Anchorage voters, take note: The ballots for the upcoming municipal election are officially in the mail. Voters have until April 1 to return their completed ballots to ensure their voices are heard in this important local election.
The Anchorage Elections Office partners with BallotTrax to provide a ballot tracking system, a service that allows voters to monitor the status of their ballot at multiple stages of the election process, from mailing to final acceptance.
Voters can sign up for ballot tracking notifications at anchoragevotes.com. Once registered, they will receive alerts via text, email, or voicemail when:
Their ballot package is mailed.
Their completed ballot is in transit back to MOA Elections Office.
Their ballot return envelope is received through the mail, a secure drop box, or a vote center.
Their signature is verified and their ballot is accepted for counting.
Any issues arise with their signature, requiring further action to ensure their vote is counted.
Signing up for ballot tracking takes just a few steps:
As House Representative Kevin McCabe’s, March 10, 2025, Must Read Alaska opinion, “Is school district consolidation possible in Alaska?”, points out, Alaska’s education system is indeed at a crossroads, but the solution is not consolidation of bureaucracies.
It is eliminating them altogether.
The Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act, which I wrote about on Feb. 21 in Must Read Alaska, along with some instructions for the repeal of Title 14 and the dissolution of all school districts, offers a real solution to Alaska’s declining education performance: returning power to parents, students, and communities rather than doubling down on a failing system.
While I respect and admire for his tenacity with dealing with the Alaska version of “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, Alaska’s state capital in Juneau, Rep. McCabe’s attempt to penetrate the mystery of the “system is unsustainable”, is convolutedly misdirected and continues to build our public education system on an obsolete, defective, and union driven foundation, Title 14.
The argument for district consolidation is built on a flawed premise: that larger bureaucracies equal efficiency.
In reality, consolidation simply shifts waste from 54 smaller districts into 30 larger, more centralized bureaucracies, doing nothing to address the core problem—the existence of a top-down, state-controlled education system that prioritizes administrations and public education unions over students and parents. Instead of making bureaucracy more “efficient,” we must abolish it entirely.
We have seen this bovine structure fail in almost every education metric available since statehood over the last 2 decades.
These metrics include student achievement, attendance, graduation rates, and a potentially successful future, alongside factors like teacher quality and school environment.
School districts do not educate students. Teachers, parents, and local communities do.
The existence of 54, 30, or even 1 school district does nothing to improve student performance because the bureaucratic model operated and managed through Title 14, itself, is broken and obsolete.
The biggest drain on education funding is administrative overhead, which does not disappear with consolidation. It grows and grows.
Hawaii may not be a model to follow. Its single-district model has failed to improve education outcomes, proving that centralization is not the answer. Hawaii’s education system is broken. It has chronic absenteeism, astounding dropout rates, and abysmal test scores.
Instead of merging school districts, we should abolish them altogether along with Title 14 and transition to a parent-driven, student-focused education system where funding follows the child. Consolidation also means that children are bombarded with a slew of tests to make sure they are “staying on track.” Teachers as well are hurt by consolidation as there is no competition or creative innovation.
Solution: The Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act
1. Repeal Title 14 and Eliminate All School Districts
School districts exist to serve bureaucracies, not students. By repealing Title 14 and dissolving all school districts, funding can go directly to students and teachers rather than administrators.
Parents, not bureaucrats, should decide how education dollars are spent.
Local communities should have the power to participate from a democratic legitimacy, not through a top down autocracy controlled by unelected bureaucrats.
Instead of funneling money through wasteful bureaucracies, parents receive direct funding to use for public schools, private schools, charter schools, homeschooling, microschools, or online education.
Education funding should follow the students, not be hoarded by centralized administrators.
3. Return School Budget Control to Local Communities
The current proposal proposes to shift power locally while actually further centralizing it into 30 mega-districts.
A real local control system means parents and communities decide education policy—not state-mandated bureaucracies.
Debunking the Myths of Consolidation
Consolidation shifts administrative costs rather than eliminating them. The only way to truly cut costs is to remove administrative bloat altogether. While consolidation saves money in areas like administrative payroll, facility operations, and resource sharing, true efficiency doesn’t come from merging districts—it comes from eliminating bureaucratic waste entirely. Instead of consolidating, Alaska should consider abolishing school districts altogether and directly funding students through Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).
While larger school districts can offer diverse programs, smaller, parent-led educational settings in concert with their communities provide more adaptable and customized learning experiences. The flexibility inherent in Alaska’s correspondence schools, charter schools, and potentially microschools, which are small, independent learning environments that typically serve fewer than 150 students, enables them to implement innovative educational strategies, frequently resulting in superior student outcomes compared to traditional large public-school districts.
The necessity of regional bureaucracies in ensuring educational access must be reevaluated in light of technological advancements and the success of decentralized education models. Homeschooling, online learning, and local education cooperatives offer viable alternatives that can provide personalized, flexible, and effective education without the need for extensive bureaucratic oversight.
Instead of forcing Alaskans into fewer, larger bureaucracies through legislative edict, further eroding education freedom, we should abolish bureaucracies altogether and return funding, decision-making, and control directly to parents in the communities they live.
Consolidation does not solve the problem—it merely reshuffles bureaucracy, making an already flawed system slightly less inefficient while continuing to harm student performance and educational outcomes. Instead of preserving and centralizing a failing model, Alaska must pursue full-scale education reform that puts students first, eliminates bureaucratic waste, and empowers parents and local communities to shape education—not government systems.
Alaska does not need 54 school districts. It does not need 30 school districts. It does not need school districts at all.
The Alaska Education Freedom and Local Control Act ensures real education choice, eliminates bureaucratic waste, and puts parents back in charge.
Instead of trying to save a broken system, let’s throw it out altogether and build a new one—where students, parents, and teachers have the freedom to create the education system Alaska truly deserves.
In a move to solidify the United States’ leadership in digital assets, Alaska Congressman Nick Begich and Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis introduced the BITCOIN Act of 2025.
The legislation sets a national cryptocurrency policy, establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve to enhance America’s financial security, global competitiveness, and economic sovereignty.
Announced at the Bitcoin for America Summit on Tuesday, the bill underscores the importance of Bitcoin as a strategic national asset. Congressman Begich said that the United States must take proactive measures to remain at the forefront of the financial revolution.
“America cannot afford to fall behind in this financial revolution. A Strategic Bitcoin Reserve ensures that the U.S. remains an economic powerhouse, leveraging digital assets to counter adversarial monetary policies and reinforce our global leadership,” said Congressman Begich. “The BITCOIN Act is about securing America’s economic future. We must lead—not follow—in this digital revolution. The time to act is now.”
The introduction of the BITCOIN Act is in alignment with President Donald J. Trump’s recent Executive Order, which establishes a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile.
“Today, I am proud to reintroduce landmark legislation that will codify President Trump’s bold vision to establish the United States Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and strengthen our nation’s economic foundation for generations to come,” said Senator Lummis. “Bitcoin is not simply a technological opportunity, but a national imperative for America’s continued financial leadership in the 21st century.”
The two lawmakers seek to transform President Trump’s executive action into more than a four-year order, but instead create enduring law.
Begich highlighted the significance of this step in securing America’s financial future.
“President Trump’s Executive Order laid the foundation for a long-term national strategy on Bitcoin, and today, we are delivering durable and permanent authority to make that vision a reality,” said Congressman Begich. “This bill ensures that the U.S. formally adopts Bitcoin as a strategic asset, reinforcing our economic independence and positioning America as the global leader in digital financial innovation.”
The BITCOIN Act directs the U.S. government to acquire 1 million Bitcoin over a five-year period, mirroring the scale and strategic importance of U.S. gold reserves. With Bitcoin’s market capitalization exceeding $1.2 trillion, lawmakers argue that the U.S. must act swiftly to secure its stake in the digital financial era.
Key provisions of the BITCOIN Act include:
Acquisition Strategy: The bill directs the U.S. Treasury to purchase 1 million Bitcoin over five years using budget-neutral strategies, including Federal Reserve remittances and gold certificate revaluations.
Secure Storage: All Bitcoin holdings will be maintained in cold storage, ensuring maximum security and economic stability.
Protection of Financial Freedom: The bill explicitly prohibits the federal government from interfering with individuals’ right to own, hold, and transact Bitcoin freely.
Begich urged his colleagues to take decisive action, emphasizing the necessity of securing America’s position in the digital financial landscape.
“With the world rapidly transitioning to digital assets, the United States must prioritize financial sovereignty and stability. This legislation ensures we stay ahead of adversarial economic policies and cement our leadership in digital finance.”
The BITCOIN Act of 2025 represents a pivotal moment in U.S. financial policy, marking the beginning of a new era in strategic asset management. The bill will now move through congressional committees, with supporters hopeful for swift passage in the 119th Congress.
When I sat in the Alaska House of Representatives for six years, I heard the same refrain every budget season: “We’ve got a teacher recruitment and retention crisis, and the only fix is a defined benefits retirement system.” Superintendents, administrators, and union reps would march into my office, armed with PowerPoint slides and grim statistics, pleading for more money.
It was always about funding—more dollars for salaries, more dollars for pensions, more dollars for infrastructure. And don’t get me wrong, money matters. But after hosting Donna Anderson, Kenai Chapter Chair for Moms for Liberty, on a recent episode of the Must Read Alaska Show, I’m convinced we’ve been missing the forest for the trees.
Our education system isn’t just a funding problem—it’s a competition problem. Parents and students are the revenue stream, and if we don’t start earning back their trust, no amount of cash is going to save our schools.
Let’s start with a basic truth: Alaska’s public schools don’t operate in a vacuum. Parents have choices—charter schools, homeschooling through programs like IDEA, private options, or even moving out of state. Every time a family pulls their kid from a district school, that’s revenue walking out the door. In Alaska, our education funding follows the student through the Base Student Allocation (BSA)—a fancy term for the per-pupil dollar amount the state provides. More students, more money. Fewer students, less money.
It’s that simple. Yet year after year, I’d hear district leaders lament declining enrollment while brushing off the obvious question: Why are families leaving? Donna Anderson gave me a front-row seat to the answer, and it’s not what the suits at the school district want to hear.
Donna taught for 26 years in the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District—30 if you count her time subbing and raising kids in the system. She’s a grandma now, retired last year, but she’s still in the fight because she sees what I’ve long suspected: the system’s failing its customers. Parents and students aren’t just stakeholders—they’re the lifeblood of the operation.
Donna told me about classrooms packed with 30 kids, curriculum that’s either age-inappropriate or flat-out ineffective, and a bureaucracy that’s more interested in checking boxes than listening to the people it serves. “Our students are our revenue stream,” she said on the show, and she’s dead right. But instead of competing to keep them, too many districts act like they’ve got a monopoly—and they’re shocked when families vote with their feet.
Take the curriculum mess Donna described. The district spent millions on a program called Fountas and Pinnell, only to ditch it when the Alaska Reads Act exposed its flaws. Then, in a mad rush, they pivoted to Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA)—a decision made by central office, rubber-stamped by the school board, and shoved down teachers’ throats with two days of training. Donna recounted teaching second graders about the “god of pleasure and wine” and world religions—topics she wasn’t comfortable with and parents didn’t sign up for. When she raised the alarm at school board meetings, alongside colleagues, the district’s response was tepid at best. Her students’ reading scores flatlined under CKLA until she defied directives, added back proven methods, and watched their progress soar.
The district’s solution? “Wait three years,” they told her. Three years! Tell that to a second grader who’s falling behind—or a parent who’s had enough.
This isn’t just a Kenai problem—it’s an Alaska problem. We’ve got charter schools topping national rankings because they control their curriculum and involve parents like it’s their job. Meanwhile, non-charter schools hemorrhage students, and the brass scratches their heads wondering why. During my time in the legislature, I’d ask: “Why can’t we replicate what works in charters?” The answer was always some version of, “Well, not all parents care.”
Hogwash. Donna’s experience tells a different story. In a class of 30, she pegged maybe five or six families as truly disengaged—a third at worst, often tied to deeper societal issues like foster care. That means two-thirds do care. They’re not the problem; the system is. If we’re losing them, it’s because we’re not competing for their trust.
Here’s where policy comes in—and why it’s every bit as critical as funding. Money without smart policy is like dumping fuel into a broken engine. Donna pointed out the district’s refusal to conduct exit interviews with departing teachers. Mat-Su does it. Fairbanks does it. Kenai? Nada. How do you fix retention if you don’t even ask why people are leaving? She told me teachers are burned out—class sizes are ballooning, workloads are crushing, and central office keeps piling on “duties as assigned” with zero compensation. One teacher quit mid-year from stress, and there’s no evidence the district followed up. The union’s no better—Donna said they shot down a proposal to survey teachers before pushing initiatives. Meanwhile, administrators told me in Juneau it’s all about pensions. Where’s the data? They don’t have it because they’re not asking.
Parents are fleeing for the same reasons: oversized classes, shaky curriculum, and a sense they’re not being heard. Donna’s seen it firsthand—families pulling kids to homeschool or charters because the district won’t adapt. I asked her about parental engagement, and she was clear: most want in. When she reached out, they showed up—except for the handful too broken by life to engage. That’s not a majority; it’s a minority that must be better managed. Yet districts treat parents like an afterthought. Donna begged the Kenai school board president, Zen Kelly, for an open forum with teachers—no central office, just honest talk. He said he was “uninterested.” Uninterested! If that’s not a wake-up call, I don’t know what is.
So how do we fix this? First, we’ve got to compete like our survival depends on it—because it does. Parents and students aren’t captive customers; they’re the revenue stream, and they’re shopping around. Districts need funding to hire teachers to cap class sizes—30 kids in a room isn’t learning, it’s chaos. But additional funding is only justifiable if student enrollment increases.
Administrators need to ditch one-size-fits-all curricula pushed by distant committees and let teachers and parents weigh in. It works in charter schools, and parents in non-charter schools can figure it out too. CKLA might work somewhere, but if it’s tanking in Kenai, scrap it. And for heaven’s sake, talk to people—exit interviews for teachers, listen to parents, open forums where the mic’s on and the suits are sidelined. Data drives decisions; we’re flying blind without it and emotional appeal is no substitute.
Second, policy has to lead the funding conversation—not trail it. I fought for fiscal restraint in the legislature because I know throwing money at a broken system doesn’t fix it. Look at Steubenville, Ohio—low-income, single-parent households, and their kids are reading like champs. Why? Small-group tutoring, early education, and one-on-one focus—all without a budget windfall. Alaska’s charter schools prove the same: control what you teach, keep parents in the loop, and kids thrive. We don’t need a billion-dollar bailout; we need leaders who’ll prioritize what works over what’s expedient.
Finally, we’ve got to empower the grassroots. Donna’s work with Moms for Liberty—chapters in Kenai, Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Fairbanks—shows what happens when parents and teachers organize. They’re not waiting for permission; they’re showing up at school board meetings, demanding accountability, and building a movement.
Teachers, here’s where you find like-minded parents and safety in numbers. Common sense can break out in our schools when courageous teachers speak up and are supported by vocal parents. District administrators and union bosses must be reminded that dissent isn’t disloyalty. Schools exist to serve parents, andsome administrators have forgotten this. And frankly speaking, some parents have washed their hands of the responsibility of educating their kids. This too needs to change. You can join them at momsforliberty.org or email Donna at [email protected]. This isn’t about politics—it’s about results.
My focus is now on my grandkids, and like any grandparent, I want them to succeed. I’ve seen the sausage-making in Juneau, and I know the system won’t change unless we force it to. For six years, you and I have heard the funding excuse. Now, you’re hearing the real story from teacherslike Donna. Our education system isn’t doomed—it’s just not competing. Parents and students are the revenue stream, and they’re telling us what they want: smaller classes, better curriculum, and a seat at the table. Policy improvements aren’t a side dish to the funding debate—they’re the main course. Ignore that, and we’ll keep losing the people who keep the lights on. It’s time to listen, adapt, and fight like our kids’ future depends on it. Because it does.
Ben Carpenter is a former Alaska State Representative and the host of the Must Read Alaska Show.
The Municipality of Anchorage’s contracted ballot printer will mail ballot packages Tuesday that include both candidates and a dozen bond measures for the upcoming April 1 election. Drop boxes will open Wednesday and voters also have the option of mailing in their ballots.
Every year Anchorage voters are faced with bonds and tax-cap busting propositions. Last year there were nine, and in 2023 there were 15 on the local ballot.
If voters approve all 12 bonds and special tax areas, it will burden property owners collectively with more than $100 million in new debt. That would cost the average Anchorage homeowner, depending on what part of the city they live, close to $300 in new property taxes a year until the bonds expire.
The most expensive bond, Proposition One, will borrow close to $64 million and add $52 to the cost of property taxes for the average homeowner.
The bond reads in part: “For the purpose of providing educational capital improvements, construction, upgrades, planning, design, and renovation of school facilities and educational facility building life extension projects within Anchorage, as provided in AO 2024-115, shall Anchorage borrow money and issue up to $63,822,000 in principal amount of general obligation bonds?”
Proposition Three, an $8.5 million bond, allows the city to borrow money while busting the tax cap. The largest part of the spending will go to lavish up Town Square in the heart of downtown Anchorage.
Town Square has in recent years become a hang out for mostly teen age gangs, vagrants, and drug pushers.
If voters do approve the tax cap busting bond, it’s doubtful most of those who typically hang out in Town Square will help carry the financial burden of the bond.
According to the real estate website, Rocket.com, the average price of a home in Anchorage in 2025 is up more than 6% over last year and sits at close to $400,000 a year.
The website, Ownwell, reports Anchorage homeowner’s typical annual property tax bill of more than $5,600 is double of the national medium homeowner in the U.S. The median household income in Anchorage is approximately $95,000.
In April of last year, Anchorage voters approved another slew of bond proposals adding more than $125 million in debt to homeowners. If voters do the same this year, Anchorage voters will have burdened property owners with more than $225 million in new taxes in a 12 month period.
Earlier this week, Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness executive director Meg Zaletel warned of a housing affordability crisis in Alaska’s largest city.
“In just two-and-a-half days, 1,300 households said they were either 14 days from losing their housing or already experiencing homelessness,” Zaletel told Alaska Public Media.
“That’s shocking, quite frankly,” she added. “Those households, 808 of them have a child.”
If Anchorage voters approve the more than $100 million in new bonds, the number of victims of the “housing affordability crisis” will only grow.
Dan Fagan reports and writes columns for Must Read Alaska. He’s covered Alaska politics for close to 30-years. He currently hosts a morning drive radio talk show on 1020 am 92.5 and 104.5 fm on KVNT. For news tips, email Dan at [email protected].
March 11, 2024, marks five years since the World Health Organization officially declared the outbreak of Covid-19 a pandemic. What began as a localized outbreak in Wuhan, China, in the fall of 2019 swiftly spread across the globe, altering the course of modern history.
Covid, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, appeared to be an outbreak of pneumonia cases in Wuhan. By Jan. 30, 2020, the WHO classified it as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. As cases surged worldwide, the pandemic declaration on March 11, 2020, signified the widespread and severe impact of the virus.
The next day, March 12, 2020, the first case of Covid in Alaska was diagnosed.
Governments around the world, including in the US, responded with lockdowns, travel restrictions, forced masking, mandatory shots, and social distancing measures. Those who didn’t comply lost their jobs, were shunned by family and friends, and ridiculed as conspiracy theorists.
Health systems were pushed to the brink in 2020 and 2021, and frontline health care workers faced unprecedented challenges. Unvetted vaccines were rushed into use and governments outlawed alternative treatments that could have saved lives.
Five years after WHO declared the pandemic, and after millions died either from the virus or because of an underlying condition, President Donald Trump has pulled the United States out of WHO.
In his executive order of Jan. 20 — Inauguration Day — Trump wrote the withdrawal from WHO was “due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum held a joint appearance in south Louisiana Thursday to tout the restart of the growth of America’s liquefied natural gas(LNG) industry.
The event celebrated the kickoff of a planned $18 billion expansion of the existing Plaquemines Parrish LNG export facility operated by Venture Global. It also served to symbolize the end of what was frankly one of the dumbest policy actions ever invoked by executive order – then-President Joe Biden’s “pause” on permitting for new LNG export infrastructure.
Reversed by President Donald Trump on day 1 of his second term in office, Biden invoked the year-long pause in January 2024 on the flimsiest of pretenses, a preposterous claim by anti-natural gas activist researchers that US LNG emissions exceed those of coal-fired power plants. Worse, that claim was not made in findings of a peer-reviewed scientific study, but in an early “preview” of a study that fell apart on close inspection.
The unpleasant task of defending this dumb policy action fell largely on the shoulders of Biden’s hapless Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, who assured the attendees of the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston in March 2024 that the “pause” would be “in the rearview mirror” when they met again in 2025. That prediction turned out to be accurate, but not due to any action taken by her or Biden. Instead, Granholm did her best to hype the Department of Energy’s(DOE) own study when it was released in November, making claims about its findings in a letter leaked to The New York Times the day before that turned out to not be accurate.
Even more concerning, Democrat nominee Kamala Harris consistently supported the pause and concerns increased throughout the campaign that, if elected, she would most likely move to turn the pause into permanent policy, thus ending America’s dominant position in the global LNG export business. But voters had different ideas, choosing instead to elect Trump for a second time in November, bringing his plans for American Energy Dominance along with him.
Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly-created American Energy Dominance Council in which Wright also participates, told workers and executives assembled for Thursday’s event that, “One of our pathways to energy dominance is just unleashing the incredible resources that we have in this country: getting the red tape, getting the federal government off the back of the worker, off the back of companies.”
In an interview from the Venture Global site with Will Cain on Fox News, Wright, pointing to an LNG tanker behind him, said, “In less than 24 hours it’ll be loaded and sailing back to Germany; 100,000 homes in Europe can be heated and supplied with gas for a full year just in that one tanker behind us. This is unleashing American energy to the benefit of Americans and to the benefit of our friends and allies abroad. This is the way to peace.”
And so, Biden’s absurd pause comes to a richly-deserved end. Again, this entire fake controversy had zero basis in fact or real science. That’s how close America came to losing what has been one of its major growth industries of the last decade.
It is almost unimaginable that this could have happened in the United States of America, with its supposed system of checks and balances. But, as Elon Musk’s DOGE operation is revealing on a daily basis, so much of Biden’s administration appears to have been built on a foundation of a complex web of scams and money laundering schemes, with his energy and climate policies playing a leading role. This LNG pause episode almost pales in comparison to some of the multi-billion-dollar grants handed out by both DOE and the EPA in the administration’s final months.
But it’s all in Granholm’s imagined rearview mirror now, as is Granholm herself. America’s LNG industry is back, poised for rapid expansion and ready to resume its place as the dominant player in the global market.
Elections do matter.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
We often seen people change their tune the minute they step through those capitol pillars in Juneau. They campaign on principles and leave those shattered upon the Capital steps only to subvert the will of their constituents over and over.
I do not look forward to the rest of Sen. Rob Yundt’s term, unless he suddenly regains the principles he campaigned on.
I recently attended a Republican District 27 meeting in which Sen. Yundt was a participant by Zoom. He talked about his bill Senate Bill 92.
There were so many red flags in his commentary and when he answered questions. The two main words or phrases that passed from his lips most often were parity and crony capitalism and he seemed fixated on the fact that the founder of Hilcorp has personal wealth.
If I had to guess he has a strong leaning toward the principles held by those on the left. In fact, his statements sounded more like the rantings of a DEI social justice warrior than a conservative. He couldn’t see the difference between the behemoth that is ConocoPhillips and the much-smaller Hilcorp, despite saying he owns several S corporations himself.
I really must compliment the commentary given by former Rep. Christopher Kurka, who during this meeting clearly and respectfully shared the differences between an S corporation and a C corp, and offered to provide that information to Sen. Yundt.
To me it is mind boggling that this “conservative” senator would find it appalling that there is a benefit to an employer who employs around 1,500 Alaskans. He kept hammering that he wants to bring “parity” between the two very different corporations. He was incensed that the smaller corporation had a small advantage.
This in many ways is not an advantage, as the very nature of an S corp limits it. Given that we are living in an “America First” presidential administration, he might want to encourage more S corporations, as they are all-American owned. You’d think we might want to see more S corporations doing extremely well.
Yundt espoused that if Hilcorp was taxed the same as a C corporation it would result in a roughly $1,500 difference in the PFD per Alaskan.
Checkmate. We all know that there is no way the Democrat-led legislature will abide by the statutory calculation and there is NO way that any Alaskan will see that kind of increase in PFD until we have a deeply conservative Republican governor and actually take control of both the House and Senate.
Even though that is what we have voted for time and time again, that is not what we have gotten and I am not the only citizen tired of it.
On another note, aside from encouraging the Alaska Republican Party to deliver an official response to Sen. Yundt’s departure from basic Republican principles, I encourage the Republican Party in Alaska to seize the opportunity to truly stand with President Donald J. Trump’s initiative to ferret out waste and fraud.
I have worked in the nonprofit world, worked within systems funded by both federal and state dollars. I have witnessed the misuse of funds. For example, I was a substance abuse counselor working in a maximum-security correctional center. It was required to become certified in a program to reduce recidivism and I successfully completed the training, like many others who worked with this population. My agency and others spent thousands of dollars certifying facilitators of a program that actually had evidenced based results in reducing recidivism.
When it came down to it, the money spent was wasted. The Department of Corrections would not shell out the $20 per participant for inmates to get the workbook for the program. I was not allowed to copy or recreate any of the workbook material; I signed a statement saying I wouldn’t and I actually hold true to what I say I will do. Certified for nothing, no benefit gained. Money wasted.
We see the same thing play out in governments and schools. I have seen agencies drive up problems based on funding while ignoring the real problems. We need to abandon the way we have done things. It’s not working. We need to get back to logical and evidence-based results.
We need to “DOGE the heck” out of our state government spending.
We don’t need another department like Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s Department of Agriculture. Yes, food security in Alaska is a real issue but creating a larger government will do nothing to help Alaskans, it creates more government spending increasing our societal burden of inflation even more.
Alaska’s education system is failing and all we hear is about the government throwing more money at it than most other states with worse results. More government spending doesn’t solve the inherent problems. We need to find new creative and cost-saving ways to solve the problems. That is what so many citizens hope will happen. Parents have been pulling their children out of schools and homeschooling them instead, because the government is doing such a terrible job at it.
I am not alone in Alaskans who would like to see the momentum of what we see working with President Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE and bring that mindset back to the marble pillars of the state capitol in Juneau. We need to pare back our government spending. Reckless spending and throwing money at failing systems doesn’t work in a household, and it most certainly doesn’t work in Juneau.
We don’t need more reliance on federal dollars. We don’t need to create more government. We don’t need to disincentivize businesses who have invested heavily in Alaska. We need to solve our revenue problems by cutting back on government spending. We start by uniting the conservatives: undeclared, and independents, libertarians and others in this state and we must get rid of ranked choice voting. We all must work together to become the savvy steward of our natural resources and become an energy giant. We need an Alaska that is a is an economic powerhouse not a government heavy bureaucracy only alive due to reliance on the federal teat.
Written by Marcy Sowers, who is an Alaskan Native of the Tlingit tribe. Born in Juneau, AK and currently living in Wasilla, AK. She is the mother of three. Marcy attended Stanford University. She is married to author Mark Sowers and helps format his books. (Go ahead, give his books a read.)
House Bill 89 (HB 89), introduced in the 34th Alaska Legislature by Representatives Andy Josephson and Sara Hannan, is scheduled for review by the House State Affairs Committee on March 13. This legislation proposes the establishment of Gun Violence Protective Orders (GVPOs)—commonly known as “red flag” laws—representing a significant overreach by the state into the constitutional rights of Alaskans, particularly those protected under the Second Amendment.
The bill seeks to authorize the temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a potential danger to themselves or others, based on minimal evidence and seriously lacking robust due process that Alaskans expect.
While proponents say that such measures enhance public safety, even a cursory critical examination reveals that HB 89 sets a dangerous precedent, prioritizing government control over individual liberties with insufficient justification.
Under HB 89, a trooper, law enforcement officer, or household member may petition a court for a GVPO based on a “reasonable belief” that an individual poses a threat (AS 18.65.815). This standard is inherently subjective, requiring neither a criminal conviction nor even a formal accusation, but rather relying on unverified allegations to completely suspend a fundamental constitutional right.
The absence of a high threshold of evidence at the outset undermines the integrity of the process, exposing individuals to arbitrary removal of their firearms. In many states with red-flag laws the firearms descend into an abyss of state bureaucracy never to be seen again.
The further provisions for ex parte and emergency Gun Violence Protective Orders (AS 18.65.820) significantly elevate this concern. These provisions allow a judicial officer to issue an order without notifying the affected individual, enabling firearm confiscation prior to any opportunity for defense or even discussion. This mechanism is highly susceptible to abuse and weaponization, where personal disputes, false claims, or political motivations could lead to the unjust loss of Second Amendment rights, and property for law-abiding citizens.
Even when a hearing is convened (AS 18.65.815(b)), the “clear and convincing” evidence standard falls short of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold typically required for significant rights infringements, further weakening oversight.
The claimed usefulness of red flag laws, including HB 89, lacks factual data-driven support. Studies often cited by proponents, such as those from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, fail to adequately provide for extenuating factors like changes in policing strategies or mental health interventions.
A 2021 RAND Corporation analysis of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)—the federal analogue to GVPOs—concluded that evidence of their effect on reducing homicides, suicides, or mass shootings is inconclusive. Without credible, long-term data, the assertion that HB 89 will enhance safety in Alaska is completely unsubstantiated.
The bill also imposes unreasonable burdens, particularly on rural Alaskans. The mandate to surrender firearms within 24 hours to law enforcement or a firearms dealer (AS 18.65.830) is unworkable in regions where such entities are hours away and dependent on the vagaries of transportation and weather. The requirement to submit written proof of compliance within 48 hours (AS 18.65.830(b)) assumes access to administrative resources that many lack. Additionally, the potential for law enforcement to confront armed individuals unaware of ex-parte orders increases the risk of dangerous, avoidable escalations.
The establishment of a central registry of protective orders (AS 18.65.540) further compounds these issues, and creates a virtual “pre-crime” database that raises privacy concerns and allows expanded government surveillance over individuals who will likely never face criminal charges.
Constitutionally, HB 89 conflicts with both federal and state protections. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed the individual right to bear arms, a precedent undermined by red flag laws that permit confiscation without due process or conviction. The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause is similarly violated by the bill’s allowance for property deprivation without fair proceedings. Alaska’s Constitution (Article I, Section 19) explicitly safeguards the right to keep and bear arms, recognizing their critical role in subsistence hunting, self-defense, and rural life—values disregarded by HB 89’s urban-centric approach.
The conditional effect clause (Section 9), requiring a two-thirds legislative vote to amend court rules, signals limited support and underscores concerns regarding the bill’s constitutionality, legality, and practicality. Rather than pursuing this flawed legislation, Alaska should prioritize evidence-based alternatives. Expanding mental health services, particularly in rural areas, would more effectively address suicide and violence rates. Strengthening domestic violence prevention programs and enhancing law enforcement resources to respond to verified threats offer targeted solutions without infringing on constitutional rights.
HB 89 is an unnecessary and violates the constitution with its overreach. By enabling firearm confiscation based on subjective standards, imposing unworkable mandates, and lacking proven effectiveness, the bill fails to enhance public safety while throwing Alaskan liberties down the outhouse hole.
This state does not require imported gun control policies that ignore its unique realities. As legislators, our obligation is to uphold constitutional protections and pursue practical, proven strategies to ensure community safety. This is, quite simply, allowing the camel’s nose under the tent and I remain steadfastly opposed to any legislation that compromises the constitutional rights of Alaskans.
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves District 30 (formerly called District 8), the Big Lake area.
