• Listen to Governor Hammond
  Real Player needed
• Home
• Friends of Save Your Dividend
• Friends of the Dividend
  Off Site
• Contact SYD
• Absentee Voter Request
• Register to Vote
• Press Releases
• Reasons to Vote NO
• Cartoons
• Words from our Cartoonist
• Knowles' Plan
• Knowles' Letter
• Letters to the Editor
• Activities and Meetings
• Reports
• Editorial
• Contest
• Support SYD
• Special Election Link
• PFD Discussion Group
  Not part of our site.
• MatSu People's Voice
• Party Fun
• Push Poll Complaints

The above political cartoons compliments of Dale Luther.

Your cartoons are welcome and will be posted As soon as we recieve them. Submit here.

Dear Alaskan friends and colleagues,

Yesterday I gave a speech for my Toastmasters (public speaking group) group regarding the upcoming Permanent Fund vote. Below are some of the notes and why I will be voting No. I think we need to ask ourselves three questions when deciding on whether to vote Yes or No on the September 14th election.

Three Questions:

a.. Do you trust state government and those advocating a Yes vote?

b.. Is the Balanced Budget Plan a fair plan?

c.. Is this Balanced Budget Plan really a plan at all?

1) Do you trust state government and those advocating a Yes vote?

STATE GOVERNMENT

a.. Advisory Vote Cost. At least $150,000 is being spent to set up this advisory vote on the Permanent Fund. Where did this money come from? Why is this vote advisory and not a binding election? a.. Political Agenda/Writing of the Ballot Proposition. The Ballot Proposition was written by people whose best interests are served if this plan passes. I believe that the BP acquisition of ARCO is closely tied to this election. It would be easier for Governor Knowles to promote tapping the Permanent Fund than ask British Petroleum or other companies/industries for more money in taxes. The governor knows he needs the backing of the oil industry to run a campaign for a seat in the U.S. Senate. a.. Legislative Complacency. Other representatives and senators in the Legislature are cowering to large businesses and industries and know that their re-election next year hinges on what they do or don't do. This spring, they spent 90 days in Juneau and never addressed the two most pressing issues affecting us Alaskans: the budget deficit and the subsistence issue. Are they representing the people of Alaska or the special interest groups and those that are financing their election campaigns?

THE VOTE YES CAMPAIGN

1.. The advertising has been misleading from the start. People do not like to be misled.

2.. Push polls. The Yes campaign has hired out-of-state people (ironic that they are not even keeping these jobs in Alaska) to call Alaskans and "push" people into voting Yes.

3.. This campaign has raised over $500,000 (half a million dollars) to promote and push a Yes vote. Isn't this a lot of money to spend/waste?

4.. Who are the promoters and what is their motivation? See this website to view the contributors to this campaign. It may surprise you! www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ADMIN/apoc/select.htm Most of the large donations for the Yes campaign are from the oil and gas industry. Cheryl Frasca, the Treasurer and main spokesperson for the campaign, is an oil and gas consultant. She is also a paid spokesperson.

5.. What piece of information don't we Alaskans have? Why is it so important for them (the Yes campaign) to get a Yes vote regardless of the cost and advertising integrity? Remember, this is just an advisory vote.

6.. If some Yes supporters will mislead people and manipulate in order to get their way now, how will they further manipulate things down in Juneau?

7.. If we decide to tap the Fund first, when the oil and other industry lobbyists get to Juneau, won't it be easier for them to aggressively "push" the politicians to tap more of the Fund rather than look at all possible fiscal options, which might include higher industry taxes? It is a question of trust and integrity.

2) Is it fair?

a.. Partners in Alaska/Fiscal Options on the Table. Alaskans and companies doing business in Alaska are all in this together. We are all partners and have a vested interest in the state of Alaska. We need to look at all options. We may profit together and we may need to suffer together. Shouldn't all fiscal options be put on the table, not just the tapping of the Permanent Fund? Large foreign and out-of-state companies and industries are financially backing the Yes vote because they do not want to pay more in taxes. As partners in the state of Alaska, we may all need to shoulder some of this financial debt. Foreign and out-of-state companies and industries will not shoulder any additional financial responsibility if Alaskans choose to tap the Permanent Fund. It will only impact Alaskans.

a.. Hammond's Questions. Two questions that Former Governor Jay Hammond (served 1974-82) and one of the Permanent Fund founders has brought up are this:

1.. Should the plan only be paid for by only Alaskans or should nonresident fishermen, tourists, pipeline and construction workers help pay?

2.. If the plan reduces future income of Alaskans, should it reduce everyone's income by the same amount, no matter their earnings?

a.. A Regressive Tax? Every Alaskan that qualifies receives the same amount. If the Permanent Fund is tapped, this would be a regressive tax that would have a greater financial impact on those in middle and low-income families than it would on higher-income families. As Senator Dave Donley wrote, "This plan places the entire solution to the fiscal gap on the backs of long-term Alaska residents -- only Alaskans pay."

3) Is there a plan?

a.. Allocation of Money. The Plan alleges that the money coming from the Permanent Fund will be used for essential public services like education. According to an article written by Senator Dave Donley, (Sept. 3, 1999. Anchorage Daily News. Page B-12) he says that "this is misleading since the plan has no mechanism in place to make this happen. Even if there was a mechanism in place, the money appropriated to essential state services would simply be used to free up money for the governor and Legislature to spend on nonessential services."

a.. Is the Plan a Plan? The Plan is nebulous. It is an easy solution to tap the Permanent Fund. We need a plan that has constraints and guides. We need to know that this money is earmarked for specific things. We need a plan that has teeth.

a.. The Father of the Dividend. Who better to know the intent of the Permanent Fund than one of its creators, former Governor Jay Hammond, who served as governor from 1974-1982. He endorses a "No" vote on September 14th.

a.. Tapping the Piggy Bank. Do you tap your piggy bank first, or do you seek out other options first? Don't let them break the piggy bank first and answer spending questions later. For those of you who are unable to see the cartoon below, it can also be viewed at www.savethepfd.org

This Tuesday, September 14th, I encourage you to do two things. First of all, go to the voting booth. Secondly, vote NO. By doing so, you are telling the politicians in Juneau, "Go back and draw up a new plan. Help us to trust you, make the plan fair, and make it a plan that has teeth."

Thank you,

Dale Luther

• Gov. Jay Hammond
  
• Sen. Dave Donely
• Sen. Lyda Green
• Sen. Rick Halford
• Sen. Robin Taylor
• Sen. Jerry Ward
  
• Rep Mary Sattler Kapsner
• Rep Vic Kohring
• Rep. Bev Masek
• Rep Scott Ogan
• Rep Jerry Sanders
• Doyle Holmes, Assby.
• Mayor Sarah Palin

• Alaskan Independence Party
• Alaska Green Party
• Knik Tribal Council
• AKPIRG
• Alaska Action Center
• Hispanic Organized Leaders of Alaska
• Oilwatch
• Common Roots Network
• Mountain View Action Council
• Interior Taxpayer Association
• Alaska Libertarian Party
• Diverse groups

• Eddie Burke
  Anchorage
• Rex Shattuck
  Chugiak
• George Martin
• Bill Parish
  Kenai
• Jim Wagner
  Fairbanks
• Bernadine Jackson
  Seward
• Ben Magnuson
  McGrath
• Jerry Schultz
  Homer
• 
  Nome
• 
  Juneau
• 
  Delta Junction
• 
  Bethel
• Shelton Green
  Mat-Su
• Your Group Here