Alaska Officially Has 733,391 People - According To The 2020 Census - UPDATED

Just got his email from Peter Torkelson, executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board.  (You can subscribe to these email updates from the redistricting board here. 

"Good afternoon subscribers -- A few minutes ago the US Census announced the total population numbers for each state.  Alaska's official 2020 resident population is 733,391. This means the population target for new legislative districts will be 733,391/40 = 18,335."

Let's take that apart a bit.  Nothing more than 3rd grade arithmetic at most, I promise.  Alaska has forty state house seats.  The state senate is made up of pairings of those forty seats - that is two adjacent house seats make up one senate seat. 

Each house seat should have the same number of people in it as every other house seat.  Of course, that would be quite a feat.  So the goal is to make them within 1-2% of each other.  In cases where this just isn't possible, the absolute maximum difference is 10%.  (This is based on my memory from last year.  Once the Board gets these number broken down by census districts, the Board will get a lot busier and we'll get these details refreshed.)

So, if there are 40 districts that have to have equal population, you have to divide the total population by 40.  Which is what Peter has done to get 18,335 residents per district.  Actually, my calculator says it's 18,334.775.  Which does mean that it is truly impossible to get all the districts exactly equal.  And since the time they recorded everybody, people have moved out of the state or into the state and new people have been born and some people have died.  So the number is always in flux.

The magic number for each district based on the 2010 data was 17,755.  So each district this time will have 580 more people.  Theoretically.  

I'd add that this includes all Alaska residents, not just those of voting age, not even just US citizens, but all the people who live here.  

To put that in context, [see below] people have applied for Alaska Permanent Fund this year.  [I thought I was going to get that number from the PFD office in Juneau.  Chris transferred me to Corey, but he didn't answer the phone. (It is after 4pm now, though it wasn't when I started these calls.)  I'll add the number in when I get it]

[UPDATED 5pm:  Corey got back to me.  They are still entering paper applications into the system by hand.  As of this afternoon at 4:30pm, they have 643,117 applications and he expects 25-30,000 more.]

Meanwhile  here are the PFD's numbers for population and applications since 2020.

 Remember the magic number:  18,335

Will Dunleavy’s Budget Lower Alaska’s Carbon Footprint?

Alaskans use more energy per capita than residents of any other US state.*  Much of the total energy use comes from the development of oil and gas, which is part of the total divided by the population to get average/person.  However, Alaskans are also dependent on most food and goods being shipped in from Outside.  So the transportation costs for those goods mean we use more energy than others in the US.

So, with Dunleavy’s massive cuts, there is surely going to be an equally massive out-migration from the state.  For people losing their jobs, an extra $1000 in PFD isn’t going to pay the mortgage, rent, or other expenses.  Most will not find equivalent jobs in Alaska and will find much better opportunities Outside.

So Alaska’s carbon footprint is likely to go down.  

That’s the silver lining, thin as it might be.

While the blog has focused on Argentina lately, I have been paying attention to Alaska’s summer of heat, fire, and dire budgetary actions.

I watch with dismay [unlike a number of politicians and social media agitators, I tend to understate things] as Alaskans throw logic on the Dunleavy fire, thinking that will make a difference to him.  Logic has already turned those Republicans in the legislature who are not immune to it, and the same for everyday Alaskans.


But it’s my sense of all this that logic has no effect on Dunleavy.  Well, not the logic that starts with assumptions that Alaska matters.   He’s solely listening to his Outside financiers whose agenda is to exploit the resources of Alaska (and anywhere else with exploitable resources) with no concern for the impacts on the state, the climate, or people.  Their Ayn Randian beliefs are that their personal self-interest is all that matters.  They assume their wealth can shield them from the worst of the remnants of a once civilized society.

So, destroying the university is a good thing for them.  It means that there is no independent intellectual, scientific base in Alaska that is capable of raising questions about resource extraction policies, or to question industry reports saying that ‘no harm will be done.’

Cutting government watchdog agencies is good too.  The fewer government employees watching over corporate compliance, the more corporations can get away with.  The cruise ship on-board inspector program, which cost the state nothing, was vetoed out of existence.  So cruise lines can illegally pollute all they want without anyone watching.

Today’s Anchorage Daily News says the department that oversees the  development of the natural gas pipeline is cutting half its staff.  Let’s see how well they’ll be able to spot problems down the line.  Remember when Shell included stuff on manatees in their Chukchi Sea environmental impact statements?  They’d just lifted the language from EIS from Florida.  And it got through the first round of regulators as I recall.

The Koch brothers are making a hostile takeover of Alaska.  This is about power.  The ability to get done what they want.  Logic plays no role.  Well, that’s not quite true.  Their logic is about what they can get away with.  It has completely different assumptions than the logic of most Alaskans.  Their logic is about making as much money as they can, with no concerns about Alaska.  The appeals of all the Alaskans hurt by the cuts are irrelevant to them.  They’re reveling in their power a)  to destroy Alaska as we know it and b) to then exploit it freely.  

And as for Alaska’s carbon footprint?  With increased oil, gas, and other mineral extraction, there may well be an increase despite the people who leave the state.


*The assertion that Alaskans have a larger carbon footprint first came to me in an article by a close relative that looked at the alliance of some environmental groups with anti-immigration groups based on the logic that when poor immigrants come from Central American use more carbon in the US than they did at home, and thus they shouldn’t be let into the country.  That, of course, begs the question about US residents’ moral entitlement to use more carbon than their southern neighbors.  The article also raised the issue of Alaskans using even more carbon  than average US residents.   The link unfortunately only goes to an abstract - I haven’t found free access to the whole article.  People with UAA or Loussac library cards should be able to get access to the article.

Legislative Info Office Hearing on the Budget [UPDATED]

Given that the Governor's 'budget roadshow' is being handled by Americans for Prosperity, a Koch funded group, and requires one fill out a form online with more personal information than I want to add to AFP's data base, the House majority caucus is having its own hearings around the state.

It was jammed today with people testifying (mostly) against the Dunleavy budget and for reinstating an income tax.  I did hear two folks (one after the other) say they wanted their full PFDs and the state shouldn't subsidize lazy people.  But everyone else were ready to reduce their PFDs for public education, health care, etc.

If you click on this image it will get much bigger and clearer

I'll add to this later.

LATER:


There was a line that went out the front door, and I didn't get there until about an hour into the hearings.

There was an overflow room with a video of the session in the next room over.

And there was another overflow room.

And the hallway was full of people from the line that went out the door.  This was really the only big sign that I saw and did not seem to reflect the sentiment of most people testifying.

The control room was between the hearing room and one of the overflow rooms.  It had dark smokey windows.

How Social Media Allow Fringe Candidate To Get An Audience - Andrew Yang In San Francisco

I don't even know who Andrew Yang is.  I'll look him up in a second.  But below is a video of him giving a talk on the street with a Twitter transcript/commentary.  (Double click on the Tweet to see the whole thread.)

By popular demand, #YangGang #Yang2020 event in SF https://t.co/0r41OkGF3N

— 🤖 Sonya Mann 🎀 (@sonyaellenmann) March 16, 2019

Here's a long interview with Yang which he begins by talking about universal basic income and cites Alaska as an example of it working. I hope our current fight over the PFD doesn't "prove" to people that this idea won't work. Though it sure shows us that some people only think immediate, short term, and 'that's my money, not the state's." But that's another discussion.







What I like about all these young Democratic presidential candidates is that they are bringing to the table important ideas that the older, politically conservative (and by that I don't mean ideologically, but rather people not willing to take risks, people who only back ideas after they look at the polls) have kept off the agenda.

[As I listen to the rest of this two hour video, he talks about the places Trump won are the places that jobs got replaced by robots.  Then he said he went to Washington and started talking to politicians about this and they said, "We can't talk about that."  about 49 minutes in.]

Elizabeth Warren's pushing breaking up the tech industry.  Kamala Harris is talking about reparations for African-Americans in the sense of help dealing with generational trauma.  Beto O'Rourke champions immigrants as necessary to the prosperity and vibrance of the US  ("El Paso has been the safest city in America, not despite immigrants, but because of immigrants.").  Jay Inslee is focused on Climate Change.   You get the point.   Let's get these issues out there so the American people start seriously talking about other options.

And let's hope the candidates continue to care more about making this a much better country and world, than they care about who is ultimately in the White House.  Let's hope they stay positive and see themselves as a team, and may the best candidate be their leader from the White House.

One last note:  This is not an endorsement of Yang or any other candidate.  I like the ideas they are all raising.  As we get to know them better, we'll find out more about their strengths and weaknesses.  But I'm pushing them to all work together as a team.

Why People In Anchorage Don't See Much Of Alaska

Alaska Airlines extended its Permanent Fund Dividend sale.  I've just copied the first six destinations from Anchorage that were listed.

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Adak Island (ADK)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$449 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Albuquerque (ABQ)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$179 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Atlanta (ATL)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$249 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Austin (AUS)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$199 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Baltimore (BWI)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$229 

one way

VIEW DATES

From Anchorage (ANC) to

Barrow (BRW)

Purchase by October 15, 2018.

Restrictions apply*

$149 

one way

[The out-of-state distances come from convert it]

So let's see how much that comes to when converted to cost per mile;

From Anchorage to Adak = 1,192 miles  or $.38 per mile
From Anchorage to Albuquerque = 2578 miles  or $.07 per mile
From Anchorage to Atlanta = 3365 or $.07 per mile
From Anchorage to Austin =  3125 or $.06 per mile
From Anchorage to Baltimore = 3317 or $.07 per mile
From Anchorage to Barrow =  725 miles or $.21 per mile

[UPDATE Oct 10, 2018  8pm- here are some more Alaska destinations (miles from air miles calculator)
Anchorage to Bethel = 399 miles (at $99) = $.25 per mile
Anchorage to Cordova = 160 miles (at $99) = $.62 per mile
Anchorage to Dutch Harbor = 792 miles (at $349) =  $.44 per mile
Anchorage to Fairbanks - 261 miles (at $77) = $.30 per mile
Anchorage to Juneau =  571 miles (at $137) = $.24 per mile
Anchorage to Ketchikan = 775 miles  (@ $169) = $.22 per mile
Anchorage to Kodiak = 253 miles (@ $109) = $.43 per mile
Anchorage to Kotzebue =  548 miles  (@ $129) = $.24  per mile
Anchorage to Nome =  539 miles  (@ $129) = $.24  per mile
Anchorage to Petersburg =  671 miles  (@ $149) = $.22  per mile
Anchorage to Sitka =  592 miles  (@ $148) = $.25  per mile
Anchorage to Yakutat =  373 miles  (@ $149) = $.40  per mile]


I understand that airline prices are related to prices offered by competitors and that Alaska Airlines has little to no competition when flying around Alaska.  But what it means is that:

• Unless someone's job requires Alaska travel paid by the  employer, most Alaskans can fly out of state for much less than they can fly in state
• Rural Alaskans, whose income is below the state average, are a big part of Alaska Airlines' profits
• If they aren't (if Alaska Air is making plenty with out of state flights) then why not give rural Alaskans a break here?

And I got a notice today from the Alaska Permanent Fund that they deposited my $1600 into my checking account.  And Alaska Airlines, like every other business, wants their cut of every Alaskans PFD.

Traffic Jam Anchorage Style On My Way To Ask Voter Registration Questions

The traffic wasn't moving on Benson as I was heading to the elections office to turn in to registrations and ask some questions about PFD registration and registering homeless folks.

I got onto Benson at Spenard and the left lane wasn't moving shortly after that.  The two right lanes were empty.  Here I was at Benson and C after the light's been red a while.

The two left lanes weren't moving because the folks in the right lanes were merging because at A street they were completely blocked off.  My lane had a dying flare in it, so basically everyone had to move over to the far left lane.

At A Street and Benson, the problem was revealed.  I'm guessing someone ran a red light, just can't tell which one.

I think I waited about four or five extra red lights, maybe fifteen extra minutes.  This is just normal conditions in lots of parts of LA.

At the elections office I learned 

Yes, when you register for the Alaska Permanent Fund  Dividend (PFD) check, you're automatically registered.  Some people, they told me, complained because they had no choice.  She did refer me to the Elections website which has a PDF updated August 2018, which answers all my questions.

I guess this is the key question, all the others, clarify this one:

"Why is the Division of Elections sending me mail?
The law requires the Division of Elections to send each PFD applicant that is eligible to vote an opt-out mailer giving the applicant/voter the option to opt-out of being automatically registered to vote or have their voter registration record updated."

I take this to mean that everyone who applies gets a letter from the Division of Elections, either to opt out, change information (namely address), or do nothing.  If I got such a notice, I've totally forgotten it.  If you do nothing, and you're already registered, everything stays the same.  If you aren't registered and do nothing, you get registered to vote.

I'd note that in October 2016, when the initiative to add automatic PFD registration  was coming before the voters in November, Paul Jenkins had an opinion piece saying it was a waste of money, that people already had lots of ways to register if they wanted to.   But then his real opposition to the initiative is revealed when he writes near the end:

"To argue the initiative is not about advancing Democrat fortunes at our expense is nonsensical. If the left wants to register voters it should pick up the check and not pass it on to a cash-strapped state while pretending it is for the civic good."

I would have to do some more research to see if his predictions that more Democrats will be signed up is true.  I suspect that would be hard to determine since people are automatically registered as "undeclared."  They would have to opt to change their party registration and I'm guessing most won't.

My guess is that Republicans wouldn't have any problem with spending money on this if they thought it would add Republican voters.

The Hill cites a recent Brennan Center report:

"Nine southern states previously had to get approval from the Department of Justice to change voting policies under a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court struck down that measure in 2013.
“Across the board, formerly covered jurisdictions increased their purge rates after 2012 more than noncovered jurisdictions,” the report found.
The center highlighted Texas, Georgia and Virginia as states impacted by the 2013 Supreme Court ruling with higher rates of voter purging."

Actually there were 16 states overall that had to get preclearance from the Department of Justice before the Supreme Court ruling and Alaska was one of them.

But with the PFD registration (more people get PFD's than drivers licenses) Alaska has to be one of the most aggressive states actually getting people onto the rolls instead of off.

And it's nice to live in a state that's making it as easy as possible for people to register to vote.  Unlike states where they are now aggressively purging the roles.  

I'm curious what this means for voter registrars.  How many people aren't registered.  Of the two I registered last Friday, one had moved from out of state, so he clearly hadn't registered yet.  But the other seemed to be someone who would have gotten a PFD check last year.  But they checked and he wasn't registered.  And, of course, all the people turning 18 before the election.


Homeless Registration?

People can use Bean's Cafe, or any other place they regularly eat at as their address.  If they are living in a homeless camp off the bike trail through the woods, they can give the closest intersection or whatever description that will allow the elections office to determine what district they are in.  Of course that won't work too well for mail-in only elections.  But you can still go and vote early at various locations.

The Permanent Fund Dividend Is The Speed Bump For Legislative Spending

This hit me as I was reading a letter to the editor today that said the PFD is a 'gift.'  After reading Hammond's autobiography, it's clear he conceived of it differently.  Hammond tells us the Alaska constitution says the resources belong to the state and the people are the state, not the government.  So instead of a private developer getting the money, it's divided among all the population.

I think we can argue over that in a lot of ways.  Why not just give all the money away to the people?  Hammond does respond that it's for future generations, not just the one that exploited the resources.  And I'm of the opinion that the Fund earnings would make a great trust from which the state could pay for a significant part government.

But Hammond argues that the dividend is much more equitable - the poor get the same as the rich.  In fact, the dividend has a much greater positive impact on the poorer folks than on the richer.  While a progressive  income tax would take more from those who can afford to pay more.  And it would also catch folks who work in Alaska but live Outside.

Hammond also felt that the dividend gave the public an incentive to pay attention to the state budget.

And that's the part that made me think about a speed bump.

People drive faster than they should.  To slow them down, we build speed bumps.  Most people can't stand the bumps.  They are a pain to drive over, even slowly.  And they cost money to build and maintain.  BUT without speed bumps, people drive too fast.  We simply won't voluntarily drive slowly.  So, speed bumps are there to stop us from doing what we shouldn't do, since we can't seem to stop ourselves from doing the right thing.

I see the dividend - even if you disagree with most of Hammond's points - acts like a speed bump on governmental spending.  The public pays attention when their dividend is going to be cut because the legislature needs their money to pay for government.  Legislators just can't help themselves from spending more money than we have.  The dividend is a speed bump to slow down the spending.

It's not a perfect metaphor, but it helps frame one aspect of the dividend clearly.

Hammond On Income Tax Repeal: "Once repealed, we'll never get it back until we've raided all other revenue sources, and/or traumatically cut even crucial state programs."

Charles Wohlforth's column in the Alaska Dispatch News today is headlined,

"Permanent Fund hard-liners play chicken with Alaska's finances"

I realize that he probably didn't write the headline, but it does seem to reflect his point of view.  The third paragraph

"Our question is whether it is wise to pay out a dividend of more than $2,000 per person when our state government is going down the tubes. And a deeper question: Is paying dividends the only purpose of the Permanent Fund?"

But I'm also doing some marathon reading of Jay Hammond's Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor
for Monday night's book club meeting.  (Yesterday's post looked at his take on how the all-Alaska pipeline instead of a Canadian line has cost the state billions.)

And I've just read the chapter (28) that focuses directly on the reasoning behind the Permanent Fund, the dividend, and the great mistake of repealing the income tax.

Really, if people want to get a sense of who has it right and whose policy stances are clouded by ideology or personal gain, it helps to look at what people said in the past and what they are saying now.  Of course, some folks today didn't say much in the past, but we can look at the people they hang with.

And we can reassess whether Wohlforth's article should be naming the Permanent Fund supporters as playing chicken OR the people who have consistently stopped the reinstatement of an income tax.  I'd also note that one of the three who filed suit, Clem Tillion, was a close ally of Jay Hammond during the Permanent Fund dividend battles.  He knows the history and I'm sure he knows Hammond's predictions.

The book was published in 1994 - so that's 22 years ago.  But in the context, it appears that these were his positions at the time - in the early 1980s, probably with some editing as the future got clearer.

The Permanent Fund dividend had been enacted.  But at the same time there was a push to eliminate the state income tax.  Hammond strongly opposed this.  He at least wanted it to stay on the books, even if it was greatly reduced, even to zero.

"I thought repeal was stupid.  Worse, I imprudently said so.  'Reduce it if you will;  suspend it if you must.  But for heaven's sake, don't repeal it or you'll cut the one string connecting the citizen's pocketbook to the government purse, and see state spending soar.  If people no longer feel it's their tax dollars 'those idiots in Juneau are spending,' a major restraint on government growth and spending will be lost.  Once repealed, we'll never get it back until we've raided all other revenue sources, and/or traumatically cut even crucial state programs.'" (pp. 264-65)

His income tax stance was opposed by many, including business leaders.

"I tried to convince these opponents how money paid out in dividends would glean far more collective benefits for Alaska businesses than would the same amount of money they'd save through tax repeal.
To make my case, I pointed out that, in the late 1970s, the income tax brought in about $200 million annually.  With repeal that $200 million benefit would not only go mostly to those who least needed it, but to nearly one quarter of Alaska's work force who were non-residents.  By contrast, $200 million in dividend payments would enrich each of our 500,000 residents - and only Alaskans - by $400 each.
One would think that Alaska business, as the prime beneficiaries of dividend spending would be the first to register preference for the dividend program over tax repeal.  Instead, they scoffed at the former while salivating over the latter.  Of course, the degree of enthusiasm for tax repeal was directly proportionate to one's income level." (p. 265)

And he has a lot to say about why the Permanent Fund wasn't welfare.

Why it isn't welfare?

"'First,' I responded [to an NPR reporter who asked if Alaskans weren't embarrassed by free money from this 'oddball' program while gas prices were so high for others] 'you should know under Alaska's Constitution, that money and the resources it comes from, belong to all Alaskans, not to government nor to a few 'J.R.Ewings' who, in states like Texas, own almost all the oil.  Alaska's founding fathers wanted every citizen to have a piece of the action." (p. 256)

His second point, not related to the welfare question, was that the way gas at the pump is priced meant that even if Alaska gave away its oil, the people of the rest of the US would still pay the same prices, thus the PFD had no effect on the price of oil Outside of Alaska.

"'Third, Alaskans should be no more ashamed to accept a direct payment from their one-time oil wealth in the form of a check, than folks elsewhere should be ashamed of accepting lower tax rates or greater services than other states can provide." (p. 256)

Wouldn't the money be better spent on crucial government programs?  {And this is the question I would ask, because some things can only be done collectively, like public transportation (including roads).

"I went on to explain how dividend dollars are not 'lost' for funding crucial government programs.  Rather, they increase the tax base of every community and have created a very healthy condition." (p. 256)

He tells the reporter he'd like to use the Fund to further cut public spending by listing on the ballot programs not based on need or constitutional mandate and letting the public decide.  For programs they cut, half the savings would increase the dividend check.  At first the reporter thinks this is a good idea.  But then asks, "You wouldn't put public radio on that list would you?"  "Of course I would," responds Hammond.  Then the reporter voices an attitude that seriously disturbs Hammond:

"There are some programs the government knows are best for the people, even if the people themselves don't realize it."  (p. 256)

Isn't this socialism?  

"We could have underwritten coverage for all Alaskans who had no health insurance; wiped out our local taxes, funded scholarships or granted folks no interest loans, and we would have been lauded.  While the above would have been far more socialistic, inequitable and reeking with 'Big Brotherism,' all of which the dividend program is not." (p. 255)

I think fear of the label socialism is overblown.  His point, for those who see socialism as an evil, is that with the dividend, people themselves, not the government, make decisions on how to use the money.

"Moreover, the dividend is capitalism that works for Alaska.  In a state where locals traditionally watch in frustration as most resource wealth goes Outside, the dividend's grassroots 'trickle up' distribution now accounts for the largest new capital infusion into Alaska's local economies each year." (p. 254)

There's a lot more detail in the book, but Hammond gives solid reasons for keeping the income tax AND the full dividend.  Some we hear today from those opposing the cuts to the dividend - that cutting the dividend hurts the poor much more than the rich while the income tax is fairer to all because it is progressive.  Except from those among the wealthy who believe that their wealth is solely due to their personal ability, hard work, and initiative and has nothing to do with conditions in their lives (whether family or other important people who influenced them, innate interests and abilities or physical characteristics, laws or other structural conditions that favored some over others, etc.)

I'm not saying that what was right in 1980 is necessarily right in 2016, but a lot of people in the current debates were on the wrong side of history in 1980 or they weren't even in Alaska and know none of this background.  Hammond's prediction of where we would be if the income tax was repealed, exactly describes our situation today.  His narrative of the world seems a lot more accurate than those who opposed the income tax then and still do today.

And as I'm writing this, I began to think about the current play about Jay Hammond and Wally Hickel that's having its world premier run at Cyrano's right now and how if many people went, it might cause them to reflect more on this issue.  It's similar to the release of the movie Snowden which will, I'm sure, add a lot of nuance to people's thinking about whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero or something in between.  The main difference is that movies get a much wider audience than plays.

I do hope people get copies of Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor, whether from the library, which has many copies, including digital, from Title Wave or other bookstores.  The first half is Alaska adventure stories, the second half fills in a lot of political history around the pipeline and the Permanent Fund, plus a lot of issues I'd forgotten about - like D2 and Alpetco.  There's also  interesting brief mentions of people who are key players today - like Kent Dawson, one of the best paid lobbyists in Alaska today.  (See bottom of page 219)

"Replumbing Permanent Fund doesn't create more water" or Nerd Nite Alaska Budget AND Facial v Verbal Portrait

I went to the Nerd Nite beer and budget meeting last night.  Before I get into that I'd like to offer you a 'how you know' things test.  Regular readers know I'm fascinated by how people come to 'know' things - like what's true, how the world works, how we draw conclusions about people, etc.  All the kinds of things that underlie everything we know and how we act on things.  If everyone were self-aware of all these things would, society would be radically different.  And as we watch this event known as a presidential election, it's clear that all of these things impact what voters take from media coverage, images, words, etc.

So let's do an experiment

I want you to look at the verbal portrait I've made of someone.  And as you read it, I want you to be aware of the images you have of this person.  I don't want you to work at imagining the person.  Rather I want the image(s) that your unconscious creates.  What do you see?  Is it one image?  Does it change as you read more?  At the end is there an image of this person - a face?  a stature?  a voice?
Again, don't think, just capture the image that your brain generates on its own.

Got your image?  OK.  Stash it away until later in the post.

The 49th State Brewing Company is in the old Snow Goose building, which was the Elks Club built in 1918.  (The chandelier in this room is adorned, still, with elk antlers.)   This was an evening of state budget policy with three speakers who have been intimately involved in the topics they took on.

You can see that the room was packed.  Probably 400 or more people to hear about:

1. the origins of the Permanent Fund Dividend (Cliff Groh)
2. the trade offs between cutting the budget and raising revenue (including dipping into the Permanent Fund, various taxes, and oil taxes and subsidies) (Larry Persily)
3. how the oil subsidies work (Dan Dickinson)

There was beer and snacks for sale as a standing room only crowd hung around for two plus hours of policy.  It was a mix of ages, but I would guess most were under 40 which is a different demographic than I've seen at talks on similar topics in Anchorage in the past.  Having beer instead of coffee probably helped.

Groh went back to the debates between the Hickel view (the owner state) and the Hammond view (the people as individuals having a share in the state's wealth) and other reasons for and against having the dividend.  Groh's position was more as a reporter than an advocate.

Persily didn't pretend to be neutral as he discussed the income options open to the state because cutting the budget alone simply won't balance the budget.  He favored taking a part of Permanent Fund earnings (cutting into the dividend), income taxes, changing the oil subsidies.  When an audience member pointed out that cutting the dividend was the most regressive option, Persily didn't disagree, but said including an income tax would balance this by getting the most from those with the largest earnings.  

After each speaker, there was a five minute beer break, so instead of leaving before the third speaker, the audience was fairly mellow.  

Dickinson discussed how the oil and gas credits worked.  Some are related to production, some are intended as incentives to investment in exploration.  They can give companies a huge return - combining can lead to a maximum of 85% return on investment.  But the graphs he had of revenue show a steady decline since these credits have gone into place.  But he pointed out, in response to a question about why we keep funding companies that go bankrupt instead of producing, that usually a new company takes over what the last company did and they keep production going.  He also pointed out that now when companies submit for their credits, instead of taking the money themselves, they often assign it to the financial institutions that gave them their initial loans.  

A key bit of information I learned was that the law doesn't actually guarantee the state will pay the credits.  There's a clause that says something like "if the legislature appropriates funds."  So, he said, if the state didn't pay the credits because there was no money allocated for them, the state wouldn't be violating any laws.  And, in fact, he said by the end of the year forecasters predicted companies would be submitting for about $1 billion in credits.  The legislature allocated about $460 million (not exactly certain of the number) and the governor vetoed all but $30 million of that.  

All three of the speakers, as I said, worked for the state on the issues they discussed.  They knew their stuff cold and their presentations were lively and interesting.  A good way to get this stuff.

Now, back to the verbal image above.  Which of the images below comes closest to the image your head conjured up?

#1	Image Source #2	#3
#4	Image Source #5	Image Source #6

Be honest with yourself.  Which is closest to your image?

What's the point of all this?  When I got home and looked at the picture I had taken, I realized the visual just didn't convey the depth of work and experience I had learned this person had.  It made me realize how much I still - despite my efforts not to - make assumptions about people based on what they look like.  Despite my admonition to myself to treat people I meet as though they will be the president of the US in 15 or 20 years, but no one knows it yet.  Or as though they have won a Nobel Prize or in some other way are highly distinguished and interesting.

For non-Alaskans and for non-political Alaskans, these are the six certified candidates listed in the US Senate race today at the Alaska Division of Elections.  #1 is Joe Miller who recently replaced the Libertarian candidate who withdrew.  #2 is Breck Craig.  #3 is Margaret Stock.  #4 is Lisa Murkowski.  #5 is Ted Gianoutsos.  #6 is Ray Metcalfe.  The one whose bio is briefly summarized in the top image is #3 Margaret Stock.  The info comes from her campaign website.  I met her for the first time last night at Nerd Nite.

Note The Nerds' Numerical Aesthetics

Did you catch it?  The meeting is September 7at 7 pm.  And it's at 49th State Brewing Company.   Pretty nifty, eh?

And the topic is compelling too - if you care about the future of Alaska and the Alaska Permanent Fund.  They left out the address, but I guess they didn't want to mess with beauty of the numbers already on the poster.  But for those who might want to attend:

717 W 3^rd Ave     It's tonight, by the way.  

"Leave My Damn Dividend Fund Alone" Ignorance, Greed, and The PFD

I've passed this sign a few times and it seems to beg for comment.

This is a big sign.  Someone really wanted to make a statement about how he felt.

But if I were doing this, I'd try to get my facts straight.

There is no 'dividend fund.'

There's an Alaska Permanent Fund, from which Alaska residents get dividends.  The governor and others have outlined why the current budget shortfalls cannot be solved by simply cutting the budget. There have to be additional revenue sources.  One source the governor has identified, and the only source the legislature has followed up on, was the money set aside for Alaska Permanent Fund dividend checks.  He also asked to radically change the subsidies to the oil companies, and for an income tax and sales tax.


It's NOT 'your' fund

It belongs, according to the Permanent Fund Board website, to the State of Alaska.  And

"The Alaska Constitution says that the principal may not be spent. The earnings in the earnings reserve may be spent by the Legislature for any public purpose, including the Permanent Fund Dividend distribution."

It was NOT set up to give everyone a dividend check each year.  That was added later.  

It's a collective pool of money for the benefit of people who live in Alaska, now and those who will live in Alaska in the future.  So, for Alaska residents, 'our' might be acceptable, but not 'my' fund.  


What does this sign tell us and what doesn't it tell us?

1.  This person (let's call him Sam) is imprecise, since he's gotten the name of the fund he's so exercised about wrong.  We don't know if it's

• ignorance (he doesn't know there is an Alaska Permanent Fund, he just thinks there's a dividend fund), 
• carelessness (he knows, but wrote this quickly and didn't check), or 
• greed (he just wants free money and doesn't care what it's called.)

2.  Sam  doesn't seem to grasp the perilous state of the Alaska budget as described in the link above.  And probably doesn't have a clue about all the ways he benefits from state spending - on roads, parks, schools, law and order, etc.  And how, if we don't find a way to fund the state budget, he'll probably lose more than he would get from the part of his dividend the governor has vetoed.

3.  Sam has a short-term horizon, not a long-term view.  Actually, I don't have enough info to know this for sure.  There are questions that could move us along to finding out.

• Sam has heard that come October, he'd get about $1000 less this year than he would have, if the governor prevails on this, and doesn't like that.  
• Sam doesn't understand that the Alaska Permanent Fund was set up originally to preserve the oil earnings for future generations on the grounds that the oil is a non-renewable resource and no single generation should use the wealth it generates and leave nothing to future generations.  The dividends were an afterthought, a way to keep Alaskans interested in the fund's performance.  They were not the purpose of the fund.  The intent . . . well, there were many intents mentioned as it was being debated and it seems each Alaskan picks the intent that fits their interest best.  For me, the intent was a fund that could provide future Alaskans an annual annuity toward the state budget, supplemented by other income as needed, like an income tax.  By investing the extra oil money into a permanent fund, Alaskans, like wealthy families, would be able to take a portion of the annual earnings and spend it on government when the oil was gone.   If you can have enough self control, the fund will keep earning money into perpetuity.  But that means not killing the goose that lays the golden egg.   That way the oil wealth wouldn't disappear when the oil disappeared and future generations would benefit.  That could happen.  As I write, the fund is worth $54.608 billion.  
•  Sam understands all this, but just doesn't trust any government, now or in the future, to use the money wisely and thinks he's better off using the money himself than letting the legislature spend it.  Given the current legislature, he may well be right.  But that's why the Constitution prohibits the legislature from using the principal of the fund.  The most they can waste is the annual earnings.
• Sam has no idea of all the ways he benefits from government spending, he just takes these things all for granted, without realizing that government provides them.  So he doesn't know how his life would take a turn for the worse if it got cut even more.  Or how much more it would cost him than the $1000 he stands to lose now. 

Sam displays a sense of entitlement to his PFD check that other Alaskans also seem to have.  They deserve it for some reason.  Technically, yes, as Alaskans we are all eligible for the check, but I feel like we're pretty much getting something for nothing.  People in other states don't get checks like these.  And the amount we get is a lot more than most people would get if the formula hadn't been changed.

Originally, the dividends was set to be $50 per year of Alaskan residence back to the beginning of statehood.

Under that formula, only people who have lived in Alaska continuously for 25 years would have gotten the full $1281 last year.  Which would mean that for someone who came to Alaska five years ago, the dividend check would be $250.  Those who have lived here longer would have gotten more.

It got changed to the current formally due to a lawsuit that successfully challenged the formula on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The state would be paying much less in dividends today had the original formula held.  How much less is tricky to calculate without knowing how long every Alaskan has been in the state,  and I couldn't find that kind of information quickly online.

I did find a Report on Alaska mobility that shows from IRS data that between 2000 and 2010, 25,000-30,000 people moved to the state per year.  So in 2010, there were about 250,000 people who had come to the state in the last ten years and since the annual change was evenly distributed over those ten years, we can say that there were about 250,000 who'd been in the state about five years on average.

Based on the original dividend payout plan ($50 per year of residence) those folks would only have been eligible for (on average) Based on the original dividend payout plan ($50 per year of residence) those folks would only have been eligible for (on average) $250 instead of the $1281 payout everyone got.  So instead of those 250,000 people getting $1281 last year for a total of $320 million, they would have gotten $62 million and the state would have saved about $250 million, just on the people who came to Alaska in the last ten years.  That doesn't count all the people who were in the state less than 30 years.  The number of folks who have been here since statehood is rapidly declining, so while they would be earning quite a bit more, there aren't too many of them.


So, I really don't know who Sam is or why he's put up this sign.  I don't know if he's been here five years or fifty.  I don't know if he uses his dividend to pay off accumulated bills or on a Hawaiian vacation, if he supports Clinton or Trump.  Nor do I know the folks who have written letters to the editor voicing the same sentiment.  It would be interesting to actually meet these people and find out what their actual motivation is.  Until then, I'll resist the temptation to make assumptions about them.

While Legislators Plot Raiding Permanent Fund, Russell Read, The Fund's New CIO, Starts May 9

 image from Professional Pensions

It looks like the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation has done a pretty good job of hiring a new Chief Investment Officer.  Russell Read, who is due to begin his duties in Juneau May 9, has had an
illustrious career and  Alaskans should be pleased with the man who's coming to manage our $52 billion fund.

But I suspect few have any idea of who he is or what he brings to the job.  Here are a couple of positions he's had at important funds,  and below is more information about these funds and about Read.  There's also an excerpt from a recent interview regarding his new position.

• Chief Investment Officer of CalPERS - the California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest one, with some $300 billion (two years)
• Chief Investment Officer and Deputy Chief Executive of the Kuwait City-based Gulf Investment Corporation (GIC) ($7 billion) which is the Development Investor created and owned by the six GCC countries of the Arabian Peninsula. (four years)

Here are more details about CalPERS from Wikipedia:

As of June 30, 2014, CalPERS managed the largest public pension fund in the United States, with $300.3 billion in assets[1] CalPERS is known for its shareholder activism; stocks placed on its "Focus List" may perform better than other stocks, which has given rise to the term "CalPERS effect". Outside the U.S., CalPERS has been called "a recognized global leader in the investment industry",[6] and "one of America's most powerful shareholder bodies”.

The Security and Exchange Commission's bio of Read described his duties at CalPERS and at a previous position:

Russell Read is [I'll leave their present tense of the original bio]  the Chief Investment Officer for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). He oversees all asset classes in which CalPERS invests, including domestic and international equity, Treasury and agency debt, high yield bonds, mortgage backed securities, CDOs, real estate, corporate governance, currency overlay, securities lending, venture capital, leveraged buyouts, and hedge funds. Mr. Read is responsible for the strategic plan for CalPERS’ Investment Office including tactical asset allocation, risk management, business development, budget authority, new investment programs, trading technology, staffing, and back office operations. Mr. Read joined CalPERS on June 1, 2006 after previously serving as Deputy Chief Investment Officer for Deutsche Asset Management and Scudder Investments. He was responsible for more than $250 billion of retail and institutional investments in equity, fixed income, and commodity-based products. He also was Chairman of the Deutsche’s Americas Investment Committee and principal investment representative to the firm’s retail mutual fund board of trustees. He previously served as Global Head of Quantitative Investing and Research at Zurich Scudder and has held senior investment positions with the OppenheimerFunds, CNA Insurance, Prudential Insurance, and First Chicago.

Here's what Bloomberg says about the Gulf Investment Corporation:

Gulf Investment Corporation is a venture capital arm of The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf specializing in direct investments in private companies and new business ventures. The firm prefers to invest in the utilities sector with a focus on power, water, telecommunications, and other infrastructure; chemicals and metals; diversified industrials; materials; healthcare; agriculture, consumer staples; Industrial Development; consumer discretionary; financials; financial services, petrochemicals, steel, and electricity. It seeks to invest in GCC countries. It also invests in corporate finance projects. Gulf Investment Corporation was founded in 1983 and is based in Kuwait City.

Investeurope has a bio of Read when he was a speaker and it includes some additional information:

Dr. Read has been a resource for regulatory agencies internationally, state governments, the US Congress, and the US Senate for over two decades and served as Chairman of the Investors’ Committee of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
He is currently a Governor of both the Hedge Funds Standards Board (London) and the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS). He was named as one of America’s 30 most influential players in business and finance by SmartMoney (November 2007) and #35 on Institutional Investor’s list of the 75 most effective chief executives.

That Dr. before his name came with a Phd in Political Economy from Stanford.  His prior education includes an undergraduate degree in Statistics and an MBA in Finance and International Business, both from the University of Chicago.  He has a second masters in Economics from Stanford.


And here's an interview with Read, published a couple of days ago, about what he's thinking as he approaches his Alaskan job.  Here's the end of the interview:

Skorina: APFC earned 4.9 percent in FY 2015; maybe not as strong a performance as they would have wished?
Read: Real estate did well, 9.8 percent on about 10 percent of the portfolio. And private equity was up 16.5 percent. U.S. equities were up 7.2 percent. But the more pertinent question is: where are the income and growth opportunities to come from in the years ahead, given this strange bond environment.
For a century, bonds were the bedrock of investments and retirement income. Since 2008 that has been turned on its head. Now, bonds are low-yield and high-risk. So, at a fund like APFC, we need to look for opportunities where size matters and we have an edge, things like real estate, infrastructure, or geographic opportunities.
Skorina: What do you mean by geographic opportunities?
Read: Well, let’s look out over the next twenty to thirty years. We’re long-term money, so where are long-term opportunities? Where is the growth to come from? Sixty 60 percent of the population growth over the next 35 years—to 2050—will come in Africa and south Asia, mostly in cities.
My job in Kuwait kept me hopping around Africa and Asia looking at infrastructure projects, and I’ve been able to see a lot of this growth first hand. There are all kinds of frustrations and obstacles you can’t imagine compared to the developed world, but the cities are still going up.
So what sectors and companies will benefit if you’re going to build new cities? It will be technology, communications, and infrastructure.
Skorina: I seem to recall that you’re an ardent musician. Do you still play the trumpet and sax? I imagine those long, cold winters in Juneau should give you plenty of time to keep your lip in shape.
Read: Funny you should mention that Charles. I’ve been looking into it and, as it turns out, Juneau has an active and sophisticated music community. I’m looking forward to my new home as well as my new job.

The original announcement of Read's appointment by the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation said he was starting on May 9, though Skorina says he gets to Juneau on May 1.

I'd also note that I have never met Mr. Read, but he is a good friend of a friend of someone I know well.

Last Day To Apply For Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Check

We were headed to a meeting downtown around 2pm and noticed the line outside the PFD office.   A lot shorter than the lines at the Democratic caucus Saturday.

March 31 is the deadline to file.

Lots of question marks over the future of the fund, as corporations want to tap into the fund now that oil prices are low and the state's short of money, rather than to impose income taxes.  That makes sense since in Alaska, corporations aren't yet 'people' when it comes to applying for a Permanent Fund Dividend.  Since the amount of the checks is based on a five year average, the drop in oil prices this past year shouldn't have too big an effect this year.

From the Permanent Fund website:

"How the PFD amount is calculated

• Add Fund Statutory Net Income from the current plus the previous four fiscal years.
• Multiply by 21%
• Divide by 2
• Subtract prior year obligations, expenses and PFD program operations
• Divide by the number of eligible applicants"