I want don't agree is that all the Federal Money that is generated because of Alaska is reported in that number.
Washington State has a large amount of barge traffic and airline flights to Alaska. Alaska is the reason that business continues, but the federal tax dollars collected due to that Alaska business is reported under Washington State. Same with Cruise lines, Texas Oil companies, etc.
Also, Alaska is forced by Federal Ownership of most of the land within the state to be non-producing. Do this to any other state and see how productive they can be. How productive would New York be if the Feds took over most of the State?
I'm not suggesting that Alaska deserves to be a “welfare state”. I saying that most of the state is held hostage by the Feds and not allowed to be productive. The problem lies with the Feds and not with Alaska.
For example, the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska is 23.5 million acres. That is bigger than the entire state of Indiana. It was specifically set aside back in 1923 for the production of resources. For years ConocoPhillips, Anadarko and others having been trying to get permission to produce the oil on that property. Year after year the feds deny permits and otherwise delay. They have changed designation of areas previously set aside for resource development into yet more protected land. Isn't 100 million acres enough of Alaska to be parks and wildlife? How much is really needed?
Given the fact that Alaska received $12.1 Billion in oil tax revenues and received $1.84 in federal money for every dollar of federal tax it collected, my point is that the proposition is ludicrous.
I understand what you are saying about federal corporate tax not being included in the calculation but I am saying that, whether or not that is true, it is irrelevent to the topic.