• Scattered clouds
  • 63°
    Scattered clouds
http://sealaska.com
  • Comment

New constitutional proposal aimed at boosting savings

Posted: January 5, 2012 - 1:10am

Alaska should be saving more for the future, a state senator says, and he’s going to introduce legislation this year to try to force that to happen. At the same time, Gov. Sean Parnell wants to reduce how much Alaska makes from oil taxes, and is continuing to advocate for cuts.

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said his proposed constitutional amendment is not a challenge to Parnell, who he praised for supporting more savings. Instead, he said, it is intended to highlight the fact that Alaska is consuming a limited oil resource.

Wielechowski said it is an idea that sounds difficult, but is getting some interest in the Legislature.

“I think there’s a growing consensus among legislators that it is something we need to talk about,” he said. “I know that it is something that I’ve thought a lot about.”

Wielechowski proposed that state spending of unrestricted general fund revenue be capped at $6 billion, indexed for inflation and population growth.

Any leftover unspent money would then go into the voter-created Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR). That’s a hard-to-access state savings account that legislators can only dip into if they have overwhelming support.

“It forces savings into the CBR,” Wielechowski said.

To do that, Wielechowski said, would take amending the Alaska Constitution. To start the process would take approval of two-thirds of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and then approval by voters in 2012.

Were his proposal in place this year it would likely force additional savings of $1.4 billion, he said.

Parnell spokeswoman Sharon Leighow didn’t comment directly on Wielechowski’s proposal, but said the governor has already committed to saving surplus revenue and holding down spending.

“The governor proposes to put billions in savings this year to draw from in more lean years. His fiscal responsibility is also demonstrated by record vetoes he exercised across the last two years,” she said.

Wielechowski said he’s asked the Legislative Finance Division to develop estimates of what the financial impact of such a measure would have been had it been in place over the last few years, and what impact it would have in the future.

“We’ve been good in recent years as far as savings go,” he said.

In 2008, the Alaska Legislature, at the behest of then-Gov. Sarah Palin, added $1,200 to each Permanent Fund Dividend, both to share the state’s oil proceeds with the public and defray the cost of the suddenly much higher gas and oil prices.

Wielechowski said he didn’t know whether that extra payment would have been allowed under his proposal, and it would be up to the Legislative Finance Division to answer that question.

• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.

  • Comment

Comments (11)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Latitude58
14466
Points
Latitude58 01/05/12 - 08:02 am
0
0

Do it like Norway

Create a Sovereign Wealth Fund with our oil revenue, and use that to pay for State operations after the oil runs out. However, Norway didn't create a permanent fund where they hand their money out to everyone to buy TVs and snow machines.

If we're lucky, Iran will block the Straits of Hormuz and oil prices will double. Go Iran!

akpacfan
0
Points
akpacfan 01/05/12 - 08:43 am
0
0

thick as thieves

Don't be fooled. It's just another angle for the Legislature to eventually raid the constitutional reserve so they can cover the promises they made to their big business supporters.

joegeldhof
78
Points
joegeldhof 01/05/12 - 09:41 am
0
0

Decent Idea

Saving now is a first-rate idea. While there might be some advantages to amending the Alaska Constitution, the simplest thing to do is just appropriate a significant amount of funds and deposit directly into the Alaska Permanent Fund (a sovereign fund), or directly into the existing Budget Reserve Fund. Saving now for the future is prudent idea and deserves support.

swimmergirl
4368
Points
swimmergirl 01/05/12 - 09:55 am
0
0

There is no surplus....

Unless and until all the State's bills are paid up, including indebtedness to the public employees account - there is no surplus. It's simple math.

joegeldhof
78
Points
joegeldhof 01/05/12 - 09:59 am
0
0

Swim

Fine. Take a billion and apply to outstanding pension liabilit and save a billion.

islander
1193
Points
islander 01/05/12 - 10:10 am
0
0

DO NOT PLAY FOUNDER

The Alaska Constitution is not some obscure municipal ordinance or State Law that changes with the times. While I see the need to control expenditures by limiting available funds I also see the danger when everything become a reason to change the Alaska Constitution.

First it starts out a reasonable idea to change the Constitution for a given reason. Then while we are mucking around changing, adding or repealing one part, it seems to be the politicians opening to change another thing or two at the same time. Alaskans need to know the Alaska Constitution will only change when there is no other alternative and not simply a whim of the day.

There is also no reason to believe any change implemented today would not be as easily repealed tomorrow when our would be founders get to change the Alaska Constitution at will.

joegeldhof
78
Points
joegeldhof 01/05/12 - 10:33 am
0
0

Islander

Amending is not to be taken lightly for a lot of reasons. So should the Alaska Legislature take a big wad of the surplus and park in one of the existing savings accounts, e.g., the Permanent Fund or the Budget Reserve Account?????????

wmolson
4420
Points
wmolson 01/05/12 - 03:24 pm
0
0

The PFD

From what know about the Permanent Fund creation, having lived in Alaska over those times, the dividend was included as "protection money" to protect the fund from being raided by legislators and other special interests. The folks then understood that if every Alaska were to get some kind of dividend that the people would be up in arms if anyone tried to raid it to get "pork" for their district or special interest.
Norway didn't have this potential problem, and so their savings fund is quite different.
I think why one State Senator wants a big hunk of our current income protected in the Constitutional Budget Reserve is because it takes many more legislators to tap into that than into other savings. Its just another form of "protection money," to make sure future life-time Alaskans get something and not just another ghost town "from a time when...."
That's my opinion

wolfmagic2012
2700
Points
wolfmagic2012 01/05/12 - 04:05 pm
0
0

It's great to talk about savings

and it's great to talk about helping out the poor, cash-strapped oil industry. However, perhaps Alaska should think about getting It's bills paid. It is the responsibility of Alaska to pay down the unfunded liability of PERS/TERS. It is not the public employees who have been unconscionably negligent in this regard, but rather the State of Alaska Administration. Throw a billion or 2 into PERS/TERS, and then you can ask about a constitutional amendment for a CBR.

Jo MacNamara
697
Points
Jo MacNamara 01/06/12 - 05:58 am
0
0

PERS/TERS

Has our Governor even addressed the unfunded liability of PERS/TERS at all?

I agree with joegeldhof above. If we create this fund, put half in the fund, and the other half to PERS/TERS.

I also agree with Islander. Our Constitution should not be amended lightly (and I always look for ulterior motives). But this would be an amendment I would support, and I rarely support amending the Constitution. I like it just the way it is.

joegeldhof
78
Points
joegeldhof 01/06/12 - 09:52 am
0
0

Amending the Constitution

There doesn't appear to be an overriding need to amend the Alaska Constitution. Appropriating surplus funds this year and depositing in the existing Permanent Fund or the Budget Reserve Fund is a straightforward matter. Both of these constitutional funds exists already and it is not easy to spend the funds contained in these accounts.

A combination of paying down existing liabilities as in the PERS obligation and depositing surplus in already existing accounts makes sense.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376863/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/359852/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376858/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376853/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376843/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/368637/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376838/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376833/
Fire Academy Graduation

CONTACT US

  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-3028
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2270
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING