By SUZANNE DOWNING
March 31, 2026 – An amendment to pay a full statutory Permanent Fund dividend failed in the House Finance Committee during consideration of the operating budget, HB 263, after two members of the Republican minority caucus joined with the majority to oppose it. The measure failed 7-4.
Rep. Neal Foster, D-Nome, offered Amendment 12, proposing a full dividend based on the formula in state law. He said the amount would be roughly $3,800 this year.
Foster argued Alaska families are struggling with rising costs and deserve their share of Permanent Fund earnings.
The cost of living is skyrocketing, and Alaskans feel inflation, from food to health care and to raising children, Foster said. “I just don’t know how many Alaska families are going to get by.”
He urged lawmakers to either follow the statute or formally change it.
If folks don’t like the law, “we need to change the law, or follow the law,” Foster said. It just comes down to who benefits, he said, out-of-state oil companies, or Alaskans.
Foster also said reductions to the dividend disproportionately affect lower-income residents.
“Each year, the Legislature reduces the PFD more and more. Why do we ask low-income Alaskans to take the hit?” he said. “I want to help Alaskans put food on the table, keep the lights on.”
Rep. Frank Tomaszewski, a Republican from Fairbanks, thanked Foster and supported the amendment, saying a full dividend would help families across the state and would be “fair and equitable to the people of Alaska.”
Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, opposed the amendment, arguing it would require another draw from the Permanent Fund earnings reserve account. He said he would prefer funding a dividend from the general fund.
Foster responded that the amendment would not require an additional draw beyond the percent-of-market-value draw, but would instead reduce available funding for government spending.
It would come from the current draw and push down other spending, Foster said, adding that setting aside a full dividend could function as a type of spending cap.
Rep. Jamie Allard, Republican from Eagle River, said she supported the amendment.
Rep. Alyse Galvin, a member of the Democrat-dominated caucus, said she agrees the statute should be changed, but called it irresponsible to follow the statute now without new revenue.
“There are better ways to skin this cat,” Galvin said, referencing proposals she has offered and supported, including a high-earner income tax and a head tax. “Lessening the PFD is inequitable, but right now it’s the only lever we have for delivering services.”
She said the state should maintain savings and make targeted expenditures rather than pay a full dividend.
Rep. Nellie Jimmie also opposed the amendment, saying she supports helping constituents but warned against draining savings. She referenced her ancestors and then….
“I’m thinking seven generations ahead,” she said. “If we gave out a full Permanent Fund for the past eight years, there would be no PFD right now. Tell that to your kids. Tell your grandkids you’re not going to get it.”
Jimmie advocated for new tax revenue, including taxes on oil companies and high earners, and urged lawmakers to “stop playing around” with what she described as political messaging.
Rep. Jeremy Bynum, a Republican from Ketchikan, also opposed the amendment, agreeing with Rep. Stapp that the proposal appeared to rely on the earnings reserve account, which is already fully drawn in the proposed budget.
Bynum asked whether the amendment would require an additional draw and create a gap in the general fund. Foster reiterated it would remain within the POMV draw and instead limit overall government spending.
“If we know it’s something we set aside, then it leaves a certain amount for government services,” Foster said. “This is one way to not have government spending increase.”
The amendment ultimately failed, with Stapp and Bynum joining members of the Democrat majority to vote against it and setting up a possible rift in the Republican minority caucus. The Republican Party Platform supports a full PFD:
Currently, the operating budget contains zero dollars for a Permanent Fund dividend. While that figure is not expected to be final, if a zero dividend were adopted it would mark the first time since the dividend program began in 1982 that no PFD would be paid.
9 thoughts on “Full PFD amendment fails in House Finance, with two Republicans voting against it”
A draw on the permanent fund earning reserve for a full PFD wouldn’t be IF these 60 legislature would get your bloated stupid government down to a manageable size and reduced spending on state services. We don’t have the money to be funding government at its obese size which takes more out of the taxpayers than would paying a full PFD.
All our state legislators have no courage if they have any courage at all to do the right actions if they even know what is right at all. All they care about is themselves I doubt they even have any love for the poor spouses they married since they don’t even know how to serve the people of Alaska.
I always thought of Rep Foster was a pompous flirt , when did he ever start caring about the lowest of the low income earners? Did he recently become born again in the Spirit saved by Christ? Now he is a brother in Christ?
His statements are very radical for him..,
I suspect that Rep. Foster was playing his part as a loyal “Bush” resident representing outlying areas of our state. He knows that a “Full” PFD is very popular amongst his constituents, the vast majority of whom could really use that money. But he has been an elected Democrat Representative for long enough to also know that his amendment would not pass. So, it was just a game he was playing to be able to tell his constituents that “he tried.” Because after all 2026 is an election year when he has to run again. Also, we should remember that he has been a long time member of the Democrat led House Majority in the Alaska Legislature who has consistently raised the state’s budget to very bloated levels thus draining the easily spendable funds in our Permanent Fund. He and his big government cohorts have consistently taken money from the lower income level people of our state to fund our bloated government. The really bad part is that the controlling majority of both houses take money away from the children of our state who are also co-owners of our state’s natural resource bounty.
I’m done with Stapp. He’s turned into a turd. If he can’t stick with fellow Conservatives and Republicans, I’ll find a new candidate in the District. Stapp is quick to give you his military creds and show off his war wounds. I’m a veteran too. Most vets do not brag about their service, especially overseas combat duty. This guy has become a nut job.
Has Stapp been checked for shell shock? Seems his real wounds are in his head.
I’m livid at the legislators and their audacity of stealing from the Alaskan people. The PFD belongs to the people not the legislators. They dont listen to us, they don’t hear us, they don’t see us but we are here. We will stand up to these thieves and liars.
W.
The P- Fund, a creation of Oral Freeman in its original intent was a tool to LIMIT Government. Removing 25% of mineral royalty $ from the political parasites ( AKA Legislators) grasp was the lever for smaller Government.
Sadly, the Judiciary, a Democrat Party subsidiary in Alaska took it upon themselves to reverse and or ignore the will of the people enshrined in our Constitution via an Amendment.
Until we correct the way we appoint Judges in this State, we are so SCREWED.
The legislature creates statutes, some of which are enforced by law enforcement and judges. So what we have here is both a legislative body and a judicial system (SOA SC) refusing to follow the statute. That should effectively make all state statutes “laws” advisory in nature only. If our three branches of government chose to only follow some statutes then none should be enforceable.
I mailed my 2025 PFD Check ($1000) back to the Dept. of Revenue as a donation to the General Fund. I explained in my letter that I was doing so, because the state’s CBR emergency savings account has not been adequately replenished.
What are we going to do if we have another severe crash in oil prices, like what happened in 2014 – 2015, when the fully stocked CBR was able to fill in the massive budget deficits, to tide us over till oil prices recovered?