Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks during a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, April 9, 2019. (Michael Penn | Juneau Empire File)

Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks during a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, April 9, 2019. (Michael Penn | Juneau Empire File)

Opinion: A public vote on the PFD is worse than doing nothing

You can have your cake and eat it too — you just have to pay for the cake.

Alaska’s past is littered with well-intentioned but poorly conceived ballot questions presented to voters. Adding the Permanent Fund Dividend to that list of politically popular questions now would be as useful as asking a group of 12-year-olds whether they want more candy or more homework.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy says he wants to know what voters think of the dividend. He says an advisory vote could settle the question of who has better hearing: the governor, who says he hears from people who want to get the biggest dividend check of all-time, or legislators, who say they hear from people who want the state to fund schools and community services.

People all too often hear what they want to hear.

While considering the governor’s stand that an advisory vote is the best path forward to fulfill the public’s will, let’s look back at a similar path that led nowhere.

[Opinion: There’s a right way to make budget decisions for Alaska. Then there’s a wrong way]

In 2002, Alaskans cast ballots on a citizen’s initiative for a state-owned North Slope natural gas pipeline (yes, we’ve tried this one before, and the outcome is still the same). The public voted 62 percent to 38 percent to create the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, which was directed to buy gas from the North Slope producers, build a big pipeline to Valdez, use eminent domain to take private property as needed, build a multibillion-dollar liquefaction plant and sell the liquefied natural gas to buyers in Asia.

But nowhere did the ballot question say how much the project would cost or how the state would come up with its share of the money. Nowhere did it talk about the problems of such a venture. The fine print said the new state corporation could borrow all the money it needed, without any risk to the state. Sure, no problem, there are always investors willing to put up tens of billions of dollars just because some voters with no money at stake think it’s a great idea.

The best part of this history lesson is the initiative’s sponsor statement that was printed in the state voter pamphlet: “As Alaska now faces an impending fiscal crisis in coming years, the marketing of its gas in the most prudent and lucrative manner is paramount. Wouldn’t it be better to solve our fiscal problems through an in-state project such as this rather than taxing Alaskans or taking your Permanent Fund Dividend? We think so.”

[Opinion: Call the PFD what it is — a tax]

It was a winning strategy, promoting the gas line as our fiscal savior, solving all of our budget problems and preserving the beloved dividend.

But tens of millions of dollars of state spending and years later, there is no gas line and there is no more Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority. There is only the sad memory that the public embraced a misleading, simplistic, unrealistic ballot question because a majority wanted it to be true.

It’s the same thing today. If the question in Dunleavy’s advisory vote is, “Do you want a big fat dividend with absolutely no consequences?” (other than paying more federal taxes on your dividend), I expect Las Vegas bookies would not even bother taking bets on the outcome.

But if the governor is willing to ask voters an honest question, then at least we would have a fair election: “Do you want a big fat dividend if the price to your community is cutting teachers, increasing class sizes, maybe shutting down university campuses, stopping year-round state ferry service, dumping a lot of the state’s bills on city and borough taxpayers and generally driving the Alaska economy back into a recession?”

OK, maybe a little harsh. How about we tone it down: “Do you want a big dividend even if it means hurting your community, your neighbors and even dairy cows who will lose their health inspections?”

A misleading advisory vote is worse than doing nothing. It would serve to perpetuate a myth. The truth is, you can have your cake and eat it too — you just have to pay for the cake.

• Larry Persily is a longtime Alaska journalist and was deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Revenue from 1999-2003. My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire.

More in Opinion

Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

Opinion: Good news for Alaska journalism

We need to ability to get more in-depth news about our government’s decision making.

Opinion: Setting things straight

Wednesdays’ Empire had a My Turn by Judy Crondahl making numerous assumptions… Continue reading

Opinion: It’s time for bold action to protect our fisheries

Our fisheries feed the world and sustain our unique cultures and communities.

Faith J. Myers stands at the doors of API. (Courtesy Photo)
Opinion: Giving psychiatric patients a voice makes fiscal sense

Psychiatric patients could offer valuable insight into how to improve their treatment.

Opinion: Don’t be fooled

As a homeowner, I will not be suckered into signing the petition to repeal the disclosure ordinance.

Tourists watch as one of two cubs belonging to an 18-year-old sow black bear crosses the path between groups of tourists visiting the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center on Wednesday, July 18, 2018. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: Tourists have pushed us to critical mass in parts of Juneau

I don’t go to the glacier in the summer now to hike or watch bears.

Sens. Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer, left, and Robert Myers, R-North Pole, read through one of 41 amendments submitted to the state's omnibus budget bill being debate on the floor of the Alaska State Senate on Monday, May 9, 2022. (Peter Segall / Juneau Empire)
Opinion: The Alaska Senate’s foolish gamble

“All these conservative people just spent all our money”

Opinion: I am convinced that there is no security in unsolicited mail-in ballots

We once had a secure, accountable, and user friendly election system.

Most Read