{"id":51922,"date":"2019-08-18T03:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-18T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/opinion\/opinion-listening-beyond-echo-chamber\/"},"modified":"2019-08-18T03:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-08-18T11:00:00","slug":"opinion-listening-beyond-echo-chamber","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/opinion\/opinion-listening-beyond-echo-chamber\/","title":{"rendered":"Opinion: Listening beyond echo chamber"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t\t\t
“Part of the budget process is you have to listen to Alaskans,” Gov. Mike Dunleavy said on Monday after deciding not to issue a second line-item veto to the Alaska Senior Benefits Payment Program. Using similar language a day later, he restored funding for early education programs. Then he signed a budget agreement with University of Alaska officials.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t
Combined, the three actions put almost a third of the total funds he vetoed back into the state’s operating budget. It’s a sign that public reaction to the vetoes has forced him to back down on at least these programs. But if he had been listening to Alaskans since he released his budget proposal in February, he wouldn’t have vetoed them in the first place.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t
So, the question is, who finally got him to listen?<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t
The Permanent Fund Defenders<\/a> may have influenced Dunleavy’s change of heart. The group, led by former state senate president Clem Tillion, has steadfastly opposed using any portion of the Permanent Fund to pay for state government. They reportedly met with Dunleavy last week and are now recommending he accept the reduced PFD of $1,600 passed by the Legislature during the last special session. That would certainly help offset the restored funding for the three programs.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, played a role by warning that the veto to the University of Alaska budget could result in a significant loss of federal research funds. Instead of cutting $130 million in a single year, the new agreement calls for budget reductions of $70 million spread out over three years<\/a>.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t Perhaps the “Recall<\/a> Dunleavy<\/a>” effort got his attention. It kicked off a few days after the Legislature passed the PFD bill and a budget restoring most of what Dunleavy had vetoed. In just a week they’d gathered more than two-thirds of the number of signatures required to submit the recall application to the Division of Elections.<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t