By KEVIN MCCABE
A sign has appeared in the middle of Big Lake with a red arrow pointing to my campaign sign.
This sign reads “PFD THIEF” and includes a disclaimer stating: “Paid for by Mike Alexander,” with his address. I know Alexander as a member of “Save The PFD,” a group based in Big Lake and led by Mike Widney. Both gentlemen have been politically active on Permanent Fund dividend issues in the past and usually provide invaluable PFD support and comments.
Both, however, have been mostly silent for the past two years. Mike’s sign is clearly a statement of their displeasure with my votes for budgets that included less than a full PFD. As single-issue advocates, they view any legislator who votes for a budget without a full PFD as a “thief.”
But is a vote for a budget that does not have a full PFD a vote against a full dividend? Perhaps if it were the only thing in the budget that would be true.
The Alaska operating budget includes hundreds of line items that most Alaskans say they want. A sizable part of the budget has programmed funding that is automatic and committed before any broader budget discussions begin. This includes items like state worker pay, operating costs such as Medicaid and school funding, matching money for federal highway dollars, and funding for major school maintenance and pupil transportation, among others.
Additionally, the budget often contains appropriations for projects with a solid return on investment, such as airport and road upgrades. It also includes line items for things like childcare, substance abuse rehabilitation facilities, library rebuilds, and Pioneer Home roof replacements. A vote on the budget encompasses much more than just a stance on a full PFD or any other single line item.
However, there seems to be a disconnect in the “PFD thief” debate when discussing a budget that actually includes a full PFD.
SCS CSHB 281(FIN) amended Senate, which came before the House on May 14, 2022, was the last time in recent memory Alaskans had a chance at a full PFD. The Senate version of the operating budget, which would have paid over $5,000 to every Alaskan—young and old—was sent to the House for a concurrence vote.
After the Covid debacle, this would have been a huge financial boost, not only for Alaskans but for the state’s economy which could have generated billions of dollars in economic activity.
However, two of the most vocal “pro-PFD” legislators voted against this budget. Ironically, at least one of these legislators is still ardently supported by the “Save the PFD” group.
You might wonder why two conservative, Republican, pro-PFD Valley legislators voted against a budget that included the full PFD. Their excuse was that the spending was out of control — and they were right. At the end of the day, however, they still voted against a budget that had a full PFD.
Even as the Save-The-PFD activists publicly shame other legislators for their supposed anti-PFD votes, this “no” vote on a full dividend in 2022, left out of the conversation about their PFD purity. A relevant question should be how is the no vote on the FY2023 (full PFD) budget, by these two legislators, any different from a legislator voting for a budget that has less than a full PFD?
All legislators have reasons for their budget votes; often driven by the needs of their districts. For the past few years, I had to consider the fact that our district senator is outside any caucus and had no opportunity to shape the budget so I had to do it for both of us. This is more important than creating hollow optics by voting against a budget, which is already destined to pass, simply because it lacks a full dividend.
Several legislators have written Pro-PFD pieces over the years. And many have at various times endured attacks, threats, and protests from Alaskans who focus solely on the PFD without fully understanding the broader budget process. I myself have written several such op-eds and weathered the attacks.
While my position is unchanged, I have noticed a shift in Alaskans’ views on a full PFD. Just in the past past year, I’ve received dozens of emails and public comments expressing, “Reduce or take my PFD—just don’t tax me.”
In contrast, I’ve lately received few messages in favor of a full or statutory PFD. I recognize that “dividend fatigue” has set in for many pro-PFD supporters; they’re simply exhausted from constantly writing and calling—and I don’t blame them.
Since the Gov. Walker veto in 2016 and subsequent court case, the PFD has been buried within the operating budget, making it difficult to determine which legislators are genuinely voting for or against the PFD. It should never have been reduced to a budget item, but that’s the reality we face until we collectively muster the will to resolve it.
The ongoing dispute over the PFD is frustrating for everyone, including pro-full PFD legislators like myself. The implementation of the Fiscal Plan, which many of us worked on during the 2022 interim, is long overdue.
Gov. Jay Hammond’s “militant ring” needs a legally binding voice—not the current arbitrary and convoluted two-statute system (or whatever).
Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Alaska Legislature on behalf of Alaskans in the House District 30-Big Lake area (formerly District 8).
