The Weekly Top 3
The Weekly Top 3
The Weekly Top 3 (2.9.2026)
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
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 February 9, 2026.
This week, our top 3 issues are these: 1) we explain how the response of the House Finance Committee to the Governor’s proposed fiscal plan badly fails working class Alaska families (2:08), 2) we discuss how their reaction to the Governor’s proposed fiscal plan proves even “progressives” really don’t care about the economic situation faced by working class Alaska families (19:18), and 3) we explain how the new data on non-resident workers acts as a report card on how the Legislature is treating working age Alaska families, giving them a failing grade (39:39).
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.
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 February 9th, 2026. 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 a.m. I join Michael weekly in the first hour of Tuesday show from 6.10 to 7 a.m. 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, Medium.com. 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 can also 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. This week, our top three issues are these. First, we explain how the response of the House Finance Committee to the Governor's proposed fiscal plan badly fails working class Alaska families. Second, we explain how their reaction to the governor's proposed fiscal plan proves even progressives really don't care about working class Alaska families. And third, we explain how the new data on non-resident workers acts as a report card on how the legislature is treating working-age Alaska families, giving the legislature a failing grade. Now, let's join Michael.
SPEAKER_00:Well, you know, we keep hoping that the adults in the room will be adulting, but it turns out that uh that seems to not be the case. Uh we're going to jump into the weekly top three. Number one, uh, how house finance hath embarrassed themselves. Let's uh let's get into it.
SPEAKER_01:Michael, uh the members of the House Finance, indeed, the members of all the members of the legislature, I would, I would bet, I would wager, governor, all the governor candidates uh are have all run on at least one platform that's the same across the board. And that is Alaska needs a fiscal plan. Alaska needs to get its fiscal house in order, to get a foundation, a solid foundation set on the fiscal side, and then we can start you know working on other things once we have that solid foundation set. And and I am sure that those representatives that went elected, uh, when they caucused uh uh put themselves forward for house finance as as the committee they want to be on on the platform that they would work on a fiscal plan. They were committed to working on a fiscal plan to uh to uh lay that foundation for the state and move it forward. Governor Dunleavy, uh it took him seven years, but Governor Dunleavy finally proposes a fairly complete fiscal plan, has holes in it, but the building blocks are there. I mean, in last Friday's column in the landmine, I put those building blocks together and showed how you can get a balanced budget uh at a POM V 5050 PFD uh through the first next 10 years and beyond. He put the building blocks there uh to start uh working on a fiscal plan. And and every legislator would have run on a platform of we need a fiscal plan. They would have run when they ran to be put on house finance on, you know, we need a fiscal plan, and I'm willing to work on it. Dunley puts the plan out there. If the Department of Revenue comes to talk about the plan, Dunleavy also, before that, has ICER do a study, a new study, a 10-year update on the 2016 study, a very important study that we'll be talking about for the next, probably the next decade until we do the next update. Uh, but Icer does a very detailed study that that has a lot of good data in it that you need to dig into to understand. And I've been digging into it since the day that they that they published it, and I'm still finding new things as I go through it. ICER puts a plan out there. Uh, the governor finances ICER, you know, doing the research and independent research to to put together uh uh the components uh of a fiscal plan, not a full fiscal plan. ICER didn't do that, but to analyze the components that would go into a fiscal plan and enable you to sort of see what those components would do. They come to a hearing last week before the legislature, and I gotta admit, I was just embarrassed for the members of the legislature. Now, the legislature is trying to spin this that they're embarrassed about how the administration performed in this hearing. But it was a put-up job. I mean, it was the legislature who was setting the tone, it was the legislature asking the questions, it was the legislature making the statements, and they were just looking for opportunities to pick at the administration. Oh, you didn't do this, oh, you didn't do that, oh, you didn't do this other thing. And it was just an embarrassing performance by the House Finance Committee members all the way around the circle, from the chairman down to the down to the newest member on the Republican side. It was just an embarrassing performance all the way around. None of them, none of them started with or or or led with, okay, you've put some building blocks out there, we can start working with this to put together a fiscal plan. Like I promised my constituents when I ran, and like I promised my my fellow representatives when I ran for house finance, we can see some building blocks, we need to get ICER in here, we need to understand that study better. Uh, we need to start seeing what the implications are of these various of these various pieces. None of the legislators did that. To a person, as you go around the table, to a person, they nitpicked, they argued, they tried to undermine, they picked on on on you know the the the fact that the Department of Revenue hadn't researched to the nth degree every aspect of the of the plan, notwithstanding the fact the usual tone in these in these hearings is well, will you get back to me on that? Will you study that and get back to me on that? Not have you studied it in advance of this hearing thinking that I may think it up. Um, uh, and if you didn't, oh, you're just a horrible person. Usually in these hearings, it's will you get back to me on that? None, none of the of the tone of the legislature was like that. Um, and it's just, I mean, it's embarrassing that we have a House Finance Committee, one of the major committees in the legislature, one of the two biggest uh uh major legislat uh committees in the legislature with Senate finance. We have a committee that was just satisfied with nitpicking and with and with just you know trying to undermine the study because they hadn't studied every aspect of it to death on the date before the date that they came out and rolled it out uh to the committee. The and and the other thing about this, Michael, is we have a whole ICER study that's just packed full of information and in fact answers a ton of the questions that the House Finance Committee members asked. I I will I will say that I'm a little disappointed that the the Department of Revenue didn't wasn't as familiar with the ICER study and could and could say, well, the ICER study says this, but but we have a full ICER study that that you know has has come has a lot of data, tells you a lot of different things. And the legislature is uh is now, according to the headlines yesterday in the Alaska Beacon by James Brooks, Alaska legislators say governor's fiscal plan is likely dead after first week of hearings. It's not first week, it's first day of hearings, is likely dead without even scheduling up ICER to uh to walk through a lot of the issues uh that the legislators uh raised. It's just, I mean, it's embarrassing. We have a House Finance Committee that really doesn't care and really isn't committed to getting a fiscal plan. They just want to score political points, political coup uh as they as uh as they go by. So I I my takeaway from this is to a member, including the Republican members that claim otherwise, to a member, they're just satisfied with letting the PFD go. They don't want to put together a fiscal plan that would actually save the PFD, even in a reduced form. They don't want to put together a fiscal plan that would actually allow the legislature to plan from year to year to year. They just want to they just want to continue to ride on the PFD until the end of it. They'll say they don't want to, but to a person, none of them picked up on the on the on the governor's offering, picked up on the building blocks that the governor put out there, picked up on the opportunity of the ICER. To a person, none of them picked up on that and said, okay, let's start building a plan from here. Let's take, let's take what the governor's proposed, let's take the building blocks that are in there, and let's start putting together a plan. To a person, none of them did that. And the and the and what that leaves, the only way you balance the budget if you're not going to have a fiscal plan that includes at least some alternative revenues and some spending caps and some uh and some other things the governor proposed. What that leaves is the PFD. And and they seem to be content, and I'm and I'm talking to the Republican members who say they aren't. They seem to be content with just squeezing the PFD to the end. They'll be they'll be complaining about it. Oh my gosh, we need a fiscal plan to preserve it. But they they seem content to just squeeze it out until the end.
SPEAKER_00:You know what? Well, and and that again, that Commonwealth North thing that we went over yesterday with Kathy Geisel, where she's talking about all the things that the$685 million could have been spent on backfilling Medicaid and SNAP and everything else. I mean, let alone all the other things. Uh, they're all, you know, again, they're saying the quiet part out loud, they're gonna take the PFD, folks. That's what that's what it's about. But what killed me was all the different comments, and there were three or four different comments, all basically paraphrasing them, smashing them all together, basically said, We we just don't have time to do all this this year. We just don't have time. I mean, we've only got three and a half or four months, but we just don't have time to go through all this and uh, you know, well, like where was this before? Why, why did he wait to the last minute? Not like we couldn't do it ourselves, not like we couldn't pull it all together, not like Ben Carpenter didn't try and do some of these things uh, you know, over the last two years or anything else. But oh, it's just, it's just, it's too little, too late. So we're only left with one thing, and that's taking the PFD, which we'll be sorry about, but we're gonna do it anyway.
SPEAKER_01:You know, the thing about that is is the governor offered two things. One, he offered the fiscal plan, and he funded the ICER study. And the ICER study answers a lot of questions. Uh, it it may answer all the questions as you get into the as you get into the nuts and bolts of it, but it it uh answers a lot of questions. And it really short circuits a lot of the a lot of the work that the legislature is complaining that they would have to do. I mean, so the legislature would say, well, what's the effect of doing a sales tax this way, or what's the effect, what's the regional effect of doing it that way? The 2016 ICER study answers the regional impacts. What's what's the what's the effect of of you know max uh mixing these two together? What's the effect of that? It's there, and it really, I mean, yes, it would take work, it would take hard work. Uh, and but that's what you run for the finance committee to beat to do. And you and you ran on to your constituents saying you you want to have a fiscal plan, you're there to help develop a fiscal plan. Well, do the frigging work to to develop the fiscal plan. It's just right, it's embarrassing to have a legislature that's that's charged with doing what's in the best interest of Alaska and and just you know entirely just you know completely muffing the ball and and and being proud of the fact that somehow they they muffed the ball.
SPEAKER_00:Well, and I love how yesterday, again, uh uh Natasha von Imhoff from that Commonwealth thing was like, well, you know, they got this ICER report, but why didn't they call Wood Mackenzie? Why didn't they call Solika? Why didn't they call, you know, I encourage the legislature to pull their own study in and do more to study the study that studied the study before? And because apparently ICER is just not good enough. Uh, you know, but that's that's already the direction that they're going.
SPEAKER_01:It's delay, Mike, Michael. All of this is just is just delay tactics to excuse inaction on the part of the legislature, to excuse not doing the work on the part of the legislature. I mean, why didn't you have you know somebody from Britain study something? Uh, because that might have had some some contributory effect. It's just it it's all one effort at delay after one effort at delay after delay after delay. Knowing that what that does is lead you to the PFD cuts.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. Well, this is just it's leading us to destruction. That's what it is, because they just don't want to do a final word on this segment, Rob Myers gets it. He says, in 2020, we passed the budget in two weeks. In 2008, we completely overhauled the oil tax code in two months. It's not about time, it's about whether we want to. And that's a hundred, a hundred percent right there uh on it. This is so irritating to watch these guys just go at and and lay every excuse in the book in front of us. But again, everybody's saying, well, we just, you know, we just don't. If only he'd put this out last year or the year before or seven years ago, you know, we would have had time to go through it and and uh and yeah, just this whole thing of uh, oh, we just just couldn't do that to Alaskans. We just couldn't do that to Alaskans, we couldn't hurt them financially by doing this. Instead, we're just gonna take the PF. I mean, right? I mean, that's what it keeps coming back to. Oh, how is this gonna hurt? How is this gonna affect Alaska? Where was your where was your concern when you started taking thousands of dollars from Alaskans in the form of a PFD cut? I mean, where was that?
SPEAKER_01:And there's no recognition. I mean, Nellie Jimmy, I started, I started laughing at at as as she went on. I mean, there's no recognition that that a piece of this is a return, restoration of a significant share of the PFD back to POMB 5050. So that's putting cash in their hands. No recognition of that. It's all, oh my God, you're taking cash out of Alaskan's hands, you're gonna be taking cash out of rural Alaskan's hands through this, through the sales tax, or you're gonna be taking cash out of out of you know, various, various groups, name the group, uh AML. You're gonna be taking cash out of our out of our members if you if you do this. No recognition that it's a two-step process. The first step is to put big cash back in their hands, to take that cash out of being used as credits uh to prevent to protect non-residents and others from paying taxes, putting cash back in the hands of real Alaskans. And then, and then, yes, there is a tax, but that tax takes much less than than what you've put back in their hands in terms of PFDs. And the net net for 80% of Alaska families, when you go through the ICER study, when you go through the ITEP study before it, when you go through the 2016 ICER study, they all say the thing, same thing. The net net is that 80% of Alaskans end up better off by putting that money by putting that money in their hands, even if even if you have to use taxes to raise to raise additional monies. No recognition of that. None. It's just, I mean, it's it is it is horrible. There is no legislator on house finance that I would unfortunately I've already given money to one of them, but but there's no legislator on house finance that I would that I would donate to now. They're just all useless.
SPEAKER_00:How about the resurrection of the uh how about the resurrection of well, I'm just not gonna tax somebody to give everybody else free money? Uh, you know, not that it was dead dead, but I mean they brought it back up. Will Stapp is requoted, I'm just not gonna tax, I'm just not gonna take peep money from people and give it to other people. It was already that's not what's going on.
SPEAKER_01:Again, look at the ICER study. Again, talk through the the the the that statement. Ask that statement of somebody who's done the study. And the answer is what you're doing is you're taking money through the sales tax, you're taking money increasingly from non-residents to keep to allow residents to keep money in their pockets. There's a 20% difference in the ICER study. There's a 20% difference between the amount taken out of Alaskans' pockets through PFD cuts and the amount taken out of Alaskan pockets by using a broad-based sales tax. 20% difference. Alaskans keep 20% more money in their pockets by by taking it out through a sales tax as opposed to taking it out through PFD cuts. It's not, we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are broadening the base so that so that non-residents, as occurs in every other state in one form or another, so that non-residents are contributing to the cost of Alaska government. And through a sales tax, we have a significant amount of contribution that comes from comes from non-residents. When Alaskans go to another state, 40 seconds. When Alaskans go to another state, they contribute to the cost of government in that state, either through a sales tax or if they work in that state through through an income tax. None. Alaskans get no benefit from non-residents coming up here. The governor's proposal did that, it broadened the base. And staff and others who ignore it are just they're anti-Alaska family. They they want to protect non-residents, oil companies, and others at the expense of Alaska families.
SPEAKER_00:Number two of the weekly top three, where the legislature lets perfect become the enemy of good. Brad.
SPEAKER_01:You know, we talked about it in the first segment. We talked about over the break. We're going to continue talking about it here because it's just so infuriating and it's so and it's so um counterintuitive to what's in the best interest of Alaska. So the so legislators, including those who purport to be concerned about middle and lower income Alaska families, who purport to, like Elise Galvin, like Nellie Jimmy, like um uh uh Neil Foster, uh, and others who who say, you know, we're our primary concern is looking out for middle and lower income Alaska families. It's not. I mean, so so what happened was we have the governor's proposal that's a sales tax, and admittedly, a sales tax is more regressive than an income tax, but it is certainly less regressive, hugely less regressive than PFD cuts, which is what we've had and what we'll continue to have if we don't have a substitute for it. They all Neil, Nelly, Elise, all chimed in on the let's dump on sales tax proposal, uh, because it's bad, because it might increase costs in one way for Alaska families uh uh as a result of its slight regressivity. They didn't even ask what the regressivity was. The regressivity of the sales tax that Governor Dunling proposed Governor Dunling proposed is very slight because it's so broad and it picks up so many things that that that upper income families buy and certainly non-residents buy, the regressivity uh um uh line is is fairly slight, certainly compared to other uh other, it's certainly compared to PFD cuts and other ways that you could construct uh sales taxes or or other tax approaches. But nonetheless, they let the enemy be the perfect, the the perfect be the enemy of the good by saying, oh, well, it's not perfect. It's not a progressive income tax, to use Elise Galvin's words. It's not it's not something else to use Nelly Jimmy's words. It's it it they let the they let the perfect be the enemy enemy of the good. And I don't think that that they really care about that. There was a couple, Matt Buxton is a former reporter, now a blogger, uh, proudly on the progressive side of things, uh, writes from a progressive viewpoint. blogs from a progressive viewpoint. He has a um uh uh a uh uh blog the title the blog of the title or title of the blog is the Alaska memo and it's and it's a good read i mean uh matt uh puts together words in a good way and and it's coherent um he had two posts two blog posts very close together that just highlight how how uncaring even the progressive side is about the impact of of what's going on the impact of the fiscal policy that we have currently on middle and lower income Alaska families the the first one is from May 2nd or February 2nd it's titled the Alaska Disconnect and the subtitle is ultimately as the report outlines and he's talking about the ICER report the question of who pays is not just about Alaskans versus non-residents but poor and middle income Alaska middle class Alaska versus ultra wealthy Alaska and that blog mostly concentrates on the fact that we have this income divide as we've talked about income gap as we've talked on the show before between uh uh upper income Alaska families and middle and lower income Alaska families this huge divide uh but in in in the state and talks about how tax policies affect those income groups differently basically goes down the ICER study and and focuses on the fact that lower middle and lower income Alaska families are paying a lot more through PFD cuts having a lot more impact adverse impact on their economic situation through PFD cuts than upper income Alaska families are and that it's it's having a a significant adverse impact on middle and lower income Alaska families that is that is his blog on February 2nd on February 6th in response to the Dunleevy plan he comes out uh with a with a blog that says this headlined legislators local governments and Alaskans pan Dunleavy's silly sales tax pitch Dunleavy's in the subheadline is Dunleevy's flimsy fiscal plan ran into one of the most thorough demolitions of a bill to take place over the course of a single legislative day and it goes through and says how the sales tax is horrible and the sales taxes you know would be would pile up costs on on middle and lower income Alaska families that it's regressive uh and that it and that it would you know hit uh hit families in the bush not a word not a word in this blog in this post about the fact it would be a heck of a lot better than PFD cuts it would put more money you would end up with more money in the pockets positive money in the pockets of middle and lower income Alaska families with the trade-off of replacing PFD cuts with sales taxes not a word about that in this blog so you go in the span of what four days from a headline talking about the Alaska disconnect and how horrible it is that middle and lower income Alaska families are being hurt through PFD cuts and about how the Alaska fiscal system is tilted against middle and lower income Alaska families four days to a blog that talks about a uh Dunleavy's silly sales tax pitch and flimsy fiscal plan without mentioning without mentioning the the the impact of of restoring the PFD to a POMV 5050 I don't think you know I don't think progressives even progressives care about middle and lower income Alaska families I think what this is exposing is that progressives care more about government spend and more about them being able to direct to direct what is what what income flows into or what benefits flow to middle and lower income Alaska families I think this I think this exposes that they care more about their control over it than they do actually about middle and lower income Alaska families having more economic economic economic staying power. I think what it's showing is they don't really care about the circumstances facing middle and lower income Alaska families they only care about what the government is able to do the government having enough money to you know be a hero and come in and and and and do all these things for middle and lower income Alaska families and the easiest way to get money because because you don't want to talk about taxes the easiest way to get money is to just keep the PFD up in the air and allow the legislature to continue siphoning from the PFD to fund the the programs that they believe are important to middle and lower income Alaska families it is it it the the the hypocrisy of of of what that what that hearing the House finance hearing revealed about progressives revealed about Republicans who claim they're you know all in favor of preserving PFDs the hypocrisy that revealed about progressives and the hypocrisy that it revealed about uh about their concerns and others' concerns for middle and lower income Alaska families I think is just is is is is huge. And and the same thing on the Republican side. I mean you have Republicans who ran on we got to we got to find ways to preserve the PFD. We got to find ways to make sure that that money gets to Alaska's pockets. Well the governor proposed a way to do exactly that to do exactly that to make sure that middle and lower income Alaska families are better off now than they than they have been for the last seven years. Finally the governor finally got a around to proposing a way to do that and a big part of that way is to is to restoring the PFD back up to POMB 5050. And then you have Republicans run away from that Republicans who ran on finding a way to preserve the PFD. You have Republicans running from that running away from that so I think I think this I think the hearing was huge in terms of what it revealed about the motivations of both sides. Neither side really cares well I mean about middle and about middle and lower income last year.
SPEAKER_00:No Brad the one thing that they care about and I've been saying this for years is that they control the spend because in their heart of hearts they know better than you how to spend your money. That's what it's about as long as they control where the money goes as long as they are in charge of it then they're satisfied and they will not give an inch or take in under in under consideration any plan that would remove from them the ability to make those decisions they want to control and plan the economy right they don't want the free market to work they don't want they don't want it out of their control. That's what it's about this is about control and knowing better than us how that money should be spent.
SPEAKER_01:And it's both Democrats and Republicans Michael I mean it's not just absolutely it's it's not it's not it's not just Democrats. It's both Democrats and the Republicans are involved in Easter thing the other day uh uh you know oh it's six hundred and eighty five million dollars that we're wasting on giving to the public we could spend those things on so many great things like SNAP and Medicaid and housing and all these other things they i mean this is this is truly what they believe yeah yep and and it and it's across the board I mean what we've done and and and I've done analyses for several columns in the in the Alaska landmine that shows this what we've done is we elect we have elected a bunch of upper income Alaskans I mean you they can't they can't avoid being upper income because the legislative pay has been increased to the level that it puts them in the upper income even if they don't have any outside income they're upper income we've elected a bunch of upper income families a bunch of upper income Alaskans who who are dependent on donors who are in the upper income and we don't limit donations anymore contributions anymore so you have unlimited donations coming in from upper income families and non-residents and corporations coming into coming into these legislators we've elected a a an upper income looking out for um uh legislature and and they just make excuses i mean just like this hearing just like the hearing attacking the governor over the sales tax they just make excuses for why they don't do anything else knowing that if they can pick at what anybody comes up with that they will be able to maintain using the PFD maintain using the the source that has the lowest impact on upper income and non-residents and uh and and and the corporations you know at least galvin I can just go off on for days but Elise Galvin says well I've proposed a progressive income tax I think that's the solution if you look at Elise Galvin's progressive income tax it's like this thin veneer on top of continued deep PFD cuts it raises maybe a hundred a hundred keep in mind that the deficits are 1.6 billion elise galvin's income tax raises 100 million or 150 million maybe on a good day even 200 million a fraction of of what the of what the deficits are how does she raise the remainder of the deficits pfd cuts so she goes she goes around saying oh well I've got this proposal that you know that would that would you know be be better for lower and middle no it wouldn't once you put once you put the the PFD cut portion with the thin veneer of a progressive income tax that that she's proposed it's still more regressive for middle and lower income Alaska families than a sales tax. Yes she's got a piece of it that's a that's a progressive income tax. Yes she's claims that she can that she can propose a that she's proposed an income tax but when you look at how much it raises compared to the deficit and compared to how much can has to continue to be raised through PFD cuts it is it it it itself is regressive hugely regressive because of the PFD component with it. None of them none of them are serious about looking out for Alaskans none of them are serious about looking out for middle and lower income Alaska families I mean the ICER study says look I can get I can get the share of what Alaskans are having to bear of the deficit down from 86% down to 68%. I can get it down almost 20 percentage points by moving from PFD cuts to a broad based a broad based sales tax. That's huge being able to offload 20% of the deficit to nonresidents is huge. None of them none of them picked up on that all of them just said oh well it's just regressive right you know to to Alaska families without taking into account the impact on non-residents and how much would be raised from non-residents there they don't care. We've elected people who don't care about Alaska families.
SPEAKER_00:They care about one thing they care about one thing and that is being in control of that money and spending the money. That's what they care about uh because as you point out I mean I I keep hearing about well what about the sales tax and what would it do to the bush? Well what would it do to the bush if each person got an additional$2,000 a year uh you know in in the form of a of a 50-50 PFD. What if they got another couple$3,000 you know overall or they got a$3,000 uh dividend I mean what would how much would that offset that as well? Yeah it may look bad on the one side but when you don't include that the upkeep on the on the other side that's where you get you got a minute here.
SPEAKER_01:Well the problem with the Bush is that they've they've survived they've put all of their local costs on sales taxes. So when you add in the state income tax yes you get high numbers but if you look at just the state income tax component with the with the PFD restoration component with if you look at just that it's very it's positive for the Bush not only is it positive for urban Alaska it's positive for the Bush but you know none of the house members none of the house finance members recognize that no they don't want to they don't want to take that at all Frank just drops this on us he said non residents are already paying over 50% of our budget Brad wants more big government because everyone else does it and of course his 50% is what he's talking about is the federal dollars that come into the state uh that's that's what he's saying there the federal dollars that come into the state is already non-resident that's not I mean it it's an apples to oranges comparison and it's not what we're talking about. Every state receives federal funds maybe we receive more than others but the bottom line is that's not non-resident money that's tax those are federal tax dollars that are coming which come from other people don't get me wrong but it's not an apples to oranges comparison Brad oh it's not i it is I mean that's an example of ooh let's pick at something let's let's make up a fact that that's entirely irrelevant to the current discussion let's make up a fact that's entirely irrelevant to the first the current discussion and and say that that undermines undermines your point it's not it doesn't what we're talking about is unrestricted general funds what we're talking about about is how you raise unrestricted general funds and currently we're raising unrestricted general funds and almost entirely at least the deficit portion almost entirely on the back of Alaska families non-residents are contributing zero to covering the unrestricted general fund deficit that the state is running it's uh you know it's it's frustrating to watch but Brad I mean what do you think at this point watching the behavior uh watching the behavior or watching what just happened in this uh finance committee meeting uh and everything else what do you think is gonna happen I mean is this thing just gonna have to come off the rails before anybody is willing to actually look at the problem is that is that what's gonna have to happen is the PFD gonna be gone and then we're gonna be back the following year with a tax discussion and it's not going to generate enough and they're gonna be fighting and I mean what is it going to take you know with this legislature with these House Finance Committee members including the newest one from on the Republican side with these House Finance Committee members I think it is I think I think we are headed for absorbing the entire PFD they say they don't want to but they're not willing to do anything that that prevents that from coming about they're not willing to do anything that protects middle and lower income Alaska families from uh from the from the burdens that uh that they're imposing on them um and I you know with this legislature with with this reaction uh with the statements that they've made I mean even Mike Kronk you know who you would who you would think is is one of the most conservative people in the legislature he's not Mike Kronk sided with Kathy Giesel and Natasha von Imhoff and and others who say well we just need to we just need to take the PFD I mean you you can't have you can't have taxes uh while you while you still have a PFD we're running deeper and deeper into deficits you're gonna you're absorbing more and more of the PFD you're essentially giving up on the PFD even Mike Kronk with legislators like that frankly middle and lower income Alaska families have no chance in the this is what just so that everybody knows this is what Mike Kronk said he said I'm a logic person we're going to tax those people that are productive so everyone gets a check that doesn't work for me that's just not logical to me uh again uh uh making you know more of the same making more of the same arguments and and quite honestly the Senate's worse than the House uh again you could just go back and listen to that Commonwealth thing and hear Kathy Geisel just the almost the anger and the disdain for the fact that they had to spend$685 million on a PFD.
SPEAKER_00:They're just angry about it. You could see Stedman sometimes he gets worked up about it.
SPEAKER_01:He just you know why are we why do we have to spend this money you know we we could do so much better with that than you could you know Michael it's not about the spend you can you I'm not saying they can't they can't spend they shouldn't spend go spend to your heart's content it's about how you raise the money to spend and using PFD cuts they're raising money only from Alaskans taking money only from Alaskans and and they're raising it in a way that has the hardest adverse impact largest adverse impact on middle and lower income Alaskan families spend all you want diesel von Emhoff Steadman spend all you want but it's how you how you're raising the money to fund that spend and by and by doing PFD cut cronk and but by doing PFD cuts you're taking it only from Alaskans and you're taking it largely from middle and in in a way that has the largest adverse impact on middle and lower income Alaska families sales tax you get 20 40 40 42% of a sales tax from non-residents you get 40% 42% that's not right 32% there we go 32% of your revenue nearly a third of your revenue from nonresidents Alaskans would pay nearly a third less would be responsible for a third less of the money because you would raise a third nearly a third from from non-residents raise it that way reduce the impact on on the money you're taking from Alaska families but no they know they'd have to sell their programs then they'd have to explain why we need revenues for their programs through PFDs they just grab the money and go. Even though it has this huge adverse impact on Alaska families.
SPEAKER_00:Don't worry let them eat cake that's why we have all those programs for those people that that was the other thing. Oh we need those monies for those programs forget about the middle class that doesn't benefit from either the welfare state or the corporate cronyism state.
SPEAKER_01:Forget about the middle class the middle class is the one getting squeezed to death on this exact all right Brad Keith Lee Alaska's for sustainable budgets the weekly top three uh we got more data Brad's working on more data here the real significance of the out of state worker data which they just talked about how uh fully uh a quarter or a third of out of state uh of of work in the state is done by out of state workers but Brad dove down into that data and got a little bit uh more on it Brad this there's a theme for for this week's program and and and it will come out in in this one the it the James Brooks the the article on the on the new study from the Department of Labor is in a James Brooks article in the Alaska beacon uh from a couple of days ago four days ago the headline is almost one in four Alaska workers doesn't live in the state new report concludes and it goes on to talk about the growth in that Alaska's had in non-resident workers and they're now they now take up nearly well more than a fifth uh 22.9 percent of the of the workers um in the state a lot of people a lot of people are saying you know well that shows how much of an influx we have for non-residents i'm i look i look at those numbers slightly different a little bit differently what those numbers tell me is we have jobs alaska has jobs for a lot of people Alaska has more jobs than we have people in the state to fill those jobs and and what the what that number really is telling me is we are not attracting workers to fill those jobs we have 25% more jobs um uh that could be filled by Alaskans that aren't because we don't have the workers in Alaska uh to fill the jobs so why aren't people coming to Alaska why aren't people coming to fill those jobs if we have the jobs and and most corporations and most uh uh employers have preferences for Alaska workers if we have the jobs why aren't people coming to Alaska to fill those jobs it's not because we have taxes it's not because we have an income tax we've driven people out we don't it's not because we have a sales tax and that would unfairly that would unfairly um uh uh affect uh you know some group of Alaskans we don't it's we're not pushing those people out through tax policy so why why are we uh pushing them out and if you look at the income data which I do you know periodically once a month I try to dig into the income data and and include it uh in a post if you look at the income data what we have is is a situation in which Alaska income both compared national compared to nationally and compared to upper income families is dropping it is it it is it is dropping in terms of real terms there is some growth in nominal terms that is the numbers increase year after year but after you factor in plate inflation and you and you and you look at those numbers uh after inflation on real in real terms real economic terms the number is either staying steady or it's dropping slightly Alaska is not producing the income that is needed to attract working Alaska families working class Alaska families middle and lower income Alaska families we're not generating the income and it's not because we're taking it out in taxes uh either a sales tax or or or income tax Alaska's not generating the income to attract those families what where where along in there did we start having serious problems not just problems but serious problems oh about the time we started cutting the PFD about the time that the PFD would have started increasing the returns from from the permanent fund investments would have started increasing the PFD in a fairly substantial way putting more money in the pockets of middle and lower income Alaska families we didn't tax them in the normal way through income tax or sales tax we started taking money out of their pockets by by by cutting the PFD and so what we have is we have jobs in Alaska we have the potential to have more people in Alaska because we have The jobs for them if they would if they would come up. Um, but they're not coming. It's not because of tax policy if they're not coming, it's because we're not putting income in their pockets. The jobs aren't paying enough to attract them. And and the state's uh program or the state's uh uh uh uh approach of putting a portion of the commonly held wealth directly in the pockets of its citizens is increasingly being cut. We're cutting our own throat. And so, and so when we talk about the the share of non-resident income or the non-resident workers that are coming into the state and express all this concern about that, and express, you know, some legislators say, oh, well, we need more child care, or oh, we need more this, or we need more of that, or we need more SNAP, or we need more meta. We need more income in their pockets. We need to attract them by saying, you're gonna earn more if you're up here, you're gonna have a better economic life when if you're up here, uh, than than you do where you are else, where we got a job for you, we got a we got we got programs that share the commonly owned wealth with you, uh, and you're gonna have a better life, a better economic life when you're up here. But we don't do that. We we do the reverse. And and so it just sort of sickens me when some say, you know, income tax will drive people out of the state. We're already driving people out of the state. We already have net out migration, we're already not attracting people to the state.
SPEAKER_00:And you've talked about how the largest segment that's leaving right now are those working age, working class families. Those are the ones that are leaving. Again, that middle class is being squeezed out. That's the what that's where the net outflow is coming from. Exactly right.
SPEAKER_01:We we're growing in terms of upper income families. We're growing in terms of in terms of people in the top 20 percent. We are growing, they're growing both in terms of income, real income, and they're growing in terms of numbers the state, as the state population expands, they're growing in num in number as well. More and more uh uh are coming into the into the upper income, upper income brackets. Where we're losing people is in the middle and lower income brackets. And and that's and it's economics. It's just fundamental economics. So when people say, oh, we can't have an income income tax, we'll drive them out of the state. We're already driving them out of the state. What we need is an economic program that leaves more money in their pockets, leaves more money, more of the commonly owned wealth in their pockets than uh than than we do currently.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, Brian says crime, failing schools, low wages, and no PFD, and a legislature that seems increasingly hostile to its citizenry, why would you move here? That's essentially it. Why would you move here?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, well, we're we're finding out that people aren't moving here. And we're and when you look at the income side, when you look at the at the at the at the net income, the real income that we're that that middle and lower income Alaska families, working age Alaska families, are are encountering, you're fine, the answer is obvious. They're they're not gaining any. Where the national average is going up, they're not gaining any, and in fact, they're losing a little bit on our on a real income basis.
SPEAKER_00:Brad Keithley, Alaskans for Sustainable Budgets. 90 seconds, Brad. Here, can you leave us on a high note? Or are we just uh I mean, is this all just waiting for the train to actually hit the bridge?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, it's it's not it's not that we don't have alternatives. We do. Governor Dunley laid out some of them. He laid out building blocks that we could use to build a balanced, fair fiscal policy. He laid out building blocks that we could use to put together to get this state out of its deficits in a way that didn't adversely impact middle and lower-income Alaska families. In fact, made their lives better. It's not that we don't have the the building blocks to be able to do this. We do. The ICER study tells us we do and how we can and shows how, you know, the through their their analysis shows how we could put them together. It we have the building blocks. We don't have the people in place in the legislature willing to take the steps to put it together. And the and the report card on it is in the is in is in the the Department of Labor study that finds people leaving the state. Net outflow in in working-age Alaska families. That's the report card the legislature's getting. They're they're not attracting people to the state. In fact, they're pushing people out of the state.
SPEAKER_00:That needs to change. I've been talking about this for 25 years. You and I have been talking about this going on 12 years. And it's just it's just more of the same. It's just more of the same. We've changed out 60%, 65% of the legislature in the last, you know, six, seven years, and yet it's just more of the same.
SPEAKER_01:We we elect is part of it, Michael, is we elect people who say one thing, who talk a good game when they're when they're running, who talk about, you know, being concerned about working age Alaska family, working class Alaska families, who talk about, you know, maintaining the PFD, who talk about limiting the scope of government, you know, uh limiting the increase in government costs, who talk a good game about that, but then don't follow through. And and you can say, well, maybe it's the leadership once they get down to Juno, maybe it's the Juno bubble, maybe it's you know the fact that they were lying to their to their constituents, maybe it's the fact that they just don't know any better and they're just you know being led along by the nose. It's probably a combination of all of those things. But but that's what's happening. We're electing people who are talking a good game and then are running away from it uh when they when the rubber hits the road down in uh down in Juneau. And it's you know, I I don't know how you fix that. Well, I don't know. I when people lie to you, when people tell you one thing and then don't follow through on it, and you uh you elect them because they're saying the right things, you donate to them because they're saying the right things, and then they don't follow through on it. I don't know how you I don't know how you fix that.
SPEAKER_00:You don't donate to them anymore, but right. Well, Rob has been talking about this in his series, and again, he talks about the structures and the incentives that are baked into this system, and that's what needs to change. And he says right now, after changing out 75% of the legislature in the last decade of this problem, it looks highly unlikely we'll get different results by electing new people without structural change. We've got to change the incentivization, uh, you know, and the structure of that before we put new new bodies in this in the chairs, but those bodies that are already in the chair are the ones that vote on whether there's structural change.
SPEAKER_01:That's I mean, that's that it's a chicken and egg problem. I mean, it really is. So we've so we've elected people who say they will help bring about the structural change, and then they don't. Mike Kronk. Mike Kronk, if if there was ever a guy who you would think would be sticking right to, sticking to, you know, what's good for middle and lower income Alaska families, what's good for Alaska families overall, how to how to reduce the burden on them by shifting a significant portion of it to non-residents? If there was ever a guy you thought was going to do that, it'd be Mike Kronk. He's just walked the exact opposite way. And it's just, I it's just, I mean, how do you deal with that? How do you deal with people who won't follow through, who don't follow through and what they on what they say they're going to do? How do you deal with people who you know sign on for one thing when they're running and then walk away once they get down to down to Juno? You vote them out, but you vote, but you got to vote somebody in who'll do it differently. And as Rob says, and as Michael, you say, we have we have replaced a bunch of these legislators, but we've just replaced them with the people who with people who do the same things once they get to Juno.
SPEAKER_00:Right. Well, at least you've got to have somebody who has the flexibility of when they hit the ground and realize that there's a major crisis, instead of poo-pooing the suggestions that are placed in front of them, then you should come up with an alternative instead of just poo-pooing it.
SPEAKER_01:Or you should, or you should study the one that's in front of you. You should say, Okay, thanks, thanks for the presentation. Let me think about this. We'll get back to you and we'll start and we'll start working on this together. Instead of, you know, the day after the hearing saying, Well, that's dead. We're not doing that this session. Maybe we'll do it in future sessions. No, you won't. You're you're just happy to take the to keep riding the PFD on down. That's what this has shown. Every member of House Finance has shown they're just happy to keep riding the PF PFD on down. I it's just disgusting.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah. Well, and you watch it and you see this going on over and over and over again. And at some point, I think this is why people just at some point just throw their hands up and go, they walk away. They walk away from they're gonna like, we're just gonna, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. If I can live with it, I can. If I can't, I'm gonna leave. Because that's that's that's where they're at, right? I mean, that's where they're at right now. They can't deal with this anymore. Uh, they can't deal with the with the with the fight uh because they're just exhausted by it. I feel that. Like I said, you and I have been fighting this for over a decade. I've been fighting it for two and a half. I mean, and and at some point you just gotta go, nobody's listening, nobody gives a shit. It just doesn't matter anymore. So we're just gonna pull a plug and walk away.
SPEAKER_01:You you you fight and you think you've made progress, you think you've met you've elected somebody, you've contributed to somebody, you've elected somebody who's gonna make a difference. And then they don't. Yeah. And and then they and then they, you know, are part of a committee that just dumps on the administration when the administration tries to propose something. It wasn't perfect. I mean, there's a bunch of holes in it and and things that needs to be that it needs to be done to make it to make it workable. But it at least it was an effort. Came seven years too late, but at least it was an effort to start to start building, you know, putting the building blocks together to to solve this problem. They don't they don't want to solve the problem. None of the House Finance Committee members, as you go around that table, none of them want to solve the problem. They're all perfectly happy to keep the problem, you know, so they can talk about it. Ooh, it's a problem. You need to re-elect me so I can solve that problem. But to keep it going without solving it.
SPEAKER_00:Well, and I think it's an indication of what I just said when Kevin says we in this chat are all agree, but the majority of the comments for those of us who got elected are receiving from Alaskans are not the same that we see in here. Because again, they've discovered they can vote themselves largesse out of the treasury and uh they don't want to stop the gravy train. And everybody else like us has gotten so frustrated, we just walked away, you know, threw our hands up and said, F it, we're we're done. And they're not, they're not because why? We had four hours of commentary here a few years ago about the PFD that was four hours 99% positive. And in the end, they're like, Well, you just don't understand, right? I mean, you just don't understand. All right, Brad, I gotta let you go. Thank you for coming on board. Um, take some blood pressure medication and a drink. That's all I can say.
SPEAKER_01:Thanks so much. Michael, thanks for having me. 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 for another edition of the weekly top three.
