Democratic voice: Rep. Ethan Berkowitz, an Anchorage Democrat, looks out over the House floor last May on the last day of the 2003 session. Berkowitz returns as House minority leader for the 2004 session. BRIAN WALLACE/ THE JUNEAU EMPIRE

A: We'd like to see some resolution to the fiscal gap, because we want to make sure that we get back to education, public safety, health and improving the state's economy. The responsibility for providing the leadership here rests with the governor. We've offered suggestions, we've stated repeatedly that we're willing to be active participants at the table. But if the governor and representatives want to go it alone... As they keep reminding us, the stars are aligning, but unfortunately that's not very illuminating for the rest of the state.

Q: Will the Legislature produce a long-range fiscal plan this year that includes a broad-based tax such as an income or sales tax?

A: It depends on what the governor does, it depends on how the Senate majority reacts to the governor's proposals. It would require us as a Legislature and as a state to define the principals that matter to the fiscal plan, and make sure that whatever proposals emerge are a result of absolute transparency, where the public has had a meaningful opportunity to participate.

Any plan that emerges has to measure up to the requirements of being fair, adding up where it actually solves the gap and protecting the state's economy. At this point, jobs and business hang in the balance and the governor's unwillingness to grapple with the issue creates instability. I keep waiting for them to do something about the fiscal gap. Instead of comprehensive plans, he proposes taxes, user fees and cuts.

I think what we need to do is come up with something that's comprehensive. I don't have a definitive answer. I think you need to have a process that examines all the options and considers what the state's economy looks like today and what we want it to look like tomorrow. There haven't been any proposals and it's certainly nothing in public.

Each year a delay in resolving the fiscal gap means that the options change, and also the economic conditions change. We're very fortunate to be looking at $30 oil today, whereas just a couple of years ago we were looking at $10 oil. It's important that we make the best use of that grace period to solve the fiscal gap in a way that will work for generations. There are so many unmet needs in this state, so many potential hazards ... for the economy: Higher interest rates, lower oil prices, less federal funds and the fiscal gap. The one element we have some control over is resolving the fiscal gap.

The measure of leadership and the measure of this administration and the measure of this legislative session is going to be whether there's meaningful efforts to solve the fiscal gap. Frankly, I'm not sure whether this Legislature has either the will or the ability to do so. I look particularly at the Senate, because in my time in the Legislature the House has twice presented fiscal plans and the Senate has exhibited no leadership, has not really constructively engaged, has made more intent on avoiding the problem than on solving it. That speaks to me of lack of vision.

Q: Is there support in your caucus for adopting an endowment plan for the Alaska Permanent Fund and using some of the earnings for state government?

A: As a management technique, that's a nice proposal, but in terms of resolving the fiscal gap, it doesn't do anything. My caucus wants to make sure that we protect the dividend as part of any fiscal solution. It's just 5 percent - you don't pay out more than 5 percent. Unless the folks that are paying out the 5 percent are going to spend it on government - (and) that's not part of the proposal - it doesn't do anything to change the fiscal gap. It just changes the methodology of accounting.

Q: Will your caucus continue to try to add the dividend in the state constitution?

A: Yes. I think that legislation has already been introduced. Harry Crawford and Eric Croft have done it.

Q: Do any members of your caucus support video poker machines?

A: The video poker doesn't have any support in my caucus. The social costs exceed whatever benefits the state might have. There's some concern that the process can easily be corrupted. This is particularly true when the state has diminished enforcement capabilities. Law enforcement in this state is nowhere near where it needs to be. We have a shortage of law enforcement personnel; you get whole communities that don't have any officers. The major communities are seeing law enforcement focus on major crimes, so without meaningful enforcement of the gambling statutes, such as they might be, it's a really tricky proposition to get people to say, "No, no, this is going to be enforced and don't worry about it."

Q: What about a statewide lottery?

A: I just don't think it raises any money. It's part of a piecemeal approach that doesn't really raise money. I'll look at it in a wider context. It can cost more to administer than it raises or it could raise just a small amount of funds or it could draw heavily from parts of the community that are betting their last dollars in the hopes of striking it rich instead of buying milk for their kids. I'd need a better understanding of how it works.

Q: Will increased gambling lead to greater social ills?

A: I haven't focused on gambling because it's not a big component of the fiscal gap solution. I'm more interested in solving the bigger problems, like the fiscal gap. Instead of providing gambling, I want to make sure we're providing education, that we're providing cops, that we're providing health care. Those are more important. When we're in tight fiscal times, you've got to focus on the issues that matter most to people, and that's jobs, schools and safety.

Q: Gov. Frank Murkowski has proposed new taxes on cruise ship passengers, cruise ship gambling, smoking, hotel lodging, guided tours and pull-tab gambling. Do any of these have a good shot of making it through the session?

A: I don't know about the rest of the Legislature. My caucus has said we're not supporting any taxes that aren't part of a comprehensive fiscal plan. We don't believe in targeted taxes. You don't single any groups out because it's fundamentally unfair. That's the principals we operated on last year and I don't see any reason for us to change. This is just the wrong way to solve the fiscal gap.

Q: Any plans to increase state involvement in subsistence hunting and fishing?

A: I don't see any chance of subsistence being resolved.

Q: In November many lawmakers will be running for re-election. Will this keep them from passing new taxes this year?

A: Taxes may or not be part of (a fiscal solution). I hope that when people are elected they honor the public trust and recognize the responsibility of leadership and the necessity of doing the right thing, and make decisions based on the long-term interests of the state rather than their short-term individual political ambition.