Alaska Fiscal Policy: Where we are headed …

Co-Chair (and Chugach Electric Association, Inc. General Counsel) Mark Johnson and I closed the books yesterday on another exceptional two-day conference on “Energy in Alaska” (retitled this year, “Energy Markets and Regulation in Alaska”) put on annually by Law Seminars International.  We have been co-chairing the seminar since … well I am not quite sure I can recall.

As we shuffled the deck a bit in light of the election and other recent events, I ended up giving a set of remarks focused on Alaska’s current fiscal situation, which incorporated for the first time a look at the “work in progress” FY 2016 budget prepared by the Parnell Administration and transferred to Governor Walker’s Administration as part of the transition.  That proposed budget, and what the Walker Administration has to say about it, is available here.

My presentation is above.  My comments on the “work in progress” budget are at slide 10.

The conference always results in great discussions with serious people during the breaks and after each day’s set of presentations are completed.  This year’s was no exception.

At the reception following the first day’s events I appreciated the opportunity to explore in detail each of the five options for closing this year’s budget gap.  They are, in no particular order — cuts in spending, use of remaining savings, “raiding the PFD” (either directly or indirectly by spending from one of the accounts used in the calculation of the PFD), income taxes, sales taxes and transfer of increased responsibility (and cost) for government services to local government.

At the conclusion I came to realize that a realistic solution to “where we are headed” necessarily will involve all five.   I will be writing — and talking — about that more in the coming weeks.

Parnell propsed FY 2016 budget contains a $3+ billion deficit …

Fiscal CliffLast Friday the Walker Administration released the proposed FY 2016 budget that former Governor Parnell had been working on prior to the election and transmitted to the new administration as part of the transition process.

While there will be more — likely much more — to say about the proposed budget in the days ahead, it is worth noting a few highlights at this point to help start a needed conversation on the state’s current fiscal situation and the choices going forward. Continue reading

Fiscal leadership needed now …

Fiscal Cliff (pulling back)In August 2006, staring into a potential fiscal abyss created by an unplanned shutdown of the entire Prudhoe Bay field due to leak issues,  then Governor Frank Murkowski immediately announced two steps designed to curb state spending and reduce the potential drain on state savings, while additional analysis was being done.

The first step was an immediate freeze on new state hires.  The second was to direct the Office of Management and Budget to review the then-current capital budget to prepare a list of capital projects that could be “phased” (i.e., deferred) until the potential fiscal problems created by the shutdown were “better defined.” Continue reading

With election over, time to realize Alaska faces huge fiscal challenge …

Fiscal CliffMy appreciation to the Alaska Dispatch News for running the following op-ed piece in both its online and print editions (Tuesday, November 18, p. B4), and to the Fairbanks News-Miner for doing the same in both its online and print editions (Wednesday, November 26, p. A8). The piece ran under the headline “Governor-elect will have to cut deep to keep Alaska budget sustainable” (ADN online), “Walker must cut deep to make budget sustainable” (ADN print), and “State entering bleak budget times” (FNM online and print).

Sometimes the buzz created by election campaigns tends to mask what is going on in the “real world.” The most recent Alaska election cycle is a good example. While the Walker and Parnell campaigns debated through the fall about whether the state budget should be cut in the next year by 5 percent, 16 percent or something in between, in the real world state revenues have been plummeting to levels that make those numbers seem like artifacts of ancient history. Continue reading

The elephant in the room …

Last evening, at the first session of the Walker Mallott Transition Team, what some have called the “elephant in the room” — the state’s fiscal situation — took center stage.  To Governor-elect Walker’s credit the session was designed specifically to do that.  As he had told KTUU’s Austin Baird earlier in the day, Continue reading

Alaska Fiscal Policy: Dealing with $80 oil …

At the request of the (Anchorage Municipal) Budget Advisory Commission, yesterday (November 5) I made a presentation on Alaska Fiscal Policy.  When I was first asked to give the presentation the working title was “The need for implementing sustainable budgets.”  Due to dramatic changes since then in the oil markets, however, by the time I gave it yesterday the title was “Alaska Fiscal Policy:  Dealing with $90 $80 oil.” Continue reading

My closing statement …

DebateYesterday a friend asked me to sum up in a sentence my “closing statement” on this year’s state-level (Governor and  legislative) races.

The following — from a 2010 Wall Street Journal editorial looking back on the loss by the Republicans of the federal House of Representatives in 2006 — is what popped into my head: Continue reading

The most important question of this election ….

Dollar signANS oil prices, which as most will recall drive 90% of the Alaska state government revenue, fell again Wednesday to $82.16 per barrel.

The current state budget, which already was $1.6 billion in the red when it passed, is predicated on oil prices averaging $105 per barrel.  (The breakeven price for the budget is roughly $117 per barrel.)

Each dollar change in the price of oil is equal to roughly $90 million in state oil revenues.  That means if oil prices for the year settle at $95/barrel, the budget deficit will grow to $2.5 billion, at $90/barrel to something approaching $3 billion, and at $85/barrel to something on the order of $3.4 billion. Continue reading

Alaskans can handle the truth, even if some are in denial …

Screenshot 2014-10-12 16.48.51Earlier this week, as part of the “It’s Our Future” campaign, we started running web ads that asserted simply, and correctly, that if those legislators who have voted for state budgets since 2012 are “allowed to continue spending Alaska’s money at the rate we are on, you can kiss the #PFD goodbye.”

We made equally clear that, in casting votes to continue spending far in excess of sustainable levels, those same legislators necessarily are “eyeing” the Permanent Fund earnings because, as the state’s best economic analysts have made clear there will be nowhere else for the state to turn to for revenues at a point in the not too distant future .

The reaction by some has been humorous, in a Greek tragedy sort of way.  Rather than deal with the statement on the merits, a few have resorted instead with variations of “you lie.”  I suppose when you don’t have the facts on your side that’s about the best you can do. Continue reading

Bill Walker: “I will … put in place a sustainable budget.”

Web Note 14 Fiscal Burden_Page_01

Click above to read ISER Web Note 14.

Two years ago the University of Alaska – Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), the state’s best economic think tank, said this:

“Right now, the state is on a path it can’t sustain. … Reasonable assumptions … suggest we do not have enough cash in reserves to avoid a severe fiscal crunch soon after 2023, and with that fiscal crisis will come an economic crash.” ISER also offered a solution.  “What can the state do to avoid a major fiscal and economic crisis? The answer is to save more and restrict the rate of spending growth. All revenues above the sustainable spending level of $5.5 … would be channeled into savings.”

Continue reading