4 ms·

I think that you're underselling the size of the PFD relative to the state budget when you say "akin to digging through [the] couch cushions for change". Here's

by rovolo 7y ago

I think that you're underselling the size of the PFD relative to the state budget when you say "akin to digging through [the] couch cushions for change". Here's a comparison of the numbers: // (expected - actual) * valid applicants // ($2,300 - $1,100) * 666,047 PFD withheld 2017: $ 687M Total state revenue 2017: $1,018M Also, these statements are in conflict: > the PFD that isn't constitutionally protected > pay residents what is constitutionally granted [pfd_applicants] https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/Annual-Reports https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/Annual-Reports [pfd_projections] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Annual_individual_payout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Annual_i... [state_budget] http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/reports/AnnualReport.aspx?Year=2017#program40170 http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/reports/AnnualRe...

tastyfreeze 7y ago
The phrase was meant to illustrate that the fund isn't for the legislators to spend regardless of its size. It is the people's money. The whole thing looks like the Grasshopper and the Ant. The ant(people) established investments to benefit themselves and their descendants. The grasshopper(legislators) spent damn near every penny of oil revenue. Now the grasshopper has stolen part of the ant's cache and is begging for more. You also cut my quote in a bad spot. There are two parts of how Alaska residents get a check. There is an investment account that by constitution gets 25% of oil revenue to invest. Part of investment gains are rolled back in to the investment account. The other portion are put in the earnings fund that checks are paid from. The earnings fund is not constitutionally protected. Correction, the amount of a check is in statue not constitution. The fund itself is in constitution. [PFD Statutes] https://pfd.alaska.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KRSQ6VCpO_Q%3d&tabid=495&portalid=6 https://pfd.alaska.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KRSQ6VCpO_Q...
- rovolo 7y ago
  Sorry for clipping out the 'neighbors' bit, but my point is that "stopgap measure", "couch cushions for change", and "is a distraction" imply that the size of the PFD is insignificant compared to state revenue. Or, the PFD size should at least be considered sacrosanct. Rereading your comment though, it's clear that you're mainly focusing on the legislators not dealing with the budget to your satisfaction. Closing the deficit caused by low oil prices/production will require more revenue or lower expenditures. However, I would note that governor Walker made a "hard choice" increasing revenue from the PFDs given that it caused voter outrage with people such as yourself. All of the money the legislature manages is the "people's money" since the government should be answerable to, and working for the residents of Alaska. --- Tangent, reading the statutes, it's painful to be reminded that Alaska was the first state in the US to pass a constitutional amendment denying marriage to gay people. > AS 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages. > (a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state. > (b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage. (§ 2 ch 21 SLA 1996)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by rovolo 7y ago

tastyfreeze 7y ago

The phrase was meant to illustrate that the fund isn't for the legislators to spend regardless of its size. It is the people's money. The whole thing looks like the Grasshopper and the Ant. The ant(people) established investments to benefit themselves and their descendants. The grasshopper(legislators) spent damn near every penny of oil revenue. Now the grasshopper has stolen part of the ant's cache and is begging for more. You also cut my quote in a bad spot. There are two parts of how Alaska residents get a check. There is an investment account that by constitution gets 25% of oil revenue to invest. Part of investment gains are rolled back in to the investment account. The other portion are put in the earnings fund that checks are paid from. The earnings fund is not constitutionally protected. Correction, the amount of a check is in statue not constitution. The fund itself is in constitution. [PFD Statutes] https://pfd.alaska.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KRSQ6VCpO_Q%3d&tabid=495&portalid=6 https://pfd.alaska.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KRSQ6VCpO_Q...

rovolo 7y ago
Sorry for clipping out the 'neighbors' bit, but my point is that "stopgap measure", "couch cushions for change", and "is a distraction" imply that the size of the PFD is insignificant compared to state revenue. Or, the PFD size should at least be considered sacrosanct. Rereading your comment though, it's clear that you're mainly focusing on the legislators not dealing with the budget to your satisfaction. Closing the deficit caused by low oil prices/production will require more revenue or lower expenditures. However, I would note that governor Walker made a "hard choice" increasing revenue from the PFDs given that it caused voter outrage with people such as yourself. All of the money the legislature manages is the "people's money" since the government should be answerable to, and working for the residents of Alaska. --- Tangent, reading the statutes, it's painful to be reminded that Alaska was the first state in the US to pass a constitutional amendment denying marriage to gay people. > AS 25.05.013. Same-sex marriages. > (a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state. > (b) A same-sex relationship may not be recognized by the state as being entitled to the benefits of marriage. (§ 2 ch 21 SLA 1996)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]