The two candidates running to represent Alaska House District 6 met in Homer last night. They were three-term incumbent Representative Sarah Vance (R) and a former member of the Kenai Borough Assembly, Brent Johnson (NP). When the candidates expressed their positions on the issues, they very clearly defined themselves, leading many in the audience to believe our next representative shouldn’t be the deceptive retired fisherman from Clam Gulch.
The debate covered many subjects, but several issues were key. They were funding for education, taxation, the natural gas shortage, ranked-choice voting, and whether they would join the Democrat led caucus if elected to Juneau.
On the issue of school funding, Mr. Johnson took a pretty radical position. He indicated that part of the problem with funding schools was declining enrollment caused by kids choosing homeschool. He twice made a nebulous comment about how he wanted to bring homeschool kids back into the public school system but never defined what that would mean. To the parents of homeschool kids, his statement sounded like a thinly veiled threat to end the existing homeschool program in order to prop up failing public schools, which will be very unpopular.
When asked the same question, Representative Vance discussed a bill she proposed to reduce costs for school systems by including teachers in the same healthcare system that state employees access. Vance was proposing innovative solutions to the existing problems, without making homeschool kids scapegoats.
On the similar subject of teacher retention, Johnson stated that the problem the state had retaining teachers is the lack of a defined benefit pension program. He then made a factually incorrect statement. He claimed that every state except Alaska offers teachers a defined benefit plan, and that Alaska is the only state that does not. According to the research group Bellwether Education Partners, only 37 states and the District of Columbia offer defined benefit pension plans as their default retirement program. The difference between what Johnson stated, and the actual facts is so large that it appears that he was attempting to intentionally mislead the audience.
On the subject of how the state will ensure adequate energy supplies until a future gas pipeline is built from Prudhoe Bay, Johnson said he supports exploring renewable energy options and the possibility of drilling new gas wells in Cook Inlet but was unequivocal about the need for establishing an import system to bring natural gas to the state. He said there is no doubt that gas importation will be required, and the state must facilitate it as soon as possible.
Sarah Vance explained that importing natural gas to Alaska was a risky proposition. It ceded control of our energy supplies to a third party that might be unreliable in times of global conflict, such as is happening right now in Iran. Vance said a more prudent solution would be to access the existing natural gas supplies present in Cook Inlet, while a gas pipeline is built from Prudhoe Bay. Some of the Cook Inlet reserves are currently uneconomic, but the producers would be willing to drill more wells given the right tax incentive structure, which the legislature controls. She mentioned the commitment that BlueCrest Energy has made to drill an additional well at its Cosmopolitan Field near Anchor Point.
On the subject of funding state government, Johnson said that he favors a new tax on S-corporations like Hilcorp. He failed to mention that the tax would only generate $150 million in additional revenue for the state and would not cover the state’s annual budget deficit. It is also difficult to square his quest for new taxes on Hilcorp while at the same time asking them to increase natural gas production in Cook Inlet. Hilcorp produces 74.9% of the natural gas in the Cook Inlet basin. They may be reluctant to drill additional wells if Johnson gets his wish and imposes new taxes on them.
Vance took an opposing view, saying she was against new taxes, that we needed to cut the state budget, find additional sources of revenue, and noting that the state could help achieve this by facilitating the natural gas pipeline. That gas line will provide revenue in the form of royalty payments to the state; it will create 7,000 new jobs and seems like a better solution than trying to get every last drop of revenue from declining oil and gas fields.
The most defining moments of the debate were related to ranked-choice voting and joining the Democratic caucus in the House. Sarah Vance was very clear that she supported the repeal of RCV and refused to join the Democrats to form a governing caucus. Vance indicated the price for joining was promising to support every Democrat bill and their budget, sight unseen. She said that she was unwilling to support these things without knowing what was in them. Johnson said he is a believer in ranked-choice voting and would commit to joining the Democrat caucus to run state government.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
When the debate was over, the audience was left with a pretty clear choice between the two candidates. Mr. Johnson is a tax-and-spend liberal who supports every Democrat tax hike and plank in their party’s platform. He has a loose association with the truth and plans to join with the Democrats if elected, but does not have the integrity to change his party affiliation to Democrat to align with his values. Johnson pretends to be a nonpartisan centrist, but he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who should never get anywhere near the halls of our Legislature.
On the other hand, voters looking for a conservative who offers practical solutions to problems, believes in low taxes, small government, and protecting the defenseless should consider Sarah Vance. Voters in District 6 have a clear choice in this election and should reelect Sarah Vance for another term in the House.
The views expressed here are those of Greg Sarber. Read more Sarber posts at his Seward’s Folly substack.
