August 16, 2020
Sunday PM

Dear Editor,

Over the years I have read and studied the suggestions made by Mary Dahl regarding investing. She offers solid thought to the process of achieving wealth, I personally have utilized items of her offerings, my hat off to she and Jim.  However, Mary's latest Sitnews offering contains more political meat I fear, in terms of what she believes will be vs. what I believe will be given in her pronouncement as quoted: " A pledge to pay a “full” dividend during a time as financially challenging as we are now enduring is, in fact, a huge mistake. It will deplete our own economic future of the ability to pay out future earnings to our children and grandchildren. It will, according to the State Office of Management and Budget, cost the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve account $4.5 billion dollars. This is money that should stay in the earnings reserve account to grow and fund future PFD payments to residents and fund essential government services."

All well and good as intentions goes, the flaw is the assumption that the legislature, the same body which re-invented the intent of the original goal of Rep. Oral Freeman and others, in upsetting up the original intent  as a citizen watch dog over the fund to keep the legislature from absconding with more than established as an annual distribution.

Mary's intention of saving for the kids (future), is fraught with naivety over reality. The reality is the already abortion of the oversight intent with the denial of a full payment based on the original formula. Further, if the tea leaves are actuate, even more reduction of future PFD, based on the slippery slope currently in play. In a short while, there will be a "Promise of future PFD's" if only for the moment the legislature can opt all the intended PFD funds into the general fund for these  never to end. "Challenging" times.

There has been tugs and pulls, pushes and shoves with the original interpretation clearly stated then as now, the ability of the citizen to keep the legislature in check from duping the public with "Public Need", .  Who better to address what should be the full amount in its spending of the PFD than a direct dividend to each and every citizen of the state.  How to fund the general government is a totally different kettle of fish and a dividend payment in full, should not effect of affect that debate.  The legislature needs to 'Man Up' and deal with the short falls that they perceive via any alternate methodology available, Sales tax, income tax, service reductions, what ever. The permanent fund dividend stands alone by the nature of the original intent. Period. (If an example is required, look no further than the AMHS status)
No disrespect to Mary and Jim, good folks and a pleasure to share a moment when the opportunity arises, just a difference of opinion on this particular subject.
And to be clear, as the waters seem muddy with the wording or whatever of the original intent which included every living soul in Alaska, perhaps the legislature would champion having the question of the dividend placed on the ballot for clarification going forward. Just saying that for a friend.

Regards,

A.M.Johnson
Ketchikan, Alaska

About:

Editor's Note:

The text of this letter was NOT edited by the SitNews Editor.

Received August 15, 2020 - Published August 16, 2020

Related Viewpoint:

SAVING THE PFD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS By Mary Lynne Dahl & Jim Dahl

SitNews ©2020
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska

Articles & photographs that appear in SitNews are considered protected by copyright and may not be reprinted without written permission from and payment of any required fees to the proper sources. E-mail your news & photos to editor@sitnews.us Photographers choosing to submit photographs for publication to SitNews are in doing so granting their permission for publication and for archiving. SitNews does not sell photographs. All requests for purchasing a photograph will be emailed to the photographer.