Right now, the existing system enables the government of Alaska to operate without having a state personal income tax or state sales tax.
It is implausible to believe that these lands could be sold for enough money to continue to pay for the operation of the government especially when inflation is factored in.
So, what possible reason would the people of Alaska have to sell this land when the ultimate result in a decade or so would be the imposition of taxes on them?
Additionally, why are you and others berating Sarah Palin for not suggesting the sale of land when the people of Alaska don’t want to sell it and the current system works so well for them?
I am not asserting that public control is not popular in Alaska. This policy enables funding of many government services through taxes paid largely by non residents. I am not berating Sarah Palin in any way. She could not have been elected governor without supporting this policy.
I am asserting that public control of a vital resource is not good policy for the country. Many states and governments want the same policy of public control. They see lots of tax revenues through taxes paid by non residents. I see excessive taxation, lower energy production, and higher energy prices as a result of this policy when applied across many governments and states.