Skip to comments.How Sarah Palin Got a AAA Credit Rating for Alaska (Attacking her for raising oil company fees)
Posted on 08/08/2011 8:34:04 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In light of Friday's decision by Standard and Poor's to downgrade the United States' credit rating to AA+, it's worth mentioning again -- as I first did in this Atlantic piece -- that Alaska recently had its bond rating raised to AAA for the first time in the state's history, largely due to fiscal improvements brought about by Sarah Palin while she was governor. The state currently enjoys a $12 billion budget surplus. I was reminded of this fact over the weekend by Ian Lazaren, the indefatigable supporter-cultist behind Conservatives4Palin.com.
This is unquestionably a good thing for the people of Alaska, just as the country's downgrade is a bad thing. The state enjoys lower borrowing costs as a result. But especially in light of the current dysfunction in Washington, it's important to understand why Alaska's fiscal situation improved: It was largely because Palin raised taxes. Specifically, the state oil tax. Her central achievement as governor was signing a law, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), that dramatically increased the state's share of oil profits just as oil prices began to take off. There's a direct line between increased revenue and improved fiscal health. (Alas, the good folks at Conservatives4Palin have posted a gloating item about Alaska's credit-rating that both attacks Obama for raising taxes and neglects to mention that Palin's own tax increase was the basis for the improvement.)
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Alinsky, you magnificent bastard ... I read your book!
Alaska's State Constitution makes two things (among many others) very clear.
1) The Governor is the State's CEO and COO. It falls to this one individual to be the final say on all matters of applying the State's Laws.
2) The natural resources of the State are the property of its citizens, and it is they who by Law should be the beneficiaries of its lucre if sold or used for profit.
Had Palin just "taxed" the oil companies so that she or the State (government) could thus benefit, there might be some teeth in your whine. However, that's not what she did. She made sure that The Law was followed, and diverted a percentage of the profit from Alaska's Energy Resources directly to The People.
The only "hypocrisy" in your blatt is your own, Caniac.
And for the record, no Democrat ever born would even consider returning massive amounts of State-controlled cash to "The People." So your example is a pile of "Unicorns skating down Rainbows" nonsense.
Next time, put your pants on over your underwear. You won't look nearly so silly. Trust me.
I see no hypocrisy at all. Anyone who claims not to see a difference between a tax on oil produced on private lands and a fee for drilling on public (state) lands is being intentionally obtuse, at best. Since the oil lands belong to the State of Alaska (meaning the people), charging a fee for a private company to drill for that state resource is entirely appropriate and has nothing to do with raising taxes. Perhaps some would debate the reasonable level for that fee, but I would argue that the marketplace determines that level.
Note: I own enough shares of Exxon stock (XOM, currently about $72.65 a share) that I keep its price constantly displayed on my screen, so my personal interest is on the other side of this question, but honesty is an absolute, and Palin was on the right side in this decision. Also, I own land on which two private companies drill for oil, and I change them for the use of my land, just as Alaska does - and what I charge is not a "tax" either.
The hypocrisy is strictly yours, as usual.
This is far more than royalties or land use fees. ACES sets the profit tax rate as high as 75% when prices are high in addition to royalties paid. Alaska also charges property tax for the oil and gas industry but no other business has to pay property taxes.
>> “(If you live in Cali and are paying $5+ a gallon for gas...” <<
Did you mean $3.60?
I’m sure that the rest of your screed is equally accurate.
Facts are nice things unless you’re a Journolist...
Sure...right. You guys just keep telling yourselves that.
Interesting how the head of a Palin-backing organization is labeled an “supporter-cultist” by this clown. Those in Benito Obama’s Cult of Personality are never called “cultists”.
She did not raise taxes on the oil companies. She re-negotiated the price the oil companies pay the owners of the oil, the people of Alaska. Unlike the other states, the mineral resources of Alaska were not sold as "mineral rights," but are retained by the citizens of Alaska, who have the right through the AOGC to sell or not sell the minerals.
Wrong. ACES raised the profit tax paid after the royalty payments are made.
ACES is a separate issue than the royalties paid for the State Oil & Gas resources.
Actually, the Alaska state Constitution provides for the oil profits to be distributed to state residents. That was drafted l;ong before Sarah palin came along.
What Sarah did was tell the oil companies to quit sitting on there reserves and start drilling or she would give there leases to somebody who would drill.
Sarah would most likely do the same for the USA as a whole (increase production) and we could actually stop sending precious money to Muzzies and dictators.
Just so you know...it’s expensive up here. Oil check last year was running about $140 a month per person...you can’t really live on it.
Gee. Yesterday I defended Perry. This morning I defended Bachmann. A little while ago I posted the FACTS about the so-called windfall tax...which isn’t. So if you don’t like the truth, you should just LOVE obama and stick right with the left’s ralking points. mmmkay?
No. Not the profits.
The constitution amendment to create the Permanent Fund is for 25% of the Royalties. The profit tax is in addition to those royalties. The ACES legislation that Sarah Palin campaigned on and got enacted dealt with profit taxes over and above the royalty payments.
The ACES profit tax is not shared with the residents but only goes to the state government.
The profit tax that was increased in ACES is not redistributed. That tax is kept as for the state and is not part of the Permanent Fund that is shared with the residents.
The permanent fund is from royalty payments. Royalty payments are taken out first before the profit tax is added on.
"ACES represented a major philosophical shift in the role of government. As resource owners, Alaskans literally had a "working interest" in energy exploration and development. Traditionally, the sovereign's role is to passively collect resource royalties, but under this value structure, we would shift towards an active role in incentivizing resource development. Our state and nation needed it. Ours ACES proposal would provide more value to Alaskans when the price of oil was high but would provide substantial relief to the oil companies when prices fell.
In the special legislative session held in October and November 2007, legislators on both sides of the aisle agreed with our approach. The measure passed with overwhelming public support. Of course, I took political hits as the oil companies launched a smear campaign that we were raising taxes on the industry. But we persevered, and I'm glad we did. A year later, vindication came when industry officials admitted that the legislation was working and had even significantly increased their profits while spurring them to invest more in exploration and new development in Alaska. We had struck that sweet spot where industry and the public interest were mutually served."
This wasn't a change with ACES. It existed that way before ACES.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.