Different Constitutional Dividend Protection Bills JUNEAU – House Democratic Representatives Eric Croft and Harry Crawford, both of Anchorage, today drew comparisons between their proposal to constitutionally protect the current Permanent Fund Dividend program with SJR 24, the recent proposal from Senator Scott Ogan (R-Palmer). Crawford and Croft's resolution, SSHJR 3, constitutionally protects both the current dividend distribution formula and the statutory inflation-proofing clause. Senator Ogan's proposal, in contrast, does not include any provision for inflation-proofing the fund. SJR 24 allows open access to spend the earnings not distributed as dividends, while the Democrat’s proposal requires a 60 percent vote of the people to allow for government access to the fund earnings. The final difference is the Republican’s proposal protects the dividend only if voters approve a spending cap. Croft and Crawford's dividend protection is not contingent on the passing of any other legislation. "We want to take the dividend off the chopping block, period," said Crawford. "Our proposal says that we will protect your dividend, inflation-proof the fund and not let the government spend the earnings without your permission. Ogan’s resolution holds dividend protection hostage to the passage of a spending cap. Voters shouldn’t be forced to vote for one to get the other." "Do you want to protect an increasing or a decreasing dividend," said Croft. "Our proposal increases the earning power of the dividend, for our children and grandchildren, because it protects against government raids against inflation-proofing." Governor Murkowski recently called the Conference of Alaskans to consider use of permanent fund earnings for government. The group concluded with an overwhelming vote saying the dividend should be protected constitutionally. Senator Ogan's SJR24 has Judiciary and Finance committee referrals, but is not scheduled for a hearing. HJR3 remains in the House State Affairs Committee and Senator Lincoln's similar bill, SJR 19, remains in the Senate Judiciary Committee. |
Print
