The writer says options when the Legislature convenes in January will be less palatable than simply using the fund's earnings as voters in 1976 intended when by a 2 to 1 margin they approved a constitutional amendment establishing the Permanent Fund.

If he supports doing what the voters intended, then surely he wants to abide by the vote of the people in 1999, when 83.25%- a 4 to 1 margin- of his fellow Alaskans said no to the following:

"Question: After paying annual dividends to residents and inflation-proofing the permanent fund, should a portion of permanent fund investment EARNINGS (my emphasis) be used to help balance the state budget?

YES or NO”

see https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Permanent_Fund_Advisory_Question_(1999)

p.s. And please explain what happens when using an earnings-only approach when the market i inevitably tanks, the fund loses billions in value, as in 2009 (minus $7.2 billion) and earnings are  minimal and inadequate to cover the fiscal gap.