"Framing it as the dividend versus education—and, with Stedman’s suggestion of municipal debt, local property taxes, too—that makes it a clearer battle… an uphill battle, no doubt, but a clearer one."
But also an (intentionally??) misleading one. The issue is really education versus additional revenues. Once we've decided it should be additional revenues, then the appropriate question becomes "what's the best source of additional revenues." ISER told us in 2016 that, of all the options, using PFD cuts as revenue have the "largest adverse impact" on the overall economy. ITEP told us in 2017 that using taxes would have a lower adverse impact on 80% of Alaska families than PFD cuts.
The legislature has the information in front of it to know that the answer to the additional revenue question should be something other than PFD cuts. But rather than deal with that issue, Senator Stedman is framing PFD cuts as the only source. That's just a way of helping Alaska families on the one hand (increased K-12), while at the same time pushing 80% of them backwards. The real winners under that approach? The Top20%, who pay a trivial amount for the benefits of increased K-12 spending, and non-residents engaged in business in Alaska who, unlike as occurs in every other state, contribute nothing toward its costs.
"Framing it as the dividend versus education—and, with Stedman’s suggestion of municipal debt, local property taxes, too—that makes it a clearer battle… an uphill battle, no doubt, but a clearer one."
But also an (intentionally??) misleading one. The issue is really education versus additional revenues. Once we've decided it should be additional revenues, then the appropriate question becomes "what's the best source of additional revenues." ISER told us in 2016 that, of all the options, using PFD cuts as revenue have the "largest adverse impact" on the overall economy. ITEP told us in 2017 that using taxes would have a lower adverse impact on 80% of Alaska families than PFD cuts.
The legislature has the information in front of it to know that the answer to the additional revenue question should be something other than PFD cuts. But rather than deal with that issue, Senator Stedman is framing PFD cuts as the only source. That's just a way of helping Alaska families on the one hand (increased K-12), while at the same time pushing 80% of them backwards. The real winners under that approach? The Top20%, who pay a trivial amount for the benefits of increased K-12 spending, and non-residents engaged in business in Alaska who, unlike as occurs in every other state, contribute nothing toward its costs.