Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Policy Pfd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Republicans warn PFD math doesn't add up; debate permanent fund structure, taxes and gas‑line revenues
Summary
Senate Republican members at a press conference said the numbers currently discussed for maintaining a sizable Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) are inconsistent with other spending proposals and cautioned against raising taxes without a comprehensive fiscal plan. Senators also discussed the gas‑line project, AGDC and potential revenue implications.
Senate Republican lawmakers used a press briefing to challenge recent majority statements about the state's fiscal situation, saying proposals to increase spending — including education funding and defined‑benefit costs — conflict with plans to preserve a significant Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) without new, unspecified revenues.
At the outset, one senator said: “If we're going to be fiscally responsible, we cannot spend more money than we are taking in.” The same lawmaker told reporters that “the math does not add up” if the PFD remains at roughly $1,400 while new spending is added, and that raising new taxes to preserve the PFD would amount to “take money from the private sector” and redistribute it as a dividend.
Senator Schauer, who identified himself as a former member of a fiscal policy working group that proposed a comprehensive package, said he will not vote for a single tax unless it is part of a broader fiscal plan that includes a spending cap tied to inflation and other fiscal reforms. “I'm not gonna vote for a single tax… until we enact a comprehensive fiscal policy,” Schauer said.
Schauer also said he is not supporting SB 92 (a bill discussed during the session) because he believes passing it would risk deterring future investment in Alaska. “Passing SB 92 would deter that possibility,” he said, and placed that position on the record.
Permanent Fund structure and POMV: reporters asked whether the caucus has considered changing the Permanent Fund structure (including the ERA and moving to a single account). One senator warned such changes could “march down the path of making the PFD extinct,” and others suggested options to stabilize withdrawals — for example, lengthening the averaging window for the POMV draw from four to five years to smooth volatility.
Gas‑line and AGDC: responding to questions about the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) and whether the state should continue supporting the agency, a senator on the resources committee said he believes the current prospects are more favorable than in past decades. He noted confidentiality constraints on private negotiations but said international markets appear to be aligning and that state funding beyond a $50 million FEED backstop may not be required unless the state seeks a larger equity stake.
No formal motions or votes were taken at the press conference. Senators said further caucus discussions will continue and another press event is possible if an education or fiscal package moves forward.
