Some claim that PFD cuts are better for the Alaska economy than taxes. Our response? Prove it.

As we approach the upcoming, so-called "revenue" session, some are claiming directly or indirectly that PFD cuts are a better alternative from the standpoint of the Alaska economy than taxes. 

The Alaska Chamber, an afternoon radio talk show host, a KTVA "commentator" (who often claims ironically that listeners are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts), an ADN columnist, an Alaska Journal of Commerce editor, a self-styled public interest group and one "Independent" and more than a few Republican members of the #AKleg immediately come quickly to mind.

Our response? Produce a detailed, non-partisan, Alaska-focused economic study that shows that. Until then, take a look at the truth in advertising rules and stop it.

After analyzing the effect on the overall economy of PFD cuts and statewide income, sales and property taxes, here is what ISER said last year:

Lower-income Alaskans typically spend a higher share of their income than higher-income Alaskans do, so more regressive measures will have a larger adverse effect on expenditures. The impact of the PFD cut falls almost exclusively on residents, and it is highly regressive, so it has the largest adverse impact on the economy per dollar of revenues raised.

ISER, Short-run Economic Impacts of Alaska Fiscal Options, http://bit.ly/2vVJOoC at A-15.

The report doesn't stutter, and it doesn't contain any "on the one hand, but on the other" qualifiers. 

Instead, the report concludes simply and directly that cutting the PFD -- not an income, sales or property tax -- costs the Alaska economy more jobs and more income than any other option.

In short, cutting the PFD is the worst option from the perspective of the Alaska economy.  Period, full stop.

And the effect on Alaska families? After studying the same range of alternatives, here is ISER's conclusion:

A cut in PFDs would be by far the costliest measure for Alaska families.

ISER, How Much Might Closing the State Budget Gap Cost Alaska Families?, http://bit.ly/2hVx9iQ at 1.

"By far." No ambiguity there either.

By shoving the bulk of the burden off on others, cutting the PFD does help one subgroup of Alaskans. The Top 20% of Alaskans by income pay less with a PFD cut than under other options.

But for the Remaining 80% of Alaskans -- and thus, the overall Alaska economy and Alaska families as a whole -- cutting the PFD has the "largest adverse impact" and is "by far the costliest measure" of all the options ISER studied.

The sum total of detailed, non-partisan, Alaska focused economic analyses published to date that rebut ISER's conclusions? None, zero, zip, nada.

So, for those that are claiming directly or indirectly that PFD cuts are acceptable from the perspective of the overall economy and Alaska families, but "taxes" would be bad, it's time to put up or shut up.

Produce a detailed, non-partisan, Alaska-focused economic study that rebuts ISER's conclusions, or admit you are only talking to the Top 20% ... or better yet as we suggest above, consult the truth in advertising rules and just stop.