Page 1689 – Must Read Alaska

House Democrats tackle Electoral College

-

March 22, 2017

The Alaska House of Representatives, having passed its no-more-cuts budget along caucus lines, turns its attention to other pressing matters this week — hiking oil taxes with HB 111, and taking down the Electoral College with HB 175.

HB 175, which has received scant attention to date, would have Alaska join an interstate compact to award all of its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in a presidential election. The bill is sponsored by Democrat Zach Fansler, with cosponsors Les Gara, Justin Parish, Harriet Drummond, Scott Kawasaki, and Geran Tarr, all Democrats.

It will be heard in House State Affairs Committee on Thursday. It has no fiscal impact on the state budget, except as the presidency can impact the state budget.

The interstate compact among participating states would go into effect after there are enough states to represent an absolute majority of votes, which is currently enough states to equal 270 Electoral College votes.

If passed, in the next presidential election, the joining states would award all of their electoral votes to the electors associated with the candidate winning the popular vote across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In other words, if Hillary Clinton won the popular vote across all states, the compact members would award all their electoral votes to her.

In this way, the winner of the popular vote nationally would always win the presidency, because he or she would gain the majority of the Electoral College votes.

The “mob rule states” would be breaking-and-entering through the backdoor of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, which lines out the rules by which the Electoral College operates.

The Constitution allows legislatures to choose how their states allocate electors. Currently, Alaska awards all of its votes to the candidate who wins the most votes statewide. This is how it is done in every state but Maine and Nebraska, which award them in a split fashion.

Today, Alaska has a House majority run by Democrats, and they are using it to their advantage to push through legislation that they feel will be favorable to Democrats in the next election — 2020.

Current signatories to the compact are the heavily Democrat majority states of California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton won all those states’ popular votes:

California: 61.6 percent
District of Columbia: 92.8 percent
Hawaii: 62.3 percent
Illinois: 54.3 percent
Maryland: 60.5 percent
Massachusetts: 60.8 percent
New Jersey: 55 percent
New York: 58.8 percent
Rhode Island: 55.4 percent
Vermont: 61.1 percent
Washington: 54.4 percent

In Alaska, Donald Trump won 51.3 [corrected 03.24.17] percent of the vote. With HB 175, our votes would be awarded to Hillary Clinton.

WHY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATTERS

The authors of the U.S. Constitution invented a system of Electoral College voting, in order to protect the rights of minority states like, for instance, Alaska, which has a small population. They rejected the simple majority vote because they are prone toward dictatorships and mob rule.

The system was designed by James Madison to protect citizens from the tyranny of direct democracy, where citizens could band together to form an absolute majority, and then strip the rights from the minority.

In Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison describes how, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Madison wrote that “a well-constructed Union” must “break and control … the superior force of an…overbearing majority.”

Protecting smaller, less populous states from being overpowered by larger states was an equally strong concern at the time, which led to the Connecticut Compromise at the Founding Fathers’ Constitutional Convention of 1787. It established a bicameral — or two-body — Congress that allocated members of the House of Representatives according to population but allocated Senators in equal numbers (two per state).

Madison’s electoral college simply extended the Connecticut Compromise to the election of presidents. Electoral votes are awarded by total House and Senate seats combined, thus guaranteeing small states like Alaska a meaningful say in presidential elections. This stroke of remarkable statesmanship has protected small states from the tyranny of large states since the birth of the nation.

There are 538 electoral votes available, and it takes 270 to win the presidency. Some liken the process to the World Series: It’s not the overall number of runs that wins the series, but the team that wins the most games. A team could technically score more runs throughout a series and still lose the series.

(We are not an accomplished student of baseball, but that happened in the 1960 World Series, where the Pittsburgh Pirates won over the New York Yankees. The Yankees won three blowout games (16–3, 10–0, and 12–0), but the Pirates won four games (6–4, 3–2, 5–2, and 10–9).

In U.S. election history, five presidents have won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote:

John Quincy Adams, 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes, 1876
Benjamin Harrison, 1888
George W. Bush, 2000
2016, Donald Trump

Today, with our nation’s cities heavily populated by racial minorities, the Electoral College makes sense as never before, as it actually gives minorities a bit of an edge. They influence the entire electoral vote of their states.

House State Affairs will hear HB 175 during its March 23 meeting at 3 pm in Room 120 of the Capitol. The meeting will be teleconferenced. Four Democrat majority caucus members dominate the committee — Chairman Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Gabrielle LeDoux, Chris Tuck, and Adam Wool. Republicans Chris Birch, DeLena Johnson, and Gary Knopp round out the committee.

As a clear case of “elections have consequences,” Alaska students of the Constitution should watch this legislation carefully.

Les Gara’s ’10-year recession’ is taxation sound bite

Suzanne Downing

-

March 21, 2017

3

JUNEAU – Rep. Les Gara, the unwavering leftist anchor of the Alaska House of Representatives, has a favorite saying:

“I guess if you say something enough times, and convince people enough times with an inaccurate statement that you’re right, maybe they start to believe you.”

At least Gara walks that talk.

On Feb. 17, Gara, D-Anchorage, told reporters that State budget cuts would put Alaska into a “10-year recession.”

It was a round number, and it may have sounded good to him as a sound bite, one that he’s been repeating nearly daily for the past month without a challenge from the media.

No one in Alaska economic circles has repeated the theme, but Gara recycles it with confidence.

Cuts will “also get you one of the worst recessions in Alaska history, and a state where your children can’t find a job. You deserve real information instead of soundbites, so you can tell your legislators the path you prefer,” he wrote back in February in the Alaska Dispatch News.

“No solution will be as popular as those irresponsible political soundbites you hear. I’d rather hear from you than those who peddle false soundbites,” he concluded.

Monday, he said the House Democrats had cut $81 million from the $6.5 billion budget, which passed along caucus lines, 22-17.

But House Republicans said the budget is actually $14 million bigger — two-tenths of one percent more than the governor asked for. Most Republicans voted against it, but three key Republicans joined with Democrats to pass a larger budget and enact new revenues to pay for it.

It depends on how you slice the numbers, whether the budget is smaller or larger than before.

Walker has proposed a gasoline tax that would raise $81 million a year, which masks the fact that significant cuts were not made. But the gas tax alone leaves a $2.78 billion gap.

The gas tax, one of several being considered, would cost average Alaskans about $150 a year, but would hit commuters from the Mat-Su Valley particularly hard, since many commute 50 miles or more per day.

“You’re taxing people who are driving to work, then taxing the work they do,” said Rep. David Eastman, a freshman from Wasilla, referring to the double whammy gasoline and income taxes that Democrats are also proposing.

A draw from the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account is in the mix as well. The various taxes and Permanent Fund restructuring are included in HB 115, which was heard by the House Finance Committee today and held until Thursday for a hearing.

Gara went on to say that Alaska spends less than it did in 1975 in real dollars, but that is not borne out by the governor’s own slide deck from last year, which shows:

TAXES DRAG ECONOMY

The problem with trying to tax Alaska’s way out of a recession is that taxes do not inject new money into the economy. Taxation only keeps the same amount of money circulating, but only after a portion of it is siphoned off by government, and is put back into the economy via government jobs.

In Alaska, with its limited economic diversity, the only way out of recession is by bringing in a lot more tourists, catching a lot more fish, mining a lot more gold, and putting a lot more oil in the pipeline.

There is also another penalty. When money is siphoned off by government, the main agent of economic growth is neutered — innovation and new ways of doing old jobs more efficiently. The economy suffers in the long haul. As in, over the next 10 years.

Or, the state can simply hope that price-per-barrel reaches above $70. Many economists believe prices that high are as much as a decade away. If so, Alaska will simply need to increase production.

As the statements from the House members were heard one-by-one just before they voted Monday on the biggie-sized budget, Gara brought out his favorite saying — the same one he has used whenever he’s had the microphone in front of him and a camera rolling during the past month: He argued again that cuts to government would put the state into a “10 year recession.”

There’s nary a data point to back that up. But at least he inadvertently admits it with his other favorite saying, “I guess if you say something enough times, and convince people enough times with an inaccurate statement that you’re right, maybe they start to believe you.”

Homer recall petition gains ground

Suzanne Downing

-

March 20, 2017

7

A group of citizens in Homer, Alaska has had quite enough of three city council members who tried to make Homer a “sanctuary city ” — a place where illegal immigrants could find safe haven from the law.

The citizens want the three recalled. The reason? The city council members’ actions have harmed the economic health of Homer and constituted “improper behavior.”

As of this afternoon, the recall petition blew past 300 signatures in less than four days’ effort. That is 80 percent of the minimum total signatures that will be required.

HAL SPENCE TAKES CREDIT

In January, shortly after the swearing in of President Donald Trump, Homer City Council members Donna Aderhold, David Lewis, and Catriona Reynolds worked quietly on a resolution that rebuked Trump and declared Homer in resistance to everything about his administration, including his entire cabinet.

The draft resolution was a blistering “Whereas” document that contained the wordsmithing of former Homer News and Peninsula Clarion reporter Hal Spence.

Spence is the former president of the Alaska Press Club and, since early 2009, he has been on contract with a number of environmental organizations, such as Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, and World Wildlife Fund, according to his profile at the Hospice of Homer, where he serves on the board. He calls himself an independent environmental services professional on his LinkedIn social media profile.

Spence has written a letter to the editor taking credit for the original draft.

TOO LITTLE SOFTENING, TOO LATE

Later, the draft anti-Trump language was softened by Aderhold, Lewis, and Reynolds, and the resolution was introduced as a milder, “inclusivity” statement.

But the cat was out of the bag on the original intent of the resolution. It failed to pass after more than 100 citizens came to a hearing to testify on it. Many felt the entire exercise was divisive and disrespectful of the views of the 56 percent of Homer voters who cast a ballot for Trump.

Now, the recall petition is the talk of the town. The group has until April 11 to obtain 373 valid signatures needed for a vote.

Even if it fails, facing a recall election is a heavy price to pay for Aderhold, Lewis, and Reynolds. Lewis and Reynolds are facing reelection on Oct. 3, so regardless of whether they are removed early, this will be a campaign issue and they are likely to face stiff political headwinds.

*Donna Aderhold, Catriona Reynolds, David Lewis, all city council members in Homer, Alaska, face recall after they collaborated on a santuary city resolution.*

The last recall effort in Homer happened in August, 1965 to Mayor Ralph Cowles, who survived the vote. The petitioners said that Cowles, the city’s first mayor, was “discourteous and rude to Homer citizens who approach him on city matters.”

The recallers have established a storefront location to gather signatures from 11 am to 7 pm at 1104 Ocean Drive in Homer. Most of the people coming into the storefront just ask, “Where do I sign?”

But the group has also had to remove interlopers: A man started taking photographs of the process. A woman, who identified herself as a government employee, became argumentative with the petition sponsors, saying they were hurting the feelings of the three council members. She was asked to leave.

The petition sponsors have since set up better door security protocols.

PETITION CERTIFICATION NO SURE THING

*Corbin Arno signs the recall petition in Homer, Alaska. (Photographer Barrett Moe)*

The petitioners say the actions of the three council members constitute a dereliction of duty and “improper behavior.” Further, they say, the three council members have caused economic harm to the city. They cite cancellations of hotel rooms and fishing trips as evidence of that harm.

“[I]mproper behavior’ is a very subjective standard,” City Attorney Holly Wells said in a memo. Whether the city had declined the petition for recall or approved it, it would likely have been subject to legal challenge.

The city clerk is the decider, however. Once the signatures are turned in, Clerk Jo Johnson will judge the merits of the allegations and either refuse the petitioners or call a special election.

Because they are under the shadow of a recall election, the three council members have been advised by the city attorney to not speak of the matter either publicly or in discussions.

Grounds for recall include misconduct in office, incompetence, or failure to perform prescribed duties. Alaska laws governing municipal recall processes are summarized at Ballotopedia.

Previous stories:

Homer city council goes into full ‘resist Trump’ mode with resolution

Homer city council to consider ‘softened’ resolution after blowback

Homer City Council backs away from ‘resist’ resolution

Progressive thinking: Bring on the ride-sharing services

Suzanne Downing

-

March 19, 2017

0

By WIN GRUENING

I was surprised to read the recent Juneau Empire news story headlined “Why is Uber Wrong for Juneau?” It reported on proposed legislation, HB 132, SB 14, authorizing “on-demand” ride-sharing services in Alaska.

The headline is somewhat misleading since it’s obvious many residents and visitors wish it were available.

20,000 Alaskan residents have downloaded the Uber smart phone application (presumably to use when traveling) and over 60,000 people have opened the Uber app in Alaska. Despite this, Alaska is the only remaining state in the country that has not allowed such services.

Uber and Lyft, the two most visible ride-sharing companies, have experienced phenomenal growth. Uber is available in 500 cities worldwide and, together with other ride-sharing enterprises, have revolutionized the concept of local transportation by providing a platform for independent drivers to “share their ride” with others.

Service requests are handled through smart phone apps pairing potential riders with the nearest independent driver at pre-negotiated rates (including tip) that are well below standard cab fares. No money changes hands as the rider’s secure credit card number is on file.

The initial comments by some city leaders were puzzling. Juneau is a “connected” town with lots of bandwidth. Despite that and the many advantages services like Uber and Lyft offer, their reaction was unduly negative.

City Manager Rorie Watt referred to the “peculiar needs” of Juneau and stated “I don’t think we’re ready for Uber.” Assemblyman Jesse Kiehl expressed safety concerns about ridesharing services.

Yet these ride-sharing services now operate successfully in many cities across the country with similar characteristics as Juneau — with high seasonal visitor volumes and downtown parking issues, for example.

The misconception many people may have about ridesharing is thinking it’s just another cab service. However, statistics in states where Uber and Lyft are operating reflect a different story.

Initially, conventional cab rides decrease after ride-sharing services are introduced but overall total rides increase considerably more.

In other words, while some cab trips will be replaced by ridesharing, the overall increase is attributable to unmet demand that will take private vehicles off the road. Many Uber and Lyft drivers are driving their private vehicles on a route they would be driving anyway (such as to and from work). They aren’t adding to traffic but instead are allowing someone else the opportunity to ride with them — thereby taking that person’s carbon footprint off the street.

Other part-time drivers without regular jobs or retired, for instance, would be at home or running errands and available to share rides during the day and evenings — the point being they’re not burning gasoline cruising for fares or idling downtown or at the airport. This added capacity and convenience makes it easier for people looking for a “night out on the town” to avoid parking hassles and even a potential DUI on their way home.

The concerns regarding safety seem unfounded. While cab drivers are fingerprinted and Uber drivers are not, both undergo a background check before they are allowed to operate. Even without the fingerprinting, a standard background check for all drivers would reveal any disqualifying criminal convictions.

Besides, there are safety features built into the smart phone app. When confirming an Uber ride, the rider is provided the driver’s name, license plate number, photo and rating — so you know who’s picking you up. The app allows the rider to track the vehicle in real time on a map to monitor its arrival time. The rider can stay indoors in a secure location until the vehicle arrives. Contrast that with calling a taxi dispatcher and waiting outside in the weather without a good idea when and if it will arrive.

Another important issue our capital city struggles with is the lack of transportation options at our airport, ferry terminal and harbors. How many times have you arrived in Juneau and found a line of people needing transportation and no taxis were available? This reflects poorly on us as a capital city and continues to be a real sore point with legislators and staffers. During the summer, the problem is magnified when many taxicabs prefer to host sightseeing tours rather than pick up a cab fare.

The self-regulating feature that ridesharing services like Uber provide is also a major advantage. Drivers receiving unsatisfactory ratings by riders are not permitted to continue in the program. Unlike cab companies, vehicles must meet certain standards and the driver is graded on such things as cleanliness, friendliness, correct routing, safe driving, etc.

It’s a good thing when new technology creates opportunities for environmentally friendly efficiencies, lower costs and greater convenience. Our readiness to embrace these new ideas and the realization our community can adapt and benefit from them is what progressive thinking should mean.

Competition in commerce is always healthy. How can it be wrong to allow people to make their own choice?

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president for business banking for Key Bank. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Production-killing oil tax bill advances in the House

Suzanne Downing

-

March 18, 2017

6

Production-killing oil tax bill advances in the House

*Reps. Andy Josephson and Geran Tarr, co-chairs of House Resources, confer during floor session.*

An aggressive oil tax bill crafted by the co-chairs of the House Resources Committee was voted out of committee this week and is headed for its next stop, House Finance. It will be heard at 1:30 pm Monday.

Republicans on the Resources Committee had criticized HB 111 since its introduction as a committee bill, distancing themselves from it throughout the hearing process that began Feb. 8.

The vote to move the bill forward was along party lines, with Democrats Justin Parish, Geran Tarr, Andy Josephson, Harriet Drummond, and Dean Westlake favoring it, and Republicans George Rauscher, Dave Talerico, Chris Birch and DeLena Johnson saying no. Leaders from the oil and gas industry expressed dismay at the seventh tax change on their industry in the past 11 years.

The bill was crafted by co-chairs Andy Josephson and Geran Tarr, two Anchorage Democrats who have strong anti-oil beliefs. The two were recent presenters at the Alaska Center for the Environment, where they were caught on tape talking about their commitment to moving the state away from oil and into renewable resources.

Reps. Geran Tarr and Andy Josephson talk about their commitment to ending oil production during a meeting at the Alaska Center for the Environment last fall, as Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott, another oil industry critic, listens.

SNATCHING DECLINE FROM THE JAWS OF GROWTH

The Department of Revenue issued a fiscal note for HB 111 that predicts the State would capture an additional $45 million in taxes in 2018, $140 million for 2019, and up to $265 million per year by 2026.

Republicans on the committee said the existing oil tax system, adopted in 2013 as SB 21, is responsible for bringing more oil into production this past year, and that more volume is the goal. Oil flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System is where the State of Alaska gets the majority of its revenue, but the pipeline is running at only about 25 percent of capacity.

The production boosting benefits of SB 21 became clear very quickly after adoption. In 2015, average pipeline throughput was 508,446 barrels per day. That rose to 517,868 in 2016, ending 15 years of consecutive annual declines. The trend so far this year is higher still, with a year-to-date average of 554,816 per day.

Even more encouraging are the several new discoveries recently announced by Caelus and Armstrong that may boost Alaska’s pipeline throughput substantially. But, in today’s low oil price environment, there’s no guarantee those finds would be produced under a markedly less favorable tax regime.

HB 111 increases the state government’s take by rolling back tax credits that companies get when they make new investments in the oil patch. It also raises the minimum tax on the gross value of production. These changes can ratchet up taxes 25-100 percent, depending on the producer, at a time when they are lucky to be breaking even.

The bill eliminates net operating loss credits that companies can subtract from their tax bills for North Slope oil. It changes how they can carry those credits forward into future years when they can use them to their advantage.

Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, called the bill an ill-conceived policy “which would further damage Alaska’s economy by increasing taxes on the state’s largest private sector industry, and creating one of the largest regulatory processes in state history.”

She was especially critical of the portion of the bill that requires the pre-approval of oil company expenditures before the company could qualify for a potential net operating loss deduction. That would put state bureaucrats in charge of guiding oilfield investment decisions.

FISCAL NOTE FROM REVENUE, BUT NOT FROM DNR

How the state would handle such a pre-approval process was not accounted for in the bill. And, there was no fiscal note from the Department of Natural Resources detailing the cost of standing up such an approval process, what state personnel might need to be hired to analyze and adjudicate the pre-approval process, or what the appeal mechanism might look like. That bothered Rep. George Rauscher, District 9. The problem with it was explained by AOGA in a statement:

“Due to a variety of factors, such as oil price, the industry does not know at the time of the expenditure if they will suffer a net operating loss. So essentially, the new regulations will mean almost every penny of every proposed investment in the state’s largest private-sector industry would need to be pre-approved by the State of Alaska before the expenditure could happen.

“This also means that expenditures will have to be pre-approved by DNR before they happen to qualify for a net operating loss deduction, and the same expenditures will be audited after they occur by the Department of Revenue in their auditing process to actually receive the net operating loss deduction.”

“This new process, yet to be defined or truly vetted, will add tremendous burden and uncertainty. It is unreasonable to expect every expenditure to be preapproved.” — Kara Moriarty.

During committee discussion on March 14, Rep. Dean Westlake of District 40, voiced his own concerns that, “What I’m seeing here is a little disturbing because we’re going to be micromanaging basically their leases. We want accounting and yet we are five years behind on our accounting.”

Rep. Tarr responded that all of the details of the legislation, which is a broad document, can be spelled out in the regulations that will be developed. “The statute should be less prescriptive in nature because the regulations spell out the details,” she said. “Really let it be dictated by the folks who know best, the folks who manage it” at DNR.

However, with no fiscal note from DNR, legislators have no idea how much time and money it will take to develop the regulations around HB 111 and then administer them.

More importantly, there is no way to accurately estimate the chilling effect this will have on Alaska’s most important industry, the one that pays the majority of the State’s bills.

But it is safe to say that, if this legislation were to somehow become law, the pipeline throughput growth Alaska is currently enjoying would quickly revert to a more familiar pattern of annual declines.

House Democrats cut off budget debate

Suzanne Downing

-

March 16, 2017

4

*Rules Chairman Gabrielle LeDoux at today’s press conference: “We actually have a fiscal crisis and we need to be doing other stuff.”*

The House Democrat-led majority says enough is enough: No more budget debate after Friday at noon.

The $4.1 billion budget had 55 amendments as of 1 pm Thursday, most of them cuts put forward by the budget hawks in the Republican minority caucus.

Today, the House majority called those budget reductions a filibuster.

“We just decided basically that enough was enough,” said Rules Chairman Gabrielle LeDoux at a press conference attended by the cobbled together House majority members, made up of mostly Democrats, but also two indeterminates and three Republicans who have thrown their lot in with the Democrats.

“We just spent two and a half hours on an amendment. We have got a fiscal crisis that we’ve got to resolve,” LeDoux said.

“I mean at some point you got to figure out which are the important, the critical amendments, and have a robust debate on those instead of having a few things dribbling here and dribbling there.

The House has more important things to attend to, she said, such as developing new revenue sources from taxes on working Alaskans and oil producers to pay for the bloated budget that the majority is ready to approve.

“We actually have a fiscal crisis and we need to be doing other stuff,” LeDoux said.

The House minority that has fought for lower government spending was loaded for bear.

At their own hastily called press conference this afternoon, they said that if the majority wants to take $4 billion out of the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve to pay for government operations, then there’s nothing more important than combing through the budget first looking for cuts.

ARMED TAX COLLECTORS STOPPED BY HOUSE BUDGET HAWKS

During that fine-tooth process, Republican House members pointed out that a proposed funding transfer from the Department of Revenue to the Department of Public Safety had created armed Revenue tax collection agents.

The funding transfer that would arm tax collectors was voted down, 31-9, when it was pointed out by the House minority.

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon told the press, “We’re now on day four debating, in the 25th hour of debate. We made the decision to basically say look, we’ve had enough and the public has had enough. It’s time to move onto other important legislation in the building.”

Millett said that her caucus was doing its job, not filibustering. Neither she nor former House Speaker Mike Chenault could remember a time when budget debate was simply cut off.

“The budget has not changed, except it has gone up,” Millett said. “There have been no cuts in Finance Committee or on the floor, except for today on per diem.

“We have heard from the public they would like to see a sustainable budget. My caucus is not comfortable with the levels of spending,” she said.

Tempers in both the majority and minority caucuses were noticeably elevated today and the contrast between the two caucuses couldn’t have been more clear. From the Democrat majority press conference, members took the microphone and one by one stated their solidarity:

“It’s a filibuster,” said Democrat Les Gara of Anchorage.

“Time is money,” added Democrat Justin Parish of Juneau.

“It’s time to get on with the State’s business,” said Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks.

And in the minority press conference:

“We have pointed out line by line fundamental flaws — and that is our only job,” said Minority Leader Millet.

“Our new Rules chair has been stifling debate,” she said. “We cannot use the word ‘slush fund,’ and can’t use the word ‘bureaucrats.’ We can’t talk about the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve transfer. We should not be rushing this process.”

Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, said she had turned in her amendments last week and was ordered to withdraw them, but she refused.

“We could have done them Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, but they waited until Monday at 11. They weren’t ready,” Wilson said.

“The budget is constitutionally the only thing we have to do while we are down here,” said Rep. Mike Chenault, R-Kenai.

Friday at high noon will be the final chance House minority members will have to present their budget reductions. By Friday afternoon, many legislators will be on Flight 65 bound for Anchorage.

The debate cutoff coincides with the time legislators need to get to the airport to check in for their flights home.

Censored: Republicans forbidden from saying ‘slush fund’ on House floor

Suzanne Downing

-

March 16, 2017

3

*Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Chugiak-Wasilla, makes the case for reduced spending on the floor of the House.*

While the dozens of budget cuts offered by Republicans in the Alaska House of Representatives are being summarily voted down in their entirety, House minority members are now being told what words they can and cannot use during House floor sessions.

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon and Rules Chairman Gabrielle LeDoux have issued rules of order that prohibit House members from using the term “bureaucrats” to refer to state workers, or “slush fund” to describe the miscellaneous funds that have no particular purpose, such as the one illustrated here:

Line 3011 in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is labeled “Other Services,” and is described as “Other services for purposes yet to be determined.” Call it any other name, but it is clearly a slush fund.

The 2017 budget item for this slush fund was $323,800, which was almost double the 2016 amount of $137,300.

This year, the governor asked for $411,200, a 27 percent increase in “slush” over 2017’s budget and a whopping 300 percent increase in two years. For purposes yet to be determined. At a time when Alaska is running a multi-billion dollar deficit. Yes, really.

And this is just one of the more glaring examples. The operating budget is riddled with extra funds, but only in Labor and Workforce Development are they labeled in such a vague way. Budget hawks in the Republican minority have been combing through the budget looking for places to cut.

Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Chugiak-Wasilla, flagged this item for reduction in a year when there are not nearly enough revenues to pay for the $4.3 billion budget the governor has proposed. Tilton’s proposed cut was voted down in the House Finance Committee but will likely be part of the package of amendments that is brought to the House floor for one last attempt at a budget cut.

Additional sanctions have been placed on Republican House members that prohibit them from making any reference to the $4 billion that House Finance Chairman Paul Seaton wants moved from the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account, a move that would strip the Republican minority from being able to use its leverage on the budget.

Instead of calling budget items slush funds, Republicans are now referring to them as “supplemental discretionary spending funds.”

There’s no word yet on what they will call bureaucrats.

Cue George Orwell.

Smoking gun: Homer city council members intended to create ‘sanctuary city’

Suzanne Downing

-

March 15, 2017

0

*Homer, Alaska, an arts and fishing community torn apart by the efforts of three city council members seeking “sanctuary city” status.*

RECALL PETITION IS CIRCULATING

Three Homer City Council members who championed an effort to make Homer a “sanctuary city” now face a grassroots resistance movement themselves. They face a recall petition.

Sanctuary cities are self-declared safe havens for illegal immigrants. They are controversial for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is that being in the country illegally is against the law. Many left-leaning individuals support the concept of creating safe-space sanctuary cities so illegal immigrants won’t be deported. San Francisco, for example, is a sanctuary city.

In early February, three Homer City Council members introduced a long-winded resolution rebuking President Donald Trump and declaring the city a welcoming place for all. Their original draft resolution and their pattern of emails leading up to their action show their intent more clearly — this was a movement to establish sanctuary status without exactly saying so.

Now, Homer City Clerk Jo Johnson has certified a citizens’ petition drive to recall Council members Donna Aderhold, David Lewis, and Catriona Reynolds.

Petitioner Mike Fell, a retired local businessman, explained to Must Read Alaska that the three are unfit for office after they attempted to use subterfuge and held secret meetings to make Homer a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, for misleading the public about their actions and intent, and for using their offices for partisan political purposes.

*Homer City Council members Donna Aderhold, Catriona Reynolds, David Lewis*

In a series of emails between the three, they sought technical assistance from a group that promotes sanctuary cities. The emails also show collaboration with the group, “49 Moons,” which is part of the so-called “Indivisible” grassroots movement to resist the presidency of Donald Trump. Must Read Alaska has written extensively about the group and others like it in Alaska.

Must Read has also obtained an extensive file of communications between the three council members, a fraction of which is excerpted here.

In this Jan. 30 memo, Catriona Reynolds reaches out to the radical group Mijente.net for technical assistance:

From: Catriona Reynolds <[email protected]>
Subject: sanctuary city

I am ready to introduce a resolution that Homer, Alaska is a sanctuary city. Do you have any templates for wording that I can use?
You may also reach me at 907-235-3436 or 907-299-3410(evenings)

Reynolds gets a quick response with helpful guidance from the group, and a link that contains a treasure trove of “sanctuary city” language:

From: “B. Loewe” <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [web] sanctuary city

Hi. Thanks so much for reaching out.

We released a policy guide today and are currently crafting model language for legislation.

You can find the guide at

Mijente.net/blog

Ms. Reynolds also indicates she modeled the language for the resolution after the sanctuary language from Olympia, Washington and reminds B Loewe, communication director for Mijente, that she will be running for re-election in the fall:

From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [web] sanctuary city

great!
So far I rampantly plagiarized Olympia Washington’s recent resolution… but would love to include language about transgendered individuals and LGBTQ individuals in general, which they didn’t.Our next meeting is february 13th and I plan to introduce it then, I would need finalized wording ASAP.

Thanks!
Catriona

p.s. This is my third year on Homer City Council, I will stand for re-election this fall

Council Member Reynolds the next day begins signaling her intent to local supporters, including the group 49 Moons, which is an Anchorage-based group that is identified not only with the “Indivisible” anti-Trump movement, but also the Democratic Socialists of Alaska:

Subject: RE: registry defiance proposal

Hi Melisa,
I am introducing a resolution that makes Homer a sanctuary city at the next meeting.

Thanks! 🙂

Catriona Reynolds

Homer City Council Member

Several emails between Reynolds, Lewis and Aderhold discuss the original draft, as well as the “softened” version. They set up meetings, shared drafts back and forth, and then this email is sent to Mayor Bryan Zak by Reynolds:

Hi Mayor Zak,

Please add a resolution “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOMER, ALASKA, DECLARING THE CITY OF HOMER A SANCTUARY CITY” to the upcoming council meeting agenda.
I will provide more detailed wording within the next few days.

Cheers,
Catriona

Mayor Bryan Zak responds to his City Clerk, indicating he is not on board with the effort:

From: Bryan Zak
To: Jo Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Katie Koester <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: resolution for next meeting

I would not like us to undertake this at this time.

Although the final proposed resolution is more tame, the original was leaked prior to the meeting, forcing the group to change their draft. The original draft of their group’s resolution is posted here.

[Read how the three council members softened the language for final introduction of their resolution.]

CITIZENS ORGANIZE

Mike Fell, who helped organize the recall petition, says the three are unfit for office, “by their individual efforts in preparation of Resolution 16-121 and 17-109, the text of which stands in clear and obvious violation of Homer City Code Title 1.”

That section of law limits city officials from supporting political candidates or ballot propositions while in office.

Fell and others in the Homer community such as Larry Zuccaro were offended when the three took up two separate political resolutions that related to events not relevant to Homer City Council’s nonpartisan scope of work.

Resolution 16-121 supported Standing Rock Lakota tribe and opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Resolution 17-019 was the softened sanctuary resolution: “A resolution … Stating That the City of Homer Adheres to the Principle of Inclusion, and Herein Committing This City to Resisting Efforts to Divide This Community With Regard to Race, Religion, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Physical Capabilities, or Sexual Orientation, Regardless of Those Efforts, Including From Local, State or Federal Agencies.”

Both resolutions failed.

Fell and a handful of other Homer residents have less than 60 days to gather the 347 signatures needed to have a recall election. Lewis’ and Reynolds’ seats come open during the October election.

Fell, whose grandfather was born in Skagway in 1910, and who himself was born in Homer, is part of a five-generation Alaska family. When he was in business, he kept his head down regarding politics, because Homer is a small town. But he says he’s had enough: “We have to get organized. They are now pushing back with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), but we have documentation from businesses in Homer who have had cancellations on bookings directly because of this. If Homer loses one dollar of revenue because of them…”

Larry Zuccaro sent a letter to the three council members, which said in part, “…you have brought and committed an act that none of us wanted forced upon our once peaceful community. What you have done is ripped apart the social fabric by design in an attempt to bring social destruction. I suspect you have little understanding of the depth of what you have done, but if it is the intent of this resolution to further divide, create hate, anger and rage, and move our citizens closer to some kind of civil unrest like we are seeing across our nation, then this is the very way forward to that destination.

“The process to have the three of you recalled has already begun. If you have any respect, honor, or any moral compass (which I doubt), you will submit your resignation before the shame of the process of a very public recall catches up to you.”

The pro-sanctuary side is also active, as evidenced by this social media exchange between Council member David Lewis and one of the supporters of the Homer sanctuary resolution, Jeremiah Emmerson. Here, Lewis reflects that in hindsight putting the resolution on social media was not the smartest move, and has him recommending Sun Tzu’s Art of War as a guide for future action:

Whatever the outcome, it promises to be a lively Spring in the quaint burg of Homer.

SB 26 – to stabilize economy – heads to Senate floor this morning

Suzanne Downing

-

March 15, 2017

0

*Senate President Pete Kelly explains the three principles behind the Senate Majority’s plan for fiscal stability.*

Two different visions are emerging in the House and Senate, as the Alaska Legislature heads into the second half of this session.

House Democrats, firmly in charge with a budget-bloating 22-vote bloc, say that to avoid an economic crisis, the State is going to need more State spending, and heavy new taxes to pay for it.

The tax-and-spend majority, of course, has the help of two indeterminates (Dan Ortiz and Jason Grenn) and three Democratic-aligned Republicans (Gabrielle LeDoux, Paul Seaton, Louise Stutes).

The alliance marching under the Democrats’ flag believes state spending must grow, not shrink, even as private sector jobs flee the state.

On the other side, Senate Republicans are saying we must not only bring down State spending, we must cap it to provide stability to the rocky fiscal situation State government faces.

Let’s limit revenues, use our Permanent Fund Earnings Account wisely, and give our state some breathing room as it bumps through the recession, Senate leadership says.

Senate Bill 26 is the vehicle for that philosophy. Originally offered by the governor as a “spend-more” bill, SB 26 has been gutted, and the language from Senate Bill 70 placed in its stead.

SB 26 is now a “limit government and protect the dividend” bill.

It limits state spending at $4.1 billion, paring down the governor’s spending request of $4.3 billion.

It limits what can be used out of the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account for government, and it puts a temporary cap on the Permanent Fund dividends Alaskans get each year.

SB 26 reflects a credo of government living within its means.

“The state is in a recession, there’s no question about it. We’re not in a recession because the government spends too much or too little — in fact the government does spend too much,” said Senate President Pete Kelly in a recorded message. But past legislatures have pushed agency operations to unsustainable levels, he said, and it’s time to bring spending down out of the statosphere.

“The math is simple but the politics are a little bit difficult,” Kelly said. Difficult may be an understatement, but the Senate is in alignment with a solid solution that doesn’t include taxing the working men and women of Alaska.

“There sometimes is a lot of noise that comes out of Juneau. It sounds like a of kind of madness,” he said. “The Senate is not on that page. We have a solution, we will deliver it, and it will work.”

Few will claim that SB 26 is a perfect solution, but it is a solution that is mindful of some important things:

Alaskans are in the mood for a smaller state government. There are about 144,000 registered Republicans in Alaska. Those are your smaller government people — and they want less government, not more taxes.

They are the people who voted for Donald Trump or Libertarian Gary Johnson for president — 182,000 Alaskans voted that part of the ballot.

As for Alaska Democrats, 116,000 voted for Hillary Clinton.

SB 26 with its spending and revenue caps is closer to what two-thirds of Alaska wants.

Alaskans want their Permanent Fund dividends, but they’re willing to cap them. SB 26 guarantees a dividend for Alaskans, which seems to be a sticking point for many, including conservatives who don’t normally like seeing people get government checks. Some view the Permanent Fund as a birthright, while others praise it as a welcome stimulus for the Autumn economy.

Whichever it is, $1,000 per Alaskan is what SB 26 provides, which is more than what the dividend was in 2013 and 2014, but less than what it was in the salad days of the Palin Administration, when the governor distributed $3,269 to every man, woman, and child.

The legislative intent language says the Legislature will reevaluate the use of Permanent Fund earnings reserve in three years.

But for now, instead of allowing the governor to choose how much to pay each year (as he did in 2016), SB 26 provides some certainty: For 2018, 2019, and 2020, the dividend is $1,000, higher than in some recent years, lower than in others. But still a welcome deposit into family bank accounts.

Alaskans will not tolerate an income tax. Living in Alaska is expensive enough already and fewer Alaskans are working, which means an income tax would impact middle class Alaskans the most.

In addition, giving all Alaskans a Permanent Fund dividend with one hand, and taxing them with the other, is certain political death for anyone who attempts it.

The Democrats running the Alaska House will push for an income tax, because they’re pushing for higher spending and they’ll need to come up with the money somewhere. Many of their constituents won’t have to pay the tax. They envision Alaska’s future as one big income transfer program, where some are taxed to support spending and dividends for others. In other words, it’s government Democrat style.

The governor is on record supporting an income tax, and his poll numbers have fallen through the floor. The income tax will likely cost him his re-election.

Alaskans want stability in their economy. With a recession well under way in Alaska, an additional 7,500 jobs will be shed this year. Alaskans don’t want the public sector to become a larger share of the economy as private sector jobs dissolve. A State employee workforce of 18,000 means there is already one state worker for every 50 Alaskans, which is not a sustainable model. And the boom and bust of oil prices, coupled with the roller coaster of oil tax changes the state has bumbled through, has not helped.

Imposing an income tax while the economy is in a free-fall is a prescription for accelerating job losses — an economic disaster. It would deepen and lengthen the already sharp downturn of the past 24 months.

By contrast, SB 26 would stabilize the economy by injecting fresh money. It would buy us time to continue to manage state spending downward, as most Alaskans know that we must do.

SB 26 deserves consideration. The bill will reach the Senate floor on Wednesday, March 15 at 11 am. We predict there will not be much chest-beating from Republicans, although SB 26 does have its detractors.

This is serious legislation. Thoughtful members of the Senate will likely prevail when it comes time for them to hit the red or green buttons — that is, when they are called upon to make serious, grown-up decisions.

House Democrats tackle Electoral College

Les Gara’s ’10-year recession’ is taxation sound bite

Homer recall petition gains ground

Progressive thinking: Bring on the ride-sharing services

Production-killing oil tax bill advances in the House

House Democrats cut off budget debate

Censored: Republicans forbidden from saying ‘slush fund’ on House floor

Smoking gun: Homer city council members intended to create ‘sanctuary city’

SB 26 – to stabilize economy – heads to Senate floor this morning

About us

The latest

The Plan to Avoid Gelding Part 2

Censorship of Ultrasound Image Exposes Pro-Choice Contradiction

“Never Extinguished” Event: Hear from De-Transitioner Chloe Cole and Author Logan Lancing Plus Enjoy Dinner in the Valley or Dessert in Anchorage!