Between vows against taxes and using savings, the 2025 PFD and Alaska state services are in a vise
Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, listens to a presentation on the proposed amendment to the Alaska Constitution on Thursday, April 24, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
As Alaska lawmakers confront a major budget deficit, legislators' opposing views on possible solutions appear likely to lead to a lower Permanent Fund dividend and cuts to services, including public schools.
In public statements, members of the Alaska Senate's majority caucus have said they oppose spending from savings to balance the budget and want to see new revenue bills instead.
Meanwhile, members of the state House and Gov. Mike Dunleavy have said they oppose new revenue bills and would prefer to spend from savings.
Those different positions leave only budget cuts — to public services and the dividend — as the way to balance the budget.
'It's still a very dynamic conversation right now. … We can clearly see we don't have enough funds to pay for everything,' said Rep. Bill Elam, R-Nikiski.
'In the absence of revenue, the PFD is going to go away. An affordable PFD this year is like $500,' said Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage.
As it prepares its draft of the state's operating budget, the Alaska Senate's finance committee has already stripped out all spending increases proposed by the state House in its draft budget, and it has nixed most of the increases requested by Dunleavy.
Even after cutting more than $200 million from a budget draft approved by the House, the Senate Finance draft budget has a deficit of at least $70 million — and possibly much more, depending on the results of ongoing labor negotiations and other factors.
Next on the chopping block is the dividend, set at $1,400 per recipient by the House.
'I believe, because of the tightness of this year's budget, we are looking at reducing that further, but no further than $1,000,' Hoffman said.
That reduction would save close to $420 million, he told reporters on Tuesday, but the size of the reduction hasn't been finalized.
While legislators have not agreed on a new formula to set the dividend, the amounts each of the past two years were based on 25% of the annual draws from the Permanent Fund, a share supported by some senators since at least 2017. Reducing the dividend below $1,400 would end that practice.
With three weeks left in the Legislature's regular session, the Senate has passed one revenue bill — modifying the state's corporate income tax for big Internet companies like Amazon — and two others remain in committee.
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, confirmed that the Senate will not pass the biggest revenue proposal this year: a reduction in the per-barrel tax credit given to oil companies as part of the state's oil tax system.
That leaves only a change to the taxation of privately held companies like Hilcorp, the North Slope oil firm, on the Senate's docket.
Even if both bills were to pass the Legislature and gain Dunleavy's approval, the combined gain to the state treasury would be the equivalent of less than $200 for the Permanent Fund dividend.
On top of that, the odds of the House passing and the governor allowing both revenue bills appear low.
In a March opinion column published by the Anchorage Daily News, House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, joined 15 members of the Republican House minority in opposing two of the three Senate bills.
Asked why Alaskans should endure a PFD cut to avoid higher taxes on those companies, Kopp said on April 8, 'Right now, our oil and gas industry is recovering from the COVID-19 setback and we are currently on the verge of a renaissance in the energy industry. … I don't want to kill an energy renaissance when it is just forming, coming online and showing tremendous promise.'
The House's majority caucus has only 21 members, meaning that Kopp's opposition would require the majority to have the support of at least one member of the House's Republican minority in order to advance one of the oil-related bills.
But even if a bill were to pass the House and Senate, Dunleavy would still have to OK it.
'I told legislative leadership, I'm not interested in new taxes. I'm not interested in a program that taxes and spends, taxes and spends,' the governor told reporters during a news conference earlier this month.
As an alternative to cutting the dividend and services, the Legislature could unlock the Constitutional Budget Reserve, a $2.8 billion savings account. Lawmakers are already planning to do so in order to cover a $200 million shortfall in the current year's budget.
But on Tuesday, members of the Senate's majority caucus reiterated their opposition to that idea.
As bad as the state's budget situation is this year, it's likely to be worse next year, said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
'We're very concerned (about) any access to the CBR this year … because the concern is next year, it's highly likely we're going to need it,' he said.
Between federal budget cuts and depressed oil prices, the problems that the state is facing now will be repeated next year, both Stedman and Hoffman said. That's when the Legislature will debate the budget to cover the fiscal year from July 2026 to June 2027.
'That is also an integral part of what we're having dialogue on — positioning the state for the FY27 budget a year from now, so we're not … halfway down a cliff, heading for a final stop,' Stedman said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Rand Paul slams Graham's push for Russian sanctions as ‘self-defeating economic warfare'
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) push for Russian sanctions, calling his bill 'self-defeating economic warfare.' Graham's sanctions bill on Russia would impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from any country that buys Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products. The legislation has more than 80 co-sponsors in the Senate, potentially making it veto-proof. But GOP senators are waiting on President Trump to move ahead with the legislation, and Trump said this week he hasn't even looked at it. Trump has also said he doesn't want to undermine the chances of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Paul, in a series of posts on X on Saturday, said the bill would be ineffective and backfire against efforts to achieve peace, as the war between Russia and Ukraine continues in its fourth year. 'The Graham bill would derail President Trump's efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. Self-defeating economic warfare is no way to achieve peace,' Paul said on X. 'This bill won't force China or India to change behavior, but it will impose an effective embargo on ourselves that will hurt American families,' he said. Paul also argued that the bill could hurt U.S. allies and raise gas prices. 'The Graham bill could raise tariffs on allies like Israel and Taiwan to 500 percent and potentially even higher. Why are we punishing our friends while pretending it'll hold Russia accountable? This isn't strategy—it's economic self-sabotage,' he wrote. 'Cutting off Russian oil takes a major source of supply off the market, resulting in higher gas prices. Analysts warned that a U.S. ban on Russian oil could cause prices to hit $160–$200 a barrel. That's $5+ gas at the pump,' he said. Graham, this past week, sought to address some of those concerns by proposing a carveout for his bill to exempt countries that aid in Ukraine's defense. The carveout could help insulate countries in Europe that still import Russian gas and have provided military support for Ukraine, as well as other U.S. partners that have straddled the line between maintaining ties with Moscow and providing assistance to Kyiv. 'A lot of countries still buy Russian oil and gas but less. Some European countries still have relationships with Russia, but they've been very helpful to Ukraine. So I want to carve them out,' Graham told reporters Wednesday. 'I tell China, if you don't want to have a 500 percent tariff, help Ukraine.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' has passed in the House and is now awaiting Senate approval. If passed, Trump's signature bill would extend the tax cuts granted by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and add additional tax cuts. While this might be welcome news to many, the bill also includes changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could threaten seniors' access to these programs. Find Out: Read Next: 'The 'one big beautiful bill' passed by the House of Representatives, if it were passed into law today, would cut Medicaid and SNAP by a combined $1 trillion,' said Chris Orestis, president of Retirement Genius. 'In addition, because of the increase to federal debt of as much as $5 trillion, the bill would trigger an automatic reduction in Medicare funding of $500 billion,' he continued. 'This would represent the largest cut to social services and health insurance for the poor, disabled, children and the elderly in U.S. history.' Here's a look at the changes retirees can make now to secure care and avoid benefit disruptions if the bill were to pass. Before changes go into effect, check with your healthcare providers to ensure there won't be any interruption to your care if there are cuts to Medicaid. 'Check with your healthcare provider to see if they might cut back on services or cease accepting Medicaid-funded patients, and contact any nursing home where you or a loved one may reside to find out if they will be reducing the number of patients they can support — or even [if they are] possibly planning to close,' Orestis said. Knowing this ahead of time will allow you to find alternative care providers before it's too late. Learn More: If you are reliant on SNAP, start searching for alternatives that may be able to provide food assistance in the event your benefits are reduced or cut. 'Make sure you know where there are local support services through community or faith-based organizations to replace lost access through SNAP,' Orestis said. Many retirees plan to 'spend down' their savings so that they qualify for Medicaid to pay for their long-term care. However, this may no longer be a viable option. 'If you are considering going onto Medicaid for long-term care and are preparing to engage the 'spend down' process to impoverish yourself and get below the poverty level to qualify, you may want to reconsider that strategy, and instead look to leverage private pay resources to pay for your care,' Orestis said. 'If you are on Medicaid, you will primarily be reliant on nursing homes for your care, and their ability to withstand these cuts will be very challenging and up in the air,' he continued. 'If you are private pay, you are in control and can decide where and when you will receive care, such as at home or an assisted living community not funded by Medicaid.' Strategies to stay private pay for long-term care would include long-term care insurance, annuities, a life insurance settlement, a reverse mortgage or VA benefits. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now

Wall Street Journal
6 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
GOP Senators' Competing Demands Risk Pulling Trump Megabill Apart
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.) is trying to release this week a revised version of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' But as he races to pass the legislation ahead of Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline, he has got about as many problems as there are GOP senators, with lawmakers battling over the additional borrowing and spending cuts that will be used to finance tax relief, plus spending on the border and military.