The left wing group known as “Indivisible” has put out the word to people in “Blue States” like California and Massachusetts, to call into homes in “Red States” like Alaska to fight Obamacare reforms.
Some 2,233 Indivisible volunteers called 320,522 homes in Alaska, Arizona, Maine and Colorado with a tool they’ve developed called “TrumpCare” to encourage people to call their Republican senators and oppose Obamacare reforms. The group claims victory for the defeat of reforms this fall.
The call-in campaign is again targeting Alaska because Sen. Lisa Murkowski is seen as a key vote:
“The Senate could vote on a motion to proceed (the pre-vote vote) as soon as Monday, November 27 and bring the bill to a full floor vote as early as Thursday, November 30. This means we have to make a ton of noise between now and when the Senate comes back in session on November 27,” the group’s web site says.
“We’re bringing back a super effective peer-to-peer calling tool from the TrumpCare fight so those from red states, blue states, and purple states alike can take action to stop this bill by reaching out to progressive constituents in three target states: Alaska, Arizona, and West Virginia. The calling tool will connect you to a constituent in a target state and give you a script to emphasize the devastating impact of this bill. Then, you’ll ask them to call their Senator on the spot.
“We #KilledTheBill. We can win this time, too, with your help…” the group says.
I have always supported the freedom to choose. I believe that the federal government should not force anyone to buy something they do not wish to buy, in order to avoid being taxed. That is the fundamental reason why I opposed the Affordable Care Act from its inception and also why I cosponsored a bill to repeal the individual mandate tax penalty starting as early as 2013. And that is why I support the repeal of that tax today.
Over the course of this year, the Senate has considered bills that would have repealed Medicaid expansion, completely transformed the base Medicaid program, converted the individual exchanges into a block grant program, cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid reimbursement for a year, and other measures. All of those bills went far beyond the fundamental problems presented by the ACA, and would have unnecessarily taken away access to care from those who need it most.
The ACA has helped many people in our state, and across the country. There is no question about that. Some people have been able to buy insurance for the first time in their life, mental health and substance abuse coverage is more accessible now, and insurers cannot arbitrarily deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. I do not support taking care away from these people, but there are many for whom this law has not helped. It is important to emphasize that eliminating this tax penalty does not take care away from anyone. Instead, it provides important relief to those who have been penalized for choosing not to buy unaffordable insurance.
Alaskans pay the highest price for premiums in the country; that is why the number of people enrolled on the exchange in Alaska has shrunk every year since the ACA was passed. People have been forced out of the market by the high cost of insurance, with some often forced to pay a tax because the price of insurance was too high for them to afford.
A silver plan for a family of four, with a $9,000 deductible, will cost about $2,160 per month in 2018. If this family does not qualify for the advanced premium tax credits, they face the choice of paying almost $35,000 in 2018 just for health insurance premiums, before their insurance really kicks in, or potentially paying a tax of $695 or 2.5% of their income. An individual could be paying around $709 per month for a plan with a $3,000 deductible. With no tax credits, that person would pay over $11,500 per year before insurance starts to help, or pay the tax for not having coverage.
Alaskans paid over $9 million to the IRS under this penalty in 2014, and over $12 million in 2015. There are Alaskans making the calculated risk to go without insurance and pay the tax. They prefer to take a gamble, pay for care out of pocket, and hope nothing too bad happens because the insurance available to purchase is unaffordable. Eliminating this tax would allow Alaskans to have greater control over their money and healthcare decisions.
Repealing the individual mandate simply restores to people the freedom to choose. Nothing else about the structure of the ACA would be changed. If you currently get tax credits to help pay for your insurance, you could still receive those credits if you choose to buy an exchange plan. If you are enrolled on Medicaid, or received coverage under Medicaid expansion, you could still be enrolled if you choose to be. The only difference would be is if you choose to not buy health insurance, the government would not levy a tax on you.
Protecting the gains we’ve made with provisions of the ACA while providing greater control to states and options for individuals is why I have been working for bipartisan solutions to the healthcare challenges we face. Instead of taxing people for not being able to afford coverage, we should be working to reduce costs and provide options. That is precisely what the bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Alexander (R-Tennessee) and Senator Murray (D-Washington), which I have cosponsored, achieves. While I support repealing the individual mandate, I strongly support enacting the bipartisan compromise Alexander/Murray into law as fast as possible to stabilize our markets, provide more control to states and more choices to individuals.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski is Alaska’s senior senator and is a lifelong Alaskan who was born in Ketchikan.
A recent front page of the Anchorage Press had a prominent illustration of sexual bondage, and talk show host Amy Demboski asked her friends on Facebook if putting that cover at eye level for children in the entry of Three Bear Market in Birchwood (and presumably elsewhere in the Valley) was really a good idea.
Three Bear management removed the offensive papers as soon as it was alerted to the problem (they follow social media), and Demboski took the post down from her Facebook feed and let readers know that the store was very responsive to the matter. She was gracious.
But then the Anchorage Press escalated the matter.
Frontiersman and Anchorage Press Publisher Dennis Anderson posted a long complaining editorial in the Anchorage Press about Demboski, saying she could have just talked to management of the store, rather than taking her complaints public. After all, that’s the way to handle complaints, he said, seemingly unaware that he was doing exactly what he accused her of doing — taking his complaint into the public arena.
Anderson evidently missed the point that Demboski was trying to make, and he was awkwardly defending the coarsening of culture and the effect it has on all of our children.
He didn’t stop there. Anderson went after Facebook commenters, too:
“One commenter on Demboski’s Facebook page in reference to the risqué photo stated that parents shouldn’t have to explain that photo to their children. For starters, I doubt that a child heading into a store would have anything else on their minds except, “I wonder what mommy is going to buy me?” I doubt they would want an explanation about a photo on a newspaper or a poster with a photo of an assault rifle. But using children to make your point is always a shrewd tactic.”
And then he quoted the Bible.
In this era of epidemic sexual assault against women, we ask readers:
Who’s right? In this skirmish between Amy Demboski and the Anchorage Press publisher, do you have an opinion? Comment below or send your thoughts to [email protected]
(Part II: Drue Pearce, who was incoming Alaska Senate President in November of 1994, and her husband Michael Williams had arrived in Yakutsk, Russia to bring their adopted baby home to Alaska. But as they were leaving the country, the Duma passed a law forbidding adoptions to other countries. How would they bring Tate Hanna home?)
We quickly realized that my new role as incoming Senate president was going to change everything for us. We had been traveling for more than 24 hours, but the leaders in Yakutsk were not going to let us go without dinner and vodka.
As tired as we were, it was still a wonderful dinner. I sat next to a petite woman in a green fur coat that reached the ground, whose head was covered by a matching fur hat. Olga was delightful and helpful, and as the person in charge of the Yakutsk orphanages, she explained that Irina and the driver would bring baby Tate and the retired nurse caregiver to our hotel the following morning.
The evening came to a close at last. Totally bewildered by events and delirious with exhaustion, Michael and I retired to our room, where we looked at each other, laughed, and fell fast asleep.
In the morning, we had the briefest of visits with Tate and her caretaker, who was very protective. The week passed quickly. There were visits to the various orphanages, where to this day I wish we had been able to adopt some of the older children. Their eyes said it all. “Please take me back with you.” But we did not see our baby Tate again until the day before we were to leave, although we asked time and time again.
Michael Williams meets his daughter Tate Hanna for the first time in November, 1994
WHAT THE SHAMAN SAID
Olga took us to visit the local shaman. We were surprised to see Tate there, along with her nurse.
The Native people of Sakha have strong attachments to their traditional religions and we knew Tate was part Native. The shaman explained how the earth and horses are intertwined for the benefit of the peoples of the north.
He blessed the little girl and told us that she would be “as one with the horse.” She was given a dream catcher talisman and other symbolic items, all made out of horsehair. Later, we would view it as prophetic, as Tate has become a highly capable horsewoman and trainer.
As the shaman predicted, Tate Hanna Pearce-Williams has become an accomplished rider and trainer, “at one with the horse.”
I had been asked to speak at a conference on education the following morning. No sooner had I started my speech, than Olga called me off the stage and Michael and I were bundled into an awaiting car. We travelled at great speed to the main government building, where we were told that we were to get on the next plane to Moscow.
The Russian Duma was about to pass a bill banning foreign adoptions.
Document after document was thrust in front of us for our signatures. With the formalities completed, we were driven back to the hotel where the nurse was waiting with Tate. Then it was out to the airport. The plane was sitting on the runway, the passengers lined up 50 yards away, waiting to board – if and when the mechanical issues were resolved. The temperature hovered around -60.
Finally, we boarded and headed for Moscow.
THE DUMA THREATENS
The following day we ran into another snafu with the U.S. State Department. The documents issued to Tate in Yakutsk had a black-and-white photograph of the child, not acceptable to the State Department. We explained that there had been nowhere in Yakutsk where a color photograph could have been be taken, but the officials were not swayed.
Finding a place to get a color photograph in Moscow was not that simple, but by the following day, we had scrambled to meet the requirement and were confirmed on the next flight out.
That final night at our hotel was one of joy and worry. The joy was when I took Tate into the bath with me. I doubt she had ever seen water before. She was slow in her physical and motor skill development, unable to sit up on her own at seven months, but when she was held and hugged I knew this was the first time she had ever experienced such emotion and she didn’t want it to stop.
The television news bought the worry: The Duma had passed the law banning foreign adoptions. Strictly speaking Tate was already adopted, but in a country such as Russia, legalities mean very little when politics is afoot.
We would have to smuggle her out of the country.
The next morning, we headed to the airport, with Tate bundled in baby carrier tight against Michael’s chest, over which he wore his large Arctic parka. The parka had been essential wear in Yakutsk; it wasn’t that cold in Moscow, but it made an excellent cover. He looked like a portly man walking to the aircraft.
We breezed through the ticket and passport control, conveniently forgetting to show Tate’s passport. But as we walked toward the gate, we were met by a group of heavily armed border police, eyeing everyone.
My response in such situations has always been to march as authoritatively as possible toward them and hope they salute. We swept past and were soon aboard the Boeing 767 jet.
Being careful to conceal our 7-month-old daughter, as we took off our coats, we rolled Tate in Michael’s parka and pushed her under the seat in front of us. When flight attendant came to collect our coats, she reached for the parka, but I stopped her, whispering to her the details of the situation. She had been in Moscow a couple of days and knew what the Duma had done. And so the parka remained on the floor.
“You two need a drink,” she said. Two gin & tonics appeared, followed by two more.
Then it happened. Just as we were beginning to relax, a squad of border police boarded the jet. They were obviously looking for something or someone. As they passed, I pressed my feet on the little body hidden in the parka. She didn’t make a sound. We realized later that she must have learned at the orphanage that crying didn’t get any response so she just didn’t cry. The police came back down the aisle and again, not a sound from that wonderful child.
The airplane’s doors were finally shut and we pushed back from the gate. We left Tate at my feet until we were in the air because we were concerned we might have to return to the gate.
Paranoia? Probably, but we had the most precious cargo in the world, and were not willing to risk it.
As the plane climbed out of reach of the Russian border police, I reached down and picked Tate up, gave her a hug, and thanked her for being such a good girl.
At that moment, the senior flight attendant announced on the intercom that a new American was in Row Two, and that she was possibly the last adoption out of Russia for some time.
A loud cheer reverberated throughout the cabin. Tate was winging her way to the U.S.A., her new home.
Sen. Al Franken “pulled me in really close, like awkward close, and as my husband took the picture, he put his hand full-fledged on my rear. It was wrapped tightly around my butt cheek. It wasn’t around my hip or side. It was definitely on my butt.”
– Minnesotan Lindsay Menz, telling CNN she met Sen. Franken at the Minnesota State Fair, and he had been a senator for two years when he grabbed her buttocks during a standard constituent photo shoot. That would make him a “breast guy” and a “butt guy” at this point. Will his supporters stand by him?
PART 1: AN ALASKA STATE SENATOR SMUGGLES HER ADOPTED DAUGHTER OUT OF RUSSIA
Editor’s note: In November of 1994, Sen. Drue Pearce had just been re-elected to represent Anchorage, and had been chosen as president of the Alaska Senate. Caucus meetings were beginning. Yet she had one big mission to fulfill before session started in January: She had a daughter waiting for her in Yakutsk, Russia. For the first time, she tells the story of the harrowing journey bringing her daughter home to Alaska.
By DRUE PEARCE FORMER ALASKA SENATE PRESIDENT
I flew to Moscow on business. Our jet touched down and taxied to the gate at Sheremetyevo International Airport. The aging steel and glass structure loomed ahead, filled with émigrés, guest workers, and cigarette smoke. Sheremetyevo: A world of uncertainty for families who are being separated, never knowing if they will see each other again.
Historic look at the Sheremetyevo International Airport. – Wikipedia
Sheremetyevo Airport is also a cultural icon whose “transit zone” is famously known as the area where American documents-leaker Edward Snowden lived for several weeks – not in Russia, and not in any other country.
For many Russians, Sheremetyevo is a watershed moment of their lives. Weary from travel and focused on my work ahead, I was not thinking about Sheremetyevo as my own watershed.
It surprised me, then, this heart pounding so fiercely in my chest.
* * *
A BABY FROM SAKHA REPUBLIC
Nineteen years earlier, my husband Michael and I were here on a very different mission. We were leaving Russia — and we were smuggling our new daughter out with us.
Like many couples, we chose to adopt because we were unable to have children. Soon after our decision, I met with a friend, Valerie, who had made several trips with her Rotary Club to Yakutsk, the largest town in the Sakha Republic of Russia. On her first trip she visited the local orphanage, which led her to the adoption of her daughter.
Val said she was returning to Yakutsk soon, and if we were interested in adopting, she would speak to her friends at the Ministry of Education.
Michael and I had, in fact, decided to adopt a daughter. We knew that only babies with certain medical problems could be adopted in Russia. A few days later, I called Val and confirmed our decision and told her we knew the rules.
The voicemail arrived in early June. Valerie had visited the orphanage, where she saw an infant girl available for adoption. The child had been born April 22, the same week that Valerie and I had begun our conversation.
Val’s message let us know to be looking for a photograph she sent by FedEx. We needed to let her know by that weekend if we were interested in proceeding.
MICHAEL AGREES ON THE SPOT
At the time, I knew nothing of this, as I was in a remote part of Venezuela, out of contact with the world. Later, Michael told me that when the FedEx van arrived, he tore open the envelope to find a photo of an adorable blonde-haired baby girl.
But what was he to do? He had once bought a car without consulting me, but to agree to adopt a baby?
Tate Hanna, awaiting adoption in Russia in 1994. The photo was all Michael Williams needed to make the decision, even though his wife, Drue Pearce, was unreachable in Venezuela at the time.
After taking a second look at the photograph, he made up his mind and placed two calls: The first was to the Caracas hotel, to which I would return, and the second was to Valerie.
The message he left for me at the hotel in Caracas was simply, “Call me ASAP.”
I returned to the hotel a few days later and read the cryptic words, fearing my terminally ill mother had taken a turn for the worse. My call home reassured me that Mom was still with us. And then there was a pause and a deep breath, before Michael told me he had committed us to a baby. I couldn’t speak.
Finally, the words came out: “Thank you. I love you.”
Without delay, we started the paperwork. There were visits from social workers, questionnaires to answer, and forms to complete, many of them in Russian. Because we live in Alaska, and trade with Russia was rapidly opening up, finding a translator was the easiest part of the saga that followed.
The first big challenge occurred when we received word from the Sakha Ministry of Education: An outbreak of hepatitis at the orphanage would delay our visit. We were concerned about our baby’s health, of course, yet there was nothing we could do.
By this time she was no longer “the baby” but Tate Hanna, and although we had never set eyes on her, in our hearts she was already our daughter. A few days later we received word that young Tate was healthy, that she had been removed from the orphanage, and was in the care of a retired nurse. However, we would not be allowed to travel until the hepatitis outbreak was over.
Summer came and went, and it was fall before we were allowed to visit. At the time, I was up for reelection as a state senator; we were relieved the Education Ministry made it possible for us to travel to Russia after the November election.
In late November, wearing our heaviest Arctic gear, we began the 10-hour flight from Anchorage to New York and then another 10 hours to Moscow. The U.S. State Department had not allowed us to fly more directly from Alaska to Siberia, so by the time we arrived in Moscow, we were exhausted.
The first stop was the U.S. Embassy. The large hall of the consular section was filled with worried adults and crying children. When our turn came to speak with the official, her first question was, “Where is your agent? When we told her we had no agent, she said we could not adopt without one.
We were stunned.
As most of the paper work from the Russian side had been completed and we had been in almost daily contact with the Sakha Ministry of Education, I asked her why we would need an agent. After much delay and furrowed brows, we found a supervisor who cut through the red tape, and we were on our way to the next leg of our epic journey: an 8-hour flight across Russia in a plane that looked every bit a converted bomber, with an inhospitable crew right out of Soviet central casting. The food was inedible, the smells overwhelming, and arrival at our destination seemed uncertain.
YAKUTSK, WARM AT 60 BELOW
After a tough flight and a rough landing, a surprise awaited us in Yakutsk. In spite of the -60 F Siberian weather, a young lady with a car and driver greeted us at the airport. Irina would be our interpreter during our stay in Yakutsk, and we would come to depend on her.
We were in for an even greater surprise when we checked into the Hotel Ontario. Michael had visited Archangel in the late 1960s, and had prepared me to expect stark accommodations. “Bring your own toilet paper,” he had warned. Yet, this was a delightful place, and modern.
We badly needed sleep, having traveled almost completely around the world. We had heard that families going through adoption would often have to share tiny apartments with Russian families, and struggle to find food. Our accommodations were nothing like the stories.
Irina then announced to us that we were to attend a special dinner that evening. By now, we were totally confused. I took Irina aside and asked with whom we would be dining. She told me that it would be the minister of Education and her staff. My next question was why?
Irina laughed. The minister had recently visited the U.S. and had spent a day in Anchorage – the same day it was announced I had been chosen to be the next Senate President. That explained why we were being treated as visiting dignitaries.
Russians only need such an excuse to break out the vodka.
Last year, Sen. Dan Sullivan was a featured participant at the Halifax Security Forum in Nova Scotia, and was on one of the panels.
But this year, he’s a no show. So are a lot of other senators. The forum is bereft of U.S. participation — from Congress, at least. There are plenty of ministers from other nations, from Afghanistan to Kosovo, and reporters and editors in abundance.
Inquiring minds wanted to know why U.S. senators, in an era of heightened tensions, are sitting this one out, when up to 90 nations are participating.
This is what we found out:
Last year at the opening of the forum, the Canadians showed this video, filled with dozens of the lower moments in American history. Our assassinations. Our dropping bombs on Japan. Our civil rights struggles. And, the film gently mocked President Donald Trump.
It wasn’t only in poor taste, it was openly hostile to the United States, Canada’s only neighbor. And a reliable ally.
In addition to the video in question, Canada has openly opposed opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 area for oil and gas exploration. Senior officials have gone on the record against the Alaska delegation’s efforts.
That, one Washington insider told us, is equivalent to the U.S. weighing in on whether Quebec should secede from Canada. Or, closer to home, whether Canada should develop its Pt. McKenzie oil and gas reserves. It’s just in poor form, especially since Alaska has one of the strongest relationships with Canada of any of the states.
The Halifax International Security Forum says its mission is to strengthen cooperation between democracies and says it is the “leading gathering of democratic leaders committed to global security and prosperity. Setting the security agenda each November for the coming calendar year, the Forum convenes relevant and key leaders in an unscripted, intimate atmosphere over three days in Halifax, Nova Scotia.”
Limited to 300 participants, the Forum bills itself as “widely acknowledged by the international community as an essential annual meeting place.”
But this year, they’ll find themselves with very few participants of influence from the U.S. And Sen. Sullivan won’t be among them. The forum is Nov. 17-19.
A pair of small companies working in Cook Inlet are trying to overcome funding shortfalls stemming from the State of Alaska not yet making good on promised tax credit refunds.
Furie Operating Alaska and BlueCrest Energy, both Texas-based independents, had to interrupt their 2017 work plans because expected tax credit repayments from the state did not come through.
BlueCrest CEO Benjamin Johnson said in a prior interview with the Journal that the state owes his company roughly $90 million in tax credits for drilling and development work done at its Cosmopolitan oil project before legislation passed to kill the tax credit program July 1. The state has paid BlueCrest $27 million for its refundable tax credits since the company purchased the “Cosmo” project in 2012, according to Johnson.
BlueCrest is the sole owner and operator of the Cosmo oil project on the edge of the Inlet near Anchor Point on the Kenai Peninsula.
He said in August the company hoped it would have to pause its drilling program only for a month or two after a well was finished in September, if private financing could be secured.
Oil industry backers have roundly criticized Gov. Bill Walker for vetoing $630 million worth of appropriations in 2015 and 2016 to pay the industry tax credits. Walker has been steadfast in his assertion that the state cannot afford to make the large credit payments while still in the midst of $2.5 billion-plus annual budget deficits.
On the other hand, the governor has also insisted he would like to see the state pay down on the obligation as soon as the Legislature passes fiscal reforms to balance the state budget. Walker’s original fiscal plan proposed in early 2016 included $1 billion to pay off the credits entirely.
Details recently released by the Alaska Gasline Development Agency show that China would get 75 percent of the gas from the Alaska LNG gasline, and Asian markets would get the other 25 percent.
The project, originally targeted for startup in 2025, has been hurried ahead by two years since Gov. Bill Walker and AGDC President Keith Meyer visited China earlier this month and signed a “joint development agreement.”
In a Nov. 16 letter, AGDC has urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to fast track the environmental review of the Alaska LNG gas line project, including issuing a schedule for the environmental impact statement process by Dec. 15.
AGDC submitted its application to FERC in April and has been answering myriad questions the federal agency has posed ever since.
Alaska LNG project is an integrated gas infrastructure system with three major components, including a gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay, an 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to Nikiski, and a liquefaction terminal.
Meyer has asked FERC to finish the environmental impact statement by the Dec. 31, 2018, so the state can start exporting LNG by 2023.
Funding for AGDC is dependent upon appropriation by the Alaska Legislature. The agency has enough funding to stay open until the end of this fiscal year, June 30, but its future is uncertain after that. Funding, during a time of state fiscal crunch, may not be supported by the Alaska Legislature.
Originally, AGDC was one fifth owner of the project, but bought out TransCanada’s share and became one fourth owner, with BP, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil. But the three oil companies said the project was not ripe for development due to current market conditions, and Gov. Bill Walker showed them the door in 2016. It’s now a state-owned project, with Gov. Bill Walker courting China as both the investor and customer.
Prices for natural gas are low, and getting FERC approvals are likely to be lengthy and expensive. Even after the final EIS is issued, environmental groups are already staging themselves to hold the project up in court, and could stall it for years.
Earlier, the governor said that 2025 was the target date for gas exports. But Walker has sought a $40 billion loan guarantee from the Trump Administration for the project, as part of Trump’s infrastructure program.
Details of the governor’s joint development agreement with the Chinese show that China is not obligated to any agreement or to expend any funds on the project.
Some 75 percent of the project debt financing from the Chinese would be in exchange for 75 percent of the gasline’s capacity for the life of the loan, with the remaining 25 percent reserved for AGDC to sell to other Asian markets.
With 100 percent of capacity awarded, the governor’s current plan shows no gas available for Alaska to bring down the cost of energy and provide energy for other development projects, such as the Donlin mine. In the original configuration of the gasline project, there were five offtake points for Alaska communities.
