Budget hearings about the Alaska Permanent Fund will never produce a clear-cut directive for state policy, so long as people see the central question as some form of: "Do you want the state to give you less money?"
Look at it that way and we already know the answer. Every hearing from now until November could be dominated by people whose budget advice consists of: "Keep your hands off the dividend."
But it's the wrong question and the wrong answer because we cannot afford to look at state finances only in terms of how much money the state distributes every October. To do so is to deny the complicated reality of Alaska in 2016.
Part of this stems from the illusion among some people that the only segment of state government in which they have a personal stake is the dividend. That's true if you don't count schools, roads, airports, courts, utility systems and a wide range of other state-backed institutions that support life in Alaska.
The single-minded focus by some Alaskans ignores the related questions about how we can finance state services if the current formula remains in place. Will it mean a decline over time in the real value of the Permanent Fund? And what about taxes and the level of state services?
Gov. Bill Walker and many legislators have taken up the discussion of how to use the fund as an endowment to help fund state government. It is the only real choice we have, though there are many ways it can be structured.
Those who say we should leave the dividend alone and make it all up with an income tax, a sales tax or an oil tax need to show their math. It would take an income tax of about 30 percent of what Alaskans pay in federal taxes to raise about $1 billion. That would leave a shortfall of $2 billion to $3 billion. The governor has proposed an income tax of 6 percent of what Alaskans pay in federal taxes. He has also proposed raising the tobacco tax by 5 cents a cigarette and hiking taxes on fuel, alcohol, tourism, mining, etc., most of which have drawn opposition from special interests.
I have little faith in the budget magicians who promise that we need to make no changes this year because oil prices will rise, oil production will increase more than the state expects and a gas pipeline will be built, solving all of our problems. No one can say when or if those things will happen.
What we do know is that oil income has vanished, leaving the investments in the fund as the major source of state income to provide education, public safety, health care for poor people and firefighters who try to save subdivisions built amid the trees.
For decades, we had the luxury of ignoring the fund most of the time and allowing its assets to grow. Oil income was enough to pay the bills. This circumstance, made possible by the largest and second largest oil fields in North America, no longer exists.
It's not just that prices have collapsed, but also that the long-term decline in oil production shows no sign of reversal. These two overriding factors have placed Alaska in a bind that requires readjustment.
Many people who value no program other than the dividend point to the 1999 advisory vote as the everlasting symbol of public attitudes. That 28-word ballot measure required a simple answer: "After paying annual dividends to residents and inflation-proofing the Permanent Fund, should a portion of Permanent Fund earnings be used to help balance the state budget?"
Every leading organization in the state, Gov. Tony Knowles and many legislators of both parties favored the measure, but 154,000 people voted against it, while only 31,000 agreed.
But the question was as flawed as "Do you want the state to give you less money?" People had many reasons for voting against it. Had voters been presented with a ballot with the chance of voting, "It depends," the advice might have been different.
Some people opposed it because they favored an income tax, others because they opposed an income tax and wanted greater cuts in state spending. Lots of people objected because they regarded the advice as nothing more than a blank check, with some saying the budget had been cut too much.
The Legislature opted for an advisory vote with muddled results because too many of its members feared making a decision on their own, afraid they would be kicked out of office. The current Legislature should avoid repeating that mistake.
Oil production has dropped by more than half since 1999 and the state has run out of easy options. State leaders must make it clear the real question is not just about the future of the dividend, but about the future of Alaska.
Dermot Cole, who has been writing about Alaska for 40 years, is a Fairbanks-based columnist for the Alaska Dispatch News. The views expressed here are his and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.