Skip to comments.What Palin Really Did To the Oil Industry
Posted on 09/13/2008 3:37:56 PM PDT by BfloGuy
Oil companies in Alaska are paying more money in taxes than ever before. The state's oil and gas tax revenues for its just-ended fiscal 2007 topped $10 billion. That's twice as much as fiscal 2006 and four times more than 2004.
Some supporters of Barack Obama see that money coming in and say that John McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, must have done what Sen. Obama wants to do -- sock those companies with a big fat windfall profit tax. This is a deeply misleading reading of her 2007 tax reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
What she did was to drive a hard bargain with energy producers -- just as any landowner would do were oil to be discovered on his property. It was a responsible move which encourages exploration but doesn't penalize corporations when oil prices drop.
Read the whole thing -- you'll need it as ammo.
Great resource, thanks!
I have felt that McPalin should argue that you don't win by punishing the employers of the country, but by keeping all sides of the business honest. This is an example.
Mr. Murkowski's plan turned into a disaster. It depended much on trust, but it lacked the transparency and predictability needed to win public confidence. One year after it went into effect, the Petroleum Profits Tax brought in far less revenue than expected and the state suffered a revenue crunch.
Somehow, the legislature had never properly defined accounting procedures and permissible deductions -- and the deductions came in much higher than expected. Meanwhile, as the shortfall appeared, a number of state legislators were on trial, under indictment, or under investigation for bribery by the FBI. These included some who should have done due diligence for the taxpayer on the proposal they enacted.
As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.
The bottom line is that she thought outside the box and brought fiscal sanity back to the state.
is it correct to say. Democrats want to double dip. Its not enouogh just to tax the oil companies, they have to introduce another tax to tax their success
And they do pay.. They are paid back handsomely for the cost of drilling.. After that they just pump pump pump.. and still get paid..
Its not excess profits. It belongs to the American People!
The most-excellent Steve Antler described it like this. As I read this I get the impression Sarah Palin understand the very important differences between costs, revenues, profits, and rents generated by nonrenewable natural resource industries. In short: the state's laws are structured to collect the rent (which, whatever you choose to call it, rightly belongs to the voters, who own the resource) and not steal the profit (which, whatever you choose to call it, rightly belongs to the shareholders).
Maybe she understands this because she and hubby have actually ran a business !
Unlike every democrat I know !
But this can’t be. I thought she was just a Mayor of some obscure fishing village?
ROFL. Leave it to you to come up with another hit piece.
What Palin doesn't seem to comprehend is that those 9 million acres in the Gulf that was opened in 2006, make that Alaska gas more expensive. When Congress opens more in the Gulf, that Alaska gas will get even more expensive.
NO.. it doesn't it belongs to Alaskans.. The other states have their own resources.. or not..
The federal government OWNING ANY LAND is obscene..
The federal government should be EJECTED from ALL STATE LAND..
She was. Some may think she is this supposed heavy hitter with natural instincts to the oil and gas industry, but actually, Sarah Palin's policies are really Tom Irwin's policies.
Irwin was the head of the Natural Resources commission under Murkowski, but was fired over the Irwin memo. Palin campaigned on Irwin's policies and after her win, she re-instated him.
The Alaska natural gas has been stranded there for decades. So, the question is, as natural gas is used more for electricity, has, or will, the price of natural gas rise to a consistently higher price that would allow the Alaska gas to be shipped south at a profitable price? And, if so, will that price be profitable enough that Alaska can retain 75% of the profit?
Will Congress continue to restrict the domestic natural gas supplies with their moratoriums? The Barnett Shale in Texas has become a major natural gas supply. Will the other shale gas formations scattered around the nation(and the world)turn out to equally productive?
BTW, did you notice that BP, one of those sitting on the Alaska gas, just bought a 25% stake in Chesapeake Energy, who is the prime mover in shale gas? Or, that Freeport and Cheniere, who are LNG importers is Texas, are seeking regulatory approval to re-export imported LNG?
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.