks, craft beer makers flourished, bringing skilled employment and manufacturing to a state that sorely needs private sector manufacturing jobs.

The sector has grown to 39 microbrewers around the state, even in such unlikely places as Hoonah, Gakona, and Fox.

But the tax breaks enjoyed by craft brewers are threatened.

What is now 35 cents on a gallon of beer could more than triple to $1.07, if Rep. Paul Seaton of Homer has his way.

Seaton, who is chair of House Finance, requested that the Labor and Commerce Committee consider legislation to repeal the reduced tax rate, which applies to the first 60,000 barrels of beer sold by craft brewers.

That Labor and Commerce hearing is today at 3:15 pm at the State Capitol.

The additional revenue to the state would be $2.6 million, Seaton argues.

“Amending and updating this statute would create a level playing field for the alcohol industry,” Seaton said in his memo to the committee. By doing so, it would help out-of-state brewers better compete with in-state Alaska brewers.

But craft brewers disagree. They don’t have the economies of scale like large industrial brewers do. A tripling of state taxes will affect their business decisions and curtail growth.

“In Alaska, we already have alcohol laws that are large barriers to entry for small breweries,” said one craft brewer who asked to remain anonymous. “Craft brewers around the country make money off of tap rooms because distribution is really expensive for those without the large volumes. Here in Alaska, distribution for a small brewer is all but impossible because of our distances and costs, but if you triple the tax, it’s going to be impossible to make the bottom line turn black. Our state laws already make it hard just to operate tap rooms.”

Apparently, in the House Majority organization, “if it moves, tax it,” continues to be the guiding principle.

Craft brewers in Alaska — all of whom would be impacted by Seaton’s requested bill — include these:

49th State Brewing Company – Healy
Alaskan Brewing Company – Juneau
Anchorage Brewing Company – Anchorage
Arkose Brewery– Palmer
Baranof Island Brewing Company – Sitka
Bearpaw River Brewing Company – Wasilla
Bleeding Heart Brewery – Palmer
Broken Tooth Brewing – Anchorage
Denali Brewing Company – Talkeetna
Devil’s Club Brewing Company – Juneau
Gakona Brewery & Supply Company – Gakona
Gold Rush Brewery – Skagway
Glacier Brewhouse – Anchorage
Grace Ridge Brewing – Homer
Haines Brewing Company – Haines
Homer Brewing Company – Homer
HooDoo Brewing Company – Fairbanks
Icy Strait Brewing – Hoonah
Kassik’s Kenai Brew Stop – Nikiski
Kenai River Brewing Company – Soldotna
King Street Brewing Company – Anchorage
Kodiak Island Brewing Company – Kodiak
Last Frontier Brewing Company – Wasilla
Midnight Sun Brewing Company – Anchorage
Odd Man Rush Brewing – Eagle River
Resolution Brewing Company – Anchorage
Seward Brewing Company – Seward
Silver Gulch Brewing & Bottling Company – Fox
Skagway Brewing Company – Skagway
St. Elias Brewing Company – Soldotna
Cynosure Brewing – Anchorage

Petitioners now ‘lawyered up’ in Homer council member recall case

Suzanne Downing

-

May 3, 2017

0

*Donna Aderhold, Catriona Reynolds and David Lewis are the three Homer City Council members that face recall.*

Last week, three Homer city council members, with the ACLU representing them, filed a lawsuit to stop the recall election that had been certified to go forward for June 13.

Now, the petitioners — Heartbeat of Homer — who want to hold a recall election have gotten legal representation. Attorney Stacey Stone of Holmes Weddle and Barcott filed a motion to intervene in the case, and she’s tasked with making the case to the judge that the people of Homer should be allowed to vote.

The ACLU is asserting that the people of Homer should not be allowed to vote in the special election that was approved by the city clerk.

Petitioners, on the other hand, have a bone to pick with the city attorney, Holly Wells, who seemed to be taking the side of the council members and against the petitioners.

The opposition to the motion to intervene needed to be filed by today, May 2 at 4:3 pm, and no apparent action was taken by the ACLU.

The case now awaits assignment to a judge.

Three city council members in Homer have been subject to a recall after they worked behind the scenes to have Homer designated a sanctuary city.

Ultimately the controversy that ensued led to a watered down “inclusivity” ordinance. But their credibility had already come into question over a series of emails between them that had “sanctuary” throughout them. A group of Homer residents got ahold of the emails through a public records request, and scoured them, then publicized them. The three council members faced a scorching rebuke from many Homer residents who felt they were working against the well-being of the city.

Petitions were completed with plenty of signatures to spare, and were turned into the city clerk at the end of March to recall Donna Aderhold, Catriona Reynolds and David Lewis.

The ACLU says the recall violates the council members’ First Amendment rights. But the petitioners say that voters are entitled to recall their governors for a broad variety of reasons, and that the law favors them.

[Read: Smoking gun: City council members intended to create sanctuary city]

[Read: Homer petitioners reach recall milestone.]

Breaking: ACLU, council members sue Homer over recall election

Past commissioners say Trooper morale low, but they can’t arrest Governor’s attention

Suzanne Downing

-

May 2, 2017

1

A group of 14 retired Public Safety commissioners, deputy commissioners, and other retired officers are concerned that morale among Alaska State Troopers is alarmingly low.

They’re so concerned that they’ve sent a letter about it to Gov. Bill Walker saying morale is at an all-time low. And they should know: Combined, they represent over 160 years of public safety experience.

The men copied the letter to the governor’s Chief of Staff Scott Kendall and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget Pat Pitney, as well as Darwin Peterson, the governor’s legislative director.

Three weeks later, and they’ve received no response. Only the sound of crickets.

The letter, sent to Must Read Alaska this morning, was respectful: “As veterans with decades of experience, we’re familiar with the budget process, ebb and flow of the State’s economy, and public attitude when it comes to comprehensive, effective law enforcement. What we are finding with family, neighbors, friends and the general public is a confusion and questioning why DPS and AST personnel are either stagnate in growth, or steadily in decline.

“Recall in your defeat of incumbent Governor Parnell, a core message you promoted was determination to fiercely protect the DPS budget while expanding statewide coverage and enhancing State Trooper hire and retention. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The public, whether or not they support your current fiscal plan and new tax recommendations, are nearly uniform in support of more Troopers.”

The letter states that “morale is at an all-time low. Low morale affects service, competence and continues to permeate into detachments regionally, at a systemic degree.”

The retired law enforcement leaders request that the governor hire more Alaska State Troopers, but that he also publicly show his support for the men and women in the Department of Public Safety.

The letter is signed by eight former commissioners — Joe Masters, Bill Tandeske, Ron Otte, Gary Folger, Richard Burton, Arthur English, Del Smith, and Pat Wellington.

Other signatories include retired Deputy Commissioners John Glass and James Vaden; Col. Joel Hard, Col. John Murphy, Scott Campbell, director of the North Slope Borough, and Chief Tom Clemons of the Seward Police Department. Retired Col. Tom Anderson, director of the Fraternal Order of Alaska State Troopers, also signed the letter.

Col. Anderson said they would only contact the governor if something was really wrong. Normally, Anderson spends his days supporting the efforts of the Fraternal Order of Alaska State Troopers, the Alaska Peace Officers Association, and the Alaska Chiefs of Police Association.

“It puts us in a bad spot because we don’t want to criticize. But a lot of the senior people in the department are on the verge of retiring, and the Troopers are losing good people. The issue of morale is more than just about the budget.”

Coincidentally, Gov. Walker announced today that President Donald Trump has appointed him to the 10-member Council of Governors, which focuses on military issues and defense spending.

“My administration’s top priority is to build a safer Alaska,” Governor Walker said in an ironic press release. “I am honored to accept this appointment. As the only independent governor in the nation, I intend to bring Alaska’s unique and important perspective to the issues that face our state and our nation. Given our strategic geographic location, it is crucial that our state participate in national defense conversations. This appointment will allow me to share Alaska’s story in a new way with the Trump Administration and the nation.”

But while national security is always a priority, it’s never been stated by this governor to be his top priority — until today.

The past commissioners of Public Safety are, it appears, trying to engage him on public safety where it counts most for Alaskans — at the State Trooper level.

Dodd-Frank reform: Why we should care about the lack of new banks

Suzanne Downing

-

May 2, 2017

0

When was the last time a new bank started in Alaska? About 17 years ago, when Northrim Bank opened its doors.

Yet there was a time when people got together, pooled their funds, and started a community bank. Now, an entire generation of Americans is growing up during a time when “no new banks” is the new normal.

In fact, there has been a sharp reduction in community banks. In 1990 the U.S. had more than 12,300 commercial banks in operation. But, by the end of 2016, eight years after the financial crisis of 2008, only 5,083 remained. And among those, a much larger percentage of total bank assets are concentrated in the nation’s five or so largest commercial banks.

More to the point, small businesses in the U.S. are having a far tougher time getting loans than they did pre-crisis. Yet small businesses remain the backbone of the U.S. economy. Ask a small business person if it’s harder to get a loan these days and they’ll tell you it’s a nightmare.

This drag on commerce in America is not the result of natural market forces — it is a direct outcome of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, whose 22,000 pages of regulation is smothering the lending sector. Banking has become forbiddingly restrictive under Dodd-Frank, with government regulators now having far more control over who qualifies for loans than they ever did, prior to the law’s passage.

Today, the House Committee on Financial Services began the mark up of the Financial CHOICE Act, which would replace Dodd-Frank. It is a Republican-led effort and it’s running into headwinds with Democrats, of course, who are defending Dodd-Frank as protection for consumers.

But it’s not protection. It’s hurting consumers.

“It has been almost seven years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. We were told it would lift our economy, but instead we are stuck in the slowest, weakest, most tepid recovery in the history of the Republic,” said House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, as he introduced the Financial CHOICE Act. He called Dodd-Frank a form of politicized lending.

Must Read Alaska spoke off the record with Alaska bankers who confirmed that it takes a lot longer for homeowners, consumers, and businesses to get loans these days. A home loan that used to take 30 days, now takes 45. And a commercial loan can take much longer.

In fact, for business loans, it’s now the federal government through Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its suffocating web of regulations and overbearing bank examiners making de facto decisions on loans, not bankers.

“Consumers can’t get loans in anything that would be considered a respectable amount of time,” one Alaska banker told us. That means consumers stop trying to get loans. And that means consumers are not engaged in the economy.

This banker said his institution spends $1 million more a year just to comply with Dodd-Frank, and in the range of $2-3 million a year to comply with all federal regulations.

Rep. Hensarling also wants to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was the creation of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, when she was still a law professor at Harvard, at the direction of President Barack Obama.

The CFPB has become a policing agency, rather than a consumer protection agency, critics warn. Bankers have less and less control over who gets loans, and the federal government has increasing authority.

Hensarling described the CFPB as making rules that are unfair, deceptive, and abusive.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said Democrats will fight. “This bill must not become law. There is too much at stake for consumers and for our whole economy.” She called the bill “dead on arrival.”

Democrats are so fiercely fighting reform that today they are insisting the entire 500-page CHOICE Act be read into the record, word by word — a form of filibuster in committee. The reading of the bill started at roughly 8 am Alaska time and was continuing as of 10 am.

Tuesday’s hearing is the latest in a series of partisan battles on the Financial Services hearing over the future of Dodd-Frank.

What Rep. Waters and her ilk are actually fighting is stronger economic growth. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the U.S. economy has been “stuck in second gear,” with the weakest economic expansion since the 1930s.

That is not a coincidence.

If one needs confirmation of the stifling effects of Dodd-Frank, look no further than this: Since 2010, the U.S. has had only one new bank charter, an Amish bank in Pennsylvania — Bank of Bird-in-Hand, which started in 2013. Because, perhaps, only the Amish have the patience to deal with the federal government.

Hensarling’s bill would give regulatory relief for dozens of provisions now in Dodd-Frank, but although it’s likely to pass the House, it will face headwinds in the Senate.

Ironically, Wall Street bankers in the top tier have started to like Dodd-Frank, because it keeps the competition down, making the nation’s largest institutions more profitable.

In that sense, Dodd-Frank is a law that only the biggest banks (and economically illiterate Democrats) can love.

Walker Administration gearing up to arm investigators?

Suzanne Downing

-

May 1, 2017

1

The Walker Administration’s Department of Administration is engaged in a review of job classifications for state investigators, and may be on the verge of creating new categories of gun-toting special investigators throughout state agencies, according to a whistleblower who has asked for anonymity.

According to draft state plans provided to Must Read Alaska, these special investigators – from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Labor to the Permanent Fund Division – will be packing guns during their investigations of workplace safety, regulatory compliance, and eligibility for benefits.

The documents were first made public by talk show host Amy Demboski. A review of the investigator positions at the state reveal there may be more than 100 positions that, while not public safety positions, may soon be granted the power of arrest.

Proposed changes in classification structure include the creation of a Special Investigator II position. The draft changes state that:

“Special investigators are distinguished from other investigative classes by the authority and responsibility to make physical arrests, issue citations, serve arrest warrants, and carry a weapon in accordance with their Certificate of Commission as a Special Officer and agency policies and procedures.”

“Special Investigator I: performs a variety of criminal, civil, and administrative investigations, compliance, and enforcement duties and tasks where assignments range from monitoring licensure compliance and enforcing regulation to conducting complex criminal investigations involving Municipal, State, and/or Federal law enforcement officers,” one description reads.

According to the whistleblower, the study of state investigator positions and the recommendations being made create new middle management positions, including the class of investigators who carry guns.

Troopers and police officers, before they can carry guns, must attend academy at thousands of dollars of expense to the State. They also must wear bullet-proof vests and spend time practicing on targets. The additional duty of carrying a weapon also adds liability costs.

Investigators for the state have functioned for decades without weapons and arrest authority by design: If they need an officer with them, investigators call in the State Troopers.

Must Read Alaska had veterans of state service at senior levels review the documents. They determined they are legitimate and represent how the Department of Administration has traditionally gone about reclassifying jobs.

Income tax study answers the wrong questions, wrongly

Suzanne Downing

-

May 1, 2017

7

A TAX PLAN BERNIE SANDERS WOULD LOVE

By SCOTT HAWKINS, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will be phoning into House Finance this week to present its recent study that favors a personal income tax.

There are other options for closing the state’s massive fiscal gap. But ITEP advocates for personal income taxes and aggressive income redistribution throughout the U.S., so their findings come as no surprise.

Readers of this blog may recall that ITEP worked with the Walker Administration in designing the income tax proposal in House Bill 115. They did it through their board member, Richard Pomp, a tax law professor.

Having helped design it, the group has now released a study that… wait for it, wait for it… finds that a personal income tax is the cat’s meow! Amazing. Who could have seen that coming?

As a fiscal policy guide, should Alaskans take this study seriously? Of course not. Here are just a few of the many reasons:

Objectivity (or lack thereof): ITEP is based in Washington DC and North Carolina. It has a poorly hidden agenda that advises all of its work, which is to institute income taxes throughout the land, the higher the better, the more aggressively redistributionist, the better. “Social justice” is the name of the game.

To advance this cause, ITEP uses a proprietary fiscal “model” that it designed.

Consider this: would a pro-income-tax group design a model that produced justification for anything but an income tax?

Relevance (or lack thereof): The ITEP study asks the wrong question. It asks, what is the “fairest” way for Alaska to raise $500 million from our general population?

What it does not ask is whether or not the money is even needed. For example, nowhere in the study does it entertain the idea of simply cutting $500 million from what is the largest per capita state budget in the nation.

In reality a combination of spending cuts, use of some Permanent Fund earnings and modest withdrawals from the state’s budget reserve funds would be adequate to fund state government at reasonable levels and Permanent Fund dividends at average historical amounts. This policy mix would effectively tide us over until several large oil discoveries on the North Slope are brought into production, thus postponing the need for broad-based taxes indefinitely.

Economic impacts: Sucking $500 million (or $700 million, as HB 115 is designed to do) of personal income out of the Alaska economy would have far-reaching and negative impacts. While the study touts the fact that higher-than-average earners would pay the most income tax, it neglects to point out that such earners provide a disproportionate amount of revenue for local shops, restaurants, service companies and nonprofit organizations.

With Alaska already mired in a deep recession, an income tax would hammer the private sector economy and result in widespread closings of small and medium-sized businesses. This double punch would be very likely to lengthen the current downturn by several years, driving down property values further.

Longer term, the negative impacts would be even greater. By punishing higher-than-average earners with progressively higher taxes, the incentive to work is diluted amongst the most economically productive segments of the workforce.

Further compounding the error, the amount of money available for new or expanded business investment is hard hit. The result would be lower long-term economic growth in Alaska. In fact, of all the fiscal options on the table, the disincentivizing, investment-squelching effects of a progressive personal income tax would do the greatest long-term damage to Alaska’s future prosperity.

PFDs as welfare checks: Alaskans have some deeply held feelings about the Alaska Permanent Fund and its dividend program, affectionately known as the PFD. Unique among the 50 states, it is Alaska citizens’ share of the state’s oil wealth. Our piece of the action. It was never designed nor imagined as a welfare program. Many if not most Alaskans would find that characterization offensive.

The analysts at ITEP feel differently. According to their analysis, the “fair” thing to do is tax Alaskans rather than cut dividends. In other words, by taxing people in order to have enough money to pay dividends, we are funding dividends from citizen tax dollars — taxing ourselves in order to pay ourselves. ITEP favors this because it redistributes income from higher earning families to lower earning families. But not only does this policy fail the common sense test, it casts the PFD in a whole new light – a light that long-time Alaskans will consider distasteful.

The PFD program would still be unique, all right, but in an entirely different way that would distinguish Alaska as having the most socialistic fiscal system in the United States.

Sen. Bernie Sanders and his Alaska supporters would approve.

The camel’s nose: The $500 million that ITEP evaluates or the $700 million that House Democrats propose will never be enough. It will only be a starting point, a way to get an enormous camel’s nose under tents inhabited by Alaskans. Over time, the income tax will only get higher, more steeply progressive, and with fewer and fewer Alaskan households footing the bulk of the bill, if history is any guide. (See discussion of economic impacts, above.)

While the Walker Administration and House Democrats strive mightily to use the fiscal gap as an excuse to levy a redistributionist income tax, clear thinking Alaskans should question the need for broad-based taxes, the heavy economic impacts of enacting one, and the very real danger of undermining the moral and fiscal legitimacy behind the PFD program.

Scott Hawkins is president and CEO of Advanced Supply Chain International. He was formerly a regional economist for an Alaska bank and the founding President of the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation. Currently, he is chairman of ProsperityAlaska.org, vice chair of the Alaska Council on Economic Education, and chairman of BIPAC, a national organization that promotes a healthy private sector.

The muzzling of the right: Coming to a House Committee near you

Suzanne Downing

-

May 1, 2017

0

*Cultural and political commentators Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopolous, public enemies of the extreme Left, which calls them fascists.*

What do Rep. Gabby LeDoux, Berkeley snowflakes, Portland leftists, and Benito Mussolini have in common? A strong urge to stifle voices with which they disagree.

In Berkeley, California, the birth of the 60’s free-speech movement, neither cultural commentator Milo Yiannopoulis nor Ann Coulter were able to hold their contracted speaking engagements this year.

No one was safe, evidently, if either of those stepped foot in the cradle of modern liberalism. They were forced to withdraw, ostensibly to avoid riots.

Earlier this year, Milo Yiannopoulis, the former technology editor of Brietbart.com, had to cancel his speaking engagement after riots broke out in advance of his arrival. Yiannopoulis has spoken and written about the perils of uncontrolled illegal immigration.

According to the leftists, that makes him a fascist.

This month, the protesters were out again in opposition to Ann Coulter, columnist, author, and lightning rod for the right. Coulter has been on the Trump Train since day one. She, too, is a critic of uncontrolled immigration.

Like Yiannopoulis, Coulter is being called a fascist by the Left.

It’s possible that the extreme Left doesn’t know what the term fascist means. As it turns out, no one has an exact definition because fascism is loosely defined, and often gets hurled as a dissent-killing insult, in the way a others use the term “Nazi.”

*Benito Mussolini, 27th prime minister of Italy, the face of modern fascism.*

Fascism is almost always used to describe right-wing authoritarianism, and the 27th prime minister of Italy, Benito Mussolini is the textbook case example, although he was a socialist-nationalist. He was part of a group that incited communist revolutions and insurrections that rolled across Europe starting in 1917.

Mussolini and his fellow fascists consolidated power through a series of laws that destroyed the party system in Italy, which led to a one-party dictatorship. Italy became a totalitarian state.

This we agree on: Fascism is a certain form of authoritarian rule.

In Portland, Oregon, a parade for children was cancelled because, after the Multnomah County Republican Party decided to enter a float, all hell broke loose on the far “anti-fascist” Left.

Anonymous threats were emailed to organizers, so they and Portland city police evidently lost confidence that families would be safe. The leftist said they would not let fascists like Republicans in the parade without causing a riot.

The threat said that if the Republican entry was allowed, “we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward LGBT, immigrants, people of color or others. In case the message was not clear to you this is a sanctuary city and state, and we will not allow these people to spread their views in East Portland.”

The Multnomah County GOP, which is a very small group of people in left-dominated Portland, offered this comment: “We are very disappointed at the cancellation of the Parade. Criminals committed to riot and disorder have bullied the parade organizers into causing Oregon moms, dads, kids, and well-meaning community organizations to lose their opportunity to participate in this cherished annual Oregon tradition. We are also angry that, once again, local civic leaders didn’t do enough to prevent organized gangs of criminal thugs from running rampant in the City.”

WHAT’S LEDOUX GOT TO DO WITH IT?

Finally, this Berkeley-style repression of viewpoints has crept into the Alaska Capitol, where lawmakers are sent to debate, well, viewpoints. The Capitol is the center of political debate.

In the Alaska House of Representatives last week, Rules chairman Gabrielle LeDoux, a UC Berkeley graduate, virtually cut the mic on every one of the three Republican members of her committee.

She was taking no amendments from them. No amendments from Rep. David Eastman, Lora Reinbold, or immediate past House Speaker Mike Chenault. The only amendments would be hers. She wanted no debate.

When asked by Rep. Reinbold why LeDoux would allow no amendments to be proposed to a bill that LeDoux herself had just amended, LeDoux said, “Because I don’t want any amendments.”

[Read: Four minutes of Kim Jong LeDoux]

Rep. Sam Kito III, of Juneau and Rep. Matt Claman, of Anchorage, sat nearby and can be seen on the video link as sheepishly ducking their heads, averting their gaze, and looking at the papers before them, unwilling to defy their committee chairman.

As Rules Committee Chairman Gabrielle LeDoux smilingly informs Rep. David Eastman, that “we’re not doing that,” when he asked if he could propose an amendment, while Reps. Matt Claman, and Sam Kito meekly keep their heads lowered.

Claman and Kito remained silent while LeDoux ruled over that “concurrent joint resolution on sexual assault awareness month” with a curiously strong fist.

The two remained silent, allowing LeDoux to muzzle the opposition in the very place where opposite points of view are meant to be heard.

Her loyal ally, Rep. Louise Stutes of Kodiak, looked away, but at the end of the meeting dipped her head toward LeDoux and giggled with her, like two schoolgirls sharing a secret. About what? That Rep. David Eastman’s voice had been silenced?

NO PARTY LEDOUX

LeDoux is also the author of legislation that would eliminate party influence in primary elections through HB 200, (to be heard by State Affairs on Tuesday at 3 pm) creating what is called an “open primary” where political parties don’t factor. Such a move would be to the advantage of the Democratic Party, which cannot seem to gain enough traction in Alaska without running candidates as nonpartisans, as they did with Rep. Daniel Ortiz and Rep. Jason Grenn.

Destroying political parties? Preventing opposition voices in the halls of government? Tolitarian rule in committee? It’s all in a day’s work for Rep. LeDoux.

On Monday, the resolution relating to sexual assault — Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 — will end up back in the Rules Committee by order of House Speaker Bryce Edgmon. There was no way that it could go to the House floor after what had occurred the previous day. The entire Democrat-ruled caucus, which tolerates LeDoux but can carry on without her, wouldn’t have been able to withstand the embarrassment of the speeches on the House floor that would surely ensue.

At 1:30 pm on Monday, Alaskans will be able to see whether LeDoux continues with her “certain form of authoritarian rule,” or allows her fellow elected representatives to speak, as they were sent to Juneau to do.

Bring your popcorn.

Homer gets ready for USS Hopper

The 907

Suzanne Downing

-

April 29, 2017

0

Photos below from this morning’s preparations for the arrival of the USS Hopper, a Navy destroyer that is paying a call to Homer, Alaska today.

Volunteers posted 1,200 feet of American flags along the beach of the Homer Spit to welcome the 300+ sailors aboard the ship, which will be taking part in Northern Edge military training in the weeks ahead.

As noon approached, motorcycle clubs and members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars were beginning to arrive. A barbecue is planned for the military this afternoon. As the ship came into the dock, a few protestors showed up, but were outnumbered 10-1 by flag-waving supporters. (Photos by Larry Zuccaro.)

[Read: Navy destroyer making call on Homer; protests planned and panned]

And then a tiny band of protestors showed up and stood next to the supporters, as the ship came into the bay:

But the supporters of the military overwhelmed the protestors:

Along with a side of Homer you rarely see, although Homer did vote for Trump. Betty Snow and Jack Packer, in support of the president…

Tough in the legislature? That’s nothing compared to the ‘friendly skies’

Suzanne Downing

-

April 29, 2017

0

Tough in the legislature? That’s nothing compared to the ‘friendly skies’

By WIN GRUENING, SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

It’s tempting to join the fray this week and dive more deeply into the various budget scenarios being considered by the Legislature. But it’s way too early.

In their quest for a sustainable budget, the Republican-controlled Senate addressed $2 billion of the deficit by passing SB 26 calling for a lower Permanent Fund Dividend and incorporating a government spending cap.

The Senate is balking at any new broad-based taxes – relying instead on continued development of our natural resources and some belt tightening to see us through this period.

In contrast, furthering their quest to sustain ever-growing government dependence, the Democrat-controlled House Majority Coalition is calling for a much higher level of spending. Their plan includes a reduced PFD but no genuine government spending cap.

To support this higher spending, the House passed HB 111 and HB 115 restructuring oil tax credits and imposing a new personal income tax that would raise about $660 million annually beginning in 2019.

Currently, the two plans are $280 million apart. That’s a number that exceeds our entire state general fund appropriations in the early 70’s. Whittling that number down will take some serious negotiations.

Tensions are ramping up. The tough are talking, and the talk is tough.

Talking the toughest is Sen. Pete Kelly who unequivocally stated, “The only thing standing between Alaskans and an income tax is the Senate.”

Taking a contrary view is Renegade-Republican Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux who stated emphatically, “I want to make this perfectly clear. If the Senate thinks we’re going to get out of here with just a (Permanent Fund bill), they’ve got another think coming.”

Really?

So, the discussions continue. We’ve passed Day 90. Day 120 will come and go, special sessions will be called, discussions will drag on and eventually someone will blink. Whether one side or the other gives or they both do remains to be seen. Then we’ll have something more to talk about.

*************

Meanwhile, as legislators debated “To Tax or Not to Tax”, storm troopers from the Chicago airport police hauled a passenger off an airplane after he refused to give up his seat for a “dead-heading” United Airlines crew member.

The passenger, Dr. David Dao, was battered and bloodied during the incident and is threatening to sue United Airlines and the City of Chicago for damages.

This incident, replayed over social media thousands of times, has some unique aspects to it. Some may be inclined to join the “tar and feather” mob and rejoice in bashing airlines generally and United Airlines specifically. Certainly, there is some reason to do that.

Yet there are some interesting observations to be gained from this debacle.

The airline initially offered to pay $800 to anyone willing to give up his seat. When no one volunteered, they selected four passengers to de-board. Three of them left without incident, but Dr. Dao resisted.

In refusing to increase the $800 offer, United Airlines moved away from the free market system and was only left with using force. Force is required, it seems, when using solutions outside the free market. (Note to legislators: This is why an unwillingness to trust the free enterprise system results in unnecessary measures being proposed).

United Airlines CEO, Oscar Munoz, compounded the mistake by initially attempting to justify his company’s actions instead of sincerely taking responsibility. This first public pronouncement from the airline “apologized” for having to “re-accommodate” the passenger. Public outrage followed. Later apologies were too little, too late.

Munoz should have immediately admitted the airline’s mistake, promised a review of the incident to include whatever action was necessary to fix the problem and compensated the passenger for the way he was treated.

On the other hand, while we really don’t know all the details, it appears Dr. Dao might have prevented the situation from escalating out of control. When a uniformed law enforcement officer asks you to comply with an order, you should do so. If you have a problem, it almost always can be ironed out later but resisting someone with a badge is generally not a good idea.

We don’t know if Dr. Dao behaved belligerently or not. But more and more our nation is becoming a collection of ever-offended victims demanding their right not to be offended.

Treating each other civilly and without rancor is a pre-condition to reaching any kind of understanding and agreement.

After all this, United and a whole host of other airlines have changed their policies regarding the “bumping” of passengers – particularly after boarding. That is a good thing.

No doubt United Airlines will be negotiating seriously with Dr. Dao to arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise.

I hope the House and Senate can do the same without drawing blood.

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.

Seaton moves to triple taxes on craft beer

Petitioners now ‘lawyered up’ in Homer council member recall case

Past commissioners say Trooper morale low, but they can’t arrest Governor’s attention

Dodd-Frank reform: Why we should care about the lack of new banks

Walker Administration gearing up to arm investigators?

Income tax study answers the wrong questions, wrongly

The muzzling of the right: Coming to a House Committee near you

Homer gets ready for USS Hopper

Tough in the legislature? That’s nothing compared to the ‘friendly skies’

About us

The latest

Eric Koan named USDA’s Rural Development director for Alaska

Alaska Democrats have new executive director

DOGE: EPA workforce overhaul to return staffing levels to Reagan-era size