Dems object to opponents' claims

ANCHORAGE -- Four Democratic Party candidates for the Alaska Legislature are challenging campaign claims made by their incumbent opponents, and one Valley race is being swept into the fray.

Mat-Su Senate Seat G candidate Gini King-Taylor joined three other Democratic challengers in Anchorage Wednesday to point out what they said were false campaign statements made by their opponents, who sent out information to voters stating they had voted to support the longevity bonus, a program that has provided up to $250 a month to qualifying Alaskans over age 65 since 1972.

The program ended in August 2003 after it was vetoed by Gov. Frank Murkowski.

King-Taylor cited an ad run by her Republican opponent, state Sen. Lyda Green, in Senior Voice, a newspaper run by the nonprofit Older Persons Action Group. The ad lists several of Green's accomplishments, including "Voted for Longevity Bonus Program."

King-Taylor said she sees the ad as disrespectful of the seniors who read the newspaper.

"Lyda voted with the governor and, unfortunately, didn't vote to override the governor's veto -- and that was a promise broken," King-Taylor said.

Green's advertisement wasn't the only one discussed Wednesday.

State Sen. John Cowdery, R-Anchorage, sent a mailer out to voters, claiming he's "on the record opposing the governor's veto." Rep. Norm Rokeberg, R-Anchorage, sent out a flyer stating he "voted to extend the Longevity Bonus and provide a five-year phase-out …" and Rep. Mike Hawker sent a letter to a constituent in March 2003, stating he opposed eliminating the program.

According to House and Senate journals, all four legislators voted against holding a joint session of the House and Senate to discuss overriding the governor's veto.

But, as Green was quick to point out, that wasn't the only vote taken on the longevity bonus recently.

Green, along with Cowdery, Rokeberg and Hawker, voted in favor of providing a 2007 sunset date for the program, but the measure failed in the House by a 25-13 vote.

Green said she did vote for the longevity bonus program during the 2003 session -- twice when it was before the Senate in the operating budget. She did not vote either against the governor's veto or to hold a joint meeting with the House to discuss the veto when the issue came up in the Senate.

"When that motion came to us, the House had already had a similar motion before them and they voted it down," Green said. "The House had already said they would not issue an invitation [to the Senate]; they also would not accept an invitation."

That shouldn't convey support of the governor's action, Green said.

"I vehemently disagree with the governor on this particular issue," Green said. "But a lot of things were cut that year because of low revenue."

Green said she believes much of the funding seniors lost from the longevity bonus has been restored through increased funding for other programs.

The Alaska Senior Assistance Program, which ran from September 2003 to June 2004, distributed $10 million in federal funding to seniors via checks of $120 each month.

Although more than 16,000 seniors received longevity bonus checks, only about 6,000 people qualified for the needs-based Senior Assistance Program funds, Green said.

Green said more money was provided through the state budget for senior-care programs, senior housing, pharmaceutical assistance and other programs. She said she's worked with senior constituents to be sure they're using every assistance program available to them.

Former state senator Pat Pourchot said he's not satisfied with Green's answer.

"Sometimes the Legislature seems to be acting as a unicameral Legislature rather than two independent bodies," Pourchot said.

He said when he was in the Legislature, it wasn't unusual for the House or Senate to change its stance on whether or not to go into a joint session. He said he didn't remember such a reconsideration taking place to discuss a governor's veto, but the House had the ability to reconsider the motion, if the Senate had decided to discuss the veto.

"If you want to restore funding of the longevity bonus, you vote 'yes' -- if you don't, you vote 'no,'" Pourchot said, adding that one body doesn't typically make decisions while looking over its shoulder to see what the other body is doing. "Each does its own business."

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.