Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, offers a budget cut on the House floor today. It was voted down by the Democrat-controlled majority.
Not a single cut. Not one more position in Alaska State government’s 18,000+ workforce can be eliminated, according to the new majority caucus in charge of the House of Representatives.
The Democrats and the three exiled musk ox Republicans in control are not allowing any budget amendments to be made in the governor’s proposed $4.2 billion general fund budget. Not if they are reductions — not one position, and not one program.
Instead, they’ve actually grown the governor’s budget to $5.07 billion. Some of that increase is because they have added money back to the Permanent Fund Dividend program.
The House gaveled in this afternoon and started working through what is expected to be hundreds of surgical budget reductions that were recently offered by Republicans and rejected by Democrats in House Finance Committee, where the D’s are also firmly in control. Rep. Paul Seaton of Homer co-chairs that committee. He is a Republican who has been exiled from the party for aligning with Democrats in exchange for a powerful position.
One by one, those budget cuts that died in committee died a second death on the House floor today. The process will begin again at 9 am on Tuesday, as more amendments are offered. They’ll likely die too, along caucus lines, but it could take hours, as each one is subject to debate.
The Democrats and the three “musk ox” Republicans who joined them to form a majority originally told the public that everything is on the table regarding the budget, but apparennly that didn’t mean real cuts such as these, which they rejected soundly:
$250,000 – Amendment 1 would have cut a new program offered by the governor that would have encouraged school districts to work together to promote innovative thinking. Republicans said that is something schools ought to be doing already.
$200,000 – Amendment 2 would have cut the equivalent of 1.25 positions from the Alaska Marine Highway System. Democrats Sam Kito and Neal Foster said that would imperil the system.
$137,000 – The Legislature’s personal cooks. Republicans wanted to let go of these positions in the legislative lounge; Democrats said no.
$400,000 – Amendment 15 – The Governor’s House contingency fund, which has $550,000 budgeted for broken glass, frozen pipes, or some other repairs that might need to be made to the Governor’s Mansion. Republicans wanted to leave $150,000 in that fund. Democrats said no, the entire amount cannot be touched.
On Tuesday, the Democrats running the calendar in the House of Representatives have cancelled most committee meetings so the House can take up the rest of the hundreds of amendments that are expected to be offered by Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, and Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Chugiak-Wasilla, two of the Republican minority’s budget workhorses.
As she did today, Wilson will pop up from her seat time and again and cheerfully offer the House a strategic surgical cut to consider. A few Republicans will chime in on the importance of the cuts. Democrats will stand to defend the spending.
And on a 22-18 vote along caucus lines, Democrats, trans-Party Reps. Dan Ortiz of Ketchikan and Jason Grenn of Anchorage, and their three Republican musk ox will vote each one down, as they did today.
But, House Republicans will be unified on record offering a different vision of the Alaska state budget than House Democrats and their musk oxen enablers.
You can watch the proceedings on GavelAlaska beginning at 9 am.
The Panama Canal, as seen from the bridge of the Rotterdam in February. (Win Gruening photo)
By MURRAY WALSH
I was with 49 Alaska Republicans transiting the Panama Canal in February aboard the 780-foot M/S Rotterdam. We enjoyed many great events together and at one dinner, a fellow diner who I knew was in the government-authorization-seeking business, asked a question:
What would it take, permit-wise, to build the Panama Canal today?
I can speculate with some accuracy on what it would take if the thing was proposed to be built in the United States. However, the Canal Zone, as it used to be called, is now entirely under the control of the country of Panama and I don’t know what kind of environmental review programs operate there.
PANAMA, ONCE PART OF COLOMBIA
It is darkly amusing to recall the history of the canal in this context. The area now known as the independent country of Panama was actually part of Colombia at the time France initiated construction of their attempt at a canal. Remnants of their efforts can still be seen on the eastern side.
The French effort fizzled after millions of francs and 20,000 lives were expended. The country of Colombia was surely disappointed and would have seen new hope when America came calling a few years later. That hope was not enough for Colombia to consent to the American demand that it must control the canal if it was going to make the investment.
No deal seemed possible and that would have ended the matter except that somehow the province of Panama, with encouragement from then-President Teddy Roosevelt, revolted – nearly bloodlessly – to gain its independence. Another few years of work and 5,000 more lives, and we had a canal.
The canal makes money. The passage fee for our ship was $300,000, according the cruise director (a carbon copy of the cruise director from the Love Boat TV show.) The Panama Canal has revenues of $2 billion and costs of only $600 million per year according to The Economist. That margin is what paid for the new locks and other improvements that recently opened.
Fomenting revolutions and annexing territory is seen as rude today, except for Russia, where style points are still awarded for such activity. At any rate, once the canal zone was in a country that wanted the canal built and was willing to endure US control, no other permitting would have been needed.
The 1890 Rivers and Harbors Act, by which the Corps of Engineers regulates structures in waterways, would not have applied in Panama and none of the other more recent legislation, like the Clean Water Act, existed at the time. All you needed post-revolution, was enough snoose and dynamite, in the words of the Michael Heney, who built the White Pass and Yukon Railroad from Skagway to Whitehorse.
LESSONS FOR A FLORIDA OR ALASKA PROJECT
So, what if you wanted to build a big canal across part of the USA to accommodate ocean-going ships? Let’s say across Florida from Jacksonville to a fictitious industrial port city of south of Tallahassee on the Gulf Coast. Your reason is to shorten the shipping distance between those two cities and between our fictitious city and Ireland. This would knock off about 1,200 nautical miles from either route, greatly benefitting the whisky and rum trade.
Alaska thinks big too and began work on permitting for the Juneau Access Project several years ago. The result, now called the Lynn Canal Highway, could accommodate much higher volumes of traffic at much lower expense to the traveling public.
On the national scene, private companies are thinking big and trying to build a couple of new pipelines to make crude oil transport safer.
Alaska and the pipeline companies set off gamely to pursue authorizations for their projects. All three are experiencing opposition from environmental groups. Claims were made that there would be air and water pollution, habitat loss, and the creation of risk to the public. The sponsors batted down these claims with science, design and engineering but resistance continues anyway. Why that is will be discussed below.
Would our trans-Florida canal encounter resistance? Using locks and various water control measures, the existing trans-Florida canal (at the south end through Lake Okeechobee) was built without too much opposition but it is a small canal used primarily for recreational watercraft.
The same measures could be used to protect water quality and habitat for the Jacksonville canal as well. So, resistance based on legal requirements and environmental impacts could be dealt with but would the resistance end there?
It depends. The federal authorization system is clumsy and slow but you can get there if you persevere. I have sought about 40 Corps of Engineers permits in my 20 years as a consultant and gotten every one of them. Some were initially resisted but on valid and legally relevant concerns. Once I addressed those concerns, I got my permits.
That is not the case for the Juneau Access Project and the two pipelines. The resistance to all three is based – in my experienced and semi-humble opinion – on issues other than what the law requires. The resistance to the pipelines is not based on fear of water pollution (although that is a scapegoat) but rather on resistance to the use of fossil fuels. There is nothing in federal law that says hatred of oil is a valid basis for denying an authorization.
The resistance to the Juneau Access Project might overtly be based on fear of air pollution but that issue was dealt with. No, the real reason is the desire to thwart economic expansion and growth in Southeast Alaska. That was why the timber industry was attacked and why the cruise ship industry was attacked.
So, is there a hidden or legally non-relevant agenda that would thwart our trans-Florida canal?
Very likely there is and I think such a proposal would draw ire from the anti-corporation crowd that riots in Seattle and Davos and other places where those world economic conferences are held.
Again, the resistance would take the form of overt concerns about environmental impacts but would be fueled by hatred of corporations and economic growth around the world.
I think this would also be true if you wanted the USA to build a new Panama Canal today. The whole panoply of federal regulations would very likely apply, even in a foreign country.
The US Navy has been engaged for years in an environmental study for exercising in the northern Pacific Ocean, far from US territory. The key concern, legally, is that a federal agency, the Navy, is proposing to engage in a “major federal action” and it is that action, not its location, that triggers the need for federal environmental review.
So, the first thing to do, if you want to build a giant project, is you must persuade Congress to give a waiver of the type that was granted so long ago for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Even then, the anti-growth forces were rampant, along with the lunatic fringe and TAPS would never have been built without a congressional get-out-of-jail free card.
From a political opportunity perspective, it might be a good idea, right now, to order up a whole deck of them.
Murray Walsh owns a government permitting consulting company and has been involved in land use management and planning for more than 40 years. He lives in Juneau.
Jeremy Price of Americans for Prosperity is surrounded, left to right, by Lloyd Bradley, Ryan McKee, Samuel A. Moore, Megan Alvanna Stimpfle, and Erica Simpson Qureshi at the Alaska State Capitol. They were there to promote ride-sharing legislation.
It’s lead, follow, or get out of the way with the Millennials who want things to work better and smarter.
In a world where the ride-sharing platforms of Uber,Lyft, and Fasten are available in 49 states, Alaska local governments seem to be fighting Alaskans who simply want to hail a ride from something other than a cab.
Fighting against ride-sharing is fighting on the wrong side of history. It is fighting against economic freedom in favor of an entrenched special interest.
Frustrated riders who can’t get cabs in Alaska, but who have used ride sharing systems elsewhere, are gerry-rigging their way around the anti-free-market government. If not Uber or Lyft, then how about Facebook direct? Let’s try it:
This week in Anchorage, a morning ride to the Ted Stevens International Airport was bartered via Facebook for a bottle of Pinot Grigio. Wine was, for the day, the coin of the ride-sharing realm. For less than $20, this rider hacked a solution to not being able to use Uber in Anchorage, which works like a charm in more than 300 cities over six continents.
The House version — HB 132 — of the ride-sharing legislation is sponsored by Rep. Adam Wool, a Fairbanks Democrat who owns a bar and realizes that people need rides, and ride sharing promotes safety.
His legislation will be the subject of a public hearing in the House Labor and Commerce Committee this Friday. That committee is chaired by his fellow Democrat Sam Kito, who routinely carries water for unions, has been instrumental in the Democratic caucus, and who has not signaled his intentions on HB 132.
Last year, a similar bill died in House Labor and Commerce, killed off by Chairman Kurt Olson, a Kenai Republican.
This year, supporters such as Jeremy Price, Alaska Director for Americans for Prosperity, have high hopes for success.
Price uses Uber on his frequent trips to Washington, D.C., and he was in Juneau last week with a handful of ride-share enthusiasts, including 30-something Sam Moore, who is legally blind and has been pushing for ride sharing services that would make Anchorage quality of life better for him and others who don’t drive or who don’t want to own their own cars.
Viewers may be able to watch the hearing on 360.north.org. They’ll have a chance to comment during the 3:15 pm public testimony period on Friday by heading to their local Legislative Information Office.
Uber recently celebrated its millionth driver. Only a handful of riders and drivers were Alaskans during the brief and poignant time in 2015 when Uber operated in Anchorage before the municipality shut it down.
But it’s a disruptive technology, like vaping, Bitcoin, Airbnb, and car-sharing platforms such as ZipCar. These innovations are nearly unstoppable — they will not be going quietly into the good night. Luddite governments in Anchorage and Juneau may be able to stall and even manage disruptive technologies, but they’ll not thwart them.
On a side note, the author’s Pinot Grigio-bartered rideshare program just celebrated its first successful ride in Anchorage. With any luck, a credit-card, app-transacted, ride-sharing platform — like Uber — will make the wine-for-ride program a fleeting fancy of 2017.
If you’re on jury duty, watch what you say. Your words during secret deliberations are not so secret anymore, and may be held against you in a court of law.
United States law has moved into the era where your juror comments, which are to be held in secrecy to allow you to speak frankly as you decide a case, may undo your jury’s entire decision.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a juror during deliberations were enough to call that verdict into question.
By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court tossed the case of Miguel Pena-Rodriguez back to a lower court to consider the allegations made by two jurors about comments made by a fellow juror.
Pena-Rodriguez was required to register as a sex offender after he was convicted in 2010 of sexual contact with two teenage girls in Colorado. He was originally charged with trying to grope the girls in the women’s bathroom at a Denver horse racing track where he worked. He was also charged with harassing them.
The jury had deadlocked on the felony charged but convicted Pena-Rodriguez of three misdemeanors and sentenced him to two years of probation.
Pena-Rodriguez is Hispanic.
After the verdict, two jurors accused a third juror of saying that Mexican-American men, 9 times out of 10, were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” the juror, a retired police officer, allegedly said during deliberations.
Pena-Rodriguez’ defense attorney obtained affidavits from the two jurors who alleged the politically incorrect juror also said that Mexican men are physically controlling of women because they have a sense of entitlement, and that the alibi witness was not credible because, among other things, he was an illegal immigrant.
Never has a case been tossed because of remarks made during the secret deliberations that could considered racist. The decision opens up the door to a flood of appeals that could be based on such comments as, “He doesn’t seem gay,” “He acts so macho,” or “That tattoo is ghetto.”
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. Avoiding racial bias is just one aspect of fairness. There are others.
Could utterances made by citizens regarding other qualities, such as religion, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or intelligence, now be used to unwind a verdict? It appears so.
If a defense team fails to adequately screen potential jurors about their racial bias during voir dire, can they get a “do-over”? Well, now they can.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted in October, when the case was being deliberated, that allowing an exception for a race bias would open the door to challenges for other types of bias.
“The next case is going to be religion,” he said. “So whatever we say on race is going to have either a limiting principle that makes sense, or it’s going to open up a broad category of cases.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor shrugged off that concern, because race is “the most pernicious and odious discrimination.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan made up the majority decision on Tuesday, weakened what is known as the “no impeachment rule,” which allows open, frank debate and discussion among jurors, whose utterances are kept in complete secrecy so that there will be finality when the verdict is read.
Under the “no impeachment rule,” jurors don’t have to worry about being politically correct or stepping on other jurors feelings when they debate a case. Until now.
The decision means political correctness has overcome the constitutional requirement for secrecy in deliberations.
In the case of Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, it appears the jury screening process failed. That is the defense team’s fault. It can happen sometimes, as justice is not perfect.
Yet, it is unlikely that overturning the constitutional requirement for secret deliberations in favor of the changing whims of political correctness will result in better justice.
Rarely does a new state tax policy deliver such unambiguously positive results, so quickly.
But, the announcement yesterday that Repsol and Armstrong Oil have confirmed that their huge North Slope oil discovery is on the higher side of initial estimates is the latest indication that the More Alaska Production Act of 2014 (SB21) has been an unqualified, blockbuster success story.
Alaska voters can give themselves some hearty pats on the back for that — about 90,000 pats, in fact, which is the number of voters who voted no on the 2014 ballot initiative that sought to repeal SB21.
By ratifying SB21 in no uncertain terms, voters kept a policy in place that has delivered to Alaskans their first increases in pipeline throughput in over 15 years. Yesterday, those voters got the news that a major new find has been confirmed that could add a jaw-dropping 20 percent to Alaska output.
ARMSTRONG
Bill Armstrong
Armstrong Oil and Gas is no stranger to Alaska oil tax whims, especially the efforts of left-wing legislators to treat the producers like their own political piggy banks.
Armstrong for two decades has been among the independent oil companies that, in a world of big oil, are the little engines that could.
President Bill Armstrong has hung in there through the tax mood swings of the disastrous “ACES” policy and its predecessor tax hikes, and was finally rewarded in 2014 when the More Alaska Production Act (MAPA, or SB21) was passed and ratified by voters.
Today, Armstrong too can pat itself on the back. After joining forces with Repsol, Armstrong is now the proud majority stakeholder of a great set of holes at the Pikka prospect, which is described by the company as the largest North American find in 30 years.
Although it made headlines this week, this find has been in the trade journals since early fall. After drilling some additional delineation wells this winter, Armstrong and Repsol confirmed that the find is, indeed, a whopper.
With an estimated 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the Horseshoe-1 discovery well indicates more than 150 feet of net pay — a way of calculating the total from various holes — in several reservoir zones in the Nanushuk section. A sidetrack, Horseshoe-1A, found more than than 100 feet of net pay. Those are some sweet pay zones. Drilling took place during the 2016-2017 winter season.
Republican Alaska lawmakers and former Gov. Sean Parnell can also pat themselves on the back. They are the ones who put forward and passed the important tax reform legislation in 2014. The MAPA reforms modified some of the worst aspects of the old ACES taxation plan, which had made Alaska a very unattractive place to produce oil.
The proof of that lies in the sharp production declines that occurred year after year during the bad old days of the ACES era. ACES punished producers with extreme taxes when prices were high, although taxed less in a low-price environment.
The More Alaska Production Act (MAPA), as SB 21 was called, evened it out so the low-price years brought in more tax revenue, but when prices soared the severance tax rate was not as confiscatory.
That turned out to be a good thing because, shortly after SB 21 was passed, oil prices dropped like a rock. MAPA is now bringing in much more revenue than the old ACES system would have at today’s prices.
On top of that, production increased even at these lower prices, which is bringing in even more revenue than ACES.
This has helped Alaska limp through the painful economic adjustments brought on by too-big government and not enough revenue to pay for it.
“The North Slope project is representative of the new movement in Alaska where smaller independents work and operate in areas previously dominated by major oil companies. Armstrong has participated in 16 wildcat and appraisal wells on the North Slope in the last four years,” Armstrong told Oil & Gas 360 last year. “Every single well was successful, and a third-party engineering firm places total proven reserves at 497 MMBO in the region.”
Those reserve estimates just jumped markedly.
HARD FOUGHT TAX REFORM
ACES and MAPA had some things in common, including providing for tax credits to incentivize more exploration. Those credits led Repsol to drill in the Pikka area, where they and Armstrong have drilled 13 wells. First production is expected as soon as 2021, with a potential of 120,000 barrels of oil per day. That should warm up a cooling Trans Alaska Pipeline.
The repeal of ACES in favor of MAPA was a hard-fought battle. For example, Rep. Harriet Drummond, D-Anchorage, stood outside the bill-signing ceremony carrying a protest sign that read: “Corrupt Bastards Club – Third Floor.” The third floor of the Dena-ina Center is where Gov. Sean Parnell and Republican leaders were signing SB 21, and Drummond and a handful of Democrat protestors were having none of it.
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, also hated the legislation, writing in the Anchorage Daily News at the time that “SB 21 took us back to a failed policy we had in place for three decades and cost us hundreds of billions in lost revenue. We got nothing in exchange for this bill.”
Nothing, if you don’t count more revenue and more production.
Even today, the left-leaning majority in charge of the House of Representatives is trying to rewrite SB 21, with HB 111 being offered by Rep. Geran Tarr and Rep. Andy Josephson, Anchorage Democrats now infamous for telling the Alaska Center for the Environment last fall that they should use their official legislative offices as satellite offices for their environmental lobbying.
Tarr and Josephson want to increase taxes when prices are low, as they are now. But is that wise?
Roger Marks covered the topic at the Alaska Support Industry Alliance on Friday. His talk was titled, “Evaluation of HB 111: Allocating Misery of Low Prices.”
Marks told the breakfast meeting that, in its current form, HB 111 might exacerbate a flaw in the current tax system. He explained that while SB 21 may have stimulated exploration and production, the law shifts does shift the low price risk to industry taxpayers. HB 111 shifts it even more.
Marks also doesn’t think the cuts in production from OPEC countries are something Alaska can depend on to keep prices higher. Even as prices rise — and they eventually will — shale oil production will return in the Lower 48 and elsewhere. The technology of shale oil fields has been a game-changer.
Right now, companies have a hard time making money in Alaska, where the cost of doing business is high and taxes and royalties take a big bite. HB 111 increases the minimum tax from 4 percent to 5 percent of gross, and decreases the per-barrel credit from $8 to $5 at prices below $110 per barrel.
That 1 percent might raise the state another $37 million, but it might also act as a damper on production.
HB 111 also ends the state purchase of refundable credits, but producers can still carry the credits forward until they have income to offset them.
Putting future tax credits on hold might be necessary, since there is a shameful backlog of existing credit obligations that the governor has not paid to several companies. But the evidence is in that past tax credits, combined with sensible tax policy, are resulting in exciting new oil discoveries.
Now, if tax policy remains steady and bills like HB111 do not see the light of day, Alaska might even see production of that oil.
It was in the Juneau International Airport this week when it struck home: The American Left has twisted its mission of “liberation of the oppressed” into a pretzel. It is now merely a Coalition of Grievances that lifts up oppression as an American value.
A white, retirement-age man sat near me in the departure lounge waiting for his flight. His gray sweatshirt bore the image of a Muslim woman with perfect features and bright red lips wearing a headscarf made of an American flag, and some script from the Constitution imprinted nearby: “We the People” — the sort of script you usually see conservatives wearing on their ball caps.
You’ve seen this hajib-wearing image by now all over the media. Campy and unexpected, it has replaced the Barack Obama HOPE poster as the image d’jour for the liberal agenda. It’s the new symbol for “those who oppose.”
And yet, there’s a deep irony that cannot be ignored: Muslim women wear the headscarf for religious reasons, for modesty, and because for many of them, they simply have no choice. They have no choice about most of their lives. Many of them are living under oppressive regimes that will stone them to death if they don’t submit.
The American flag headscarf is a lovely touch, but most Muslim women don’t wear bright red lips. Many of them are beaten by their husbands, and their genitals are mutilated at a young age. Their faces, so often, cannot be shown outside the home. They don’t get medical care.
The hajib, a symbol of liberation and our Constitution? When did it become normalized for progressives to lift up the oppression and marginalization of women as their symbol of freedom?
Whether it’s a day without pink knit hats or a day without hajibs, I don’t want a day without women. I want a day without fake identify politics and fictitious grievances.
I’m a hat-wearing woman who wants her a days filled with hard work ahead, problems to solve, checklists to punch, people to help, communities to serve, friends to comfort, and so much to do I cannot get to it all.
I want a day with dozens of phone calls, some laughter, and just enough face-palm moments to keep me alert.
I want the blessing of my women friends to call and text, and my men friends too. The voice of a child would be icing on the cake at any time of the day.
And I want my day to start and end with star-gazing, because it’s still winter-ish in Alaska. Most of all, I want to appreciate everyone who helps me get through the day and keep focused on the work I do best.
“A Day Without Women” may have been the day when Identity Politics jumped the shark and finally overstayed its welcome. But there’s been a quiet rebellion underway since early 2016, when most of America wondered why all lives didn’t matter, not just black lives. They were being bullied into silence, but they would have their say at the ballot box in November.
In January came the pussy-hat brigade, women and men wearing those adorable two-eared pink hats that represented female identity and power, and with them came the creative vulva-vagina costumes parading down the streets of every major city. Conservatives in America went to work, took care of children and elders, and tried to not judge the narcissists too harshly. They just silently removed offenders from their Facebook feeds.
Civil folk may be too polite to say it, but I will: “I could do with a day without all the drama.”
THE DAY AFTER THE DAY WITHOUT WOMEN
Fifteen-thousand students in Alexandria, Virgina didn’t attend school yesterday because too many of their teachers decided to take the day off in observation of “A Day Without Women.”
Over a thousand families were forced to find alternative care for their children on that day, because 300 women decided not to show up for work in the act of ultimate petulance.
It was an exercise that may have had unintended consequences.
Today, it’s back to work for the participants who decided that they were terminally special and that they would make their absences felt. They may be alarmed to discover that not only were they not particularly missed, some of their coworkers may have breathed a temporary sigh of relief at the absence of whining, micro-aggression and a self-absorbed victim mentality.
In other words, the Day Without Women points to the universal truth: The world goes on without us. Others fill in, pick up our slack, get things done. We are all special and we all get a trophy for participation, regardless of our genital plumbing.
And finally, the wheels of industry will turn because most people, women very much included, will be good enough to show up to work and turn the lights on. And they likely won’t be wearing a pussy hat.
CONFIRMATION OF NEW AG HELD DUE TO FISHING ACCESS CASE
Jahna Lindemuth
Acting Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth was vetted today by the Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee.
It started well, but quickly got bumpy for the state’s top law enforcement officer when she explained how she was negotiating a settlement to a land access case that was, for some senators, a bridge too far. They appeared far from convinced she was the fighter that Alaska needs.
Lindemuth was asked by senators why, instead of defending Alaska in court, she was negotiating the case that Ahtna Corp. had brought against the State’s historic right-of-way to the Klutina Lake fishing and recreation area, a place where everyday Alaskans have access to salmon and other fish.
Ahtna Corp. sued the State of Alaska about nine years ago, Lindemuth explained. The trial had been set for late April when she filed a pleading with the court to stay the case, in other words put off the trial, so that her department could negotiate a settlement.
Lindemuth said she had to decide whether or not to pursue the case and it was her judgment and her right as attorney general to settle.
A 150-year-old historic trail designation makes all traditionally used trails and byways official state rights of way. RS-2477 gives the public a 100-foot passage through Athna land to the fishing grounds.
Ahtna wants to downgrade the right-of-way designation from RS-2477 to a lesser 17-B, which would greatly diminish access for Alaskans.
Alaska has fought for RS-2477 standards for years, but now the Walker Administration has no stomach to fight.
“We had an all-day mediation at the end of January that went late into the night until 10 at night, and then two weeks more of back and forth between lawyers on the ground on it before I was confident enough that we were close enough for a framework about what would be on the table, before I could put off the litigation.
“I hope that folks at the end of the day will look at it as a win-win,” Lindemuth said. In every negotiation there is compromise, she said, and the State will not get everything it asserted, nor will Ahtna, she said. Some question whether the right of way actually exists.
She would not get into the particulars of the case, since she is negotiating it. But she allowed that she didn’t want to go to litigation because the state could lose, and it would affect other access cases. Settling was her best decision, she said.
Sen. Pete Kelly, R-Fairbanks was not impressed.
“I really don’t want you as the AG to find a win-win situation. Your client is the State of Alaska and I want you to win on this and that should be your approach.” – Sen. Pete Kelly
“I don’t want you dropping this case and pulling the pin,” Kelly said. “I am not as interested in process or win-win or anything like that.
“RS-2477 exists,” he continued. “The problem we had over the years is getting governors to assert, and we need to make sure all the noise is out of the way as we assert our State right on RS-2477, which is federal law.”
To make sure she didn’t misunderstand, Kelly spelled out his concern once again: “It appears as if you’re going to a settlement that doesn’t make sense for the State of Alaska.”
He said he’d need a lot of answers on RS-2477 before he could recognize Lindemuth’s name to the floor for a vote. (As Senate President, Kelly has procedural discretion to move her nomination forward or hold it back.)
Sen. John Coghill, R-Fairbanks, seemed to agree: Access is so limited in Alaska, he asked her to hear them and their concerns on the access issue.
Sen. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, noted that Lindemuth’s negotiation would have far-reaching impacts on other access issues across the state, and said she was surprised that Lindemuth was afraid to go to trial because the case might fail.
Costello recalled working for Gov. Wally Hickel and said he would fight the federal government without fear of failure. She challenged Lindemuth, who had years before attended elementary school with her in Anchorage, to “take a stand, fight and risk failure.”
Lindemuth could not address the committee’s concerns because she has already entered negotiations in the case.
Lindemuth’s confirmation was held in committee for further hearings next week that will include public testimony.
The past several days in Juneau have shown that not only is the House Finance Committee soft on budget cuts, they are in no mood to reduce Alaska’s bloated state operating to any degree whatsoever. In fact, they are actually increasing it.
Yes, you read that correctly.
The minority Republican members of the House Finance Committee are trying to reverse the tide of spending, however, even if their objections have fallen on deaf ears.
Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, started poring over Gov. Bill Walker’s unfunded budget on Dec. 15, when he first offered it for review.
Walker’s budget had a roughly $900 million hole that needed to be filled. His gasoline tax proposal would only raise $143 million. Wilson thought she could help by providing some cuts that would reduce the need for more taxes.
She went through it line by line, and came up with over $300 million in surgical cuts.
Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Chugiak-Wasilla did the same thing this winter. Tilton came up with additional efficiencies with the expertise of someone who is qualified enough to be a leading budget analyst. Tilton spent years as an aide to House Finance and is also a numbers-oriented owner of multiple Alaska businesses.
Between the two budget hawks, they provided House Finance Committee on Friday with 280 budget amendments totaling $421 million in agency spending reductions.
In the end, the bosses running House Finance bundled the amendments offered by Wilson and Tilton into two large packets of related amendments. Down they went into the ash heap, in a vote that occurred along caucus lines, although not before Rep. Wilson read 93 of them into the record.
There will be no budget reductions coming from the Democrat-led majority in the House. In fact, only budget increases, and possibly income taxes, gasoline taxes, education taxes and a host of other ideas to raid the pocketbooks of Alaska’s families.
THE RABBIT HOLE
Budget amendments were due to Legislative Finance Division by 5 pm on Saturday.
In spite of waiting throughout the weekend and Monday for word on any changes that would be required by the Legislative Finance analysts, the budget hawks got shot down on Tuesday, when the amendment package arrived with a surprising memo attached that was dismissive of their amendments.
The memo from Legislative Finance to the committee said that “actuals” from 2016 were not to be relied on and that was a red flag for any amendments that cut the budget.
All of the proposed budget cuts came from the minority Republicans on the committee.
In other words, in Finance Wonderland “actuals are not actuals.” Further, the memo stated, any reductions should have been vetted in the Finance subcommittees:
ACTUAL SUBCOMMITTEES DON’T EXIST: Yet under House Democrats’ reorganization of Finance, the budget subcommittee budget process has been rolled into the policy committees that are separate from the Finance Committee. And in those committees, Republicans were marginalized — both on policy and budget matters.
Budget hawk Republicans didn’t put the amendments into the “subcommittee” process because they were told they’d have to put them in later. Now, they’re told they should have offered the amendments earlier in the process.
Clearly, the House Majority is not in a budget cutting mood, in spite of overwhelming public support for slimming down state government.
And before all was said and done, Democrats had not only rejected every single cut, they actually increased the budget offered by Gov. Bill Walker by $3.8 million.
