newsminer.com

I had several responses to my column this morning in which I argued that the eligibility rules for the Permanent Fund Dividend should be used for the state plan to distribute some of its extra oil money.

Right now, the plan is to give the money to anyone who arrived in Alaska by April Fool's Day of this year.

A reader who raised a good argument for something other than the dividend approach had this to say:

"I just wanted to give you a flip side to your article this morning. We have a family member who is 2 years old who came to live with us last year when he was 1.

"And he came in August, so he was ineligible for the dividend for this year.

"In addition we were ineligible to put him on our taxes. And in addition to that we did not receive anything for him from the stimulus. And with this new program coming out, the $1,200, with what you were suggesting we would also not be able to receive anything for him for that.

"We are paying full care for him, nobody is providing anything to us and we have not legally adopted him."

A one-year residency rule would take care of her problem. That would be better than the Palin administration plan to give the money to all of those who have now been in Alaska for about 100 days.

Another reader, "Big Mike," suggested that we raise the dividend amount this year.

State attorneys are raising a red flag about that approach and warning that it may be a "due process" violation.

If I understand the argument, it is that more people might have applied for the dividend by the March 31 deadline had they known that it might be more than $1,000 higher than it would be under the old formula.

But the Legislature always appropriates the money for the dividend payout after the March 31 deadline and the dividend formula is a legislative creation subject to change at any time by our elected officials.

The Legislature could simply, during the special session, make a temporary change in the way the dividend payout is calculated.

My guess is that the attorneys are exaggerating the legal threat. But I'm no lawyer. I'm a newspaper columnist.