{"id":46390,"date":"2019-04-14T03:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-04-14T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/senate-not-shying-away-from-pfd-debate\/"},"modified":"2019-04-16T09:12:18","modified_gmt":"2019-04-16T17:12:18","slug":"senate-not-shying-away-from-pfd-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/senate-not-shying-away-from-pfd-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Senate not shying away from PFD debate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t\t\t
During the Alaska House of Representatives budget process, the issue of how the Permanent Fund Dividend fits into the budget hung over legislators<\/a> like a raincloud threatening to burst. During the Senate’s budget process, the downpour might begin.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t On Thursday, the House passed its operating budget<\/a>, featuring about $250 million in cuts but not including any decision about whether the PFD should be used to pay for state government again. According to Senate leaders, the Senate will at least take a shot at figuring out how much the state can afford to pay its residents the annual oil wealth check payout and how much should pay for government services.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t Senate Majority Leader Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, said she was disappointed in the House’s lack of action on addressing the PFD and said the Senate is looking to place conversations about the PFD among its top priorities during the budget process.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t “It looks like the House put the dividend last, it’s their last priority by not funding (the PFD),” Costello said in an interview Friday, “and the governor has placed the dividend first. The Senate will prioritize the dividend along with public safety and health care and transportation and these important state priorities.”<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t Gov. Mike Dunleavy campaigned on the promise that residents should keep the full PFD and none should go toward funding state government. He promised to give people a full PFD that would be around $3,000, plus back payments to make up for the portions of their PFD they didn’t get under former Gov. Bill Walker. To make this possible, while also trying to erase a $1.6 billion difference between the state’s spending and revenues and without introducing new taxes, his budget proposal slashed funding to many state services deemed essential. Many concerned residents responded with outcry and outrage, and many Alaskans are grappling with the choice between a sizeable PFD and robust state services. <\/p>\n\t\t\t\t [Alaskans weigh cost of protecting PFDs<\/a>]<\/ins><\/p>\n\t\t\t\t Many legislators are looking to pursue a balance between PFDs and using Permanent Fund earnings to help fund government. Under Walker, the Legislature began reducing PFDs to help fund state government for the first time since the fund was set up in the 1970s. Senate Bill 26, which passed last year, allows the Legislature to pull from the earnings reserve to fund state government.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t Senators have already been looking at ways to protect the PFD. Earlier this month, Anchorage Republican Sen. Natasha von Imhof, co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced Senate Bill 103<\/a>, which would affect the way the Legislature spends the money it takes from the Permanent Fund’s earnings reserve. SB 26, passed last year, set a percentage that the Legislature can take from the earnings reserve, but didn’t set in stone how that money can be distributed between state spending and dividends.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t Von Imhof’s bill would impose a 50-50 split between spending and dividends. In a statement issued when the bill was proposed, von Imhof said the bill is meant to start a conversation, and that it might not end up as a 50-50 split when the bill is finished. The intent of the bill, she asserted, is to establish a consistency in the way the money is distributed.<\/p>\n