The Weekly Top 3
The Weekly Top 3
The Weekly Top 3 (7.14.2025)
Welcome to The Weekly Top 3 — our look at the top 3 things on our mind here at Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets — for the week of July 14, 2025.
This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) while the OBBA increases access to potential new oil fields on federal lands, we discuss whether it will actually result in new development and, more importantly, additional state revenues (2:17), 2) we discuss the fundamental economic issue we believe the candidates for Governor need to address in the coming election cycle (21:20), and 3) we explain why we think one journalist should listen to himself and follow his own advice that he recently gave in an op-ed piece (36:01).
The Weekly Top 3 is a regular weekly segment on The Michael Dukes Show. The Show broadcasts on Facebook and YouTubeLive as well as via streaming audio from the Show’s website weekdays from 6–8am. We join Michael weekly in the first hour of Tuesday’s show, from 6:25–7am, for a discussion between the two of us about our three issues.
Hi, this is Brad Keithley, managing Director of Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets. Welcome to the weekly top three, the top three things on our mind here at Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets for the week of July 14th 2025. The weekly top three is a regular segment on the Michael Duke Show. The show broadcasts on both Facebook Live and YouTube Live as well as via streaming audio from the show's website. Weekdays from 6 to 8 am.
Speaker 1:I join Michael weekly in the first hour of Tuesday's show from 610 to 7 am for a discussion between the two of us about our three issues. We post the podcast of our discussion following the show on the Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets Facebook, youtube, soundcloud, spotify and Substack pages, also on the Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets website, as well as the projects page on national blog site mediumcom. You can find past episodes of the weekly top three also at the same locations. Keep in mind that, in addition to these podcasts during the week, you also can follow and participate in the discussion with us of these and other issues affecting Alaska's fiscal and economic condition by following us on the Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets Facebook page and through our posts on Twitter.
Speaker 1:This week, our top three issues are these First, while the One Big Beautiful Act increases access to potential new oil fields on federal lands. We discuss whether it will actually result in new development and, more importantly, additional state revenues. Second, we discuss the fundamental economic issue that we believe the candidates for governor need to address in the coming election cycle for governor need to address in the coming election cycle. And third, we explain why we think one journalist should listen to himself and follow his own advice that he recently gave in an op-ed piece. And now let's join Michael.
Speaker 2:We're going to start off with number one, which includes the one big beautiful bill, or as Brad calls it, the one big bad beautiful bill, the badass beautiful bill. And we're going to talk about the details on this, and the big question is number one for today is it going to provide the development we need? And I guess the question is will it provide the development we need in the time frame that we need it? I think that's probably the bigger, more precise question, brad. Good morning, my friend, good morning, sir.
Speaker 1:It's interesting. The real question is will it provide the revenues we need? Right Development's important, but does that development turn into revenues for the state in the timeframe that we need? There have been a series of articles that people have been talking about and I've had questions about including one from Alex DeMarmid, who's the business reporter for the Anchorage Daily News. It starts with there's an article in the Alaska Beacon, but also in the ADN and elsewhere. The headline is USGS report says federal lands in Alaska hold large share of undiscovered oil and gas.
Speaker 1:And then the first paragraph says about half of what's known as the estimated undiscovered, technically recoverable oil lying below federal lands is in Alaska source that there's a lot of oil and gas sitting underneath Alaska lands. But that's only the starting point of any analysis of whether we're going to do better. The next question is whether you can have access to those lands. You may have a huge, huge amount of oil someplace, but if you don't have access to those lands it really doesn't do you any good. And that's where the one big beautiful bill John Hendricks is the one who called it the one big bad beautiful bill, or something like that but that's where the one big beautiful bill comes in. It opens up access to Alaska lands in a way that we really haven't had before. It requires leasing not only on the North Slope, not only in NPRA and in ANWR, but also in Cook Inlet, and really opens up access to potential access in terms of leases issued to additional lands.
Speaker 2:Sorry about that, Brad. We had a little bit of an internet slurp there for a second. There you were saying it's technically recoverable, but that's where the hitch is yeah.
Speaker 1:So the question is whether you can get access to. The first question of several is whether you can get access to those lands, and that's where the one big beautiful bill comes in in terms of providing additional access. Beautiful bill comes in in terms of providing additional access. It requires sets up leasing both in NPRA and in ANWR, additional leasing both in NPRA and in ANWR, and sets up additional leasing also in the Cook Inlet. And so access.
Speaker 1:The one big beautiful bill addresses access in the sense that it opens the potential for access to what may be significant additional reserves. But that's only the second step. The third step is does the geology prove that there's really oil there? What the USGS study is is an evaluation of estimated undiscovered technically recoverable, and what that's really talking about is potential, that potentially there's additional oil on these Alaska lands. And the question is, first, can you get access to it? And then, geologically, is the oil actually recoverable as opposed to technologically recoverable, theoretically recoverable?
Speaker 1:And then the final question is whether it's economic to produce, and we won't know that for a long period of time and, as you and I have discussed, that really in a significant way depends upon the next election. These development horizons or these development timelines are fairly long, even if you have good permitting, even if the permitting times go well. The development times are fairly long and the question is whether producers feel confident enough that they're going to have long-term access that is, if the next election cycle isn't going to snap back and all of a sudden shut down access to these lands whether they're going to have long-term access in a way that justifies the significant upfront investment they have to make in order to recover these reserves.
Speaker 2:And that's part of the problem with the politicization of this whole process back and forth right. What used to be kind of more of a market-driven approach has become so heavily regulated and so involving the government in every aspect. It's been politicized at every turn.
Speaker 1:Yep, exactly right, and so that's a. I mean, that's a big issue whether, when in this cycle, producers begin to feel confident, they can step out. Now I noticed the other day that Conoco had announced or yesterday actually Conoco had announced plans for additional development around Willow, additional development in their share of MPRA on lands they've already leased, and so they feel confident making some additional exploration decisions, some additional development exploration decisions around Willow. But that's really, I mean, they don't have to set up much. Willow's already there, the infrastructure's already there, and so that's a relatively short cycle development that they can go out and explore for and potentially development. So that's a good sign certainly, of additional development. But I truly think some of this is going to hinge on how the 2026 elections go, how the congressional elections go, whether the Republicans hold both houses and whether there's an indication that they're going to continue to hold the presidency after Trump, after this term. And so we're not there where there's a confidence level, I think, where producers are going to be making long-term development decisions. But you know we've got a to be making long-term development decisions. But you know, we've got a ways to go, they've got access, and so that's the first step of many.
Speaker 1:The final step is does that translate into revenues for the state? The one big beautiful bill does provide additional royalties going to the state from the additional development, but NPRA additional development in NPRA is still subject to the local preference. So even though the NPRA revenue sharing steps up under the One Big Beautiful Bill after a period of time, steps up under the One Big Beautiful Bill, it is that additional revenue that additional royalty would go to would be subject to local preference and really go to the North Slope, borough and other localities on the North Slope. It really doesn't help state general fund revenues. It's different in ANWR.
Speaker 1:Anwr is not subject to the local preference and so any development over in ANWR would be the increased royalty that the bill provides for development from ANWR would go to the state. Development from ANWR would go to the state and that's a good thing. But ANWR is several years off. Even if everything works perfectly, even if the leases go off, players significant players take the leases, even if the geology proves that there's oil there, the development timeframe for ANWR and the confidence level they're going to need to develop ANWR is still quite a period off. So, yes, it does provide for potential additional revenues to the state, I mean, opens up the opportunity for that, but but that's a ways off and subject to you know. Are the producers going to have confidence in the next election cycle?
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that raises the question. I mean, of course, one of the big pushes was even the president, and Nick Vega just talked about that and everything else. Now is the time for Congress to act, while they still have some of these priorities, to actually solidify some of these decisions. But is there the political will in Congress to do these things, to lock them in for a longer term so they can't just be subject to presidential whims?
Speaker 1:Well, and, as we found out, that's hard to do. I mean, trump is proving that executive power is much broader, I think, than some anticipated in prior administrations and is proving the power of executive orders in a way that, frankly, we haven't seen before. So, or demonstrating the power of executive orders in a way we haven't seen before. So you're not certain, and uncertainty is not a friend to development. I mean, producers don't want to put a whole lot of money down in, in pursuing a project if they're uncertain. I mean, geologic uncertainty is one thing, technical uncertainty is another thing, but if you've got political uncertainty about whether you're going to continue to have access to to those lands or continue to be able to develop those lands, uh, that's a huge amount of uncertainty, uh, that that producers aren't willing to undertake. I mean, given, given the opportunities available in the world. Um, there are other, more certain plays that you can pursue than uh, than than one that's been so subject to, to uh, a yo-yo, a political yo-yo over the year.
Speaker 2:Somebody just said have a little faith, brad. I don't think this is about Brad having faith. I think this is about the realistic. You know what's going on. That's like saying we, you know, let's just get a gas line now, okay, well, that's great. But there's this little reality called economics that we have to deal with as well. I mean, I'd love to see it, I'd love to see the drilling, I'd love to see all that stuff. But no company or private individual or investment firm is going to dump tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars into a prospect that five years from now could be 100% reversed through executive order. That's part of the problem here. We've got to have congressional underwriting of the direction that the president's going.
Speaker 1:Yeah and continued underwriting. I mean it doesn't do any good for Congress to pass the law now if Congress is going to undo it, if we're going to have a different Congress in four years or a different Congress in two years and they're going to start chipping away at it. So there's a lot of political. I mean people say that oh, america is a safe political region, the safe legal region that you can rely on decisions. You can't. I mean we've seen that we are the poster child. Alaska is the poster child for that about how you get yo-yoed back and forth. So I think what we're going to see is gradual steps.
Speaker 1:First in NPRA Conoco's announcement is a good one. First in NPRA, because we've got existing kit, we've got existing footprint in NPRA that you can just sort of gradually step out on. I think we're going to see gradual sort of testing the waters and stepping out a bit. If there's another president of similar bent with President Trump in 28, from a resource development standpoint, then I think you'll see more significant steps. But it's going to be a gradual process. The mere fact that the USGS says there's oil there and that the One Big, beautiful Bill provides additional access to it, that isn't enough. The economics are important and the economics are subject to the political uncertainty.
Speaker 2:That was Kim saying. Have a little faith, brad. I mean again, it's not about faith, we can have faith. It's just the question of what is the reality of what is coming around to it.
Speaker 1:Investors don't operate on faith. Investors operate on relative degrees of certainty.
Speaker 2:And they want a lot more than just faith before they put the money down. Well, we could be nothing but sterling optimists around here, and it's not going to change a thing unless we address some of the issues that cause that uncertainty. That's the thing. That's why we keep diving into these things. Brian had asked early on but is there a market for all these big, beautiful barrels? Can they be extracted at a profit? Can they be extracted at a profit? And that's the big question. Because all this potential oil? The USGS report. It does not talk about the economics. It just talks about technically recoverable, which means with modern technology, and it's a guesstimate right, but it doesn't deal with the economics of it at all.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it doesn't deal with the economics. Yeah, it doesn't deal with the economics. Interestingly enough, o million barrels a day currently to about 150 million barrels a day by 2050. You remember during COVID and during the early phases of climate concerns, the expectations were that we'd hit peak oil or would hit peak oil somewhere along in here and then start declining in terms of demand peak oil in terms of demand. But OPEC's announcement is, or OPEC's analysis is, that oil is going to continue to grow.
Speaker 1:Now you know that's self-serving in a way. Opec wants oil to continue to grow and wants investors and wants others to believe that oil demand is going to continue to grow. But it was an interesting analysis and it wasn't even that we were plateauing, it was that we were growing. Oil demand was growing by 2050. So there's a range of positions out there. Iea, international Energy Agency, who has been the most successful pessimistic about oil growth, most optimistic about the replacement of oil with renewables and other sources of energy, has gradually tilted its expectations of the future back up to where oil is plateauing maybe a slight increase for a significant period into the future. So, to answer Brian's question, there's a higher expectation of overall oil demand, global oil demand going forward than there has been in the past and the economics of Alaska are good. Once you get past the upfront investment you have to make for Alaska barrels.
Speaker 2:So then it becomes stable once the oil is actually pumping. It's up until that point that it kind of screws you. Brian also said brad, have you heard a report that santos may be purchased by adnoc?
Speaker 1:I don't know what that is, but adnock, it's abu dhabi, the abu dhabi national oil company, um, and that's a AdNoc's play. From AdNoc's side, that's an LNG play.
Speaker 2:We're going to answer Brian's question about the Santos purchase by Abu Dhabi. What's going on there?
Speaker 1:So AdNoc is becoming big in LNG, wants to become big in LNG, global LNG and Santos is, although we know it in Alaska for the PICA development, the oil development on the North Slope. Globally Santos is a big LNG player and when they acquired Oilsearch, which was one of the predecessors of the PICA field, when Santos acquired Oilsearch they acquired a big PNG well, a big LNG project in Papua New Guinea, png what's referred to in the industry as PNG and so they have. Santos really has a big LNG side and AdNoc's interest in Santos is really to scoop up those LNG assets, join them with the LNG assets that AdNoc already has and become an even bigger player in the LNG industry. It's unclear what that might mean for PICA, but look, pica is a good field. It's way down the road in terms of development. It's had previous owners and it's sort of, you know, continued on despite the changes.
Speaker 1:And even if AdNoc for some reason decided that PICA wasn't a strategic fit with its overall view of where it's going, pica would be easily saleable on the market. So an ad doc really wouldn't demand that high a price. I don't think, because ad docs are going to be focused on developing the LNG assets that it would get with Santos. So yeah, it's something that's occurring. Ad docs made a bid, santos has essentially accepted the bid, subject to a lot of conditions, and it's proceeding forward. And yes, it may affect PICA, but I don't think it's going to be a big adverse impact on PICA going forward.
Speaker 2:We move on to number two, which is going to be the big question we're going to be asking ourselves for the next 18 months Will any candidates actually articulate and face the problems that we're facing? They actually address the real problems, Brad. What made you dive into this one?
Speaker 1:Well, there's an article that Nat Hertz, I think, published yesterday and so it will work its way through the various publications. He published it on his Northern Journal, which is his website, but it typically works through the other publications. The headline of it is National Democrats are salivating over a Mary Paltola bid for US Senate. But Alaska's governor's race could be wide open too, and the article is really about could be wide open too, and the article is really about. You know what influences are at play with Peltola's decision on whether she runs for the Senate race or the governor's race. I've heard people speculate on both sides that oh, she's definitely running for the Senate against Dan Sullivan, or oh, she's definitely running for the open governor seats where she doesn't have to face an incumbent. And it's an interesting article. For those who are into the political end of things, it's a good read. There is one interesting tidbit in there. They asked Tom Begich for his reaction to all this and he said if Mary runs for Senate, I am definitely. I, tom Begich, am definitely running for governor. If Mary runs for governor, I am definitely supporting Mary for governor. So Begich essentially implies that he's not the fallback for the Senate race. But if Mary, if Paltoa runs for the Senate, then Begich, tom Begich is the fallback for the, for the for the governor's race, the Democrat fallback for the uh uh for the for the governor's race, the Democrat, uh, fallback for the governor's race. And so we're really, I mean we're, we're beginning to get in this season where candidates are forming. There's something, what like five candidates announced, republican candidates announced already. There was another one, um uh, another one announcing this week a doctor who, uh, uh some speculate can self-fund his campaign like Bill Walker did back in the day. So we're beginning to get a lot of discussion about it.
Speaker 1:But the question I have is is any of these candidates going to discuss the issues that ordinary Alaskans are facing? The middle and lower income, middle income Alaska families that sort of make up the bulk of the state, the middle 60 percent, with the 20 percent down at the low end, 20 percent at the high end, the middle 60 percent, and there's several articles or several publications that have that have raised issues that those middle-income Alaska families are facing. One, the Fairbanks News Minor, picked up a report from the Alaska Department of Labor that says, the headline of which is Economic Report Alaska Inflation Stabilizes, yet Prices Remain High and that's picking up on the Alaska trends. It's a monthly publication from the Alaska Department of Labor economic publication. It's picking up on a story in the most recent Alaska trends that talks about the fact that inflation is sort of leveling off. Alaska inflation is leveling off, which is sort of the good news, but the bad news is that we've had substantial inflation over the last several years which has elevated prices. So the fact is from where they were before COVID. So the fact that we're returning to a normal rate of inflation growth is good news, but the bad news is the prices that have elevated substantially over the past few years due to high inflation are sort of sticking. We're not having deflation where those prices go down. We're just going to continue to experience the impact of the elevation of prices over the past few years. And the Trends article makes a good point about the fact that you really need to continue to focus on the impact of past inflation and where those prices have gotten to For Alaskans. You need to continue to focus on that as much as the fact that we're having moderating inflation going forward and the impact that has on Alaska consumers.
Speaker 1:There's another article in the Frontiersman that says Alaska job growth appeared to slow in May, according to state data. Another in the Alaska Beacon that says health. Healthcare takes big toll on cost of living in Alaska cities. Report shows and it discusses the fact that healthcare in Alaska's major cities Juneau, anchorage, fairbanks is substantially higher than in the nation as a whole and has a huge impact on cost of living in those locations. It's not that it isn't higher elsewhere in the state as well. Also, it's simply that the report focused on the major municipalities and so that's why the report or the article focuses on the major municipalities. It very well could be a big driver and likely is a big driver elsewhere in the state as well.
Speaker 1:So we've got we've got big cost drivers, cost of living drivers, past inflation, health care and and other things that are that are affecting middle income Alaska families. And the question is are the gubernatorial candidates really going to address that? I'm concerned that what we're going to see is sort of particularized focus, like I would not be surprised if Peltola or Begich says I'm going to bring your healthcare down through more government regulation or through more government controls on health care costs. I wouldn't be surprised if Republican candidates said I'm going to bring up jobs or I'm going to bring up the opportunities from jobs through more resource development and I'm going to work with the Trump administration on more resource development. Those are all sort of particularized little nuances, but the question is whether, generally speaking, politicians are going to speak to the broad swath of middle Alaska families in the concerns that they're having dealing with the economics.
Speaker 2:Which would mean that they would have to focus on the private economy. I mean, that's part of the problem. They would have to focus on the private economy instead of it all being about the government sector.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it also brings us back to the PFD. I mean, one of the things that I've continued to harp on and will continue to harp on is the regressive nature of PFD cuts funding government, what government we have funding government through PFD cuts because that is having a big impact, certainly on lower income Alaska families. You see the big impact, certainly on lower-income Alaska families. You see the big impact there. But it's also having a disproportionate impact on middle-income Alaska families. And so we're really, you know, as costs are going up, we're sort of taking out through PFD cuts, we're sort of taking out the base, a component of base income, a component of base revenue to Alaska families by using PFD cuts as the way to fund government. And so, to deal with what Alaska families are facing, we not only need to talk about the cost impact but we also need to talk about what government's doing to make the income side of Alaska families worse off than through PFD cuts, to replace PFD cuts and eliminate the disproportionate adverse effect on middle-income Alaska families that they are experiencing through the use of PFDs as a way of funding government.
Speaker 1:A couple of ways that I think that we need to be talking about. One is oil taxes. I think that, as we've talked about on the show before, I think there is room, there is capacity to reform oil taxes without adversely impacting future development. We are getting significantly less as a share of gross revenues in this decade from SB21 than we got in the prior decade, in the 2010s, and we certainly had investment going on that's resulting in production in this decade, but we certainly had investment going on then. So I think there's room on oil taxes that Canada ought to be talking about and I think there's room.
Speaker 1:I wrote an article that was released yesterday in the landmine yesterday, one of the weekly columns I write, talking about the performance of the Permanent Fund Corporation. We've talked about it on the show before that the Permanent Fund Corporation is significantly underperforming relative to where it could be and that's costing revenues in terms of the level of POMB draws. That's costing significant revenues to government and I think those are things that we can talk about before we ever get to taxes. I mean reforming the tax structure. I think those are things that we can talk about to relieve the pressure on using the PFD as a revenue source, the cost standpoint and talking about, you know, things that affect all of us in terms of cost, but also from the income standpoint, and what the state has done in terms of PFD cuts to regressively reduce the incomes of middle-income Alaska families by using PFD cuts as the state's primary revenue source.
Speaker 2:Well, and this is the 12 million pound gorilla in the room, right? I mean, if we could only get a control of our taxation or of our spending, we could pull all this down, but again, there's got to be the political will to do it. And there's a lot of platitudes that go around from all these different politicians at the various levels, but nobody really seems to be taking a stab at the real problem, which, of course, is that the private economy is continuing to struggle.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I know Bernadette's talked about restoring the PFD and making that a principal's standard for campaign. But you can't do that Realistically, you can't do that. If you don't have replacement revenues you can't restore. I mean, that's what Dunleavy ran into you can't restore the PFD if you don't have replacement revenues to cover at least some of the spending. We can cut spending some, but at least some of the spending that's going on. And so to realistically discuss the issue, at the same time as you discuss restoring the PFD, you're going to have to discuss where replacement revenues are going to come from.
Speaker 1:And if you're not doing that, you're being as disingenuous on the issue as Dunleavy's turned out to be. I mean, Dunleavy talks a lot about restoring the PFD right, I mean his budget came out restoring the PFD but he doesn't. But without replacement revenues it's unrealistic, it's just rhetoric. So we need candidates who are going to deal realistically with this issue, recognize the adverse impact that PFD cuts have had on middle income Alaska families from the income side, work to alleviate what government has done to those families in terms of the regressive taxation of cutting PFDs, but also, at the same time, address where they're going to develop replacement revenues to replace the state's reliance on PFD cuts.
Speaker 2:Which, of course, is the one thing that they don't want to do at this point. You know the biggest thing here, brad, we got about two minutes, but the biggest thing with this whole deal, all the things we've been talking about, is always if we could just get the politicians to open their eyes to see the long term consequences. Right, that's the thing. It seems like everybody's so focused on giving people what they want in the short term so they get reelected. Nobody's looking at the long term costs, the impact on, you know, private economy people. You know anything else, and this is the short sightedness that is politics.
Speaker 1:I mean it has been for 3000 years.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you play, you play to the crowd, you play to the immediacy, but you know, we've got the opportunity on this show at least to talk about the long term and we've got the opportunity to evaluate candidates on whether they have a long-term vision that's realistic and a long-term vision that meets the needs of the 60% of Alaskans that are sort of the baseline of the state. And I think they just get lost in the noise. I think that segment of Alaska gets lost in the noise about, oh, I'm going to appeal to this segment or I'm going to appeal to that segment or I'm going to appeal to this segment. I think that the base of Alaska sort of gets lost in the noise. And one of the things that when I read articles about Peltola or Tom Begich or, you know, the five Republicans that have already announced and the more that are likely to come, when I read those articles I'm going to be looking for and talking about on the show, talking about whether they're really focusing on the fundamentals that affect middle-income Alaska families.
Speaker 2:Well, we'll see. We'll see if our little chats here every Tuesday bring about any more future change. Fingers crossed we could see some of that going on. We're on to number three. This is the one that I've been looking forward to, because I read this, I thought blood was going to shoot out of my eyes as I read this opinion piece. I thought blood was going to shoot out of my eyes as I read this opinion piece.
Speaker 2:Brad's got his top three. His three of the top three is one journalist should take his own advice, and we're talking about Tim Bradner who, generally speaking, is pretty even keeled on most of his reporting and talking and things like that. Pretty even keeled on most of his reporting and talking and things like that. But this opinion piece uh in the, uh in the adn and in other various outlets is just uh, so tone deaf. It says now more than ever, alaska needs civics education in our schools. And uh and brad is like maybe pot and kettle should meet here somewhere in the middle. Right, br? You want to hit me with your thoughts on this?
Speaker 1:Look, tim Bradner is a good reporter. I read his stuff. I read everything that he publishes publicly. At least when I read the Frontiersman, I go through and I make sure that I've read all the articles that have been bylined by Tim, even if they're local Mat-Su politics articles, because he just has some great insights, some great economic insights. He follows some good economic sources and uses those in his stories in a way that I think is very good. But every once in a while he goes off on these tangents, mostly in op-eds, but I'm going to come back and say it creeps into his stories also. Mostly in these op-eds he goes off on these tangents that get a little preachy and a little well preachy Tone deaf, tone deaf, about his subjects, well preachy about Tone deaf, tone deaf, about his subjects.
Speaker 1:And this one you read the title Now More Than Ever, alaska Needs Civic Education in Our Schools is one of those. It starts with focusing on a bill that Senate President Gary Stevens and LB Jackson Gray have proposed that would require a civics course as part of the Alaska K-12 curriculum and would require students to take the civics courses. And, as as Tim writes the story, there's a. He says there's a good reason for this? Because we we're we're in the midst of a of a situation where people aren't paying attention to the constitution, people aren't paying attention to the separation of powers that that that we're, that we're becoming a more dictatorial nation, sort of goes down this road. That, uh, that more dictatorial nation sort of goes down this road that you would expect from a strong Democrat, or you've seen from strong Democrats, about the dangers of this administration, about the concentration of executive power in the office of the president and various things. And Tim's focus is, yes, we need civics education because we need to come back to the basics about separation of powers and about why separation of powers are important and about why constraints on the executive are important, and sort of goes down that road and that people ought to be paying attention to the Constitution.
Speaker 1:Well, the thing that always strikes me when I read one of these things by Tim is that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution, at least in one respect. Whenever you read one of Tim's stories about the PFD, tim always goes out of his way in the story to say that that the, that the pfd, the as as it exists now, is an obsolete statute, and and he rationalizes and justifies the legislature ignoring that statute. That's on the book, still on the books, never been amended, never been changed, about how the PFD is to be calculated, that the legislature is justified in ignoring that statute. He uses that words, he uses those words ignoring the statute that the legislature is justified in ignoring that. Again another word he uses obsolete statute and it strikes me as just sort of pot calling kettle black. I mean, Tim writes this column that goes off on this screed about people not paying attention to the Constitution, not paying attention to separation of powers, not paying attention to the constraints that the executive is supposed to operate under, not paying attention to various things that are in statutes and constitutions and otherwise, and saying you know, we need to restore, we need to have a course that emphasizes that people ought to pay attention to the laws, ought to pay attention to the Constitution, ought to pay attention to the Constitution, ought to pay attention to the statutes that emphasize all those things.
Speaker 1:At the same time, tim is writing stories that says you can ignore statutes because they're obsolete, not because they've been changed, not because a majority of the legislature, with concurrence to the governor, have changed the statute and made it something different, that you just ignore a statute because it's been around too long or it's inconvenient or it doesn't work or whatever rationalization he brings up at any given point in time. Tim's part of the problem, I mean he is in those stories. He is preaching that you can ignore statutes. He is preaching that you can, you know, self-categorize a statute as obsolete and just ignore it and go on about your business. He is advocating, when he does that, he is advocating ignoring law, right, ignoring, ignoring, uh, provisions of law. And I just think I just always think it's really, it's really humorous, it's just, it's just, it's just inconsistent it's hypocritical.
Speaker 2:You're way too nice. It's hypocritical. I mean, at that point I mean welcome to the irish democracy. Right, we're just going to ignore the laws we don't like, oh, but this guy, if he does anything, that we even, oh, oh, man, civics the fall of civilization. I mean, that's again the hypocrisy of this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1:It is, and and I just I I don't know if Tim recognizes it, to be honest Uh, and Tim, if you listen to this segment, uh, along the way, I mean again, you write great stuff.
Speaker 1:I read everything you write, but this is just sort of silly. I mean, it's silly for you to write into your stories how that you can ignore statutes and it's okay for the legislature to ignore the statutes because they're obsolete or because they don't fit the times anymore, when those statutes are still on the books. What I would suggest you do is focus on the fact the statute's still on the books and point out that the legislature is ignoring it, just like you want us to point out that the Congress or the President or whoever is ignoring separation of powers, is ignoring the constitution, is ignoring this, that or other thing. You want us to point that out. We need civics education to be able to identify and point that out. Well, you need to point out also when the legislature is doing the very same thing, when they're when they're ignoring statutes that they wrote not changing them, not amending them, but just ignoring them, the statutes that they wrote that are still on the books.
Speaker 2:No, it's frustrating to watch again. And he does write well. I've read a lot of his stuff, but again this one, your bias, your slip, is showing. I mean, it's just like it's so blatantly clear and, like you said, it actually bleeds back into his other writings. Now, the more you see it, the more you can't unsee it, which is unfortunate Because, again, he does a pretty good job on a lot of things, but this one is just so tone deaf. I read this and I read through it a couple of times, because I'm like do you not see the absolute hypocrisy of what you're talking about here? You know, you, you advocate for all these things to happen in the state simply because you think it's the right thing to do, and just because they can get away with it doesn't mean that they should. And at the same time, things that are falling within the law but are unpopular with you now become the end of civilization. The fate of civilization as we know it is, then, tied to this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and and it's really. I mean, I don't want to, I don't want to blow this too much out of proportion, but but when you write an article, when you write a news article was was supposed to be a news article, and you call a stash, a statute obsolete, you, the writer, believe the statute is obsolete, so you call it obsolete and you rationalize and justify the legislature ignoring that statute as part of your news article. Well, you're having, you're influencing your readers to say well, you know, we can call that statute obsolete, then that statute's obsolete. Then that you know that we can call that statute obsolete, then that statute's obsolete. Then that you know that tradition about how the president ought to act and the constraints the president ought to be under, that that's obsolete. And you can.
Speaker 1:You just lead the reader at least you know, I think you lead the reader to have a much more blasé reaction to you know people ignoring the law elsewhere, when you yourself are writing an article and said that you can ignore the law because it's obsolete, good for the goose, good for the gander. If you want us to pay attention to all the traditions, if you want us to pay attention to the strict separation of powers, if you want us to pay attention to all the traditions, if you want us to pay attention to the strict separation of powers, if you want us to pay attention to all of the stuff over here that's still written down, that hasn't been changed, then you should pay attention to the stuff over here that's still written down and hasn't been changed. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Well, it's almost like he's championing it right at that point. It's like when he says it's the opposite, he's championing the behavior of the legislature, at the same time castigating what's going on with the president or whatever else, uh, and kind of falling into that same trap. And it, and and again, your slip is showing. You know, your, your bias is showing and it if it was just in an op-ed it'd be one thing, but, as you said, it bleeds into all these other things and it becomes very obvious that this is kind of the tact that they're coming from. It's, it's kind of frustrating, because one of the things that I've been critical of is that we just don't have enough journalistic Depth in this state. Maybe journalistic integrity, but also ambition. Journalistic ambition where they actually dig into an article instead of just paraphrasing a press release. They're actually getting okay. They said this let me go over here and get the opposite side and then have a balanced start. You know, that's just not happening for the most part.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, and I agree with that, but that's really, I mean, that's sort of a separate issue, right. I mean that's sort of a. That sort of a are you? Are you telling the full story issue here? In this situation, tim is is becoming an advocate in the middle of the news story by talking about and rationalizing the legislature, ignoring the statute and calling the statute obsolete. It almost gets to the point. Frankly, when I read one of his news stories, I'm, you know, going through with my brain and saying, okay, this is news, this is analysis, this is legitimate stuff. Well, here's Tim's opinion over here. And you got to set that aside and look for the hardcore stuff in there. And it's difficult sometimes, particularly when he's talking about how the state is setting up the budget, because all of this, you know, the, the PFD doesn't count, it's obsolete, it's, it's out of date. All of this doesn't. All of that permeates any story. He does, right, he does on the budget.
Speaker 2:I got about two minutes here. I did want to comment because you've been supporting candidates and I saw your post the other day where it was wasn't Jubilee Underwood, it was Alexi Moore who was under fire for some of the things and you were like good job, and you actually wrote her a check because she's taken a lot of different heat. Can you comment on that real quick, because I thought that was, I mean it's, it's. I thought that was a lot of much ado about nothing. I think there's a faculty contingency out there that's really banging on her about some stuff.
Speaker 1:But what's your take on that? So her district I forget what district number it is, but her district Republican Party sanctioned her for different things or different things, but one of them was supporting Rob Yunt's Senate Bill 133, which is the digital tax what some try to discount, saying the Etsy tax, but is a tax on digital services being provided in the state. Just like we have a sales tax on goods provided in the state, it would have a tax on digital services being provided in the state. The state it would provide it would have a tax on digital services being provided in the state. And she, alexi, had supported Rob's bill, which I thought was a good thing, because we need alternative revenue sources. We need to reduce our reliance on PFD cuts and I thought Alexi supported that.
Speaker 1:So when the district sanctioned her for that I mean, you and I have had this discussion on the show, but there are very few bills out there that have as small an impact, if any revenue impact, on the state as the digital services tax when her district sanctioned her for that and told her she could no longer claim to be a Republican, the district Republican said you can no longer claim to be a Republican.
Speaker 1:No longer use Republican in your advertising, that sort of stuff. You no longer claim to be a Republican because you supported this bill. Oh, that was just outrageous Because, look, we need people who talk realistically, as we talked about in the second segment today. We need people who talk realistically about what we're going to do on the revenue side if we're going to restore the PFD, and and we need people who talk realistically about that. So I thought you know, I thought the district's actions was outrageous, and so I decided to do something about it, and which was write the check at the, at the, at the new maximum that would be set by the initiative that's going to go before the voters in 26. Write a check and say, look, not only am I going to talk the game, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and posted that.
Speaker 2:Anyway, we're out of time. Brad Keithley Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets the weekly top three. Brad, thanks for coming on board this morning.
Speaker 1:Michael, as always, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2:Thank you. I hope you enjoy your concert this Friday. That's what it's all about.
Speaker 1:Well, that's a wrap for another week's edition of the weekly top three from Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets. Thank you again for joining us. Remember that you can find past episodes on our YouTube, soundcloud, spotify and Substack pages, and keep track of us during the week on Facebook and Twitter. This has been Brad Keithley, managing Director of Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets. We look forward to you joining us again next week on the Weekly Top Three.
