Sunday, April 19, 2026
Home Blog Page 24

Alaska’s Permanent Fund: The Great Debate Part XII (Last in Series)

Jon Faulkner
-
7
Alaska’s Permanent Fund: The Great Debate Part XII (Last in Series)

The People of Alaska vs. The Legislature

Part XII: The Path Forward

It is time to bring the PFD matter to a vote of the people; failing that, to replace the representatives who are blocking a vote; failing that, pursue every available remedy.   

The PFD program has been a blessing to Alaskans for a generation. The legal, philosophical, economic, and social impacts of the PFD are profoundly favorable to the people, and yet our legislature is destroying it.    

Building Our Case

Must Read Alaska is collecting testimony from around the state: How do citizens use or rely on the PFD for their essential needs? How long have you relied on the PFD? Submit your PFD testimony to Must Read Alaska via this form.

While our courts work hard to “get the law right”, they have gotten it wrong when it comes to the PFD. State law should comport with modern Federal equal protection cases, protect the people against private interests and plunder, and be based on evidence, not mere opinions. Justice Compton, writing for the majority in State V. Anthony (1991), stated:  

“A dividend is not, generally, a source of income that individuals depend on to supply the basic necessities of life…It is an annual lump sum payment, and the recipients cannot know with certainty how much it will be in any given year.”  

This is an unsupported opinion. Consider another statement from the court in Anthony:   

“No constitutional provision elevates the status of a dividend entitlement to the level of a disposal of a state natural resource. While the existence of the permanent fund is protected under article VIII, section 2, of the Alaska Constitution, this constitutional provision does not entitle each resident of the state to a dividend from the fund.” 

What constitutes a “disposal” of natural resources was not argued in Anthony. Secondly, substitution of a single word— “payment” for the word “entitlement” —alters the applicability of the conclusion. While the Constitution may not explicitly “elevate” or “entitle” a dividend, statutes and historic practice at the time contributed to this expectation, and do today.   

Zobel ruled that the PFD is not a “basic necessity,” and the right to receive it is not a “fundamental right”. However, equal protection laws, at least in Alaska, appear to hinge partially on the degree to which an economic interest supplies a basic necessity of life. Evolving state-federal policy debate often touts benefits like health care or affordable housing as “basic necessities” equating to a fundamental right. If 77% of Alaskans used their PFD to buy housing and health insurance, would this influence the court’s perspective?       

No caselaw challenges that natural resource revenue is the source of the Permanent Fund itself and the income subsequently earned from the fund. This means that any use or “disposal” of Fund income (as a natural resource derived asset) must meet two constitutional tests: 1) The “uniform application” test in Article VIII, Section 17; and 2) All assets must be utilized and conserved for the “maximum benefit of [Alaska’s] people” (Article VIII, Section 2).  

Alaskans want to know: What binding authority exists defining the “maximum benefit of the people”? Is not today’s intentional co-existence of two conflicting statutes on the PFD direct evidence of legislative default and malpractice on this constitutional mandate?      

The People vs. The Legislature

While our courts have applied “minimum scrutiny” to statutes effecting an individual’s right to a PFD, meaning it carries no more legal weight than one’s interest in unemployment compensation benefits, Alaskans disagree. Most believe the PFD constitutes recognition of this timeless principle: “All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole”.  

The people cannot allow this preamble to become a platitude. We are talking about a simple royalty share of commonly held natural resources.  

The Permanent Fund constitutes a trust relationship bound by these ideals, and possibly by Alaska Trust Law (AS 13.36,) that transcends a single legislature. What constitutes a binding trust with future Alaskans could be a fact-finding in law, or an evidence-based trial, perhaps resolved by a constitutional convention. Administrative actions over time convey intent. The creation of a perpetual, constitutionally-based trust fund means a fiduciary obligation exists to the people that supersedes the authority of any single branch of government.   

Administrative and fiscal records establishing continuity of PFD practice from 1994 to 2016 are a matter of record. Since 2016, evidence of default abounds. Alaskans deserve to know why and how precedent was shattered. 

The societal benefits of the PFD are so well documented as to validate the program as a model of global justice. Rise, Alaskans, to protect this great legacy from those who would plunder and destroy it! Rise, to assert your inherent power as the source of all governmental power.  

Rise to the rights of citizens everywhere to a direct and modest share of their natural resources.  

Rise to check the growing arrogance of power, of government itself and those within it who forget whom they serve. We are a democracy, and a nation of laws. Now is the time for Alaskans to demand that OUR interests, not those of the power-hungry few, be honored.       

Rise in protest that our representatives refuse to honor a statewide vote on the PFD. If you disagree with the PFD, rise in protection of your neighbor’s right to vote. If you reject the right to vote, recognize the wisdom of honoring the freedom to choose. The PFD is the single biggest fiscal policy decision facing this state; it is the politicians—not the people—who fear the truth. 

The Bottom Line 

The time has come: Alaskans must invoke their power under Article I, Section 2 of our constitution and act. Our legislature has proven incapable of protecting the PFD, despite the overwhelming evidence of its merit and popularity. The dividend program is a model of distributive justice that can enlighten the world. Litigation is necessary and will seek to reaffirm the trust-based obligation the state has to the people of Alaska. It is time to secure the PFD for Alaskans today and every Alaskan into the future.  

Full Series

Part XII brings the series to a close. Now, Must Read Alaska will focus on collecting PFD testimonies, building the people’s case against the legislature, and educating Alaskans about their right to a full Permanent Fund Dividend.

Check out the full series The Great Debate: The People of Alaska vs the Legislature by Jon Faulkner and Michael Tavoliero below:

AKYR State Convention Part VII: Gubernatorial Candidates’ Closing Remarks

Natalie Spaulding
-
4
AKYR State Convention Part VII: Gubernatorial Candidates’ Closing Remarks

Last Saturday, Jan 10, the Alaska Young Republicans hosted their State Convention featuring a panel of ten of the twelve Republican gubernatorial candidates for this year’s election: Bernadette Wilson, Adam Crum, Edna DeVries, Matt Heilala, Shelley Hughes, Click Bishop, Treg Taylor, Dave Bronson, James Parkin IV, and Bruce Walden. Candidates for Governor Nancy Dahlstrom and Hank Henry Kroll did not participate in the event. 

Click Bishop left the event early to attend a funeral. For coverage of his participation, please see Prior Coverage.

Closing Remarks

For closing remarks, candidates were asked to limit their remarks to 15 seconds. Most candidates spoke for 1-3 minutes.

Bernadette Wilson emphasized that she comes from outside the government and, as a business owner, she knows how to sign the front of a paycheck. People like her elected to government “have always been the best for us,” she claimed.

Adam Crum, who previously served as Commissioner of Revenue and Commissioner of Health, said, “I know the weight of government,” highlighting Alaska’s need for an experienced leader.

DeVries emphasized that she knows how to play the long-game and her experience as Mayor of the Mat-Su Borough has well prepared her.

Matt Heilala said that he is a political outsider, but a long-time Alaskan insider. “I am a change agent,” he stated.

Shelley Hughes emphasized Alaska’s need for an effective Republican leader, pointing to her experience as a former State Senator as critical to success.

Treg Taylor also highlighted how he can hit the ground running because of his experience as former Attorney General of Alaska. “I am the only candidate that’s fought on behalf of Alaska and won. And I am the only candidate who has worked with the Trump Administration,” he claimed.

Dave Bronson made a pointed effort to keep to the requested 15 seconds. He stated, “If you like me, go to davebronson.com. If you don’t like me, go to ADN.com.”

James Parkin IV referenced Teddy Roosevelt’s famous quote “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Then, speaking to all Alaskans, he said, “You are my ‘big stick.’ You have input.”

Bruce Walden promoted his books, stating, “I won’t give you soundbites; I will give you details.” He encouraged the audience to go get his books, offering to send free copies to anyone who cannot afford them.

Prior Coverage  

In case you missed it…  

Read MRAK’s coverage of Begich’s and Sullivan’s speeches and introductions from the 10 gubernatorial candidates: Alaska Young Republican State Convention Part I: Who Are the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidates?  

Hear from Hughes, Crum, Taylor, and Wilson: AKYR State Convention Part II: What Is the Biggest Challenge Alaska Faces in the Next 5 Years?  

Hear from Bishop, Walden, Bronson, and Heilala: AKYR State Convention Part III: What Is Current Leadership Getting Right and Where Is It Falling Short? 

Hear from DeVries and Parkin: AKYR State Convention Part IV: What Issues Do We Face That We Aren’t Talking About Enough?  

All ten candidates answer these hard-hitting questions: AKYR State Convention Part V: What Is Something Unpopular You Support? / Where Do Republicans Disagree and It Is Healthy Disagreement? 

The candidates respond to audience’s questions about veterans and entrepreneurs: AKYR State Convention Part VI: Audience Questions

Gatekeeping as the Core Political-Economic Diagnostic: England’s Feudal State vs. Alaska’s Neo-Feudal State 

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
3
Gatekeeping as the Core Political-Economic Diagnostic: England’s Feudal State vs. Alaska’s Neo-Feudal State 

By Michael Tavoliero

A useful way to compare very different societies is not by their costumes, slogans, or moral language, but by their structure of access. Who controls the foundational asset and how many are made dependent on the few through structured access?  

Feudalism was a gatekeeping system in which a small nobility controlled key resources and legal authority, shaping most people’s lives. Status and opportunity largely followed birth, and access to land, work, and security was mediated by lords through custom, manorial jurisdiction, and hierarchical courts. 

Under this diagnostic, medieval England’s feudal state and contemporary Alaska’s “neo-feudal” state (and other states) can be compared precisely because both organize daily life around an upstream source of wealth and a downstream system of permissions. 

In England, the foundational asset was land, and the gatekeeping instruments were land tenure, oath, and customary labor obligations. This formed a bundled system in which landholding created obligations, and obligations produced rule.  

In Alaska, foundational wealth comes mainly from resource revenue, Permanent Fund investment earnings, and federal transfers. It reaches residents through appropriations, administrative gatekeepers, boards, licensing, contracting, eligibility, and compliance, so upstream public wealth is experienced downstream through institutions that control distribution and permissions. 

Englihs feudal power rested on land and used the sequence: asset, then gates, then dependency, then self-reinforcement. Layered rights in land created obligations, and those obligations produced hierarchy and rule. Because land was immobile and monopolizable, controlling land meant controlling livelihood.  Dependency followed naturally from access to survival. 

Alaska’s surplus is likewise upstream. Power therefore concentrates less in visible tenure and more in revenue routing. The fiscal and administrative choke points of appropriations, programs, licensing, boards, and compliance shape how upstream wealth becomes downstream life. 

As feudal England concentrated power in land and tenure, Alaska concentrates power in rent-and-earnings streams and the institutions that distribute them. In both, the foundational asset structures social order, but England’s platform is physical and local, while Alaska’s is financial and administratively channeled. 

In feudal England, the gates were explicit and personal. Access flowed through tenure, reinforced by homage and fealty, and sustained by customary obligation. The manor itself functioned as a jurisdictional gate, openly organizing authority and surplus extraction through named duties: labor services, rents, and fees. You could point to the gate and identify it. 

In Alaska’s neo-feudal analogue, the gates are procedural and dispersed. Upstream wealth is accessed and distributed through appropriation routing, agency administration, and layers of boards, commissions, licensing, and compliance. These operate as a kind of “soft law” with low public visibility. In many essential domains, people do not simply buy a service; they qualify, wait, appeal, and comply, while protected niches and credentialing raise entry costs. The structural similarity is restriction through recognized channels; the key difference is visibility: England’s gates were legible status relationships, while Alaska’s are technocratic processes that feel like administration rather than power. 

In feudal England, dependency was the operating principle: land-based obligations extracted surplus and were enforced through lords, courts, and custom, binding people into stable but coercive relationships that those in power could manage by controlling succession, incidents, disputes, and norms. 

In Alaska’s neo-feudal analogue, dependency shifts from personal subordination to institutional gatekeeping: households navigate funding, eligibility, and compliance systems for essentials, and status increasingly follows “access literacy”, the ability to work rules, endure process, afford help, or sit inside decision-making, so dependence appears as procedure rather than overt subordination. 

A gatekeeping regime becomes durable when power generates revenue, and revenue expands power. In feudal England, authority was financially self-reinforcing through the Crown’s control of succession and feudal incidents: political power produced revenues that, in turn, strengthened political power. 

In Alaska’s neo-feudal analogue, a complexity flywheel turns upstream rents, transfers, and earnings into expanding programs and compliance, creating dependent vendors and constituencies while raising barriers to entry and oversight. As institutions become “essential,” direct household relief is treated as optional, and the cycle repeats. It is stabilized less by hierarchy than by incentives and opacity, where complexity itself becomes power. 

Feudalism reinforced itself through explicit revenue rights and hierarchy. Neo-feudalism reinforces itself through administrative expansion and complexity. Both convert control of the foundational asset into durable authority, but modern systems often replace visible rank with procedural armor. 

Let’s use a practical litmus test. Count the gates. If a change reduces the number of intermediating gates between Alaska’s upstream wealth and households, it is structurally anti–neo-feudal. If it adds gates, new boards, compliance layers, eligibility pipelines, or procurement dependencies, it is neo-feudal regardless of compassionate branding.  

The point is to escape rhetoric. Just as feudal England spoke in the language of protection while still extracting through obligation, modern Alaska speaks in the language of compassion and professionalism while still expanding gatekeeping. The test forces reforms to answer one hard question: does value move closer to households, or do households move deeper into process? 

Across eras, the same skeleton appears to control the foundational asset, control access, create dependency, and reinforce it through incentives. England did this through land tenure, oath, and custom; Alaska does it through rents and transfers routed via appropriations, intermediaries, licensing, boards, and compliance. The key difference is visibility, open hierarchy versus dispersed procedure, so “gate count” turns “feudal” into a measurable question: how many doors stand between people and the wealth meant to serve them? 

If the merchant-state represents a commercial order that displaced the English feudal-state, does its reliance on trade, contract, and mobility limit dependency? If so, what would it look like in Alaska today, and how much of it is still present? 

AKYR State Convention Part VI: Audience Questions

Natalie Spaulding
-
2
AKYR State Convention Part VI: Audience Questions

Last Saturday, Jan 10, the Alaska Young Republicans hosted their State Convention featuring a panel of ten of the twelve Republican gubernatorial candidates for this year’s election: Bernadette Wilson, Adam Crum, Edna DeVries, Matt Heilala, Shelley Hughes, Click Bishop, Treg Taylor, Dave Bronson, James Parkin IV, and Bruce Walden. Candidates for Governor Nancy Dahlstrom and Hank Henry Kroll did not participate in the event. 

Click Bishop left the event early to attend a funeral. For coverage of his participation, please see Prior Coverage.

Audience Question #1: Help for Veterans

Due to the event running long, there was only time for two audience questions. Five of the candidates addressed audience question #1, which was asked by a veteran: “What will you do to shorten the time from a veteran asking for help to that veteran actually receiving help?”

Adam Crum said he would work to connect non-profit organizations serving veterans, pointing to the higher efficiency of non-profits compared to government programs.

Shelley Hughes talked about how she has “experienced the struggle” with the system as the wife of a disabled veteran. She said she would advocate for property tax exemptions for veterans.

Treg Taylor pointed to his contribution to Senator Dan Sullivan’s Alaska Native Vietnam Land Allotment Program, which enables Alaskan Natives who served overseas during the Vietnam War to still apply for their land allotments. He stated he would continue to foster a working relationship with the federal government to aid veterans.

Matt Heilala said he would decentralize information by using AI, technology upgrades, and innovations to make information more accessible to veterans.

Bernadette Wilson asked the veterans in the room to stand for applause. Then, she said she would work to expand telehealth services and repeal the certificate of need requirement.

Audience Question #2: Changing the Entrepreneurial Landscape

Question #2 from the audience was addressed by all the present candidates. The question: “What is your plan for changing the entrepreneurial landscape in Alaska?”

Treg Taylor answered he would get the government out of the way through deregulation efforts.

Adam Crum said the government must say “no” quicker so entrepreneurs can move on to the next idea quickly until they find the idea that sticks.

Bruce Walden emphasized that “everybody has a good idea,” claiming he could take anyone out to dinner and pull a million-dollar idea out their head. However, he acknowledged the government gets in the way of turning ideas into reality and called for deregulation.

Shelley Hughes said she would start in K-12 schools to foster entrepreneurship in the next generation. She also said she would address the “anemic capital budget in Juneau.”

James Parkin IV emphasized the need for the government to spend more money on small businesses and cut regulations stopping the success of small businesses.

Edna DeVries talked about how she got rid of the borough business license requirement in the Mat-Su Borough, making it easier for businesses to operate.

Matt Heilala stated the need to focus on the next generation and how “we need to move from a culture of ‘no’ to a culture of ‘yes.'”

Bernadette Wilson reiterated the need for deregulation, especially the cutting of arbitrary regulations. She also expressed support for developing Alaska’s trade schools.

Prior Coverage  

In case you missed it…  

Read MRAK’s coverage of Begich’s and Sullivan’s speeches and introductions from the 10 gubernatorial candidates: Alaska Young Republican State Convention Part I: Who Are the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidates?  

Hear from Hughes, Crum, Taylor, and Wilson: AKYR State Convention Part II: What Is the Biggest Challenge Alaska Faces in the Next 5 Years?  

Hear from Bishop, Walden, Bronson, and Heilala: AKYR State Convention Part III: What Is Current Leadership Getting Right and Where Is It Falling Short? 

Hear from DeVries and Parkin: AKYR State Convention Part IV: What Issues Do We Face That We Aren’t Talking About Enough?  

All ten candidates answer these hard-hitting questions: AKYR State Convention Part V: What Is Something Unpopular You Support? / Where Do Republicans Disagree and It Is Healthy Disagreement? 

Next in Series  

Part VII features the candidates’ closing remarks.

AKYR State Convention Part V: What Is Something Unpopular You Support? / Where Do Republicans Disagree and It Is Healthy Disagreement? 

Natalie Spaulding
-
2
AKYR State Convention Part V: What Is Something Unpopular You Support? / Where Do Republicans Disagree and It Is Healthy Disagreement? 

Last Saturday, Jan 10, the Alaska Young Republicans hosted their State Convention featuring a panel of ten of the twelve Republican gubernatorial candidates for this year’s election: Bernadette Wilson, Adam Crum, Edna DeVries, Matt Heilala, Shelley Hughes, Click Bishop, Treg Taylor, Dave Bronson, James Parkin IV, and Bruce Walden. Candidates for Governor Nancy Dahlstrom and Hank Henry Kroll did not participate in the event. 

Questions 5 and 6 were addressed to all ten candidates: “What is something you support that is not popular?” and “Where do Republicans disagree, and it is healthy disagreement?”  

Click Bishop highlighted the Permanent Fund and the size of the dividend as a point of contention. 

Bruce Walden said an unpopular solution he supports is extending the railway system to transport gas instead of continuing to pursue the LNG pipeline project. Then, he started speaking in Korean, the second language he had learned while serving as a Green Beret. He claimed he could get South Korea to pay for the rail. 

James Parkin IV proposed creating an Alaskan-owned corporation that can develop Alaska’s resources on its own. He said it would be the “trump card” for negotiations. If others will not cut Alaska a fair deal, then Alaska will develop its own resources. “I would create that corporation owned by Alaskans,” he stated. 

Dave Bronson claimed trawl bycatch is an unpopular issue he would focus on if he is elected.

Treg Taylor talked about needing a governor who is willing to make hard, unpopular decisions without strategizing for reelection. “The next governor needs to be willing to be a one term governor,” he stated. 

Shelley Hughes called out Bronson, saying trawl bycatch is a very popular issue for Alaskans, and she has a plan to solve it. Hughes’ campaign website lays out a 3-pronged plan to stop trawl bycatch. Then, she pivoted to the topic of education. Hughes claimed schools are receiving enough funding, but they are not using that funding wisely. “The NEA should not be controlling education policy,” she stated. 

Matt Heilala said the Republican Party and the government as a whole “need a severe version of transparency.” 

Edna DeVries seconded Heilala’s call for transparency in the government and in the Republican Party. She also emphasized the need to achieve transparency through respectful means. She stated that she made a public pledge to not speak ill of any of the other Republican candidates in the race. Asking her fellow Republicans to take it a step further, she challenged all Republicans to stop the infighting and treat each other with respect. 

Adam Crum highlighted the high costs of healthcare in Alaska which contribute to hidden costs for businesses. “A healthcare sector growing without GDP growing is a symptom of a very sick system,” he stated. 

Bernadette Wilson said, “It is time to tell the feds to stick it.” Pointing to an example of her “Uncle Wally” (Former Governor Walter J. Hickel), who proceeded with a project without the required federal permitting, Wilson argued Alaskans should start getting things done without waiting for federal permission. She also insisted that failing Republican leadership should be called out. 

Prior Coverage  

In case you missed it…  

Read MRAK’s coverage of Begich’s and Sullivan’s speeches and introductions from the 10 gubernatorial candidates: Alaska Young Republican State Convention Part I: Who Are the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidates?  

Hear from Hughes, Crum, Taylor, and Wilson: AKYR State Convention Part II: What Is the Biggest Challenge Alaska Faces in the Next 5 Years?  

Hear from Bishop, Walden, Bronson, and Heilala: AKYR State Convention Part III: What Is Current Leadership Getting Right and Where Is It Falling Short? 

Hear from DeVries and Parkin: AKYR State Convention Part IV: What Issues Do We Face That We Aren’t Talking About Enough?  

Next in Series  

Part VI features the candidates’ answers to audience questions. 

AKYR State Convention Part IV: What Issues Do We Face that We Aren’t Talking About Enough? 

Natalie Spaulding
-
1
AKYR State Convention Part IV: What Issues Do We Face that We Aren’t Talking About Enough? 

Ten out of the twelve Republican Candidates for Governor participated in the State Convention hosted by Alaska Young Republicans on Jan 10. The convention featured a recorded speech from U.S Representative Nick Begich III, a live speech from U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, and a panel with the Candidates for Governor.   

Question #4: Let’s Talk About This 

Question #4 was addressed specifically to Edna DeVries and James Parkin IV. The question: What issues do we face that we are not talking about enough? 

According to Edna DeVries, Alaskans need to talk more about moving the capital, defined benefits, and integrity in the political system. 

James Parkin IV emphasized the state budget as the issue that Alaskans need to talk about more. He argued that grant money should be allowed to be invested, not required to be spent within the year. 

Prior Coverage  

In case you missed it…  

Read MRAK’s coverage of Begich’s and Sullivan’s speeches and introductions from the 10 gubernatorial candidates: Alaska Young Republican State Convention Part I: Who Are the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidates?  

Hear from Hughes, Crum, Taylor, and Wilson: AKYR State Convention Part II: What Is the Biggest Challenge Alaska Faces in the Next 5 Years?  

Hear from Bishop, Walden, Bronson, and Heilala: What Is Current Leadership Getting Right and Where Is It Falling Short? 

Next in Series  

Part V features the ten candidates’ thoughts on the questions: “What is something you support that is not popular?” and “Where do Republicans disagree, and it is healthy disagreement?” 

Opinion: Peltola, A Prime Example of Political Deception 

Natalie Spaulding
-
34
Opinion: Peltola, A Prime Example of Political Deception 

On Jan 12, Mary Peltola announced her campaign for Senate, challenging Senator Dan Sullivan, who has been serving Alaska in the Senate for 10 years.  

Peltola’s campaign video showcases political deception at its finest. The video is warm, appealing, and has a “homey” Alaskan feel. Peltola speaks to the average Alaskan by highlighting “the rigged system in DC” and her priorities of “fish, family, freedom.” In fact, the video almost has a conservative feel. Her campaign slogan “To hell with politics… Put Alaska first” seems to harken to Republicans’ “America First” focus. 

Democrats had long begun their wide-reaching effort to disparage Sullivan and convince the average Alaskan that Sullivan is destroying Alaska for his own benefit. Peltola herself is now trying to win over conservatives and independent voters with deceptive rhetoric. 

According to Senate Majority PAC spokesperson Lauren French: “Mary Peltola is a dedicated champion for Alaska, and her leadership in the Senate is what working families need to reverse the economic harm caused by Donald Trump and Dan Sullivan…Her entrance into the Senate race completely upends the campaign, putting an already unpopular and weak Dan Sullivan on his heels.” 

In her video, Peltola states: “My agenda for Alaska will always be fish, family, and freedom. But our future also depends on fixing the rigged system in DC that’s shutting down Alaska while politicians feather their own nest.” 

Many conservatives can agree that politicians are often out for their own interests rather than the interests of their constituents. However, Peltola skids right passed the obvious questions: “Who is shutting down Alaska?” and “Who is benefiting?” 

Under the Biden administration, 70 acts were signed into law that locked down Alaska’s natural resources. On President Trump’s first day in office, he signed the Executive Order “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential.” The EO lays out a detailed roadmap for unlocking Alaska, and the Alaska Congressional Delegation (Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Nick Begich III) got to work making it happen. 

Senator Sullivan backed the joint resolution, now passed into law, that “prevents BLM from implementing sweeping and permanent restrictions on access, development, and infrastructure across more than 13 million acres of public land in Alaska within the 56-million-acre planning area (a land mass nearly the size of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania combined).”   

The Trump Administration has clearly shown its prioritization of unlocking Alaska’s resources for the benefit of Alaskans and Americans. 

Trump’s EO states: “By developing [Alaska’s] resources to the fullest extent possible, we can help deliver price relief for Americans, create high-quality jobs for our citizens, ameliorate our trade imbalances, augment the Nation’s exercise of global energy dominance, and guard against foreign powers weaponizing energy supplies in theaters of geopolitical conflict.

“Unleashing this opportunity, however, requires an immediate end to the assault on Alaska’s sovereignty and its ability to responsibly develop these resources for the benefit of the Nation.  It is, therefore, imperative to immediately reverse the punitive restrictions implemented by the previous administration that specifically target resource development on both State and Federal lands in Alaska.” 

What does Peltola have to prove her commitment to stopping the politicians shutting down Alaska? During her stint in Congress, she missed the vote on legislation to stop Biden from depleting our national reserves to historically low levels, supported anti-carbon policies that cause consumer prices to rise, voted against reinstating oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, supported expanded environmental protections in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, opposed Pebble Mine, and opposed the Ambler Road.

Peltola is right that Alaskans cannot afford crooked politicians locking up our land and our resources. The irony is that she expects Alaskans to believe she is the one who will stop Democrats from locking up of Alaska.

AKYR State Convention Part III: What is Current Leadership Getting Right and Where is it Falling Short? 

Natalie Spaulding
-
1
AKYR State Convention Part III: What is Current Leadership Getting Right and Where is it Falling Short? 

Ten out of the twelve Republican Candidates for Governor participated in the State Convention hosted by Alaska Young Republicans on Jan 10. The convention featured a recorded speech from U.S Representative Nick Begich III, a live speech from U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan, and a panel with the Candidates for Governor. 

Question #3: Successes and Failures of Current Leadership 

Question #3 was addressed specifically to Click Bishop, Bruce Walden, Dave Bronson, and Matt Heilala. The question: What is current leadership getting right and where is it falling short? 

Click Bishop gave kudos to Governor Dunleavy, specifically for his land policy bills. He expressed his desire for more road infrastructure, pointing to the ASTAR road as a priority. The ASTAR (Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources) project seeks to build year-round, all-weather roads from the Dalton Highway to remote communities on the North Slope. 

Bruce Walden also talked about the need for more roads. He stated, “The pipeline does not pencil out; it will not be built.” Instead, he recommends Alaska expand its railroad system to transport gas. 

Dave Bronson praised Dunleavy for getting the federal government to take Alaska seriously instead of treating it as a colony.  

Matt Heilala said that current leadership has been good at identifying the problems, which run downstream of a revenue problem. To grow Alaska’s economy, Heilala emphasized the need to address the “disease of a bureaucratic culture of delay and gridlock.” He calls for heavy deregulation. 

Prior Coverage 

In case you missed it… 

Read MRAK’s coverage of Begich’s and Sullivan’s speeches and introductions from the 10 gubernatorial candidates: Alaska Young Republican State Convention Part I: Who Are the 2026 Gubernatorial Candidates? 

Hear from Hughes, Crum, Taylor, and Wilson: AKYR State Convention Part II: What Is the Biggest Challenge Alaska Faces in the Next 5 Years? 

Next in Series 

Part IV will feature Candidates for Governor Edna DeVries and James Parkin IV, who will address the question “What issues do we face that we are not talking about enough?” 

Anchorage Assembly Postpones 3% Sales Tax; Passes ASD Funding Proposal onto Voters 

Natalie Spaulding
-
9
Anchorage Assembly Postpones 3% Sales Tax; Passes ASD Funding Proposal onto Voters 

Tuesday, Jan 13, the Anchorage Assembly postponed Mayor LaFrance’s 3% sales tax proposal after LaFrance motioned for the postponement, claiming the Assembly needed to focus on a funding proposal for the Anchorage School District instead. 

The Assembly postponed the sales tax proposal, AO-2025-133, indefinitely with a vote of 12-0. 

Then, the Assembly heard public testimony and voted on AO-2025-136, a proposal intending to provide the Anchorage School District with $79,460,000 for capital improvements. The ordinance asks voters to consider an issuance of general obligation bonds to fund ASD’s capital improvements. If passed, Anchorage property owners will see a property tax increase to help ASD pay back the bonds.  

The Assembly passed the ordinance with a vote of 9-3. Anchorage voters will have the final say on April 7, 2026, during the municipal elections. 

Public Speaks Against Giving ASD More Money 

Five Anchorage residents gave public testimony regarding AO-2025-136. Each person was given 3 minutes each. 

The first resident used his 3 minutes to share his testimony as a Christian: “…My citizenship isn’t alone here in Anchorage, but as I stated on the onset of my testimony, I am a citizen of heaven. That being said, I would be remiss without lifting up the name of Jesus Christ. The name Jesus Christ originated as Yeshua. You may know Him as Yeshua. He is the King of kings. He’s the King of glory. And He is the only reason I stand here today with assurance I will not burn in eternity in a pit of fire, away from Him. If you don’t know Christ, if you’re confused, if you’re scared, if you’re fearful, turn to Jesus Christ right now. He knows everything you did. He will make you brand new. Everything else is a lie. We’ve got to lift up the name of Jesus Christ.” 

The second resident, from Anchorage District 5, stated: “The Anchorage School District is a mismanaged government organization, and I can tell you the 79 million that we are going to have to vote on, I can tell you now they have received more money from the state which they have been mismanaging for years. Why are we contributing to more mismanagement? What we need to do is we need to demand the ASD go down to 75% of the municipal budget. There’s a lot of fat. There’s a lot of pork there… This 2x the Anchorage budget needs to stop. Investigate ASD! That’s what needs to happen.” The resident then proposed that only the property taxes of property owners with kids in the ASD should go to ASD, and the property taxes of owners with kids in private school should go to those private schools. 

The next Anchorage resident: “I am a little surprised by the vagueness of this ordinance. Where did it come from? Back in November, it was not under discussion. I’ve been to a couple of ASD meetings, and their budget is fat. Why do they need more money? I mean, they were talking about closing schools; now, they want another $80 million? For capital improvements. On buildings they are talking about closing. I mean, something is not making any sense here.” 

Anchorage Highschooler: “As a student myself, as a citizen here, born and raised, I am telling you ASD they make bank, more than their own teachers and aids… what is this going for? Who is it paying?” 

South Anchorage resident: “Anchorage, where I was born and raised, pre-statehood, has survived successfully without a sales tax. I’ve raised my children here. Paid way too much in property taxes… Most of my tax dollars go to ASD and now they want $80 million more. And I would say, Anchorage does not have a revenue problem. I have a degree in economics. I understand money flow. We have a spending problem. And they want to cut all kinds of stuff out of Anchorage, but they never say, ‘You know, me personally, we need to cut back. We need to be responsible.’ There’s no one here that runs their family finances by just saying ‘I need to make more money.’ No, we start cutting back. Maybe we don’t go out to dinner as often. We cut back… To give the school district 80 million more dollars when we already have a short come, that’s kind of goofy to me. They already have plenty of money. They didn’t need the money when I was kid here. We’re paying more and more property taxes, and we’re having less and less to show for it.” 

Assembly Discussion 

Listen to the full public testimonies and the Assembly’s discussion regarding AO-2025-136 below (2:20:20-2:46:27). 

AO-2025-136 Details 

Here are the full details of the proposed funding for the Anchorage School District, including the district’s breakdown of how they wish to spend the money. 

Projects include: 

  • Construction of Phase 1 building upgrades at Romig Middle School 
  • Building improvements at Lake Otis Elementary School 
  • Structural upgrades at Klatt Elementary School 
  • Renovation and construction of a new secure vestibule, roof and remediate truss structural issues at Tudor Elementary School 
  • Upgrade the Student Nutrition building and systems 
  • Demolish and dispose of hazardous materials at Ursa Major Elementary School 
  • Upgrade and replace electrical service and standby generator system at Bettye Davis Anchorage High School 
  • Installation of access control for 15 schools 
  • Planning and design for 2027-2028 projects 
AO 2025-136Download
1...232425...1,775Page 24 of 1,775

About us

Must Read Alaska is news of people, politics, policy, culture, and happenings in Alaska.

Contact
4021 West Hill Road,
Homer, AK 99603
[email protected]

The latest

Americans Across the Country Gather to Read the Entire Bible Out Loud This Week

Faith Watch 0
Starting at 5:00 a.m. Alaska time tomorrow, April 18,...

Opinion: Why We March for Life

The Social 0
By Jim Minnery, President of Alaska Family Council This story...

Opinion: Alaska GOP Needs Better Political Strategy  

Columns 0
By Michael Tavoliero Currently, the Alaska’s 2026 governor’s race fields at least 16...

© Must Read Alaska