Will Dunleavy veto the $1,600 PFD, or let it stand?



Gov. Michael Dunleavy, as he considers the Operating Budget given to him by the Legislature, is in a no-win situation on the amount of this year’s Permanent Fund dividend.

In a nutshell, here are some of the factors he must wrestle with as he approaches that item in the Operating Budget:

  • Dunleavy is dealing with a House and Senate that gave him a $1,600 appropriation for the dividend. This is something he cannot add to, but the majority of the Legislature has said is enough.
  • The statutory (legal) calculation for the dividend this year is $3,000. That formula is a law on the books. It’s what he wants to follow until the formula is changed by law.
  • Dunleavy ran on bringing the dividend calculation in compliance with statute (as it was for all the years up until the Walker Administration), and to take any changes to the calculation to the people for a vote, via a constitutional amendment.
  • He could not get his constitutional amendment bill to do so heard in the Legislature.
  • Dunleavy faces a recall campaign that has Democrats, public employee unions, state workers, a Native corporation, and a couple of millionaires backing it to overturn his election. The petitioners are people who never voted for him in the first place, and their grounds appear spurious.
  • If Dunleavy gives in to the Legislature and agrees to the $1,600 dividend, he won’t win back his critics, and he’d make critics of many of his supporters, such as the PFD Defenders and a vast majority of Alaskans who want the law to be followed.
  • If he vetoes the $1,600, the likelihood that the dividend checks being issued later than usual increases because he would need to call another special session. Is he willing to take on the majority in the Legislature?
  • If Dunleavy calls a special session with a bill to appropriate the PFD, the Legislature could once again cut the amount and stuff more spending in the bill (the Groundhog Day syndrome).

Dunleavy said on the Mike Porcaro Show he’ll sign the Operating Budget this week. He has indicated that he’ll once again veto hundreds of millions of dollars to get the budget closer to balancing, as he did with the first Operating Budget. He has even hinted at a few possible exceptions. He may spare senior benefits and may rollback some of his earlier cuts to the university system, with the rest of the cuts coming next year.

But one thing he has not yet signaled is what he’ll do with the Permanent Fund dividend quandary. Either way comes with certain political peril.

[Read: Bipartisan group pushes governor for statutory dividend]

The Permanent Fund Defenders issued the following statement:

The Alaska Permanent Fund Defenders, an Alaska based organization dedicated to the long-term protection of the Alaska Permanent Fund, today expressed mixed sentiments about the legislature’s handling of the Permanent Fund and the issue of how to pay individual Alaskans a dividend.  The Permanent Fund Defenders organization is guided by a five-person board of directors chaired by Clem Tillion, a former President of the Alaska Senate and one of the individuals who helped establish the Alaska Permanent Fund.  Other board members include Jack Hickel from Anchorage, Rick Halford, a former President of the Alaska Senate from Dillingham, Joe Geldhof, an attorney from Juneau,  and Juanita Cassellius from Eagle River.

Clem Tillion, Chairman of the Defenders expressed disappointment with the legislature based on the legislature’s failure to follow the existing statutory formula for paying the PFD.  Tillion, calling on his long history with the creation of Permanent Fund the PFD noted: “The citizens of our great state got shorted by the legislature.”  Tillion went on to say that the payment of $1,600 to eligible Alaskans was an arbitrary amount that follows the repeated failure by the legislature the previous three years.”  Tillion acknowledged that “building a sustainable operating budget is difficult” but noted “there are always competing interests and demands on funding that make the budget contentious.”  The former President of the Alaska Senate observed that shorting the citizens’ PFD was an “unnecessary act because it harms those least able to afford the cut and erodes the link with their fund.”  He said, “Mike Dunleavy worked hard to get each and every citizen $1,600. We request that the Governor not veto the short-funded PFD and continue his work to add more funds for the dividend according to law.”

Tillion wasn’t entirely dissatisfied with the legislature.  The former President of the Senate noted the legislature adopted an operating budget that reduced spending compared to previous years.  And he noted “as part of the operating budget, the legislature moved billions of dollars from the Earnings Reserve Account managed by the Permanent Fund Corporation into the corpus of the Permanent Fund,” a move Tillion said was “worthy of the kind of leadership demonstrated by Hugh Malone and Jay Hammond,” two of the individuals most responsible for establishing and protecting the Permanent Fund.  Tillion expressed his willingness to work with current legislative leaders like Bert Stedman and other members of the legislature next session to “move more money from the Earnings Reserve Account that is essentially unprotected from political looting and sock it away into the corpus of the Permanent Fund where it will be protected forever.”  

Permanent Fund Defender board member Joe Geldhof was a close observer of the budget discussions in Juneau this year and paid special attention to the decisions related to the Permanent Fund and PFD payments.  Geldhof noted that “while a majority of Alaskans certainly support payment of a full PFD, the legislature is fractured on whether and how to complete this task.” Geldhof observed “the political fault lines in Alaska on the PFD issue are not based on partisan lines or geographic regions.”  He said, “The debate between paying a full PFD or chopping government services was incomplete and based on a false choice.”  Geldhof summed up his thoughts on the PFD by saying: “The citizens of Alaska deserve to have a say here and the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to adopt a resolution Alaskans can vote on to protect the PFD in the Alaska Constitution.  A constitutional amendment based on prudent principles that calls for an equal split of the realized earnings of the Permanent Fund earnings or perhaps based on the POMV concept is what the citizens deserve and what the legislature desperately needs so we don’t have to go through this annual dog fight,” according to Geldhof, who noted in conclusion that this goal is also “what Governor Dunleavy is seeking.”

Tillion and Geldhof both acknowledged that hammering out the details of a constitutional amendment would require compromise and hard work.  Tillion had the last word from the Defenders on this point, noting: “Nothing really good comes without hard work.  Alaskans know about hard work.  The people need all the politicians to get a constitutional amendment about their dividend done.  The Governor wants it done and so do most of the members of the legislature who are worn out with this annual fight, so let’s get it done.”


  1. He must veto…………the theft of the people’s rightful property must end. 2020 is a pivotal election pitting those who support the shared wealth from forfeited mineral rights the PFD represents vs those who support confiscating this wealth to fund a bloated inefficient State Bureaucracy/Non-Profit Industrial Complex.

    • Except it’s not forfeit, no mineral rights have been forfeit, first, oil isn’t a mineral. But let’s skip that minor point, Alaska is the only state that leases oil rights, and owns the oil, BP doesn’t own anything, the State of Alaska does, the state essentially allows BP to pump their oil. The state then collects a royalty on the oil that is pumped out of the ground and sold. Which is where the Permanent Fund Corporation comes in, they take the oil royalties and then invest that money, the realized gains is what is supposed to be divided up.

      I happen to know this because I worked for the State of Alaska, and dealing with the Permanent Fund Dividend, and I worked for the legislature. The PFD used to be properly divided per the constitution, the problem is, the budget for the state was always tied to the price of oil, so if oil was selling for $60.00 a barrel that’s the number they used.

      There are billions of dollars sitting protected from the legislatures hands. It was meant to be used for this purpose. Problem is, you can’t trust politicians of any stripe, epically republicans, and isn’t that who runs the state….

      • Oil is tied to Mineral Rights there Professor Doofus! Look it up on your property deed, Chevron owns the mineral rights on my land. If they state gave them a permit to drill I get nothing and can’t stop it. So, shove that up your State Employee Pipe and blow it out the other end! Mongo no like you and your disinformation!

      • This is absolutely correct. There is a ton of money that the legislature cannot touch. Not to mention they’ve pretty much jipped us for 3yrs since walker used a pen to cut our portion in half. I just don’t understand why Dunleavy can’t use that same pen in reverse.

        Walker didn’t need permission so why does Dunleavy?

        Second consideration is that those of us who are homeowners got screwed by Trymp and his bs tax screw up. So if your married have 2 kids and own a home, you can kiss itemizing your expenses goodbye. Used to be able to take down about at least an extra 10,000 off of our taxes as middle class Americans; except now were paying so that the upper class can get a bigger tax break. This is absurd.

        And Trump the Republican when it suits him, didn’t do it to help Americans. It’s not like you actually got more money back in your paychecks. If you analyze them for a year there was a 20$ difference. Guess what, i paid more in taxes than that $20 afforded us…

        Getting hit from both ends, by our state and our federal government can’t win for losing… and don’t get me started on the increase in home invasions since the pfd was cut. Too many people had that money planned out and then decided crime was a good way to supplement ?‍♀️ So correction were hit from 3 sides if you consider the local level

    • I want to know why he can’t do what walker did and write his own amount in, like walker did. If the courts held it up then why doesn’t he have the ability to use that same pen in reverse?

  2. Veto and demand full statutory dividend! > $3000 is the statutory PFD this year per formula. DO NOT let the Legislature tell you what the PFD will be Governor Dunleavy!

  3. How did Gov. Walker reduce the PFD, he certainly didn’t go through proper procedure. Gov. Dunleavy should use his executive powers to restore it and the legislature be damned.

    • Hoo Boy there Robert, perhaps you can give us the proper procedure for doing such? Heheh!
      He (Walker) no doubt got the proper legal advice from his AG and it clearly held up through the Alaska Supreme Court. Dunleavy would have to be a fool to take on the Courts on some issue that you don’t happen to like. I’m sure you have some more legal advice to give this Governor. Keep em coming!

    • I’m of the view that if Walker can taketh away with only his signature, then Dunleavy can giveth back the same way.

      Legislature be damned.

      I can guarantee that 90% of Dunleavy’s voters feel the same way.

      • Governor Dunleavy cannot add to an appropriation under our constitution. Governor Dunleavy worked hard to get the appropriation up to 1,600 bucks. He’s not done seeking more, I suspect.
        He’s learning to work with the material.

      • Well, you may think that but the Courts may have a different opinion, Damon. The Legislature is not involved but the constitution is a funny thing that the Courts interpret.

  4. I agree with Tillion.
    I disagree with Geldhof on one major point, the moving such a large amount from the ERA the corpus. My reasoning is. Stedman, etal wanted a large amount so as to draw down the ERA so they could make the point that there is not enough in the ERA for a “sustained $3,000 PFD” That is a flat out lie, because the PFD, as per law fluctuates with outcomes from investments in the market. These next several years, we could have a very good investment return (market hit 27,000 in July, still in 26,000 range) and potentially, we could have a $4,000 or more in the next several years. Remember, that the ERA would and will in that case increase, last number I heard, 18.5 Billion (I heard as high as 21 Billion). Now of course, if we were to be so unlucky to loose in 2020 the Presidential election and the market tumbles to pre-Trump of 18,000, sure, we could five years after that have a PFD in the hundreds. To do what Stedman wants in my opinion would worsen that worse case senerio. So, I would want that aspect to be reduced to 1.0 Billion which would be 10% of the ERA as inflation proofing, leave the rest in the ERA and let the PF Corp do what they have done so well over the years and let this baby grow!

    • Mr. Coons: you do realize the funds in the earnings reserve account can be appropriated by simple majority of the legislature, do you not?
      Left unprotected, these funds will go the way the constitutional budget reserve account went via legislative appropriation. These funds will disappear. Lock up a big hunk of the earnings reserve account and put it into the trust we call the Permanent Fund.

      • The problem with a big transfer of earnings to principal is that it doesn’t accomplish very much for Alaskans. The value of increased earnings in future years is rather modest and only sets up a debate as to how we shouldn’t spend it in those future years. The folks at the Permanent Fund Corporation may feel more important … so what? Keep in mind that virtually NONE of the PF principal is invested in Alaska and it cannot be encumbered. We have evolved to the point where we are saving money for the purpose of saving money. That is irrational. We should save money for a purpose, not just “because.” Senators Stedman and Von Inhoff need to state more specifically WHY a big transfer is necessary and what benefits are gained through it. They have not done so.

        • They (Stedman and Von Imhof) have stated that the money in ERA can be appropriated by a simple majority of Legislature for any reason they determine is appropriate. That same money earns a similar amount in PF as ERA, but it can not be accessed by Legislature.
          That’s the only difference and for you to want it left in ERA can only mean you’d like it appropriated for something you like (say a larger PFD). You can certainly gamble with that money but Stedman and Vom Imhof aren’t on board.

          • I understand the dangers. No matter what is done, or not done, the likes of Stedman, Von Imhof will violate the law at will until and if we can toss them out.
            This is a fight, a scary fight. We have to fight smart, not knee jerking!

          • Mike, you wanted their reasoning and you got it-now you just don’t like them so aren’t of the opinion they can be trusted. They don’t trust future legislatures and you don’t trust them-at any rate the money is much safer in the Corpus of PF.

          • You appear to be confused. The central question is “Why should we move billions from the ER to the principal of the Permanent Fund?” Money should be saved for a purpose; just saving money for the purpose of saving money is irrational. I am actually no fan of the dividend. As currently structured, the Permanent Fund provides limited benefits for Alaskans.

          • JMARK, the money is not just for saving.
            Whether it’s in Corpus or ERA, it does earn approximately 6 1/2 percent interest so a $billion after one year becomes $1.065 billion and that amount allows for a little over 4% to be spent as POMV. Thus each $ billion in the Fund allows for approximately $40 million that can be appropriated for PFDs and government services.
            This is not chopped liver but real dough. It doesn’t matter whether/not it’s in the Corpus it provides the same earnings-the only concern about moving it from ERA is that a simple majority can appropriate from ERA for any reason they can get the votes for. Does that help?

      • Yes, on your first question. That has always been the case, which I have never liked, should be like the CBR.
        So, when we put a big hunk into the corpus, then how does the ERA then pay out the PFD? Less money in the ERA, by the formula, less PFD. Do the math.
        I am not happy with the POMV business either. I can see dipping into the ERA in the event of an emergency, that was the intent BTW. The legislature needs to balance the budget in appropriations, not by balancing like they have done using the CBR and now the ERA.
        Can we change the law today to make dipping into the ERA to balance the budget, the same as the CBR possible today? Nope, not a chance. First off it would take a Constitutional Amendment, hell we can’t get any passed to protect the PF, PFD, budget cap, income tax now, so to get that is an impossibility today. Next year? Again, doubt it, since the socialist and RINO’s will be fighting against We the People to the very end. A tactic I fear will happen next session will be a push by Cathy and Bryce to have special sessions, one on top of the other so the conservatives will not be able to run for re-election, like was done during Walker, so socialists can run without any restrictions in getting funds. Now, on a possible positive note, that would impact the RINO’s as bad so that conservatives could run full speed, while the RINO’s couldn’t run to get funds. Bottom line, that will harm all and more importantly harm our Republic and to equal election capabilities.

  5. What happens when politicians pick and choose what laws they will follow and what they will not ???
    Disrespect of all laws by ALL.
    Chaos at your doorstep.

    • Veto what? There are numerous appropriations in the bill. What do you want governor Dunleavey to veto?

  6. The governor needs to remember this:
    “The first time is the rule. The second time is the exception to the rule. The third time the exception becomes the rule.”
    Governor Walker not following the statute was the exception to the rule. If Governor Dunleavey fails to stand in the door and veto this bill then he will have made the exception the new rule and the PFD will be lost forever.

    • Veto the PFD and state that they failed to follow the historical formula as per what is due to us.

      Do not repeat Walker’s theft followed by the legislators’ theft under Walker.

      You are the governor now and a wrong should be correct before they normalize and demand a right to steal by precedent!

      The duty of the government is to serve the the people not goverment, not to grow government for the sake of government. The power of government is from the citizens and not special interest!

      Citizens lives matter.

  7. We have a classic “Polish Firing Squad” at work in AK these days.
    On one side we have the public employee unions along with UAA administrators who make well over a quarter of a million dollars a year.
    On the other side we have the oil lobbyists and bureaucrats who are “bought and paid for” by ConocoPhillips.
    Without a change in the oil tax credits or implementing an income tax accross the state we are faced with only one solution…cut services to vulnerable Alaskans while the “producers” extract billions in profits from state lands as we are left to discuss “crisis” after crisis in the homeland.
    Until the Governor is ready to consider new revenue streams for the state, we will continue to see the face off between a lower dividend and over paid bureaucrats who want to keep their jobs.

    • Steve, the bureaucrats are a small portion of State employees and it’s only your opinion they are overpaid.
      The budget cuts that are causing the issues do not “only” cause grief for bureaucrats. Are you sure you know just what a “bureaucrat” is? Just checking here.

      • Bill,
        It is alot more than mere “budget cuts” causing the issues.
        Give me a break…think about $7 Billion in the underfunded state pensions and falling oil revenues.
        There are several pages to the current saga at hand.
        We both know this debate on the PFD has been going on for years.
        Just so we are on the same page, a “bureaucrat” is defined by Oxford as: “an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people’s needs.”
        From where I stand there are many on the state dole that fit this mold in Alaska and obviously most of them agree that a lesser PFD to support their lifestyle is warranted in the face of declining revenue and rising debt.
        No surprise there.
        Question is when do the people get to vote on it?

        • Steve, and you would know this “From where I stand there are many on the state dole that fit this mold in Alaska,” how??
          Further, using your just now definition of bureaucrat do you still think your “bureaucrats” are the problem in the faceoff you mentioned? What a joke. You are only talking of a very minority of State employees.
          And the unfunded indebtedness is something that is a problem for Alaskans who could be counted on one hand. You are the only one on this forum that has ever even brought the subject up and I’m the only one who has even responded to your thoughts on it.

          • That’s weird, I remember having conversations with Steve about unfunded pensions of state workers. Say Bill isn’t your wife a retired state worker, you’ve said so numerous times so I find it odd that you think it is only a problem for less than 5 people.

            By the way, did you check with the Juneau Empire to get their opinions on these matters or are these your actual opinions?

          • Four-flusher, are you now speaking for Steve. He doesn’t need your help. And I said nothing about it being a problem for so few people, just that they don’t consider it a problem. It’s sort of on the order of the debt owed the SS system that just isn’t considered a problem until the debt must come out of appropriations. That debt will eventually need to be repaid and it will become a problem at that time-now, not so much. And what does my wife have to do with anything?

          • Bill Yankee said “unfunded indebtedness is something that is a problem for Alaskans who could be counted on one hand” and then said “I said nothing about it being a problem for so few people”. How many people can you count on one hand Bill? Did you forget what you wrote again and that it is right up there^? You forget what you wrote hours ago, in the same thread and one post before this one, and you continue to call me names based on your faulty memory.

            If you follow the conversation about state workers and retirement maybe you can figure out the link of your wife being a retired state worker and how you making stuff up out of wholecloth enters into that conversation.

          • Four-flusher, the conversation is not about retirement and state workers but indebtedness to the pension system. And whether/not it is an issue relative to PFDs.
            The debt is owed and doesn’t really matter that recipients happen to be State employees (other than that our Judges also happen to be on PERS).

          • It’s ok to admit you were wrong Bill. You don’t need to dig the hole deeper by saying state workers and their pension have nothing to do with the conversation about state workers and their pension. You were wrong Bill, admit it and move on or keep calling me names and rambling nonsensical statements.

        • What is the final outcome of the give away of the salmon for the land destruction for drilling?

          Patrick Price, a visitor to your state and the wonderful resources

    • I’m 98 percent with you. All of this could be settled with a fair income tax. If I could, I’d write it so it didn’t hit anyone making under 40K.
      We could have it all if we were smart about it — we could have services and a 3K pfd.

      • Agreed. Too many dumb and greedy ppl in the mix though. We need a state income tax, it doesn’t have to be super high but we do need it, we’re well past due for employers and employees from other states working here and not paying a share to us.

        Thus they take the job and their earnings with them. Honestly our state needs that money moreso.. labor is the highest cost of any business. Which is why taxes on labor even at low amounts nets tons of money. We need an income tax. If you make under 30,000k you could even get the paid portion back during tax time if it’s done intelligent and accurately.

  8. If the legislature would OK putting the dividend formula to a vote of the people, as well as giving the people final voting word on taxation, I’d be happy to accept the $1,600 PFD in the interim…with the promise of a vote later. But since that does not seem to be OK with some in the legislature..enough to block it..I’m getting more convinced the Gov should stand his ground.

    • A vote of the people? Are you a Democrat? You sound like a Democrat.


      Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about his predictions on Democracy in America back at the turn of the 19th century. He was prescient.


      Robespierre lost has head by similar “vote”.

    • I know right? Let Alaskans vote on what our needs are, but they’re too scared of the choices we might make.

  9. I voted for the governor because he said he would restore a full dividend if he doesn’t veto the $1,600’s and keep fighting for a full statutory PFD I’ll be signing the petition to remove him because as far as I’m concerned he will be a liar and no better than the rest of the lying thieving crooks that are trying to take it in the first place please don’t disappoint us Governor Dunleavy fight for the law fight for what you know is right!!!!

    • I don’t know about you but I need my scheduled dividend. Did you read the article? If he vetoes we get nothing in October until the courts figure it all out. He has a tough decision to make and I can guarantee he won’t easily veto. If he does veto, who knows (not even Dunleavy) when we’ll get the dividend? It might go round and round for months or even years after the veto. And after we wait we STILL might end up with a smaller dividend. I don’t understand why everyone is mad at a guy who’s saying WE HAVE NO MONEY and he’s in the hot seat for a recall. Why aren’t people blaming other elected officials who actually create and agree upon on the written laws that go to his desk for final approval? It wouldn’t end up on his desk without OTHER PEOPLE deciding it. Pray for him, don’t jump on the bandwagon of sheeple jumping to ignorant conclusions.

      • How about the tax credits to oil companies? And How about an income tax that does not burden the poor? Jay Hammond said something to the effect of Cap the PFD if there are no income taxes in times of low oil revenue. He also said he wished the legislature had not repealed the income tax just zeroed out during the good times. It is time to generate new revenue and not allow the plunder of states resources by out of state interests, who could care less aobut Alaska.

      • I’m really not a troll — trolls are all about derailing conversations and trolls disrupt conversations because it amuses them.
        I’m just not a supporter of this governor. He lied. He got elected on a promise of a super sized PFD with no cuts to education.
        He lied, time to recall.

    • What if the Governor vetoes the $1,600 and the legislature doesn’t appropriate any further funds? The PFD would then be zero. Is that what Michelle?

  10. No I’m not a democrat, I Art Laughing, but I thought the Gov wanted to have any changes to the PFD formulas & any future taxation plans always put to a vote of the people as a Constitutional Amendment? He ran on that platform. I’d rather see the $3,000 & stay with the old formula thats in law, but if that fails & its not happening and there has to be some kind of deal then that was my thought. I believe it was part of the Gov’s original plan. But only if getting the items on the ballot were guaranteed. Of course votes like that may not always go the way we’d like! Some legislators don’t want to see that happen which to me means it should.

    But I’m also ok standing firm on the $3,000 & the formula in the law and supporting the Gov battling the issue out with a delayed payment (who knows how long?) if most people agree as well (including the Alaska Republican Party and the Districts), because he’ll need the support in light of all the flak he is getting already & will continue to get.

    • So taxation and PFD by mob rule? That is conceding the separated powers as designed and intended by the founders. We could easily end up with a fee based government if such an idea passes and the need for services runs up against the public demand for those services to be free.

  11. Governor Dunleavy,

    I have lived in Alaska for 43 years and have seen our state slowly become dismantled by a liberal mindset and policy-making. Similar to a cancer that will inevitably kill the body. In this case the body is our state economy and our important PFD fund that was attributed to our great former governor Jay Hammond.

    These very reckless, liberal, budget destroying politicians you are dealing with now are the ones that want to continue spending more that we take in. They have come up to our state from the west coast and abroad after destroying their former home states and plan on doing the same to our great state.

    I’m requesting that you make a very strong stand more than ever now and do NOT cave on the PFD amount of $3,000 so that their liberal, Reckless overspending does not turn our state into California, Illinois or Michigan.

    As our current Governor at this critical time in Alaskan history, you are literally the linchpin that will determine if our state and PFD fund lives or dies economically and for the interest of our laws and state constitution being respected.

    Your decision now to stand taller than ever, maintain the state cuts we need to live within our means and be firm with the statutory amount of $3000. This vital stand will determine your legacy as governor and the outcome of Alaska’s future and stop this liberal cancer that is consuming us at this present time.

    Please think about Alaska’s economic future and our children. Do not let this liberal cancer that is consuming our great country be allowed to make Alaska their next unfortunate victim.

    Thank you for listening.


    Kevin F.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

  12. For all those sheople who want to give your money to the State, they should just make it a option on the PFD for that. Go ahead, donate yours.
    I guarantee I will be using mine for oil and food.

  13. Sometimes lost in the heated rhetoric, is this: each and every qualified Alaskan, is a shareholder in the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. We are all shareholders, every person that qualifies. There are no exceptions based on ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, etc.

    If your PFD is garnished, that is on you to rectify on your own. The previous Governor, and the legislature (as a body) have effectively garnished three years’ worth of PFDs on every qualified Alaskan, and seemingly are hell bent on continuing to garnish our “fair share”” ( a phrase I personally dislike, but effective) into the future.

    The future income of the PFDC, is of crucial concern to those who would garnish. This is not just about the 2019 or 2020 budgets. This is about the much, much larger dividends we would earn just a four or five years down the road.

    Imagine that the size of state government is actually rolled back (right sized, as Gov.. Dunleavy puts it) to a sustainable size. Five years from now, new oil will begin flowing down the pipeline, this equals more revenue for the state as a whole. And five years from now, the PFDC will produce very sizable dividends for the residents. (I have heard estimates of over $5000) The special interest lobbyists and unions, desperately want to secure their own futures, by hooking into the forthcoming cash however they can.

    Now just imagine the state with a balanced budget (living within income like the rest of us) and each of us receiving $5,000 PFD in full….. Can you even imagine the impact on our economy?

    • What about the other money that was stolen we here nothing of this and if we think that the dividend is all they want then we are stupid they want the whole fund not just the earnings reserve

    • You are exactly right. We are owed retroactively and what is supposed to happen into the future? Stop this now so we don’t have to deal with this in the future.

  14. Dave get a grip what is happening is not good for the state all it does is weaking our state and puts the people at a disadvantage we pay the wages of all state employees and government employees and that makes us the boss and as it stands they all should be fired for poor performance

  15. Here’s the thing. A lot of Alaskans depend on dividends for income. Their livelihood. Another point is that most times the more money people have it usually goes back locally invigorating businesses and the area. Yet another reason is accountability. The formula for tabulating is written down so that every Alaskan gets their fair share. I urge you Governor Dunleavy to do the right thing and veto them. Thanks for your ear!

  16. I find it amusing that those who defend big $tate budgets often invoke how they are defending the poor and helpless in society. Presumably, big program budgets provide needed services to those in need. Take child support enforcement for example, every deadbeat dad gets his PFD taken from him and it is sent to the mother of his children. A full PFD helps these single moms and children. Is the Speaker of the House and our Senate President on board with helping these poor in our midst? Then Fully fund the PFD! Stop hurting the poor single Mothers!

Comments are closed.