Primary Election 2014 by Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

ALASKA’S 2014

PRIMARY ELECTION

BALLOT MEASURE 1 UNITED STATES SENATOR UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR STATE SENATOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

Primary Election Day:

August 19, 2014 Polls open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

2014 elections: House district maps HOUSE DISTRICT 1 Dr

Illin ois

Noye

wy ga

Gillam Way

wle Co W

Military

Davis Rd

Mitchell Exp

rt po Air

Ave .S

North Pole

HOUSE DISTRICT 4

Nordale Rd

6-C

Hay

Ellio tt H w

3-B

Benn Ln

Bradway Rd

Ownby Rd

Durango Tr

Fox

ard son Hw y

Laurance Rd

Old

k Par

Chena Ridge

40-T

5-C

Alaska Way

Mi t

ch e

2-A

Paxson

Wiseman Coldfoot Kobuk

3-B

Beaver

Alatna

Stevens Village

Lakeview Dr

Huslia Rich

Rampart Minto Manley Hot Springs

39-T

ards on Hw y

4-B

1-A

Anderson

3-B

MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH

10-E

38-S

6-C

LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH

32-P

5-C

ANCHORAGE MUNICIPALITY

Valdez

KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH

9-E Valdez

32-P

YAKUTAT CITY AND BOROUGH

Sutton-Alpine Buffalo Soapstone Fishhook 9-E Farm Loop

Lazy Mountain

10-E 11-F 7-D Gateway Palmer

Wasilla

Butte 12-F

40-T

Wales

Ferry Healy

Chistochina

McKinley Park

6-C

Cantwell

10-E

Tonsina

McCarthy

Shishmaref

Diomede

Anderson

9-E

Gakona

Paxson

Point MacKenzie

ANCHORAGE MUNICIPALITY

Teller Port Clarence

6-C

Nome

Gambell

Huslia

White Mountain Golovin Elim

Savoonga

Glennallen

6-C 6-C

Ruby

Stebbins

Willow Creek

Kotlik Alakanuk

Kenny Lake

Grayling

Nunam Iqua

Anvik

Tonsina Pikas Point

Scammon Bay

Pilot Station

McGrath Shageluk

Holy Cross

Nikolai

37-S

Hooper Bay

Valdez Valdez

Whittier

Koyukuk Galena

39-T Nulato

Unalakleet

Tazlina Coper Center

9-E

Koyuk

Shaktoolik

Gulkana Chistochina

Lake Louise Gulkana Glennallen Mendeltna Nelchina Tolsona Eureka Roadhouse Glacier View Chickaleon Willow Meadow Lakes Lazy Mountain Big Lake Knik River

Trapper Creek Susitna North

Willow Creek

Chistochina Gakona Glennallen Kenny Lake Chitina

FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH

MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH

Tazlina Coper Center

Chicken

HOUSE DISTRICT 39

HOUSE DISTRICT 9

37-S

Gulkana

Glenallen

Dot Lake Tanacross Tok Tetlin Mentasta Lake Northway

9-E

37-S

5-C

Eagle Village

Healy Lake

DENALI BOROUGH

McGrath

Gakona

BOROUGH

5-C Salcha Harding-Birch Lakes

Ruby

6-C

Circle Central

Steele Creek FAIRBANKS Ester NORTH STAR

6-C 2-A

6-C

Chistochina

Venetie

Evansville Hughes

5-C

DENALI BOROUGH

3-B

Badger

North Pole

Anaktuvuk Pass

Lake Minchumina

Fairbanks

1-A 2-A

Military

Kaltag

6-C

College Rd

Arctic Village

4-B

Nenana

NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH

NORTHWEST ARTCTIC BOROUGH

y Hw rks Pa

Chena Hot Springs

HOUSE DISTRICT 6 6-C

1-A

Nash St Yukon Dr Rd

Old Nenana Hwy

HOUSE DISTRICT 5

l l H wy

hill

Parks Hwy

Va ld

Dr kuk oyu N. K

Gold

Ex Rd ce ran Lau

Rich

Gordon Rd

Military

Farmers Loop

tley

College Ester

5-C

Sat

Goldstream

Levee Wy

North Pole

Ste ese Hw y

4-B

Repp Rd

d ox R er F Silv

Rozak Rd

Paige Ave

6-C

N Freeman

Rd son Birch St

Lakloey Dr

Dennis Rd

H wy

Freeman Rd

Mattie St

Dr.

Badger Rd

ter Pat

ad Rd. N Homeste Rd ro o n Ca

Homestead

2-A Fairbanks

Tanana

Trl

Chena Hot Springs

Beacon Rd

Richardson

Ownby Rd

k Dr

sity

5-C

Bonnifield

Uni ver

ard son Hw y

stac

Po at

Rich

Rozak Rd

Flo

Bradway Rd

Elliott Hwy

t net Ben

Ste ese Hw y

Richardson Hw

HOUSE DISTRICT 3 4-B

Markey Rd

Lakeview Dr

Sanduri St

Lakeview Ter Lakeview Ter

ershing Ct

Sandu ri St

Easy St

Braddoc k St

Beck Rd

S Lathrop St

Royal Rd

Sheldon Ave

Van Horn Rd

Wiese Ct

Endecott Ave

Rd E Van Horn

South Van Horn

Macarthur St

Standard Ave

Patton St

35th Ave

Easy St

34th Ave

S Cushm an

Bidwill Ave

Holt Rd

5-C

Alta Wy

Ram p

Rd Williams Gate

32nd Ave

Bonnifield Tr

Ave

Hughes

on Ramp/off Ramp

Old Richardson Hwy

Burns Ave

R/w

Hw y

Benn Ln

Van Horn Rd rdson

Jeep

Badger Rd

Lakeview Dr

Ramp

30th Ave

Ric ha

Richardson H w S Cushman St

Mitchell Exp

Hwy

ey Rd

Macarthur St

on New Richards

State Hwy 2

Gaffn

Micael Ln

p Rd Burgess Airstri

1-A Lathrop St

17th Ave

2-A

Airport Way

16th Ave

or G ate R d

Mattie St

Gaf fney

Cla ple

Glass

rdson Hwy

sS wle Co

Barn ette

Ave

Military Cyclone Dr

10th

y Hw se Train

Andromeda Rd

Canoro Rd

Noye s

t yS

15th Ave

Exp sen an h o J

F St

600th St

W ay

Oconnor

3-B

ll Sage Hi l Jeep Trai

S Homestead Rd

Farewell Ave

Slater Dr

6th Av

Noble St

Beacon Rd

Shannon

3rd

Ave

y St

Air

Colleg eR

D St

B St

2nd

m an

Old

C St

Cush

W ay

Lathrop St

Davis Rd

E Cowles St

ll E

19th Ave

1-A

Lace

Peger Rd

che Mit

Digger Dr

19th Ave

A St

n Dr

Rd Pikes Landing

Ste

es Ste

Ham ilton Ave

2nd Av

Wash ingto

elton Rd

Cranber ry St

Ruby Ave

Old

as Dr Thom

Loftus Rd

Chief

Morian Dr

Phillips Field Rd

N Cu shm

University Ave

Thomson Dr

4th

Fro

12th

Airport Way

s St

Ric h a

2-A

p sen Ex Johan

Johansen Exp

4-B

i C ce la Pa

Co l

Deere St

Taku

s Dr

Pri

Shannon Dr

Hanson Rd

Park s Hw

E Bia

Oconnor Rd Gloria Ave

n Ta

Loo p

Geist Rd

Laze lle

Ste e

Alaska Way

Tanana

d eR leg

ers Loop arm

Tanana

UAF

Crea mer Ln

Bridgewater

s Loop mer Far

4-B

HOUSE DISTRICT 2

38-S

Cordova

HOUSE DISTRICT 40 Barrow Wainwright

Prudhoe Bay

Atqusuk Point Lay

Nuiqsut NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH

40-T

Point Hope Red Dog Mine Kivalina

Kaktovik

Arctic Village

Anaktuvuk Passt

Noatak NORTHWEST ARCTIC BOROUGH

Kotzebue

Venetie Noorvik

Selawik Alatna

Deering Hughes

Buckland

39-T

Huslia

6-C Fort Yukon

Beaver Stevens Village

32-P

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

ELECTIONS 2014

Voters line up and fill the booths at the Bentley Mall Polling Station on Tuesday evening, Oct. 2, 2012. Eric Engman/News-Miner file photo

IMPORTANT DATES Provided by the state Division of Elections

Aug. 4—Early voting begins for primary election. Aug. 16—Regional offices open 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. for absentee and early voting for primary election. Aug. 17—Regional offices open 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. for absentee and early voting for primary election. Aug. 18—Deadline to receive absentee electronic transmission ballot applications. Aug. 19—Primary Election Day. Polls open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Aug. 19—Deadline for electronic transmission ballots to be received. Aug. 19—Deadline for by-mail ballots to be postmarked Aug. 19—Deadline for no-party candidates to file nominating petition signatures. Sept. 2—Deadline for recognized political parties to fill a vacancy. Sept. 2—Withdrawal deadline for general election candidates. Sept. 2—Target date to certify the primary election. Oct. 20—Absentee and in-person voting begins for general election. Oct. 30—Deadline for write-in candidates to file a letter of intent. Nov. 1—Regional offices open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. for absentee and early Voting for general election. Nov. 2—Regional offices open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. for absentee and early Voting for general election. Nov. 4—General election day. Polls open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Nov. 4—Deadline for by-mail ballots to be postmarked. Nov. 4—Deadline for electronic transmission ballots to be received. Nov. 14—Deadline for by-mail ballots to be mailed from within the U.S. Nov. 17—State Review Board begins review of election materials. Nov. 24—Target date to certify general election Nov. 27—Deadline for recount for governor’s race. Dec. 1—Governor and lt. governor sworn into office.

ABOUT THIS SECTION

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner sent a list of questions to all candidates for U.S. Senate, Congress, governor and the Alaska Legislature. In this section we list the responses of every candidate that responded to the survey. In some cases space limitations prevent the full answers of the candidates from being published in this print section. A complete list of questions and candidate answers will be available online at www.newsminer.com. Candidates were allowed up to 100 words to respond to the first few questions and up to 70 words for each subsequent question. The questions were sent out in late June.

About our coverage

The News-Miner’s coverage of Alaska candidates and issues leading up to the Aug. 19 primary election is under way in the daily editions of the newspaper through Sunday, Aug. 17. Coverage has already begun and has included a series on Measure 1 (the measure to repeal the state’s new oil tax system) and state legislative races. Profiles on U.S. Senate, congressional and gubernatorial races is scheduled to begin today.

Online

Visit newsminer.com for most of this section’s contents, for expanded candidate surveys, and for stories on the candidates and issues on this primary election ballot. For up-to-the-moment coverage of the primary election, particularly on election day, follow political reporter Matt Buxton on Twitter: @FDNMpolitics.

Like always you can give us your comments about this Primary Election 2014 section by contacting either managing editor Rod Boyce (459-7585, editor@ newsminer.com) or political reporter Matt Buxton (459-7544, mbuxton@ newsminer.com). Comments about this section that are intended for publication in the Letters to the Editor section of the newspaper can be emailed to letters@newsminer. com. The last day for election-related letters is Sunday, Aug. 17.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

U.S. SENATE CANDIDATES MARK BEGICH Democrat, Anchorage

Mark Fish

Scott Kohlhaas Zachary Kile

Libertarian, Big Lake

Libertarian, Anchorage

Alaskan Independence, Wasilla

QUESTIONS Explain your view on global warming and, if you believe it is occurring, the extent to which you believe humans contribute to it and what role government should have in reducing it.

Climate change poses serious risks to Alaska’s military bases, transportation and world-class fisheries. Born and raised in Alaska, I’ve seen these changes first-hand. As chair of two Senate subcommittees, I fought for expanded research, a comprehensive energy plan and adaptation funds to reduce the risk and cost here. Through new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, we can cut Alaskans’ energy costs and address climate change. To ensure Alaska benefits from a changing Arctic, I’ve secured funding to help develop a deepwater port, expand our Coast Guard presence and build needed Arctic infrastructure. The icebreaker Polar Star is back patrolling Alaska waters and UAF has a new research vessel, Sikuliaq.

If global warning is occurring, man’s impact is minimal. Decentralizing energy would create competition and efficiency and is our best solution.

Advances in science and medicine mean that people are living longer lives. I have seen the population of the world increase greatly, and I know it will increase by billions more in future years. I believe supporting that population growth is probably putting a strain on Mother Earth. I also believe that more people means more ingenious answers to problems.

I do not believe in global warming. I believe that the Earth is going through a climate change as it has done since the beginning of time. Humans play a small role in climate change, but we are guilty of disposal of waste in our oceans and land. The state governments should have more control over what is happening in the state than the federal government. Alaska needs more exploration, development and exportation of our gas, oil and coal.

What would you change, if anything, about the Affordable Care Act? What part(s) do you like? Why?

Five years ago, insurance companies denied coverage to one out of every three Alaskans applying. Today, that number is zero. The ACA isn’t perfect and few Alaskans were more upset than me when the website wouldn’t work. I’ve worked hard to fix problems from the start. We repealed burdensome regulations on small businesses and ensured domestic violence victims coverage. I’m championing a new lower cost “Copper Plan” option for Alaskans. We need to expand the voluntary coverage option to small businesses with fewer than 100 employees and increase tax credits to help businesses cover their employees.

Repeal the ACA, end all subsidies and taxes on the health-care industry. Deregulate the health and insurance industry as much as practical and implement tort reform.

You have to respect President Obama for succeeding in achieving his goal in this area and also wonder about the Republicans. I would vote to repeal it, and at the same time return to doctors their free speech by allowing them to advertise their prices. I believe open, healthy competition is the way to keep health care costs low.

Obamacare is a diabolical plan to undermine the financial stability of the low and middle working class. It should be repealed. The original law has been changed over and over again by a tyrannical president who has no respect for our Constitution. People can’t keep their plan or doctor. It’s more expensive, and it is another tax that has to be paid to the IRS. We need to repeal this law and start over with a true bipartisan effort.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is set to become the most-expensive weapons system in U.S. history. Eielson Air Force Base is in line to host two squadrons of the aircraft. What do you think of the F-35 program?

I want the F-35s at Eielson. Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young and I fought to keep the F-16s at Eielson, and we’re fighting to bring F-35s there. We must produce them cost effectively, which is why I fought for fixed-price contracts. I also cut wasteful spending by capping executive pay on DoD contracts, cutting unnecessary IT programs and blocking funds for the Medium Extended Air Defense System.

The F-35 is likely our last manned fighter. The rate of technological growth will make it obsolete long before the end of its structural airworthiness. Future defense platforms will have to be unmanned, cheaper and be deployed quickly. Because of its location and environment, Alaska will always play a vital role in developing, supporting and maintaining these systems.

We need a national defense, and we must have the latest weapons technology and always stay ahead in the arms race. But if Alaska’s bases closed, I wouldn’t shed a tear. I ask you, with 571,951 square miles in Alaska, why do they have to fly right over the cities deafening me and scaring my poor cat?

The F-35 program would benefit Fairbanks and the state by adding a larger military presence for protection of our northern borders, which in turn means more revenue for Fairbanks.

The situation in Iraq has been deteriorating in recent months. The militant group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has claimed significant territory in Iraq, and the government is weakening. How should the United States respond?

I do not support sending combat troops to Iraq. Many of the 60,000 service men and women stationed in Alaska have already been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan multiple times. We should focus on providing better care to our veterans and getting our fiscal house in order rather than asking men and women to put their lives on the line for problems the Iraqis must solve.

Borders are being redrawn, the USA should not intervene other than defending our commerce with friendly nations.

The Democrats and Republicans have again led us into a lost war, losing a trillion dollars and wasting millions of lives. Libertarians have always known the answer to this question, because our principles are unwavering — ever since the founding of this nation. The United States should be strictly neutral. George Washington warned against entangling alliances. Now our privacy is disappearing.

The president should have listened to his military leaders and left a substantial force behind to continue to train the Iraq military and provide support when needed. Since the U.S. has withdrawn its forces, we should use our military now to secure our borders.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell in December rejected a proposed land exchange with the state that would have allowed for construction of a long-sought road to connect the Alaska Peninsula community of King Cove with the all-weather airport at Cold Bay. Do you support or oppose Jewell’s decision? Explain.

Secretary Jewell’s shortsighted decision demonstrated this administration does not understand Alaska’s unique needs. I worked closely with Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young on this life-ordeath issue and introduced legislation mandating a land exchange to allow the state to receive title to a road corridor to give the residents of King Cove the safety and peace of mind they deserve.

I oppose even the notion of us asking permission for the road. The area of the roadway is a historic route and as such is titled to the state. The state should build the road and require the federal government to sue us in state court to stop us. Meanwhile, the state should build the road; it owns the route.

I disagree with the Interior secretary’s decision, and as a United States senator from Alaska, I will work to loosen the grip that Washington, D.C., has on our state. I will also work to see that the land ownership numbers are reversed in Alaska so that 99 percent of the land is privately owned with only 1 percent “commons.”

I oppose Jewell’s decision. When the federal government has the power to tell a state it cannot build a life-saving road because it might displace birds, it is time for the state to do it itself. After all, it is our land and human life is more precious than a bird’s.

Should Alaska call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of nullifying the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision that allowed unrestricted spending by corporations and labor unions on political campaigns? Explain.

I am opposed to the secret, unlimited campaign donations that have flooded our elections since the Citizens United ruling. That is why I support a constitutional amendment to overturn it and have co-sponsored the DISCLOSE Act to restore transparency and accountability to our elections. I believe our elections should be decided by Alaska voters, not Outside billionaires like the Koch brothers.

No. I favor Rand Paul’s bill, which states “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being,” along with slight modification, as the best vehicle to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment.

I equate my money with my speech and I don’t want my speech limited, so I am in favor of the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision. I favor Dick Randolph’s call for a state constitutional convention because our state Constitution mandates a socialist economic system with its claim to ownership of all subsurface resources, and this prevents a private economy.

Citizens United needs to be nullified. Big money buys elections. At some point the money spent to back the politician is asked to be repaid in the form of a vote. Look at Begich and Obamacare as an example. I am paying for my campaign out of my own pocket. Therefore, if elected, I will only have to answer to the people of Alaska.

Under what circumstances, if any, should abortions be permitted under state or federal law?

As Alaskans, we value our right to privacy and believe the government should stay out of our private lives and personal decisions. I believe a woman has a legal right to make her own health care decisions, not the government, elected officials or employers. That is why I am proud of my long-standing record of supporting a women’s right to make her own health care choices and providing access to affordable birth control.

When it is reasonable to believe the life of the mother would end. No law should be passed that restricts access to birth control methods. However, once life is conceived, a woman and a man enter into a trust agreement with another life, and I feel they are obligated to fulfill that trust until the child’s age of consent.

I believe you cannot regulate a real life for a potential life. I won’t regulate women, and I believe abortion should be legal and available. I’m a pro-choice candidate running in a pro-choice party. But let me also say that I will vote against any attempt to make taxpayers pay for abortions either directly or through subsidizing organizations supporting it.

I am pro-choice. In the case of rape and incest, the procedure should be permitted under state and federal law.

Do you support the legalizing of same-sex marriage? Explain.

Alaskans value our right to privacy so deeply it is ingrained in the state Constitution. I don’t believe government should interfere in our private lives and personal decisions, and the courts continue to rule these laws are unconstitutional. I don’t support discrimination of any kind. That is why I believe same-sex couples should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any other married couple.

Marriage is a term that is defined by society and should have no preference given to it by law. I oppose all laws referring to marriage. A template for civil union could be offered as a contract any two consenting adults could enter into if they prefer legal protections, but let’s get marriage out of government and government out of marriage.

Yes, of course it should be legal. Not to be flippant, or cavalier, but I believe you should be able to marry a piece of furniture if you want to. Marriage is between you, your family, and your insurance company — it should not and never be a tool of the government.

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, it is not my right to tell another person who they can and should marry.

For additional questions, visit www.newsminer.com Ask for the Republican Ballot on August 19th, and Vote for Mead Treadwell! People who’ve already endorsed:

Cynthia Erickson Dale Erickson Alex Hoffman Janet Downing Pat Fink Sig Fink Hollis D. Hall Pat Chembars Grace Moore Marilyn Memory Victoria Thompson Carole Belmont Deborah Eason Peggy Talerico Stanley Austin Cheri Solie Buzz Otis

Cam Carlson Bill Satterberg Chris Sorrells Mark Smith Larry Rogers David Waldo Thomas A. Rosson Kathleen (Mike) Dalton Ruth Ewig Helen (Beaver) Warner Andie Rice Joni Manuel John Kanarr Dawn Sadler Barbara Gaston

Paid for By: Treadwell Alaska Committee PO Box 200125 Anchorage

12508446-8-13-14ES

Jack Coghill Robert Fox Bruce Campbell David Pruhs Susan Motter Gary Wilken Glenn Juday David Williams Buki Wright John Sadler Roy H. Nieman Sarah Heinchen William Watson II Kay Rees Prestley Peter Robert Carlson Bill Sparks

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

U.S. SENATE CANDIDATES ViC KOHRING

JOE miller

DAN SULLIVAN

Mead Treadwell

Republican, Fairbanks

Republican, Anchorage

Warming and cooling are part of the Earth’s natural cycles. It hasn’t been definitively proven that humans contribute anything of significance.

While all the other GOP candidates for U.S. Senate are on the record expressing their support for the global warming agenda and calls for government action, I believe the science concerning it is inconclusive at best. During the last 20 years, climate change alarmists — like Al Gore — made catastrophic predictions about the effects of manmade global warming. The truth of the matter is temperatures have cooled over the last several years, including here in Alaska, according to a UAF study. Given the uncertainty of the science, I would oppose taxes and regulations arising from the global climate change agenda.

With seven billion humans on earth, there is likely some impact on nature. The last few years clearly show, though, that there is no concrete scientific consensus on the extent to which humans contribute to climate change. Of course we should be good stewards of our environment and protect Alaska’s natural splendor, but Alaskans have already adopted some of the highest environmental standards in the world. The last thing we need is more onesize-fits-all red tape from Washington and policies that undermine economic growth and affordable energy.

The climate is changing. Since where most of us live in Alaska was once covered by ice, I’m pretty sure humans didn’t cause it all. Here in Alaska, let’s adapt; deal with what we can, learn more about what we can’t and have the wisdom to know the difference. When a politician promises he can change the weather or the climate, hold on to your wallet and watch out for your liberties.

Repeal Obamacare completely as socialized health care is a known failure. Until passage of the law, America had one of the best medical systems in the world. It’s now burdened with excessive government controls and IRS enforcement.

Many Alaskans have already experienced the devastating effects of Obamacare, whether it be the loss of their insurance plan, their doctor, their job or skyrocketing premiums due to the government takeover of health care. To reverse this, I will fight to repeal — or at the very least, fully defund — Obamacare. It’s imperative that health care decisions be the domain of patients and their caregivers. Government panels must not be empowered to decide who can and cannot receive health care. Nor should the government be allowed to mandate what products an individual citizen can (or must) buy on the private market.

I would repeal Obamacare and replace it with common-sense solutions that lower cost, expand access and improve quality of care for everyone. Consumer choice: Allow individuals to buy plans across state lines and allow small businesses to pool together for greater buying power. Greater transparency: Empower patients to know what they’re paying for and customize treatment options to save money. Tort reform: Reduce frivolous lawsuits that only enrich trial lawyers. Protecting the most vulnerable: Establish well-funded high-risk pools at the state level for people with pre-existing conditions. Tax reform: Allow families and individuals to deduct health care costs.

I won’t waste time trying to change the Affordable Care Act — I’ll vote for its immediate and total repeal. Only after we’ve buried Obamacare for good can we focus on the specific problems in our healthcare system and develop solutions that will work. The unraveling scandal in the Department of Veterans Affairs has proven beyond all doubt that government-run, single-payer systems don’t work. I’m unalterably opposed to mandates and requirements that restrict our rights and liberties. The government should focus on the research and development of cutting-edge treatments and develop a system that encourages savings so that future generations can afford the care they need.

Advanced weapons systems such as the F-35 are needed to keep America’s defenses strong. Eielson should get the squadrons as Alaska needs to continue playing a key role in our national defense.

While deficiencies abound in the Department of Defense’s procurement process that need to be addressed in future programs, the paramount consideration must be providing our troops with the best technology to successfully accomplish their missions and return safely to their families. Our potential adversaries are rapidly developing advanced aircraft that will surpass American air superiority absent such a commitment.

I fully support the F-35 program. Alaska’s strategic location in the world cannot be understated. Eielson Air Force Base is the optimal location for these aircraft, and I’m confident it will soon be announced as the preferred location by the USAF. As Alaska’s U.S. senator, I will be wholly committed to building the strongest possible military presence in Alaska.

The F-35 program is driven by emerging threats around the world. The United States must and will maintain air superiority against every other fighter threat in the world, and I believe the F-35 is essential to meet this goal. Alaska bases are on the front lines of air-defense, and basing F-35s in Fairbanks is essential to the security of our nation.

The U.S. has no business in Iraq and should stay out, other than humanitarian help. The ethnic groups should resolve their differences without our interfering in the affairs of another country.

Iraq is a perfect example of the failure in U.S. foreign policy. It is not the job of our military to engage in nation building, putting at risk service members like my son. I do not support further intervention in the Middle East unless a direct threat exists to U.S. national security or vital American interests in the region.

When President Obama took office, Iraq was secure and stable. It has been hugely detrimental to America’s interests to see ISIS rise to power. I support dispatching limited military forces to defend our citizens in-country. We shouldn’t repeat the Obama administration’s tragic failure to protect the Americans serving in Benghazi. We should work closely with our allies in the region to find a regional solution to this problem. We should not strike a partnership of convenience with Iran as Secretary Kerry has suggested.

Current efforts to assist the government in Iraq are a necessary step. Before we can act further, however, we must address the root cause: President Obama’s ineffectiveness at containing the influence of Syria, Russia and Iran in the region. As long as we allow those regimes to undermine U.S. interests, Iraq will remain dangerous and unstable. We should not, however, deploy U.S. forces.

Oppose. The road would serve a very useful purpose, providing better access between the communities for emergencies.

I obviously oppose Jewell’s decision (and would have opposed her confirmation in the first place); however, I reject the fundamental approach. I don’t believe we should be giving away state land in order to effectuate control of land and resources inside our state. The time has arrived for Alaskans to demand equal footing as a sovereign state in this Union.

Secretary Jewell’s decision is beyond shameful, it’s literally life-threatening. Valuing the life of waterfowl above the well-being and safety of King Cove residents is unimaginable and highlights how detached this administration is from reality. The Obama administration veers between indifference and hostility to Alaska’s interests. We need a fighter — not just an accomplice pretending to be a nag.

I oppose Secretary Jewell’s decision. Senator Begich continues to enable federal overreach in our state. You call it a long-sought road; I call it a one-lane Jeep path that will save lives. This is the reason I have proposed that federal land use decisions such as Jewell’s be subject to state approval.

No. The constitutional right to free speech and political expression should not be infringed in a free society.

I’m very concerned about corporate influence in U.S. elections, especially from those receiving federal funding and from multinational corporations flush with foreign money. But the best way to curb the inordinate influence of corporations is to limit the federal government to its constitutionally authorized powers. As Milton Friedman said, “get government out of the business,” and corporations will not get involved.

I’m a strong believer in the First Amendment. The solution isn’t taking away freedoms, it’s running honorable campaigns. That’s why I proposed the Alaska Agreement as a ceasefire on negative Outside spending. This problem only goes away if both sides agree to stand up to special interest money, but Mark Begich would rather benefit from it than take a stand.

Our Constitution guarantees free speech and free association. It is disgusting that Outside groups are arrogantly spending money in Alaska to buy this election, but any constitutional amendment that takes away rights of speech and association and puts Congress or the president in charge of dictating who can speak what, and who may associate with whom, is even more dangerous.

Only if the life of the mother is in danger.

The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade represents judicial activism at its worst. Abortion should not be legal. I am 100 percent pro-life, and I believe that every life is sacred. Rare instances may occur where we cannot save the lives of both the mother and child. In such cases, we should save the life we can.

I am a lifelong Catholic who is staunchly pro-life. I recognize that these questions often arise in difficult circumstances and that we must be compassionate and understanding. That said, I believe life begins at conception and the only situations in which I think abortions should be allowed are rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother.

Life begins at conception, and from that moment on, a human being exists with rights. When a case arises involving rape, incest or the life of the mother, it’s important to remember that there are two innocent people — mother and child — who are impacted by that abortion decision. I support bringing that baby to birth and every effort to encourage adoption. When a mother’s life is in danger, efforts should be made to save both the mother and child.

No. Government should not sanction marriage. It should be left to churches and private entities.

I support the traditional family. Marriage — one man and one woman — comes down to us through the millennia. Alaskans overwhelmingly endorsed this view when they adopted a constitutional amendment affirming traditional marriage. What I would support is protecting the First Amendment freedom for those who believe in the traditional family so they may express their views without threat of criminal prosecution.

In 1998, Alaskans amended our Constitution to include a traditional definition of marriage as one man, one woman. I support the traditional definition of marriage and the Alaska constitution. I also believe it is the state’s right to define marriage, and we shouldn’t be forced to violate our beliefs just because people like Mark Begich have “evolved” on the issue.

No. My position on this issue is very clear. I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the state of Alaska, which says marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe marriage is a sacrament of the church and that it’s up to churches to define marriage, not our government.

Alaska Independence, Wasilla

Republican, Anchorage

For additional questions, visit www.newsminer.com

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDATES Forrest dunbar Frank Vondersaar Jim McDermott Democrat, Homer

Democrat, Anchorage

Libertarian, Fairbanks

John Cox Republican, Anchor Point

QUESTIONS Explain your view on global warming and, if you believe it is occurring, the extent to which you believe humans contribute to it and what role government should have in reducing it.

Warming in the Arctic is real, and Alaska must take it seriously. Unfortunately, politicians have put politics ahead of science on this issue. The Earth is warming, and humans are a major contributing factor. You’d have to believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy in the scientific community to think otherwise. I don’t subscribe to that. What we do about the problem is a more complicated question. The solution is not top-down regulation or more taxes; it is innovation and investment in institutions like UAF to make Alaska a global leader in alternative energy development and energy efficiency.

I believe global warming is occurring, humans are the primary cause, and government should provide reasonable incentives and restrictions to reduce it.

In my lifetime, a group of special-interest types (Elitist) have predicted a new ice age, then they said global warming, and now they call it climate change. Of course the weather changes and any 7-yearold growing up in Alaska could observe weather change by simply waiting 15 minutes. Now, I support being good caretakers of our environment, but if anyone believes that this current group in D.C. who can’t even balance a budget can be in charge of the weather. ... Well, then they must be a little gullible.

I cannot give you an educated hypothesis on global warming, for we do not have all the scientific facts. All evidence for global warming is based on a computer model and not hard data. Special-interest groups want you to believe that a cataclysmic event is inevitable if the path that our country is on does not change. There are only a handful of scientists who believe global warming is occurring compared to the thousands of scientists who believe this is a myth and that scientific facts on global warming are incomplete or outlandish

What would you change, if anything, about the Affordable Care Act? What part(s) do you like? Why?

Our nation’s health-care system struggles with two major problems: millions of people are uninsured, and costs are out of control. The Affordable Care Act has helped address the first problem; insurance companies can no longer discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. However, there’s still a lot of work to do controlling costs. Fewer uninsured helps — emergency rooms are more expensive than primary care physicians — but more must be done. What I cannot support, and what most Alaskans now reject, is John Boehner’s plan to repeal the ACA with no alternative in place. That’s a recipe for more uninsured Alaskans and higher costs.

I would prefer to see the ACA be a single-payer program. I like most of it but would not make state participation in expanding Medicare optional.

I asked some of my students recently to use the product life cycle theory and together let’s help those U.S. Congress folks in D.C. do a better job putting together a strategic plan for Obamacare. These new students to the university environment talked about regional rollouts versus a national rollout to identify the bugs in the system within a more manageable environment. Then once the kinks are ironed out, proceed into the national introduction stage of the product life cycle. If young students can be this sagacious in 20 minutes, then what’s happening with our representatives in D.C.?

The Affordable Care Act in my opinion is the worst piece of legislation ever written and passed in U.S. history. It effectively mandates a transfer of our personal property (our money) to a private party (the insurance company), thus forcing us to partake in commerce. To call it a tax is stretching the limited powers of Congress granted by the Constitution. I believe that the president and Congress are in violation of the Commerce Clause and are impeachable for the offence.

I stand firmly with our current congressional delegation in supporting the F-35 squadron at Eielson. Though Eielson is an important part of the Fairbanks economy, that isn’t the only reason to support the F-35s. Not only does Fairbanks offer a huge amount of space for the F-35s to train, it’s a lower-cost location than overseas alternatives like South Korea.

I support a strong defense. As a retired U.S. Air Force member and someone who actually lives in the Interior of Alaska, I want the F-35s on Eielson Air Force Base. It’s a win-win-win for our residents, our Alaska military community and for our national defense. I want the F-35s stationed in Alaska and not in a foreign country.

The F-35 is an extremely impressive fighter. One must remember that Eielson Air Force Base plays a vital role in our nation’s air defense. This project will bring growth to the region and the state

The rise of ISIS is troubling and cannot be ignored. Iraq is caught in a brutal civil war between Shia and Sunni. We cannot allow Iraq to fully collapse, and we must help those who served alongside our service members. But the U.S. should not become entangled beyond military advisers; we are not at the point of returning wholesale to Iraq.

The majority of Americans are war weary. I don’t believe the American people are going to allow the total disregard of our many voices against any further military actions within Iraq and Syria. Peace is our best option, skilled negotiation is required, expert management is desirable, competent leadership is looked-for, and a virtuous heart is desired. Simply, end perpetual wars.

Their civil war is a war of religion in which there is no winning. So to thrust U.S. military power to assist one side or the other is futile. I believe that if we are to send troops back to the Middle East, they are to be sent to Israel to support our closest ally.

I strongly oppose Secretary Jewell’s irresponsible and ill-informed decision to block a road between King Cove and Cold Bay.

Oppose. But close call.

I have suggested before that since the federal government is so broke, why not transfer the bulk of our Alaska land held by the feds back over to Alaskans. Alaskans understand that for national defense a small portion of Alaska land is needed by the feds. The rest of federal Alaska land needs to be controlled and maintained by Alaskans.

I say build the road and then have the secretary of the interior come arrest me afterward. This is a matter of safety to Alaskans. This is about our land and Alaskans!

I support a constitutional amendment limiting corporate personhood and reversing Citizens United as well as the appointment of Supreme Court justices who actually follow the Constitution. Citizens United violated the original intent of our Founders. That being said, we should not wait to act. There are statutes that Congress could pass today that would undo some of the damage.

No. I strongly oppose “Citizens United,” but a constitutional convention is not the answer. Removing fascist justices or adding non-fascist justices to the U.S. Supreme Court is quicker and a better solution.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated it’s unconstitutional to restrict the First Amendment rights of corporations, associations, and labor unions. As a Libertarian candidate, I see firsthand how big business and their crony political relationships literally purchase the elections for the status quo career politicians. The two major parties are bought and paid for, and this does need to change. Fairness needed.

Alaska should call for a convention. The 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court drastically hurts challengers against an incumbent in any primary race. Political insiders (incumbents) have a crippling advantage with access to campaign funds provided by corporations and labor unions.

Under what circumstances, if any, should abortions be permitted under state or federal law?

I support a woman’s constitutional right to choose. These decisions are highly personal, and the state and federal government should not get between a woman and her doctor.

When the life or health of the mother is in danger.

I’m personally pro life and desire to protect the unborn. Still, I accept the Libertarian Party platform words of wisdom: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

Life begins at conception and abortions should not be permitted under any state or federal law. I will not support any legislation that provides tax dollars to organizations that provide abortions or legislation that has verbiage that consist of “except in the case of rape or incest.”

Do you support the legalizing of same-sex marriage? Explain.

Yes. If the government is going to be in the business of recognizing marriage as a legal institution — and there are now some who think that the state should stay out altogether — then same-sex couples have a right to have their marriages recognized. This is a settled issue in my generation.

Yes. Equal protection under law.

In my opinion, if two people love each other, then why do we need government’s blessing to become married in the first place? I again support the Libertarian Party platform astute words: “Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”

I do not support the legalizing of samesex marriage, especially when children are brought into the equation. The very foundation of the traditional family is now being torn apart. Love is just not enough! Studies have shown that when there is lack of both mother and father figure within the house, social and identity issues will develop within children.

The federal Violence Against Women Act, signed into law in 2013, allows the nation’s tribal governments to prosecute non-Indians accused of domestic violence and sexual assault but contains a provision denying Alaska Native tribes that authority. Do you support or oppose the Alaska exclusion? Why?

I oppose the Alaska exclusion and support the Safe Families and Villages Act. Alaska’s tribes and tribal courts deserve the same respect as those in the Lower 48. Those with close relations to tribal members, like spouses, must be accountable for crimes like domestic violence. We must stop the scourge of domestic violence in Alaska, and the tribes have stepped forward.

Legally there is no “Indian Country” in Alaska except Metlakatla. Until that is changed, I don’t see how to remove the exclusion.

Where was Don Young concerning this vote for the federal Violence Against Women Act, 2013? Why did Don Young have a “no” vote on this very important issue? No individual should have to experience physical and/or emotional abuse. I am surprised that Alaskan Native communities were not included in this Act.

I oppose the exclusion-based inequality for all Alaskans. The problems that we are having in the Native villages can be solved simply by integrating a sheriff’s department into our state system.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan calls the Common Core State Standards, created under direction of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, “the single greatest thing to happen to public education in America since Brown versus Board of Education.” Do you agree? Explain.

I do not support a one-size-fits-all approach to education, and do not want D.C. mandating curriculum for Alaska’s schools. Common Core is far from the “greatest” thing to happen to public education. Alaska has its own standards; we should focus on keeping those standards rigorous, while ensuring that our students and teachers have the resources they need to succeed.

No. It is important, but not in the same class as Brown v. Board of Education.

No! According to NPR, “Nearly 1 million kids who start high school every year don’t make it to graduation.” Public schools rely on kids being compelled into their institutions because there’s a direct correlation to their funding by ensuring our kids are schooled within their establishments. If I’m elected, I will champion cyber schools, home schools, public/charter schools, vouchers, choice.

The concept behind Common Core was ideal at first. However, what has evolved is far from what was envisioned and reasonable. This program has now become the center of arguments throughout the country between school administration, parents and teachers. What is being taught in the public school systems is outrageous.

Name a member of Congress from the opposite party whom you respect and could work with to propose legislation on an issue of national concern. Explain.

Lisa Murkowski. We don’t agree on all the issues, but I believe Sen. Murkowski does what she thinks is in the best interest of Alaska. Specifically, she has fought for the road between King Cove and Cold Bay, fought for oil and gas development on the North Slope, and opposed the Hobby Lobby decision — all things I agree with.

Bernie Sanders. Work on reversing “Citizens United” and “McCutcheon.” Possibly Chris Gibson on net neutrality.

Personal liberty. This concept ought to be first and foremost in our minds whenever we chat with each other within the halls of the U.S. Congress. So, any member of Congress who shares that belief is someone I will turn to for advice and discussion on important issues pertaining to the citizens we were elected to represent.

I cannot state whom I respect or could work with to propose legislation on issues of national concern as of yet. I have not met with other representatives or know of their work habits. I will however work with anyone who is concerned with our nation’s security and its growth, but will not compromise my morals to pass legislation.

Overpriced, but useful.

Offer intelligence and training to Iraq if they sign status of forces agreement.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDATES David Seaward Republican, Anchorage

Dave Dohner Republican, Fairbanks

Don Young Republican, Anchorage/ Fort Yukon

My view of global warming is with cautious observation. Climate change certainly is occurring in different parts from the Arctic to Antarctic region. I believe human contribution to global warming is insignificant compared to natural greenhouse gases from Earth’s surface and climate cycles, which has resulted in earth’s 2 percent or so increase in warming over a few decades. The role of government should be to provide safety and assistance to communities impacted by global warming and to support climate scientists in their research for up-to-date information.

Climate change is a geological phenomenon that has been happening since the beginning of time. Ice ages have been happening since the beginning of time. I do not believe that humans contribute or exert much of an influence over the climate.

Look no further than the warming Arctic to recognize that the climate is changing. However, I don’t believe this is solely caused by humans, in part because the Earth has undergone dozens of warming and cooling cycles over the last thousands of years. America should take steps to reduce emissions and enhance energy efficiency, but we must not legislate based on uncertain science and media hysteria. Recently, the Obama administration began issuing economically detrimental emissions regulations. Such policies should stem from Congress, not a handful of federal bureaucrats. These actions circumvent our Constitution by marginalizing Congress and its representational democracy.

About the Affordable Care Act, I would defund and replace it with House Resolution 3121, The American Health Care Reform Act. The ACA is mandatory, costs more and penalizes healthy Americans for not enrolling in it. The parts of ACA I like would be the insurance coverage for dependents up to 26 years of age on a parent’s insurance. Another one I like is the coverage for pre-existing medical condition. HR3121 reforms the ACA by making health care optional, more affordable and does not penalize healthy Americans. It leaves the health care needs and choices to the individual and families.

The Affordable Care Act should be repealed in its entirety, I believe that an individual should make the choice whether they want insurance or not. It is a freedom issue, plus it is not affordable to the average person. Basically it is so flawed that it needs to be repealed.

Ideally, I would fully repeal the ACA. With that accomplished, I would move to restore the Indian Healthcare Reauthorization Act, which was controversially rolled into the ACA. I would also move to reinstate, through small and easily understood bill proposals, a few positive elements of the ACA. These positive elements include guaranteeing access to insurance for patients with pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents’ health-care plan until age 26 or allowing certain insurers to sell policies across state lines. Congress could easily use common sense and pass these bills after they see what’s in it.

It’s costing taxpayers over $750 million for each F-35 Joint Striker Fighter. The total cost of F-35 program is projected at $400 billion. We have a national debt of $17 trillion with additional unfunded entitlement/retirement liabilities of $125 trillion in debt. The cost of F-35 operation and maintenance in Alaska?

F-35 strike fighters are too expensive to continue. The $1.5 trillion over 55 years is too much money over too long of a time span. Other fighter wings can be stationed for less.

The U.S. has dominated the skies for decades and continuing to do so requires both innovation and modernization, both of which are neither easy nor cheap. While the F-35 has faced problems, I believe we will find solutions and produce the world’s most advanced aircraft. As Alaska’s lone congressman, I continue to fight for the F-35 on Alaska’s behalf.

The Iraqi government has requested assistance. The United Nation should form a multinational coalition that includes U.S. and assist the Iraqi government. The U.S should engage only with air strikes, reconnaissance and intelligence sharing. Combat troops should be on the ground only to protect American citizens.

When it comes to the Middle East we should keep a hands-off policy. Our main concern should be covering Israel’s back.

While I’m alarmed by the increasingly extremist environment in Iraq, I don’t support returning American boots to the ground in Iraq. President Obama removed this possibility the moment he completely withdrew U.S. forces. The only military actions I support at this time are the use of targeted air strikes; we cannot sit idle and accept the spread of radical violence.

I oppose Interior Secretary Sally Jewell’s decision. Although options are available to reach all-weather airport at Cold Bay from King Cove. It’s those crucial moments when the weather does not cooperate, making a life-and-death situation for residents of King Cove. Building the 50-mile road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is in public best interest.

I oppose Jewell’s decision. The land swap should go forward and the road built. People in rural Alaska should, where feasible, have access to an airport in case there is a medical emergency and they need to be flow to a regional hospital.

I absolutely oppose this shameful decision. King Cove deserves what nearly all of us in America take for granted: safe and reliable access to medical facilities. Human life is more valuable than fabricated disturbance to waterfowl. This administration is placing the views of radical environmentalists over Alaskans, something I will fight in Congress while the governor fights it in court.

Alaska should not call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of nullifying the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision. “Citizens United” overturned the McCain-Feingold provision that included a flawed exemption for the media from unrestricted spending on political campaigns. The exemption clearly was unfair to corporations and labor unions.

No. Large contributors can skirt any law as far as contribution limits goes that they want. It’s an exercise in futility.

In the case of rape, incest and health and life of the mother should abortions be permitted under state and federal law. I join the majority of Americans who support restricting abortions, and no tax fund should be used for abortions. The role of government is to protect innocent life.

I believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the subject of abortion returned to the states. Let individual states determine the policy.

I am pro-life and believe the loss of life through elective abortions is a moral disaster. I support the basic tenets of the “Hyde Amendment.” Abortions should only be permitted in cases of rape, incest or when the health of the mother is threatened.

Until the courts decide it’s unconstitutional, I do not support same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court allows states to define and regulate marriage under the 10th Amendment. I support the majority of Alaska voters amendment to the state Constitution defining and regulating marriage between a man and a women. It has traditional values, proven social benefits and scientific basis.

The definition of marriage should not be a federal issue. Marriage I believe falls under the 9th or 10th amendments, making it an individual or state issue via the federal constitution.

No. I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act when it passed the House and eventually became law in 1996. I believe marriage should be defined as a legal union between a man and a woman. As DOMA dictates, states should have the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

I oppose the Alaska exclusion with concerns on how the VAWA was drafted. Article II and III in the U.S. Constitution require judges to be appointed by the president, head of department or court of law to convict in certain criminal cases. I also support non-Indians accused of domestic violence and sexual assault having legal process under the Constitution.

I support the exclusion. Alaska has the ability to prosecute anybody when violence and sexual assault charges are leveled against somebody.

Last year, I supported passage of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I have always advocated for empowering Alaska Native communities to prevent violence and heal when violence occurs. I am pleased that new legislation has been introduced that repeals the Alaska exemption while also providing for the unique circumstances and safety needs of our villages.

I do not agree that Common Core State Standards are the “... single greatest thing to happen in public education ...” More than 80 percent of American teachers believe Common Core restricts teachers’ flexibility and freedom to effectively deliver education to students. Common Core standards harm diversity in learning, fostering competition and parental control over education.

I do not agree with Common Core state standards. Individuals are all different and should not be forced into a cookie mold. I am also against the Department of Education at the federal level. It needs to be defunded and eliminated to the tune of about 80 or 90 percent. Also, No Child Left Behind passed by Kennedy and Bush needs to be repealed.

I am concerned about “one-size-fits-all” educational systems that ignore socioeconomic differences among students and undermine local control. Common Core was not federally developed and is optional for states to adopt. However, I will oppose attempts by federal agencies to treat states unfairly for setting their own innovative education standards and question the value of across the board federal education policies.

I am willing to work with any member of Congress from the opposite party on legislation benefiting the public’s best interest. Reducing the national debt by having restraint on spending. Pass legislation that does not pick winners and losers by supporting free-market principles. Protect Alaskans’ personal privacy, property rights and freedom.

The voters of Alaska decide whether to call a constitutional convention, not Congress. We must protect the integrity of the election process while supporting an open marketplace of ideas. The First Amendment was originally intended to protect speech of all persons, individually and in groups. We must look for ways to address discrepancies between individual rights and corporate entities.

As Alaska’s lone representative, it’s necessary to build relationships with Democrats to advance issues. In addition to working with the Hawaii delegation, I work with Rep. Farr as co-chair of the Oceans Caucus, Rep. Huffman as co-chair of the Wild Salmon Caucus, Rep. Larsen on Coast Guard, ports, and Arctic issues, and Rep. Rahall on EPA, mining, and transportation issues.

GOP Senate candidates debate various rural issues By Becky Bohrer Associated Press

ANCHORAGE — A debate among the three major Republican candidates for U.S. Senate on Thursday was a battle for rural cred. During a rural affairs-centered debate hosted by the Alaska Public Radio Network, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, attorney and 2010 Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller and former state Natural Resources commissioner Dan Sullivan listed bush communities they had visited and weighed in on issues related to fisheries, voting rights, even honey buckets and outhouses. Treadwell sought to distinguish himself from the others, noting such things as his work on Arctic and rural development issues over four decades in Alaska. Heading toward the Aug. 19 primary, Treadwell has been trying to position himself as the best informed GOP candidate on Alaska issues, saying that will be crucial to challenging Democratic Sen. Mark Begich. On Thursday, for example, when Miller said he was unfamiliar with a proposal that would allow Alaska Natives to put land in reservation-like trusts, Treadwell said he should get familiar. Both Miller and Sullivan, who were participating in the debate from APRN member KUAC in Fairbanks, took jabs at Treadwell, who was at the network’s Anchorage studio. Miller suggested that Treadwell had not done enough as lieutenant governor to ensure the integrity of Alaska’s voting system. Sullivan said his career has been about “relentless action” and fighting against federal overreach — “not talking about it, not going to conferences, not saying we’ve studied something for 40 years.” At an earlier point, when Sullivan used a similar line, Treadwell grinned and shook his head. Treadwell said changes were made following the 2010 election, which Miller lost when Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski mounted a write-in campaign to keep her job. He said voting access has improved, with people now able to send in ballots electronically and expanded early voting locations this year. Miller shared his experiences with the challenges of living in rural areas, saying he and his family rely on fish to fill their freezer and burn coal and wood to heat their Fairbanks home. Sullivan cited his efforts to bring state officials to rural communities, helping them better understand issues, when he served in Gov. Sean Parnell’s administration. He also noted his family’s deep roots in the state. His wife is from a prominent Alaska family. All three candidates talked about the need for less federal regulation and heavy-handedness, particularly in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Poll: Nation unhappy with recent actions of Obama, Congress By Jennifer Agiesta Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The latest Associated Press-GfK poll finds the nation dissatisfied with what Congress and President Barack Obama have done lately, and few expect much more after the midterm elections. Here’s a look at five things to know from the poll.

Disapproval dominates

Nearly 9 in 10 Americans say they disapprove of how Congress is handling its job, and 6 in 10 disapprove of the president. More than half of Americans, 54 percent, disapprove of both. Among this group, 94 percent say the nation is heading in the wrong direction. About 7 in 10 say someone new ought to win in their congressional district and about half say they are completely certain they’ll vote this November. Most, 57 percent, are Republicans or say they lean that way, and 51 percent want to see the GOP wind up in control of Congress this fall. That Republican tilt stems more from ratings for the president than from those of Congress. Partisanship largely drives presidential disapproval — only 27 percent of Democrats disapprove of Obama’s performance while 90 percent of Republicans do — but Congress inspires distaste from both sides of the aisle. Among both Democrats and Republicans, 86 percent disapprove of Congress’ performance, and 84 percent of independents join them.

The “who cares” bloc

One-third of Americans say they hope the Republicans take control of Congress outright this fall, and the same share want to see Democrats lead Congress. The final third? They say it just doesn’t matter who takes control of Congress. So who says they don’t care? Among independents, 77 percent say it just doesn’t matter who takes control of Congress this fall. The remainder are split evenly — 11 percent favor the Democrats, 11 percent the Republicans. Overall, those who say it doesn’t much matter are younger (63 percent are under age 50) and largely uninterested in the upcoming election (just 28 percent say they have a great deal or quite a bit of interest in following it). POLL » 9

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

ALASKA GOVERNOR CANDIDATES Byron Mallott

Phil Stoddard

Democrat, Juneau

Democrat, Anchorage

Carolyn Clift

Sean Parnell

Alaska Libertarian, Anchorage

Republican, Anchorage

QUESTIONS Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

With millions of dollars dedicated to the Alaska liquefied natural gas pipeline project, in-state pipeline project and the Interior Energy Project, should the state continue to fund the Susitna-Watana Dam? Why or why not?

With less money to go around, how should the state prioritize the capital projects budget?

I support repeal of SB 21 because I believe we can do better for Alaskans and better for industry. I will work with legislators, the public and industry to craft a new bill that will result in more investment and more oil production, more jobs for Alaskans and the truly long-term, stable tax regime that the industry needs. The state deserves to share in the rewards of its resources, and to do its share when prices are low. If we work together instead of fighting, we can have both — a strong industry and a strong future for Alaska. Divisiveness gets neither. When Alaska’s constitutional framers declared that “all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry” and that they are “equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities and protection under the law” they didn’t add the caveat “except for gays and lesbians”.”

The first way to address deficit spending is for the governor to show fiscal leadership. I find it incredible that the governor couldn’t find a single appropriation, a single dollar, a single questionable budget item worthy of veto in this year’s $12.8 billion state budget. The time for disciplined state budget leadership is immediate and compelling.

No I do not support Senate Bill 21! As governor I will diversify Alaska’s economy and reduce taxes. ... We can have many more industries than just oil — tourism — fishing. Let’s make the Alaska education system No. 1 in America

I am voting “No on 1.” Libertarians are against taxes, in general, and ACES used a progressive tax based on the price of oil. A progressive tax is similar to our federal income tax in that it punishes the taxpayer by higher and higher percentages on increased earnings. In essence, it punished increased production. SB 21 introduces a flat-rate tax that starts at a higher percentage to begin with. This means that the oil companies will be able to produce more and know that the royalties and taxes will be predictable and uniform on every barrel. Increased production means more royalties and tax revenue for the State.

I support SB 21 and will vote “No” on Ballot Measure 1. A no vote keeps the new law in place, generating more oil production for Alaskans’ benefit, more jobs for Alaskans and a brighter future. SB 21 raises taxes when oil prices are low, and lowers them when oil prices are high, protecting the state when oil prices fall by creating a more consistent income stream. SB 21 also includes important incentives to produce new oil. Our state economy has already seen a return of more than $8 billion in private investment since SB 21 passed.

Obama health care is a pyramid scam. Which happens to be illegal in America. If it’s illegal for Madoff. ... It’s illegal for America. Plus it will not stop the pharmaceutical industry’s sick and twisted drugs. Also U.S. manufacturers, including major drugmakers, legally release at least 271 million pounds per year of pharmaceuticals into waterways that often provide drinking water — contamination the federal government has consistently overlooked. To fix health care, government should first stop all pharmaceutical manufacturers!

The Libertarian platform states that government does not have the right to define, license or restrict personal relationships. The Alaska Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I do not support the state’s right to define marriage, issue marriage licenses or to tell couples from other states that they are not married in the eyes of the law. I support legislation to recognize marriages performed by ordained clergy; to recognize marriages from other states and countries; and to rename the marriage license the domestic partnership contract (with all of the rights and privileges of a marriage). It is irrelevant as to whether I support same-sex marriage or not, because it is not the government’s business, but I do support the Alaska Constitution. Article I, Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so the marriage amendment is unconstitutional. If the legislature initiates the repeal of that amendment, I will support it.

Like Alaska’s constitution, I believe marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. For Alaskans who hold a different viewpoint, I respect their right to hold that differing view in this free country.

Diversify Alaska’s economy and reduce taxes. No. 1 make Alaska a source of lowcost electric power. No. 2 make the Alaska education system No. 1 in America. No. 3 Improve Alaska national defenses. No. 4 Improve the Alaska transportation system.

All spending that is based on the Alaska Constitution should continue at sustainable levels, as long as it is fair across the whole state. The budget must be brought back to 5.5 billion dollars, which was sustainable. All expenses that are not of statewide benefit or not in the Constitution will be “line-item” vetoed until we get the budget under control.

With less revenue due to declining oil prices, we cut spending! As governor I have set records for most cuts and most vetoes. In 2013, I aggressively led legislators to reduce $1 billion and another $1.1 billion in 2014. I used the veto pen at record levels in 2010 and 2011 to curb excessive spending. We’re on the right path.

No, states’ rights should come first.

The state should never request and rarely accept earmarks because there are always compliance issues that must be met. Compliance costs the state money and interferes with local rule.

Where the state once sought earmarks as a surrogate for local governments, tribes and nonprofits, I stopped the practice. Instead, these groups can now deal directly with the congressional delegation. My job is to make sure that Alaska is treated fairly for federal funding while fighting for an expanded military presence in the Interior and items like bypass mail funding.

No, the state should fund public schools only, all others schools should support themselves.

I would support scholarship funds instead of vouchers if the Alaska Constitution allows it. The Constitution established public schools for K-12. Scholarships would have to be administered through the established school districts (local control) and scholarship recipients would have to take the same tests in reading, writing, math and science as the other public school students. Criteria must be individual, needs-based and contingent on the student showing improvement in test scores or other criteria as established by the District. Under no circumstances will scholarship students receive the entire Student Allocation.

In 2014, I passed the Alaska Education Opportunity Act gaining Alaskans more school choice and opportunities in the public school system. In the future, Alaskans should get the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment allowing poorer Alaskan families the same access to great Alaska schools (including private and religious schools) that more wealthy Alaskan families have.

No, the state should fund public schools from top of the budget with zero limits.

The Base Student Allocation should increase a fixed amount every year. It should be a small fixed percentage, based on the total economy and revenues, not inflation. Inflation is not predictable.

New education funding, whether in the BSA or outside the BSA, must be tied to educational opportunity and accountability for public funds. During my term as governor, I championed Alaska Performance Scholarships, we substantially increased K-12 funding, we created more vocational training opportunities, and we improved high school graduation rates towards my goal of 90 percent graduating.

No, the Susitna is one of only two rivers in Alaska home to all 5 species of salmon, an is very old technology. Plus it has no sustainability beyond about 10 years due to silt build-up, an earthquakes.

The Susitna-Watana Dam should continue to be funded because hydroelectric power will be a stable source of clean energy for the next 100 years.

Yes. Interior residents need cheaper energy. Both hydro and natural gas can bring it. We’re building the Interior Energy Project (gas trucking solution) under my leadership. We’ve made historic progress on the gasline (Alaska LNG project), and Susitna-Watana, when completed, can bring 50-plus years of cheaper electricity to the Interior.

Make Alaska a source of low-cost electric power. Make the Alaska education system No. 1 in America. Improve Alaska National Defenses. Improve the Alaska transportation system. Make Alaska a source of high-quality education. Bring The U.S. Navy back to Alaska. Expand the Alaska rail system, an connect the Alaska railroad to AMTRAK. Make Alaska a part of the National Smart Grid.

The priority will always be: Does this project improve the lives for all the people of Alaska?

First, lower cost energy — I championed the Interior Energy Project (gas trucking). Then, we fix what we have and finish what we’ve started — like replacing the UAF boilers. Next, new infrastructure that drives efficiency and economic opportunity. For example, I led the charge in securing Tanana River Bridge funding to expand military training options here.

Yes. The infrastructure needs of Alaska are immense. To the extent that Congressional funding is accessible, the state should avail itself of its absolute share to augment other federal and state revenues towards maintaining existing infrastructure and construction of other critical infrastructure. One of the best ways to grow and diversify Alaska’s economy is to invest in and build up a public education system we can all be proud of. For that reason, I oppose vouchers, which would only divert resources from our public schools.

Education is my highest priority. School funding must be timely, predictable, and reasonable. Linking the BSA to inflation may not be wise, as there may be years where that’s inadequate or other years when it’s not necessary. Education is Alaska’s largest expenditure and must be evaluated in the context of the state’s financial challenges. The question itself reflects the failure of leadership to publicly and honestly confront the fact that Alaska cannot fund every megaproject whose boosters have successfully moved them forward. Every energy project, including the Susitna-Watana Dam, must be evaluated in comparison with others. To do otherwise is to squander our declining financial resources and our children’s future. The best way to prioritize spending is to base decisions on need, not politics. What is needed to serve the public? How many people would be served? Does the spending save money or improve education, health and safety in the long run? Is there a public purpose to the spending? We must undertake both a public process and an assessment of basic need across

“He’s one of us.”

Fairbanks born Bill Walker is experienced as a carpenter, teamster, laborer, fisherman, hotel owner, mayor, energy project developer and oil & gas & municipal law attorney. Bill’s top priorities are to end the $7 million/day state spending deficit and stop studying and start building the world class Alaska LNG project to deliver cheap energy to Alaskans and the lucrative world markets.

Paid for by Bill Walker for Governor, 731 N St., Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 322-2455

11509127-8-13-14ES

www.walkerforalaska.com www.facebook.com/billwalkerforgovernor

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR

RUNNING FOR LT. GOVERNOR

bill Walker

Craig FleeneR

Unaffiliated Anchorage

See note below*

I do not support SB 21. The major flaw with the bill is that it is not tied to new production into TAPS. It rewards those already producing oil from existing oil fields but does not provide the incentives for new exploration. It also rewards those companies (BP and ExxonMobil) that are in what is called “harvest mode.” That means they are not exploring for any new oil, just continuing to pump from their existing finds. Getting existing oil out of the ground faster at a significant discount does nothing for Alaska’s future. Alaska needs the next wave of exploration companies.

No, I am generally for lower taxes for individuals and for business. However, if the oil industry is truly making more money on Alaska oil than anywhere (or nearly) else in the world, then the ads are disingenuous when they say we are taxing too high.

I believe that we are all created equally and loved equally by our creator. While I believe that marriage outside a man and woman is not in keeping with the Christian faith, I also believe that treatment of gay men and women with anything less than the love and respect we afford our neighbors is equally unsupported by my faith. As governor, I will follow Alaska’s constitution.

No. However, I do not believe the government should be in the business of licensing marriage. I would support legislation that takes this role out from under the government.

The trans-Alaska oil pipeline just off the Steese Highway on Aug. 1. ERIN CORNELIUSSEN/NEWS-MINER file photo

Measure 1 putting state economy in voters’ hands For more coverage on Measure 1, including its impacts on oil production, jobs, state revenue and Alaska’s political future, visit newsminer.com

By Julie Stricker jstricker@newsminer.com

We are burning our savings at a rate of $7 million per day. End reckless spending on projects such as the lavish, no bid remodel of the Anchorage LIO resulting in a 600 percent annual rent increase. Stop funding duplicative and competing gas line studies. Decrease the size of government from the top down. Accept the lowest qualified bidder to paint the governor’s mansion, not the highest unqualified bidder.

Simply set a standard at about 5.2 billion and cut across the board, starting with areas that are not constitutional. We must look at improving infrastructure to create opportunities for Alaskans. We must also require that the oil companies who have oil leases develop those leases or take them back and put them on the market.

I am not opposed to requests for funding from the federal government. Alaskans pay lots of taxes to the federal government and we should get our fair share in return or else we just fund other states’ projects. However, I prefer funding requests to go through the normal public process rather than the earmark process.

Yes, earmarks don’t increase budgets, but they allow our legislators to target funding for projects that would benefit our state. This is important for states such as ours that are disadvantaged by small populations.

I support Alaska’s private and public schools. I am concerned that vouchers would increase Alaska’s spending deficit and adversely impact our public schools. Therefore, I support public funding for public schools.

I support any public/private partnership that would improve the quality of education for our children, especially if it can bring costs down while increasing graduation rates.

I believe it should be tied to inflation since, without that, there would be a decrease in funding each year. However, having said that, again it is all about getting our fiscal house in order which must be the highest priority so we can afford to do things the right way.

Yes, if the state can afford to do so. The government must always seek to inflation proof its core programs.

I am very supportive of hydro projects. I recently toured the expansion of the Blue Lake hydro project in Sitka. Alaska needs an energy plan, long term. Only then should we start building the projects that make sense. It is my understanding that this project could stabilize the cost of energy in the Fairbanks area and therefore, I would be supportive.

I support the development of energy projects, especially ones that can immediately reduce energy costs for Alaskans. The problem has been that we spend a lot of time and money studying but don’t follow through with too very many projects. Perhaps we should pick one and see it through to completion.

Given the terrible fiscal crisis we are now in, we must look at capital projects that are tied to revenue generation. I am a builder and an infrastructure person by nature, but the infrastructure must make fiscal sense as well.

Infrastructure to create opportunities for Alaskans and projects that will make energy affordable.

*Because of increased interest surrounding the race for the governor’s office, the News-Miner gave candidates not appearing on the primary ballot the opportunity to respond to the survey to offer a comparison to candidates already set to run in the general election.

For additional questions, visit www.newsminer.com

PRIMARY ELECTION

Typically in Alaska, managing the economy is a legislative function. Residents weigh in by voting for their local legislators. But a recent referendum is putting residents on the front lines when it comes to the future of Alaska’s economy. The Aug. 19 primary election includes Ballot Measure 1, the Alaska Oil Tax Cuts Veto Referendum. It seeks to repeal Senate Bill 21, which the Alaska Legislature passed in 2013. Gov. Sean Parnell’s More Alaska Production Act, commonly referred to as SB21 grants tax breaks to oil companies in an attempt to boost oil production. The reaction to the bill’s passage was immediate. Oil companies such as ConocoPhillips and BP announced plans to increase its investment in its North Slope holdings. Another group condemned the measure, calling it a giveaway to the oil companies, and set out to collect enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot to repeal it. It’s only the fourth time since statehood that Alaskans have used their right of veto referendum. In the months since, both sides have worked feverishly to reach voters, educate them on the issue and persuade them to vote in the primary. A yes vote would repeal SB21; voting no would keep the tax

POLL

Continued from 7 Still, this group isn’t completely disengaged from politics. Three in 10 who say it really doesn’t matter who wins are also completely certain they’ll turn out to vote Nov. 4. The economy is far and away their top issue: 84 percent call it important, with health care second at 74 percent.

structure in place. In general, those voting yes repeal SB21 believe the tax breaks only benefit oil companies, not Alaskans. Those voting no believe SB21’s tax cuts are a necessary incentive to keep those companies drilling for oil in Alaska. “This is probably the most important issue that the public will weigh in on possibly since statehood,” says Jeanine St. John, campaign coordinator with Keep Alaska Competive, one of the groups urging Alaskans to vote 2 on Ballot Measure 1. “This is huge. This is huge for our economy. Folks will have to take time to understand it, and then take action.” TJ Presley, campaign manager of ne the groups behind the referendum, Vote Yes! Repeal the Giveaway, notes that the oil tax issue has been part of the legislative process for many years. “We just believe that SB21 went too far in giving away too much and feel that the previous tax structure was a better deal,” Presley says. “We think that oil prices will continue to go up, especially considering the instability in Iraq. Once we hit $120 a barrel, that’s where we’re concerned because SB 21 is losing a bunch of money at that rate.” SB21 overwrote the tiered tax structure adopted by then-Gov. Sarah Palin in 2007. That structure, dubbed ACES, began at 25 percent and rose as oil prices climbed to more than 50 percent. Oil companies said ACES ate too deeply into their profits. SB21 is a 35 percent flat tax with incentives for production

increases. In Alaska, where oil taxes and royalties make up 90 percent of Alaska’s unrestricted general fund revenues, the issue is of utmost importance, people on both sides of the issue say. It comes down to trust, says Vote Yes organizer Dirk Nelson of Ester. “If BP was standing on my doorstep telling me one thing and my neighbor down the hill was telling me another thing, you can guess who I’d trust,” Nelson says. “The importance is that they’re about to give away our kids’ and our legacy nest egg. “This is like playing poker with Soapy Smith. You don’t do it. You don’t even sit at the table.” Fo r m e r l e g i s l a t o r V i c Fischer spearheaded the Vote Yes referendum, which collected more than 45,000 signatures in 90 days, well above the 30,169 signatures required to put the measure on the ballot. A year later, the two campaign organizations behind Vote Yes are using a grassroots operation focusing its get-out-the-vote efforts on a hyper-local level, Presley says. “We calling people, we’re knocking on doors, digital advertising with a huge emphasis on social media such as Facebook,” he says. “We’re looking at a targeted strategy, so that’s why we’re using a digital message. We’re able to target the message to our audience instead of broadcasting it via TV and radio.”

Someone get D.C. a GPS

direction” figures to historic lows in the fall of 2008, that does not seem to be the culprit in the new poll. About a third (35 percent) say the economy is in good shape, about the same as in May, and 58 percent say the economy has stayed about the same in the past month. The decline in optimism about the country’s path now seems to mirror drops in

All told, only 28 percent of Americans think the nation is heading in the right direction, the lowest level in August of an election year since 2008. It’s about on par with 2006, when Democrats took control of the House amid a backlash to the Iraq war. Though the economy pushed the nation’s “right

Contact staff writer Julie Stricker at 459-7532.

POLL » 10

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

ALASKA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CANDIDATES Hollis French Democrat, Anchorage

Bob Williams Democrat, Wasilla

Andrew Lee

Dan Sullivan

Libertarian, Nome

Republican, Anchorage

QUESTIONS Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

I will be voting “yes” to repeal SB 21. During the time ACES was in effect, 2007-2013, North Slope investment grew, North Slope employment grew, and the oil industry made record profits. During the same time, the state was able to put billions into savings. This fight is over the $8 billion that ACES raised above what SB 21 would have raised over the same time period, according to the Deptartment of Revenue. $8 billion is about what the state spent on education those same years. The oil industry wants that $8 billion. It is better spent on education.

I worked on the offshore platforms in Cook Inlet for two summers as a roustabout for Unocal and still have good friends in the oil patch. I am a proud Nanook with a degree in petroleum engineering from UAF. While ACES does take too much when the price of oil is very high, I will be voting yes on the referendum because SB 21 was such an extreme overcorrection without any accountability. I agree with Republican Senator Bert Stedman that our tax rate is more than a billion dollars less than North Dakota under SB 21. We can and must do better.

I will vote “no” on 1; I want Alaska to keep the new oil tax plan created by SB 21. Every expert I value says the immediate difference in revenue between the old Palin ACES law and the new laws is slightly more or slightly less depending on markets. A majority of legislators were voted into office on a platform to pass this legislation; we owe it to those voters to see this through. The best way to increase revenue is by increasing production, or we will very shortly find ourselves with a frozen and shutdown oil pipeline.

I support SB 21. ACES did nothing to stop the decline in oil production, and that has to be our number one priority as a state. Let’s give the new tax structure a chance to work. I am already hearing from numerous oil field service companies that the level of work towards new production has increased significantly.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

I support marriage equality. I introduced a bill that would have removed the ban on same sex marriage from our constitution. I did so for two reasons. One, it’s the right thing to do. I don’t think the government has a role in telling adult citizens whom they should love. Second, the law is now strongly on the side of marriage equality. Since the US Supreme Court’s ruling a year ago in the Windsor case, judges in Texas, Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Idaho have ruled that bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional.

Scott Esk, a Christian candidate from Oklahoma, discussed stoning gay people to death and wrote, “I think we would totally be in the right to do it.” These are not the lessons I learned attending Christ Lutheran church in Fairbanks. My Christian faith demands that I stand in front of the first stone that is thrown. As I have listened to LGBTQ Alaskans, their concerns are for rights that the rest of us take for granted. We need a state government that represents and advocates for all Alaskans. I agree with Sen. Begich and Sen. Murkowski in supporting marriage equality.

I support the repeal of the Alaska marriage definition amendment. I agree completely with the Libertarian Party’s 42-year position on this matter. Government should not be involved in defining or limiting relationships between consenting adults. Government should provide individuals equal protection under the law, regardless of relationship status or preference.

No. I would have to see what future legislation proposes and judge on a case by case basis.

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

The state should address deficit spending by repealing the giveaway and putting a fair oil tax back on the books. It was SB 21 that led to these massive deficits.

Every policy decision should be in the best interest of all Alaskans and be made after we have done our prerequisite homework. We need more transparency in our oil industry. State oil income is based on profits. We don’t know exactly why the cost of producing oil has more than doubled over the last few years. We need more data.

Encourage more income by providing a stable business environment with only an appropriate level of regulation. Keep the State budget within sustainable spending levels by first funding required items, and then prioritize discretionary funding through the legislative process where the lowest priority items get deferred to a later year, by veto if the legislature fails to stay within sustainable levels.

There needs to be a reduction in state spending, plain and simple. We need to focus on what is required in our state constitution and prioritize all other spending. This requires tough decision making, something I have had to do every year as Anchorage mayor.

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

Yes, the state should accept federal earmarks. Alaska is still a new state and in need of basic infrastructure. That being said, the era of outsized federal spending in Alaska is probably over. We need to stand on our own two feet economically. Thus the need for a fair oil tax.

As Lt Governor, I will work for policies that are in the best interests of all Alaskans. Federal government funding is responsible for roughly one third of our economy. Sequestration and federal cutbacks hurt Alaskans. I will fight the further erosion in federal support we are likely facing with the most effective policy tool, which may include an earmark request.

Yes, every item in a budget should have a name and a purpose. Transparency in government spending is the first step towards accountability, so the requesters, sponsors and beneficiaries of each item should also be clearly listed. Earmarks are only a very small part of our federal budget problems.

Earmarks are fine as long as they are for something that the state agrees needs funding and does not displace other priorities.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

I do not support vouchers. Public dollars should go to public education. We should improve the system we have rather than begin spending public school funds on private and religious schools.

As the Alaska 2009 Teacher of the Year, I have worked with teachers and students in Nome, Savoonga, Gambell and Mat-Su. Vouchers will do nothing to improve our public education system. Vouchers are a transfer of wealth of approximately $100 million per year of public monies to nonpublic schools. It is nonsense to flat-fund the BSA while simultaneously promoting vouchers.

No. I am completely opposed to using tax dollars to fund private organizations, or private vouchers. Taxes are a necessary way to fund government, and should only be used to fund necessary government functions. Local districts and individual schools should have more control over spending priorities and curriculum, and not be forced into national one-sizefits-all schemes.

Yes.

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

Yes, the Base Student Allocation should be tied to inflation. When costs rise due to inflation, and funding does not increase, the net effect is to cut funding. The only way for Alaska to compete in a global marketplace is to produce a highly educated population. Cutting funding to education is not the way to do that.

Years of flat-funding the BSA have led to the elimination of hundreds of education positions. We need to make sure dollars go into the classroom. The BSA should be adjusted for inflation without any gimmicks. We need a high-quality public education for all Alaska students that is supported at similar levels as other conservative Republican states like Texas and Indiana.

No. The BSA should be tied to state resource production royalty income, and sustainably extracted revenues from a state investment fund, funded by surpluses of royalty income during high years. If everything is tied to inflation then inflation is driven up. Whose definition of inflation do we use? Let’s tie the BSA to something real, meaningful and grounded in reality.

I think an annual examination of education funding is appropriate without an automatic increase. The real question is what results are we getting for the money we are already spending? The state is last in the nation in fourth grade reading and near the bottom in eighth grade math, yet we spend more per student than virtually every other state.

I would not cut funds to Susitna-Watana. Hydro is a proven technology that can provide 50 to 100 years of low cost power. Susitna has to be right-sized, and it has to pencil out economically before a final investment decision is made. In the long run, though, low cost power is a benefit to any economy.

With thousands of conversations throughout Interior Alaska, the need to reduce the crippling cost of energy is a top concern. Each project needs to make sense and to pencil out. It is not clear yet whether Watana will be affordable, will reduce costs for Interior Alaska or is the best alternative if a gas line is also built.

Hydroelectric power is among the safest, greenest, most stable, most abundant, cheapest, most predictable, most reliable, least geo-politically sensitive forms of energy to be commercially harvested by humans. It’s far more realistic than the pipe dream of exporting gas to places that are rapidly discovering their own reserves. The IEP gas to Fairbanks is intriguing, if it’s viable.

The Susitna Dam will provide renewable energy diversification and allow more gas to be exported for revenue. Norway has more than 90 percent of their energy supplied by hydro, and they sell their oil and gas to others which has allowed them to maximize their generation fund, which is more than 10 times the value of our Permanent Fund.

With less money to go around, how should the state prioritize the capital projects budget?

The capital budget process is flawed. The capital budget is often written in secrecy with insufficient vetting of projects. The public has little say in the budget writing process. More transparency in the process would help shed light on less worthy projects.

Each capital project should move forward if it makes sense and is affordable. We can decide to build a house but we shouldn’t put in several foundations without ever building a home. A large diameter gas line should be Alaska’s first priority as it has the capacity to reduce heating and electricity costs for Interior Alaska while producing revenue.

Legislators should prioritize the capital budget, they are closest to the people and places the projects are for, and can best determine the level of need and urgency. This is half of their duty as representatives of their regions and peoples.

Capital projects should be analyzed for future economic return or for essential deferred maintenance where it will ultimately cost more to replace than to repair.

Under what circumstances, if any, should abortions be permitted or funded under state law?

I support a woman’s right to choose. Decisions about abortions should ultimately be made between a woman and her doctor. State law funds abortion because of many court rulings invoking the equal protection clause. If the state is going to fund one type of medical procedure, usually through its Medicaid budget, it cannot unduly restrict a woman’s access to other medical procedures.

As a Peace Corps Volunteer in Gambia, West Africa, I remember the wailing when a young woman died in my village after getting an underground abortion. I haven’t met anyone that is pro-abortion. With Alaska’s high rates of sexual assault and domestic violence against women, abortion is a decision that should be between a woman, her faith and her doctor.

Permitted? Interesting choice of words, I do not think a person should be required to obtain a permit/permission from the state for an abortion. I believe an individual’s body is their sovereign territory and government laws should not penetrate inside. I would accept state funding abortions for victims of violent crimes resulting in pregnancy and for wards of the state.

The state should not have a role in funding abortions.

The Legislature signed off on tax credits for in-state oil refineries. Should the state be offering subsidies or tax-credits for in-state refineries? Explain.

This year’s bill providing tax credits to refineries was poorly written and I voted against it. The bill was introduced late in the session and was rushed through. The bill gave tax breaks not only to a struggling refinery but also to a refinery that did not need any financial incentives to continue operating. That’s bad policy.

With deficit-spending, Alaska shouldn’t be subsidizing a profitable refinery that didn’t need or request help. Legislators said they didn’t want to “pick winners and losers.” Governor Parnell decided forty thousand Alaskans were losers when he didn’t expand Medicaid. His decision also threw away a billion dollars and four thousand jobs. As Lt Governor, I will always choose Alaskans as winners.

Maybe. In general I favor the lowest level of taxes needed to adequately fund necessary government functions. Is it to the benefit of Alaskans to have a local refinery? Is the tax burden from the state really the difference? Can the state afford to lose the revenue credited? Can the state afford the loss of revenue if the refinery closes?

Subsidies have to be implemented very carefully — it is good to encourage secondary manufacturing, but the state should not be picking winners or losers in an industry through selective incentives.

POLL

Continued from 9 August 2011 and October 2013, when congressional inaction led to the threat of a government shutdown in 2011 and a partial one in 2013. Among Democrats, the share saying the nation is heading in the right direction dipped 11 points since May, to 49 percent, while among independents, it’s down slightly to 23 percent. The August 2011 and October 2013 declines in right direction were also driven by sharp drops among Democrats and independents.

Outlook for November rosier for Republicans

There are some signs in the new poll that Republicans have gained ground as the height of the campaign approaches. In May, they trailed Democrats a bit on who ought to control Congress, but now the two parties are about even. Partisans are about equally likely to say they’d like to see their own party in charge of Congress after Nov. 4, with about three-quarters of each saying they hope their side winds up in

control. That’s a negative shift for Democrats, who are a bit less apt to say they want their own party to win now than they were in May — 74 percent in the new poll compared with 80 percent then. Among those who say they are certain to vote this fall, just 8 percent approve of the way Congress is handling its job, though 43 percent would like to see their member of Congress re-elected, a bit higher than among all adults. Republicans have an edge among this group as the party more preferred to control Congress, 43 percent to 34 percent, with 23 percent saying it doesn’t matter.

That’s mostly because more of them are Republicans. Among those most likely to vote, 48 percent identify as Republicans or lean toward Republicans, while 40 percent are Democrats or lean toward them.

For Obama, a new normal

The July poll marks the second in a row in which the president’s favorability rating tilted negative. Overall, 51 percent have an unfavorable impression of the president compared with 44 percent who have a favorable take.

Before his re-election in 2012, Obama’s favorability rating was consistently in majority territory in AP-GfK polling, bottoming out at 53 percent in December 2011. The AP-GfK Poll was conducted July 24-28 using KnowledgePanel, GfK’s probability-based online panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. It involved online interviews with 1,044 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points for all respondents. It is larger for subgroups. Online:AP-GfK Poll: http://www.apgfkpoll.com

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

HOUSE DISTRICT 1

HOUSE DISTRICT 2

SCOTT KAWASAKI

GREG BRINGHURsT JOMO STEWART

Larry murakami Steve thompson

Democrat, Fairbanks

Republican, Fairbanks

Democrat, Fairbanks

Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

No. I wrote and supported legislation that would have ensured we get more production before the oil corporations get a tax reduction. Right now, Alaskans have lost billions of dollars of oil and there continues to be a decline in oil production. That is the true definition of a giveaway. The legislature should reconsider and make changes to the ACES tax regime. We should give incentives to bring production of new oil in new fields instead of giving the oil corporations these massive tax breaks on oil that they were already going to produce.

I support the oil tax plan created under SB 21. The reality of ACES was that all parties involved recognized that it needed to be changed. What we need now is to promote stability, which will encourage long term investment and production. Alaska was unattractive to businesses looking to invest here. Changes in the world and national markets altered the outlook for oil and gas development in Alaska and SB 21 facilitated the necessary changes to stay competitive. We must continue to create jobs, foster economic activity and investment, and increase oil production. I urge voters to vote “no” on 1.

In simplest terms, I support retaining the SB 21 oil tax regime: It seeks to encourage directly what ACES only hoped to encourage indirectly increased oil production. I am concerned, however, MAPA may unnecessarily reduce state revenues in the short-term, by undervaluing the resource and being too broadly available, and in the longer-term by doing little if anything to expand access to the North Slope by new (smaller, nimbler and hungrier) explorers and developers. Like the ACES regime, I expect MAPA will need tweaking if it’s to more properly balance both State and corporate interests, both near and longer-term.

I do not support SB 21, Parnell’s multibillion-dollar oil revenue giveaway. Had only one Senator stood up to the Governor this bill would not have passed. Supporters say it will eventually lead to new production but that is uncertain. Supporters say development in Colville Delta-5 is proof that the bill will increase production but that development is happening because of resolution of the bridge issue and was approved by the company under ACES, years before SB 21. ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum, and Exxon Mobil all declined to comment when asked to commit to making more investments in Alaska if this bill passed.

I support SB 21. We have already seen some results from the passage of this bill. One effect is that it has significantly reduced the decline of oil in the pipeline and another is that we have put many Alaskans to work. Stable tax structures coupled with financial incentives are the key to getting more oil production in the pipeline.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

Yes. If two people love each other and want to commit a lifetime to one another, then government should not deny them that right. Government clearly shouldn’t be defining or ill-defining love. I support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for Alaskans, period.

I believe in personal freedom. I also believe government should have a limited role in people’s private lives and choices. I am happily married to my wife Charlene and other people respect our relationship. I value this respect and believe in treating others as you would like to be treated.

As a black person, and knowing beneficiary of my own people’s long struggle, I can’t help but see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue or be generally in support of any legislation which seeks to ensure everybody — everybody — is afforded equal rights and protection under the law.

I believe in tolerance and therefore support marriage equality. My support has been there for decades. Lisa Murkowski recently announced her support of marriage equality and stated: “Same sex unions or civil marriages are consistent with the independent mindset of our state.” Sen. Mark Begich also supports marriage equality. Support for marriage equality in the United States has been on the rise for years. A recent poll of Alaskans showed 47 percent who think same-sex marriage should be allowed in Alaska with a very slightly smaller 46 percent favoring the status quo. I would support marriage equality legislation.

I’m a family man and was raised in a home where marriage was defined as between one man and one woman. I also respect our Alaska State Constitution that defines marriage in the same way. I will not actively support same sex legislation.

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

First, legislators must show fiscal restraint on the budget and the future growth of government. I voted against the operating budget and will only support a budget that I can justify to the voters of Fairbanks. Alaska must protect the PFD and focus on the needs, not the wants. Next, get a fair share for our natural resources and oil.

Responsible spending is good governing. The state must craft budgets with long-term goals in mind. Excessive spending occurred long before windfall profits proved fleeting. Fostering legislation similar to HB 306, sponsored by Representative Thompson, which mandated evaluations of indirect expenditures and tax credits, will lead to the state spending smarter.

They must start by being forthright: letting folks know just how dire our fiscal outlook is, what must be done to fix it and that everyone will have to sacrifice to get the job done. Belt tightening will involve some very painful choices. Working through that process will require honesty by policy-makers and (with the citizenry fully included) open discussion.

Now is not the time to reduce educational funding so Alaska, the owner state, can take a smaller share of oil revenue. Alaska must diversify it’s economic base and prioritize spending with focus on the needs of Alaska’s people. Alaska needs an environment supportive of job creation including construction. Funding for Education, Fire services and Police needs to be maintained.

The Legislature reduced the Governor’s budget in both sessions. We need to slow the growth of government spending and streamline the budget to match our revenue. The two largest budget items we have are health and social services and education. If we continue to increase funding in these top two departments, we will have to reduce spending in other areas or reduce services. What are you willing to give up?

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

Yes. We are part of the United States and Alaskans pay federal income taxes just like every other American. We are also a young state with unique needs. However, the state should only request what we truly need. The state should also continue to accept funds that will not bind us with future mandates.

As an Alaskan and understanding our history, I agree with the great late Senator Ted Steven’s philosophy. Alaska is a younger State and is behind on basic infrastructure needs. We must be weary of overzealous spending at the State and Federal level, but the necessity of receiving federal funds for infrastructure needs must be utilized for the benefit of Alaska.

Yes, but, recognizing the federal government is also spending more than it’s taking in just like Alaska now is, I believe Alaska should be highly thoughtful and selective in its requests — only requesting funding support for projects of an economy-building/economic development focus which are clearly and inarguably in the broad public interest.

I do not support earmarks to for-profit corporations. Politicians may know better than agencies how to properly spend money in some cases and there is no guarantee that the allocation made by agencies will be superior. The process however lacks transparency and in recent years led to numerous cases of “pork barrel” legislation and thus I cannot support earmarks.

As a relatively new state, I don’t think we are financially secure enough to cut the earmarks entirely especially for capital infrastructure projects. Our state still needs to request money for roads, sewers, and water projects, as well as energy production and education funds. We need to be vigilant and ensure there are no strings attached to that money. But I do foresee that as we continue to work toward self-sufficiency, we will be able to cut back on earmarks.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

No. Vouchers take away public money from your neighborhood schools that are already struggling with higher class sizes, teacher layoffs and less opportunities for students. The vouchers would then be spent in unaccountable private schools that do not have to follow the same rules when admitting students.

I applaud the governor and Senate for having this conversation; however I do not believe vouchers for private and religious schools is right for Alaska. As a past student of Hunter, Ryan and Lathrop, I support Alaska’s public schools. Competition can exist by expanding opportunities in charter and boarding schools. We need to focus on improving the system we already have.

No.

I do not support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools. Public schools are an important foundation for democracy in America, bringing together children of diverse backgrounds into a common educational system and experience. Supporting vouchers undermines support of public schools already suffering in today’s tight financial times.

It would take a vote by the people to have the state constitution changed. I would not be opposed to having Alaskans vote on how they would like to spend our state dollars on education.

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

Yes. It would be a good start that education, which is so important to our next generation, is tied to some index. However, it is more complex because the cost of education is rapidly changing and unpredictable as new technologies and the future demand of a changing workforce should be considered. The BSA could be increased or decreased.

It is unwise to tie the BSA to the rate of inflation. I support our public schools and teachers, but making the promise to increase funding by mandate when we cannot always accurately predict the state’s fiscal situation is not responsible. We cannot make a promise we may not be able to keep.

Today, Alaska is deficit spending and covering its budget shortfalls by drawing from savings accounts. This is partly due to formula-driven increases which are already built into its existing system. Adding another such formula-increase can only make that existing problem worse. So, without a broad restructuring of our state functions and budget, no systemic increase to the BAS is sustainable.

I support the Base Student Allocation (BSA) being tied to the rate of inflation which will allow school districts across the state to anticipate their funding. This latest session the arguments to make up for years of flat funding in times of inflation failed and have left our schools without sufficient funds to fully support their all important mission.

No, the Legislature needs the flexibility of determining what the BSA should be each year based on needs and available funds.

Yes. We have an oil pipeline in our back yard and still have some of the highest costs of utilities in the nation. Fairbanks doesn’t need a silver bullet in natural gas, we need a shotgun with silver buckshot including renewables. If Susitina were built in the 80’s as planned, we would have the cheapest electricity the entire Pacific Northwest.

Investing in infrastructure projects, as long as spending is done responsibly and with long-term solutions in mind, continues to be a wise investment for the state of Alaska. Though still a long ways off, the economic prospects, job creation and consistent affordable energy that the Susitna-Watana dam would create will have lasting benefits for Alaskans.

Absolutely, yes — Alaska should support both Susitna and in the intertie expansions and upgrades to allow that power to flow seamlessly across the railbelt and beyond. Adequate, reliable and affordable base-load power is critical to all industry. One hundred plus years worth would be positively attractive. Susitna is a strategic economic development investment and

Although the initial cost of the Susitna-Watana Dam is high it’s one of the longest term ways to produce electricity and life could exceed 100 years. It is also one of the most reliable and clean way to produce electricity. I support continued funding by Alaska with the aim to fully recover the investment.

To date, the funding provided for the Susitna dam is sufficient for the stage that we are in. Once this stage is complete we need to decide on where this project goes next.

QUESTIONS

Republican, Fairbanks

For additional questions, visit www.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

HOUSE DISTRICT 3

HOUSE DISTRICT 4

Sharron Hunter

Doug Isaacson

TAmmie Wilson

Joe Blanchard II David Guttenberg

Democrat, North Pole

Republican, North Pole

Republican, Fairbanks

Democrat, Fairbanks

Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

My reasons for the repeal: Loss of 10 percent of state’s revenue. This threatens our long-term financial solvency. The level of taxes was higher under the former system: ACES. By constitutional mandate it is to be used for the maximum benefit of the people. I am pretty sure this refers to the people of Alaska not the people who are the oil company shareholders. A sweetheart deal for Big Oil. SB 21 does not require oil companies to give anything in return: no new projects, no new employment opportunities, and no capital investments

I voted for SB 21 and will VOTE “no” on Measure 1: 1) SB 21 raised the base tax rate from 25 percent to 35 percent and took away the uncertainty of “progressivity.” We give the companies certainty in return they invest more in Alaska. 2) SB 21 gives the tax credit for the right action: when the producers give us new oil in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline — it’s working. It’s fair to the oil companies and more importantly, it’s fair to Alaskans. 3) SB 21 incentivizes local exploration and creates jobs giving exploration in Nenana the same incentives given Cook Inlet.

I supported and voted in favor of Senate Bill 21. I have spoken with many businesses and have seen job growth in the Interior because of the passage of this legislation. SB 21 was designed to spur more investment in the North Slope and increase oil production. We need to give the new legislation time to work.

I do support SB 21 and more importantly voting “no” on Measure 1 on Aug. 19. I believe that the trans-Alaska oil pipeline could last our state another generation, and that will not occur with the rate of decline we have seen with ACES. I feel like the advocates for Yes on 1 have given up on the pipeline and are ignoring the extremely important questions of how to increase productivity with private market companies competing for investment dollars in a global environment. SB 21 has already demonstrated a surge of jobs, investment, and has stabilized the pipeline’s oil production. There is a reason the business community, unions, Native corporations, and regular folks are standing together, because SB 21 is already working and will continue to be a longterm benefit for Alaska.

I support the repeal of SB21, I am voting “yes.” If Alaska was a business, the oil industry wouldn’t partner with us; SB 21 has destabilized Alaska, examine what has happened in just the last year, from billions in the bank to deficit spending. Alaska should return to a tax structure that actually encourages exploration, development and production. SB 21 doesn’t do that. Oil production has been on a steady decline since peak production in the ’80s and that includes periods when the tax was minimal. I am a Hickel Democrat, I believe in the constitutional concept of the owner state.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

Religious groups conduct weddings according to their beliefs and traditions which may prohibit same-sex marriages. The state regulates the civil marriages and as such should not insert religious beliefs such as the banning of same-sex marriage. Denial of the civil rights of couples and the comingling of church and state are unconstitutional. I support removal of those restrictions, and restore the same rights of married couples to same-sex couples. Not the least of these is the right for a partner to be by the hospital bedside of a dying loved one.

I don’t support redefining marriage. In 1998, voters defined in Alaska’s Constitution that “marriage may exist only between one man and one woman” (Article 1.25). However, adults are still free to make choices about their relationships — who to love, who to commit to, who to live with — and don’t need government permission to do so. Concerns about social benefits can be addressed without redefining marriage.

The Alaska Constitution states that marriage is between a man and a woman and I affirm that position.

I don’t believe this is an issue where the Alaska state Legislature will have any influence. The Legislature’s opinions will be moot as the struggle between the current voter-approved constitutional Amendment passed in 1998, faces the judicial reality of challenges to state constitutions across America, and culture shifts of 2014. This process will shape any same-sex legislation, and what we can do as a Legislature is ensure that religious and secular beliefs remain protected throughout regardless of the outcome.

Yes, I support removing the ban on marriage equity. Across the nation states are having their restrictions on same-sex marriage struck down along constitutional grounds. I would remove the ballot amendment that passed and get out of the way of people exercising their right. This is clearly a place that the government is interfering with personal freedoms.

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

Consistent application of cost-benefit analysis accounting to proposed legislation to assess future cost reduction as well as the potential of increased revenue. Increased transparency in spending would leads to greater accountability to citizens. Low-interest loans instead of tax breaks and giveaways to the already profitable oil companies

The 28th Legislature took steps to increase oil revenues, secured lowest possible funding for a gasline and for trucked natural gas to help alleviate our high cost of energy. The next step is to diversify state revenues in mining and manufacturing, so future generations are not dependent only upon oil, and trim some state agencies.

The last legislative session many projects that had been started were finished and an emphasis was made to avoid any more projects in stages because one could not assume future funding would be available. The state must evaluate all programs, using data, to determine if they are effective. We must spend within our means.

The Legislature has to work backwards from the projected revenue numbers and stay within those constraints. I believe that additional production in the pipeline will help us on the revenue side but the spending side is out of control. I would advocate for moving a significant portion of savings to the Permanent Fund to protect it from short-term financial pressures.

I believe we should be doing a better job addressing the income side of the equation; we definitely need to be doing a better job on spending. There are many programs that control the increase in spending from prisons to senior care that not just control spending but are also more efficient and effective and compassionate.

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

Earmarks was a broken system which needed to be fixed due to the abuse by our Alaskan delegation. The reading I have done proposes lifting the earmark ban with fixes such as: Transparency about the recipient, purpose and proof of absence of personal or family financial gain. Removal of research and development and place it under a peer review process.

There are appropriate times to accept earmarks — every taxpayer in the State of Alaska has contributed and therefore should receive an equal benefit with taxpayers in the Lower 48 — but not if the earmark comes with requirements to grow state government, commit to future state spending, or has other negative consequences to the state.

Congressional earmarks should be closely reviewed so that we know what strings are attached and how much state funding will be required in the future. We must also understand what freedoms we may be forfeiting by taking federal dollars.

Yes, the state of Alaska has a plethora of projects where federal money for assistance makes plenty of sense. There are also numerous earmarks where it is a waste of resources and we end up supporting projects we cannot financially sustain. With record high federal debt, the question Alaska needs to be vigilant about is, can we afford the earmark?

Yes, of course we should. Imagine if Sen. Ted Stevens didn’t have access to earmarks, where would Alaska be? Earmarks have built many things that we take for granted in Alaska. Our congressional delegation is moving into senior leadership positions, We should support their ability to build Alaska.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

Vouchers encourage the funding of a dual education system that undermines the state’s legal obligation to adequately fund a free public education. Private schools enroll the brightest and least challenged students to the exclusion of others more costly to educate. Private unlike public schools are not held financially accountable. Why would the state fund them at the peril of public education?

I voted for HJR 1 to encourage public debate on this issue. The Legislature is tasked to provide for public education; but a state voucher program may ultimately have negative requirements for private or religious schools. To increase school competitiveness, I voted for the education bill and increased funding for charter and home-school programs.

Absolutely. Parents should have the ability to determine the best educational opportunity for their child. A free market increases quality.

Any voucher program would not even be constitutional, because our constitution prohibits that kind of exchange from public to private. Right now the state of Alaska has a hard enough time getting tax dollars to the students and teachers who need the resources the most. Even with the budget needing huge cuts public education should remain the top priority.

No. Public resources go to public schools. When I was a child I went to religious school that my parents paid for, they wouldn’t have it any other way. I won’t tell you that I always listen to my parents when I was a child but I have learnt the wisdom of many things that they did and said.

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

Failure to tie BSA to inflation violates the spirit of the law. The public education system nurtures our most precious resource — our children who deserve full funding. Without it the school districts are forced to do with less. If the expectation is for schools to increase their competencies, such higher test scores and graduation rates etc. the state should increase its funding.

No. The rate of inflation is tied to one Alaskan community, Anchorage, and isn’t an accurate measure for all school expenses; however, school districts, like oil producers, need some level of certainty and predictability, but need to be accountable to the public for controlling expenses. The Legislature should approve education funding in 3-5 year increments.

No. The Base Student Allocation is only one part of the formula and would not be the best way to calculate adequate education funding for our children.

Yes, the rate of inflation would ensure that the education dollars are not losing value as time goes on. The Base Student Allocation would need increases above inflation as well, to help improve our graduation rates and to keep Alaskan students competitive in the job market.

No, it might be the wrong amount on any given year. We should be listening to our school boards and teachers when they tell us what they need. I support giving our children the tools they need to succeed. Let’s lower the cost of heating our schools and we’ll have the funds to put into the class room.

All of Alaska needs affordable energy. One proposal that deserves side by side comparison to the dam construction is AVEC’s plan for a statewide energy grid using direct current (as opposed to AC). The construction costs are significant but the return is great because of lower energy costs that would attract new mining, manufacturing and processing businesses statewide.

I support Susitna-Watana Dam. Natural gas can heat homes, make electricity, and can — and should — be sold profitably abroad; hydro-electricity is cheaper than natural gas or oil in the long-term. Watana won’t provide enough generation to heat every home and business but it will lower utility costs.

Yes, so long as red-tape and seemingly endless studies do not slow the project. The Susitna-Watana Dam is a renewable source of long-term affordable energy.

Yes we should fund the Susitna-Watana Dam. More oil in the pipeline and natural gas are going to be big economic booms for our state, but eventually those finite resources will dwindle. Developing a massive renewable resource is cleaner for the environment, and will sustain the

The pipelines might not be built. Where would that leave us? Let’s continue funding the viability of the dam, which will give us options tomorrow that we don’t have today.

QUESTIONS

For additional questions, visit www.newsminer.com

PRIMARY ELECTION

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

HOUSE DISTRICT 5

HOUSE DISTRICT 6

Elizabeth Clark

Pete Higgins

Wilson Justin

Thomas Dunning Dave Talerico

Republican, Fairbanks

Democrat, Slana

Republican, Tok

Republican, Healy

Democrat, Fairbanks

QUESTIONS Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

I support the repeal of SB 21. SB 21 greatly reduces Alaska’s revenues at the expense of its citizens. The people of Alaska and the oil companies both need a fair and stable tax structure in order to base their future growth and development plans on, however SB 21 benefits only one party in these revenue generating negotiations.

I support SB 21 because I believe it will create revenue for the state of Alaska and increase job opportunities within our state. Its performance has already been a positive influence on our economy and industry has responded by adding more jobs in the last year. The intent of SB 21 is to increase oil production which will in turn bring increased revenue to the State allowing us to increase funding in other important areas such as education, health services and infrastructure.

I support repeal. A tax cut was not needed. The three major oil companies have been posting record profits in Alaska. Production declines for decades was not because of taxes. SB 21 was passed by one vote by an unconstitutionally gerrymandered legislature. SB 21 has no performance guarantees. ACES worked! It worked for the State (we put $17 billion away in savings), it worked for the oil industry (six years of record profits) and it worked for new investors (Great Bear, Repsol and EMI).

I support an oil tax plan but feel that SB 21 is poorly constructed. Alaska needs to replace the revenue that it has been losing for the past couple of years in order to re establish its economic growth. One way to do this is to incentivize the energy companies to increase their production. A tax break plan may be a good way to do this however the only way that it would be effective would be to structure it in such a way that ties the break to oil that is actually put in the pipeline.

Yes, I support SB 21. With the short period of time it’s been in place it is much too early to tell how effective it is. I believe that there are already some positive signs that it will be beneficial to working Alaskans as well as the state.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

Yes, I support same-sex marriage. The union of two people is a fundamental right of life. No group of people, regardless of their beliefs, should ever be allowed to impose their will on the hearts, souls and happiness of others. These are “the core principles” that America was built on and ingrained in the Alaska constitution.

I support laws that protect traditional marriage.

This is a matter of constitutional rights — our right to privacy and our right to free association. I remember Old Alaska. It was a “live and let live” territory. We had our opinions but, outside the family, we didn’t cram our views down someone else’s throats. The so-called marriage amendment does exactly that. How can government tell human beings who they can and cannot love? It’s “unAlaskan.”

I believe marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and do not support same sex legislation.

No I do not. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

Traditionally, a government’s primary sources of income have been made up of taxes, user fees and royalties. We must expand the tools available. members of the Legislature (and the governor) must have the courage to discuss revenue generation in all sectors of the economy, including investments in profitable public/private enterprises as well as tax expansion.

As a state, we need to stop spending money on frivolous projects that do not help the infrastructure of the state. We have to stop funding wants and limit our funding to needs. The issue of declining revenue has been addresses with SB 21.

Is the project cost reasonable, does it achieve a clear objective in solving an identifiable problem and are there reasonable risks involved in the public investment? Too many pet projects wind through the back-scratching committee system. There has to be a screening process.

A large component of the state’s deficits are a result of loss of revenue. The solution we need to pursue is methods to increase our revenue. Along with employing methods to increase revenue, spending needs to be looked at and responsible and accountability should be enforced.

Careful analysis of funding requests and establishing priorities is essential. Sensible, responsible resource development will diversify our income stream and increase income.

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

Yes. Alaska, Hawaii and the Territories have needs that are inherently different than those of the Contiguous 48 states. All states, even localities can have specific needs based solely on their geography and need a little extra something not applicable elsewhere. We understand this all too well in Alaska. The difficulty is to ensure that this procedure is not abused.

The state should accept federal funds as long as we understand the strings that are attached to the funds and the commitments that will be required. If we don’t like what is required, then we should decline the funds.

“Earmarks” is a term that has fallen into disfavor but as I understand the term, an earmark is a designated grant. There are reasons for targeting congressional appropriations sometimes, but those targeted grants should be consistent with the “cost containment” standards suggested above; they should meet a policy objective, are reasonable expenditures with a measurable benefit.

At this time we are somewhat dependent on money from earmarks so there is a need for the state to accept this money; however there should be a deliberate, and concerted effort to move away from this dependence and cut out the use and acceptance of earmarks as soon as possible.

Sometimes one person’s earmark is another’s essential appropriation. Federal funding is not a new concept. Cost/benefit analysis and overall impact need to be considered when considering federal dollars and I’m not in favor of “trading” something for the money.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

I don’t know. As a mother of three very different children, I know that not all children learn alike. So, having different educational methods available is very important to all Alaskan students. So long as the schools meet a high standard of accreditation, then it seems that this would be an avenue to consider.

I would support vouchers that allow state money to follow students to their school of choice as long as the school does not require a religious curriculum.

I do not support vouchers being used to fund religious schools. Our Constitution clearly calls for a good system of “Public” schools. That is the responsibility of our government. Funding religious education, whether it is the Holy Rosary Academy or an Islamic Madrassa, is not consistent with that founding directive.

The public schools are already faced with difficulties in balancing their budgets. Public schools are open and available to all of the students in the state and the choice to put a student in a private or religious school is just that a choice and until adequate funding is consistently available for the constitutionally mandated education of all of the state’s students I can not support the use of state funds for private education.

I support parental rights for education choices as long as it is a recognized, certified education. Under those circumstances, I am a supporter.

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

Yes, school districts need to know the minimum dollars they have to work with, now and into the future. Nothing is more important than the health and education of our residents, particularly our children. They are our greatest future resource.

The BSA formula should not be tied to the rate of inflation, but rather to a performance standard. The current formula should be addressed and changed.

I favor inflation-proofing the BSA, and here is why: Education is an investment in our future. Like any investment, it’s financing should reflect current dollars. I find it silly that the concept of the time-value of money which is fundamental in business pro-forma is ignored when it comes to the business of public education.

The issue of school funding needs to be re done as the BSA ends up with a disproportionate amount of funding going to the urban school district, even with the current adjustment formula. But in the absence of a re working of the funding program BSA should be tied to inflation to at least keep up in a small way with increased expenses that schools have to deal with every year.

No, the rate of inflation does not always reflect the overhead expenditures for operating a school.

No! I oppose the Susitna-Watana Dam, with or without the gas pipeline. The dam is an environmental nightmare. There are many other ways in this energy rich state to deliver clean, consistent, reliable energy to residents throughout the state and export it as well. We have a vast and diverse portfolio of renewable energy resources to meet Alaska’s energy demands.

We must continually work toward a secure source of affordable and renewable energy such as the Susitna Dam. Interior Alaskans have suffered long enough paying exorbitant energy costs. Gas prices will always rise to what the market will bear whereas a hydro project will allow for a steady stream of affordable energy.

I am skeptical of big projects. This project will cost billions to serve the railbelt while we are also investing close to a billion dollars for proposed pipelines and tanker trucks to serve the same market. Focus small projects and get them done.

With a limited amount of revenue coming into the state and the deficit spending we are experiencing the state needs to pick what it is going to pursue based on the money available. This may mean that one project or the other needs to be pursued but not both and maybe not either.

Yes, I support moving forward, but I also think that by the time the dam produces power we will still need the many other sources we have to power the, hopefully, expanded grid. I also think having diversity in our sources provides some security in always being able to produce power.

With less money to go around, how should the state prioritize the capital projects budget?

The state should focus on projects that contribute to a sustainable economy. In my mind these projects include: renewable energy development for cost stabilization and export; rural transportation development; urban transportation maintenance and development; and university research-infrastructure investments.

Please refer to question No. 1 and No. 3.

A system for prioritizing capital projects budgets is needed. The system would work on two layers. The first would be a “threshold layer” which all proposals have to meet. The second layer is specific to the policy budget for any given fiscal year. A project scoring 70 or above is entered into the CAPSIS, which follows the legislative process.

Judgment calls will have to be made as to what will benefit the people of Alaska the most. Public safety, education and transportation infrastructure and a focus on revenue generating incentives would be projects that should be at the top of the list.

Public safety is a priority for me, which includes first responder equipment and material and counselors to combat domestic violence, child abuse, suicide and substance abuse.

The Legislature signed off on tax credits for in-state oil refineries. Should the state be offering subsidies or tax-credits for in-state refineries? Explain.

No. The energy industry is very profitable. Any time you give out tax breaks or credits, it’s at the expense of the residents of the state. I would need to know that the credits were an investment for all Alaskans first.

In-state refineries are an important economic engine for the interior and are a strategic resource for the military bases. We need to ensure that our refineries stay functional for the security of energy use in the Interior in the case of a natural disaster that could prevent transporting of important resources to our area.

Tax cuts and incentives are used to achieve a public purpose. It is unclear what public purpose was being served when the legislature established a $100 million pocket of credits for Tesoro; the company had not even requested it. When a tax cut results in a public benefit that otherwise would not exist, then it is justified; otherwise not.

The state population is being greatly stressed by the cost of energy here. In response the state should be involved in and take steps to bring more affordable energy to its people and in state oil refineries would be one way to help if such conditions were required for the tax credits.

I would better pricing for in-state refing but tax credits will work. Anything that can reduce the cost of space heating will help substantially.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

HOUSE DISTRICT 40

HOUSE DISTRICT 9 Jim Colver

Eric Feige

Mabel Wimmer

Dean WEstlake

Republican, Palmer

Republican, Chickaloon

Democrat, Glennallen

Democrat, Kotzebue

Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

I am voting no on Measure 1. A stable tax environment will promote more investment in the oil industry, create jobs and increase oil production. As a legislator I will insist on Alaska hire. We have excellent vocational and apprenticeship programs that can provide all of the skilled labor the industry needs. Official statistics reveal that 33 percent of workers in oil and gas sector are from out of state. That doesn’t even include the payroll of the oilfield workers paid in other states. We can do better. These jobs should go to Alaskans.

Absolutely, yes. Under ACES the long term revenue predictions were dire. Production was declining and very little investment was being contemplated to raise that production. SB 21 has positively changed the investment climate, incentivized production, and not resulted in significant revenue decreases to the state. On the North Slope there are more rigs working, more people employed, and the production decline has been stopped. Our economy is more vibrant and has a bright future. SB 21 is working as its backers promised. Why go back to a failed tax system? I’m voting “no” on 1!

I support and will vote “yes” for Ballot Measure 1 that will repeal Senate Bill 21. With the reduction in revenue from declining oil production we face a fiscal deficit. These monies support a balanced budget for the state. This means funds for schools, roads, and other much needed services will not be available. ACES levies taxes on profit after expenses. It also provides a cedit for capital investment. People need to become acquainted with ACES and why the state put it in place. I, as a business owner, have to pay taxes when I make a profit. I am not given any monetary or tax reduction incentives. Also more than 60 percent of the workers on the slope are from outside and fly home to spend their wages in the Lower 48.

Whether I support it or not is moot. It’s up for a vote by the people on Aug. 19.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

No.

No. Alaska made it clear in 1998 when the people defined marriage in the state constitution.

I support same-sex marriage and the changes needed to the Alaska constitution to remove “Marriage is between a man and a woman”. It is time for all of Alaska’s people to have the full privilege of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution defines our freedom, and protects us from a tyrannical government. Many of us know or are related to someone in the LGBT community. We have seen the abuse, felt the shame and discrimination of our loved ones. That they could lose their jobs, homes and the right shop in certain stores. With other states nullifying the ban on same-sex marriage it is time for Alaska to seriously consider the effects of the ban and future costs if it is contested.

I support each state’s right to choose, and I believe that state benefits should extend to domestic partnerships, whether married or as unions if this is what the domestic situation is.

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

Our state budget needs to go on a diet, and Alaska needs to increase development of our natural resources, increase oil production and get our gas to market. To accomplish this we need to cut red tape and reduce excessive regulations. We need to focus on providing essential services such as roads, public safety and education.

If we were to enact massive cuts to our state operating budget the shock would likely tank the state’s economy. I believe the balanced actions we have taken to arrest the growth of the operating budget, minimize the capital budget and change tax laws to incentivize more oil production will gradually erase the deficits and keep our economy strong.

Consider an increase in oil and gas taxes.

When we must abolish a tax, perhaps we should abolish the one the state has on us for fuel tax — the taxes on the people rather than on the companies. Capital projects can be tied to how much is generated from that particular region for spending and pro-rated accordingly. Just like community revenue sharing. We would see a substantial and immediate lowering of spending.

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

It’s not an issue right now, because they are forbidden by Congress. However if they are reinstated, we must be very cautious about accepting any of them. Generally they come with continuing financial liabilities and numerous federal requirements that are tied to using these funds.

Yes, as long as the strings attached to the Federal monies do not add to our operating budget or result in Federal control of issues that should be decided by our own state government.

Earmarks bring needed federal dollars to the state. They have provided the state with needed funds for roads and other projects that have enriched the economy by creating jobs.

Earmarks are passé. They are no longer requested or accepted.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

I do not support the constitutional amendment to fund non-public schools because we can’t afford to grow the budget even more. If there were adequate resources available, and overwhelming support, I would reconsider this position. I do support family choice in public schools- home schooling, charter schools and traditional schools.

I support the concept but would need to see the details of any program.

I would not support a state program to remove tax payer dollars to follow students into private schools. Our founding fathers believed that a well-educated populous was of importance for a strong and healthy democracy. That is why we have public schools and state colleges. Having a good education is the backbone of a healthy economy. It is the equalizer, sustaining the middle class and community togetherness.

No. No entity and especially one that teaches our future generation should be allowed to take “public” money and hide it in a “private” education that parents have no public process or recourse in. Could the private school instead take public money and become a public school instead?

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

Yes. A higher percentage of our education funding should be used for instruction. Too many education dollars are spent on energy costs. I propose to separate energy and utility costs from the formula and deal with them separately. I will work to roll back mandates and testing to increase resources in the classroom. As a former school board president I can get the job done.

We should be looking for more efficient ways to educate our kids every day. Tying the BSA to inflation takes away the incentive to look for those efficiencies. It also ignores the potential for a retraction in oil prices which could require cuts to all budgets in the future.

Yes, the base rate should be tied to the rate of inflation due to the cost of materials, maintenance, upkeep,and ensure increased student performance.

Yes. We see the cost of energy escalate and the price of education skyrocket. Meanwhile we pay more and more for heat instead of education and these short changes the child’s education.

Yes, we need cheaper energy in the Interior. The gas lines should have been routed down the Richardson Highway so all Alaskans could have access to cheaper energy. The bullet line could have teed off at Glennallen, then go to Mat-Su, and Anchorage. That is what I would have done as chairman of resources —take care of my constituents.

Diversification of energy sources isn’t a bad idea. If for some reason neither pipeline is built I believe it is prudent to have another long term source of energy available to the state. A Susitna Dam also offers the opportunity to integrate eastern Alaska into the electrical grid and increase the redundancy of that grid.

No we should not continue the Susitna-Watana Dam project. There is much opposition to the dam with concerns for the environment and the cost to fishing and wildlife as it is.

Yes, if that is what the region wants. After the gas runs out, the dam will still be there, providing energy.

With less money to go around, how should the state prioritize the capital projects budget?

First priority should be on completing existing projects, fixing our most unsafe roads and building shovel-ready projects. Prioritize on public safety and job creation, not pie in the sky proposals. We need to cut the studies, endless design and environmental reviews. We could also consider some kind of a required match by grant recipients, which would dampen demand.

Finish projects that have already been started. Then fund projects that are good investments instead of wish list items.

By completing already-started projects, making sure that critical community needs are addressed like affordable energy, domestic violence and sexual assault, critical roads and education.

By the district the money came from.

The Legislature signed off on tax credits for in-state oil refineries. Should the state be offering subsidies or tax-credits for in-state refineries? Explain.

It is important to maintain our in-state refining capacity. However, Alaskans are upset at high gas prices. The gas is made here, but costing more than stateside. I’ve been asked, “If we are going to give away nearly $100 million in tax credits, should there be some payoff for Alaskans, like lower prices?” I will listen to what you have to say.

As a rule I’m not a huge fan of blanket tax credits. There are good strategic reasons to have the refineries available and healthy. They are foundations of their local economies and enable transportation hubs, military facilities, and large scale commerce to happen. Without them many other components of our economy don’t exist.

Only if it is a grantee of affordable low-cost heating fuel and gas. In my district we have lost around a third of our community because of the high cost heating, electric, gas and food.

Yes. We need diversification of jobs in Alaska.

QUESTIONS

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

SENATE DISTRICT A

SENATE DISTRICT C

PETE KELLY

TAMARA ROSELIUS

CLICK BISHOP

DOROTHY SHOCKLEY

Republican, Fairbanks

Democrat, Fairbanks

Republican, Fairbanks

Democrat, Fairbanks

Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.

Voting yes on Measure 1 will kill the Fairbanks economy. In 2007, the legislature drastically raised taxes on oil production when production was already in decline. Predictably, the decline got worse. The 2007 tax, known as ACES, created a goofy business environment where at high oil prices oil companies were punished for producing more oil, but at low and mid-range prices they actually paid less money to the state. At current prices we get more money from the oil companies than we would from ACES. ACES was a mess, but a vote “yes” makes it law again.

I support repealing SB 21. With no incentives for Alaska Hire, or reinvestment in our oil fields, this isn’t the best way to manage our resources. Production qualifying as “new” oil will get such generous incentives under SB 21 that it will essentially bring the state little to no revenue. It was a giveaway to include in “new” oil the crude produced from fields that had started producing before SB 21 passed, and was moving forward under prior law. We need incentives for the provision of good paying Alaska jobs and increased production in new fields. There are better answers.

Yes, I support SB 21. The oil industry and Alaska needs stability in oil taxes. We are already seeing a large increase in oil related activities. Currently they are on track to increase capital spending that will increase oil production. If the industry isn’t moving the needle in the right direction, history proves the legislature is not afraid of changing the tax structure. I would welcome any one person or group of people who would like more information on this subject to contact me. I would be glad to have a deeper discussion.

I do not support the oil tax plan created by SB 21. I would amend the bill to ensure that tax incentives are given only when production goals are met. However, the reality is our major oil fields are mature and declining. If you look at the history of the three big oil companies they take the oil that is easy to drill, develop, produce and move on. Legislators need to stand up and get the best deal for our oil. We also need to plan for ‘rainy days’ when there is less oil in the pipeline. Setting up endowments for education, transportation, renewable energy and health care would be a start.

Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?

I do not support same-sex marriage. The people have voted in this state and majority of the other states to not recognize gay marriage. By the way, states don’t “ban” samesex marriage. Instead, they just don’t recognize those unions as a marriage. Furthermore, this is not a civil rights issue either. If two guys want to get married in Alaska, they can. No one is going to beat down their door and arrest them. The state just leaves them alone. If the Alaska judiciary tries to reverse the will of Alaskans — I will fight them.

Yes. Marriage has become much more than a religious institution and confers many state rights on the partners; conferring everything from property rights, to legal status, to medical care to partners. Because federal judges are ruling consistently that a ban on same sex marriages is unconstitutional, it is time to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Alaska ban. This cannot stand under federal law, and our state has many more pressing issues we can turn our time, money, and attention to.

We all have different religions, beliefs and lifestyles. Who am I to judge someone who lives differently than me.

I support equal right for all regardless of race, color, religion and who one chooses to marry. Government involvement in personal issues is government overreach in my opinion.

The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?

As Senate chairman for the state’s operating budget, I, with my colleagues, produced a budget that reduced agency operations by $50 million. Runaway spending of 6.5 percent per year was the norm for ten years. In my first year as chairman we brought that growth to zero. Last year we actually reduced it — I intend to do it again.

We need to repeal SB21. Our state constitution is unequivocal; and Wally Hickle said it best, we are an “owner state”. Alaska has a wealth of untapped resources; it is shameful that our past legislature ran such deficits. Additionally, anything that can help Alaskans’ lives now, higher wages and lower fuel expenses, will translate into money flowing into our economy.

Reducing the rate of general fund spending is critical for Alaska’s financial future. Over the last two years, the legislature has reduced general fund appropriation in the state’s operating budget. This last legislative session alone we lowered the overall operating budget by 15.9 percent. We need to continue reducing general fund appropriations while doing everything we can to increase and diversify our revenues.

The state cannot continue deficit spending. We must make the hard choices of cutting back and balance our operating and capital budgets.

Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.

Yes. Sometimes the process that produces earmarks is bad — sometimes it is not. It depends on the specific project and how it is handled. Believe me there are things about the Federal budget process that are far more scandalous than earmarks. In general, they are a thing of the past so it’s kind of a moot point.

On this, I agree with Sens. Murkowski and Begich. There is a place for earmarks and that is why we elect our officials, to advocate for us. Currently, Congress is giving the money to administrative agencies and the money is distributed with less oversight than when it is handled openly in Congress.

The state of Alaska should accept federal funds provided they help promote a more healthy and economic self-sustaining Alaska. Rejecting federal funding does not save money, it just allows federal agencies to spend it on their priorities rather than ours.

Yes, I believe the state could request and accept congressional earmarks. As citizens of the United States we are entitled to a percentage of what we pay out in taxes.

Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?

Yes. Vouchers empower families to make critical decisions about their children’s education and give them far more choices. The system is struggling. Thank God for good teachers; somehow they are doing a good job of educating our kids in a flawed system, but ultimately many of them get overwhelmed as well. Vouchers that follow students will improve the system.

No. This is the wrong time for this discussion. With public education in need of direct dollars to classrooms, to provide $100 million more for students to attend private schools is unrealistic and unfair. Additionally, private schools won’t want to have to change administratively to meet the legal requirements involved in needing to provide equal educational opportunity for all students.

No. I fully support the public education system in Alaska and will continue to do so if I am re-elected. A strong public education system is the great equalizer for all children. While I am always open to advancing public education, I have not seen evidence that adopting a school voucher program will either save money or further enhance public education.

I would not support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers to follow students to private or religious schools. Although I would support the base student allocation follow the student in the public school system and give it back if a student drops out of school. I think it would make School Districts more accountable.

Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?

No. The argument isn’t about money it’s about excellence. We have put a staggering amount of money into a system that is not giving us the results we want. This year we put a huge increase into education that has a three year funding life. If that money is to continue — we want ideas to improve our kids’ education.

Yes. Education is an important priority if we want to move Alaska forward economically with a well-educated work force. If we inflation proof the BSA, we can have more certainty with education spending from year to year. To provide a consistently quality service, we need consistency with budgets, so we can better plan for the future.

Conventional wisdom would say yes, but determining the amount of appropriation for education, is the job of the legislature. The amount allocated to education needs to be assessed each year in light of all state needs and available revenues.

Yes, I agree the base student allocation (ABS) be tied to the rate of inflation. It’s only fair. School districts should not have to worry about having enough money to pay fuel and electric bills.

There is a limit to how many mega projects we can do at one time. I support the idea of moving ahead on Susitna, but we have a limited amount of money and our priority right now is natural gas.

Yes, but not until immediate needs are met. Alaskans are being forced to leave Alaska because of energy costs. The $90 million necessary for prep work before we can apply for a construction license shouldn’t be a top priority. We need renewable energy sources, but limited dollars need to go for more immediate help, until a gas line is operational.

I support the dam. I recently toured Hoover Dam which has been in service for almost 80 years producing electricity and providing flood control. Hydroelectric is a renewable resource, and we need to preserve our options.

I believe the state needs to diversify its time and money when looking at cheaper energy solutions to benefit all Alaskans. I am not totally sold on the Susitna Watana Dam project at this time. I would like to hear from the people who will be closely affected by this project first then decide.

With less money to go around, how should the state prioritize the capital projects budget?

Finish the half-built projects, stay on deferred maintenance and invest in projects that will benefit the most people. After that, address regional issues.

Projects need prioritized by their ability to generate economic activity and income for Alaskans. We need an open budget system; requests available for public review and legislative discussion. This isn’t the case now. Secrecy prevails, with items placed in the budget during final days without hearings. The chairs of the finance committees should be held accountable to change this immediately.

I firmly believe the state should invest in energy and infrastructure projects that benefit Alaska and will grow the economy and lower our cost of living.

With less money to go around the state, the highest priority should be the health and welfare of the people, food security and education.

The Legislature signed off on tax credits for in-state oil refineries. Should the state be offering subsidies or tax-credits for in-state refineries? Explain.

Yes. We have to do something or the refining business in Fairbanks will fail. Our royalty system punishes refiners who refine Alaskan oil. This problem needs to be overcome. Tax credits are a step in the right direction. It’s too late to do anything about Flint Hills, but we must take measures to protect our only remaining refinery.

Subsidies used to help a business that helps Alaska like PetroStar, with their supplying of jet fuel to Eielson, are important for keeping Eielson viable. However, tax-credits given last session to a for-profit company not needing them or asking for them are wasteful. Such is the case with Tesoro, a company that additionally reaps large margins in our gasoline market.

A healthy refining business in Alaska is essential. Providing fuel refined in the state for our armed forces, the airline industry (especially cargo), and having a locally produced supply of fuel for our Alaskan residents are all important goals. Additionally, the people who work in the refineries are all Alaskans that live in our communities and contribute to the local economy.

First of all in-state refineries are extremely expensive to run, plus there isn’t a big enough demand/market in Alaska for them to be profitable. With that said, I would support a tax credit as long as the state is fair and gives other industries the same tax credits.

QUESTIONS

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

ELECTIONS 2014

We don’t have $13 million to buy slick TV ads, so this will have to do With ACES more companies than ever...

Explored in Alaska for oil and gas

SB 21 takes away those incentives

And instead protects the monopoly of The Big 3

We need to find new fields

It’s the only answer to declining old ones

But SB 21 is an exploration killer

It just rewards oil that would have been produced anyway

We no longer even share in higher oil prices

SB 21 doesn’t promote competition. It protects monopoly

Our politicians gave away the store

And gave away our independence as the owners of the oil

So now we’re swimming in deficits

And that red ink will get deeper in years to come

Forcing big cuts in education, roads and more

And much higher taxes on us all

SB 21 is a bad deal.

Let’s fix it.

Vote Yes on 1 (Now, isn’t that better than watching all of those annoying TV ads)?

Paid for by Vote Yes! Repeal The Giveaway. Anchorage, Alaska 99503, approved by Vic Fischer, chair, Top contributors, Alaskans Barney Gottstein, Robin Brena and Jack Roderick, all of Anchorage. With the support of 50,000 Alaskans who signed the petitions to let you, not the politicians,

decide Alaska’s future.

See more, much more on our Facebook page: VoteYesrepealthegiveaway.