How to solve the question of what Alaskans want in the budget debate

The reluctance, the dread, the raw fear is almost palpable as state lawmakers facing an election year find themselves forced to grapple with an unforgiving truth: The status cannot - must not - remain quo when it comes to Alaska’s red-ink problem. The clock is ticking.

This year, Alaska’s chronic budget deficit is a paltry $1.5 billion, a mere shadow of years past, but the state’s saving accounts have been milked dangerously low. The Constitutional Budget Reserve is down to about $2 billion because Alaska, since fiscal 2013, has spent $16 billion more than it has taken in.

What is the Legislature doing about that? Well, a Fairbanks Republican is suggesting lawmakers double Alaska’s gasoline tax – currently the lowest in the nation – to 16 cents a gallon. The $35 million such a levy likely would bring in is a drop in the proverbial bucket, and a tiny drop, at that.

Who can blame lawmakers if they are reticent to be the first to stick their noses very far into a budgetary hornet’s nest? Alaska’s deficit problem is huge and gnarly and complicated, a Godzilla kind of nasty. Its resolution is so potentially painful, who in his or her right mind wants to be the first to stand up and say what needs to be said, do what needs to be done?

They should heed the late Hunter S. Thompson: “A man who procrastinates in his choosing will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance.”

Exacerbated by years of fiscal dithering, circumstances now are decidedly dire. The truth is that there are few ways out of our chronic budget morass: Sacrifice the Permanent Fund dividend, in part or in whole, to support government spending; cobble up broad-based taxes such as income or sales levies; slash government spending to match income; or, mix and match some or all of those and do it without destroying the economy. Beyond that, and without oil prices rocketing through the roof, all we have is the tooth fairy, left over lunch money and change beneath the couch cushions.

When Gov. Mike Dunleavy last year took a meat ax to the budget and butchered its attendant sacred cows to drag spending kicking and screaming closer to Alaska’s revenue reality, he set off a maelstrom that triggered an ill-conceived recall effort that is ongoing.

This year, Dunleavy warned time to fix the state’s fiscal mess is running out, and, likely still stinging from last year’s nutfest, dropped the budgetary ball squarely in the Legislature’s lap. Who could blame him? Since then, we have a nickel-and-dime fuel tax that will not dent the budget gap and not much leadership from any quarter.

What to do? Shortly after he was sworn in last year, Dunleavy offered three constitutional amendments aiming to protect the Permanent Fund dividend, enact a spending limit and require a vote of the people before state implementation of any new tax or tax increase.

As those amendments would go a long way toward handing control of state government to the people, it is no shock they are stalled in the Legislature, but for lawmakers sloshing in chronic red ink, the proposals may offer a template forward.

While his amendment proposals languish in the legislative doldrums, why not use them to frame a public advisory vote on cutting the Permanent Fund dividend, or requiring the people’s consent before adding to or implementing new taxes, or even implementing a spending limit?

Such a vote would, once and for all, let lawmakers know exactly what Alaskans want. Why should they be ignored when it comes to the size and extent of their government and how best to fund it?

Such votes are dismissed with a harrumph by our betters. Advisory votes are disdained - and much loathed - by those content to ignore ordinary Alaskans and who are quite sure they know what is best for the state. They assume Alaskans are rubes who will vote their pocketbooks rather than support necessary government services, and, ultimately, they fear answers they do not want to hear. But such balloting would answer the question once and for all: What do Alaskans want?

It would not be unprecedented. The Legislature on Sept. 17, 1999, with North Slope crude prices at about $17 a barrel, asked Alaskans: “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?” The answer was “no,” 83 percent to 17 percent. Unambiguous and persuasive. The Legislature acted accordingly.

Such balloting on the dividend, taxes and a spending cap would not necessarily carry much weight with lawmakers. But a vote would leave no question about what Alaskans expect of their government.

Why not ask them?

Paul Jenkins is editor of the AnchorageDailyPlanet.com, a division of Porcaro Communications.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.