Economists have separately endorsed similar ideas.

“In an ideal world, we would be ‘overdrawn’ in the fund but at the same time setting the course for either future taxes or some sort of revenue that’s going to balance the budget,” Guettabi said. “That doesn’t seem to be the case — we have one part of the equation but I’m not sure we have the other one quite yet.”

Groh prefers an income tax over a sales tax, and the Alaska Department of Revenue has previously said that it would take time to set up an income tax.

“What the Department of Revenue says is that it takes about 18 months, and that’s a fact,” Groh said.

The time needed to set up a tax would reduce its impact: Alaska would have time to rebound from the pandemic-caused recession before the new tax begins.

“That’s kind of what I hope comes out of this whole conversation: We don’t just solve a (short-term) problem, we also address the long-term, and we start working towards a solution,” King said, not referring specifically to the Groh plan. “So if you know it’s going to take at least a year to start generating revenue, you need to start having those revenue conversations a year before you need them, which is now.”

Dunleavy’s 10-year fiscal outlook acknowledges the possibility. Starting July 1, 2023, it lists more than $1 billion in undefined “other revenue sources.”

“Over the next two years Alaska’s economy will rebound from the pandemic-induced recession and as soon as fiscal year 2023 may be healthy enough to bear additional revenue measures,” the outlook states.

Any new taxes, changes to the Permanent Fund dividend formula or overdraws from the Permanent Fund must first be approved by the Alaska Legislature.

Neither the House nor Senate have selected leaders so far. The legislative session begins Jan. 18.