creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer
9 Feb 2012
Elections Are for Suckers

Elections are for suckers. Let's just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has … Read More.

2 Feb 2012
The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With It

That Lawrence Summers, a president emeritus of Harvard, is a consummate distorter of fact and logic is not a revelation.… Read More.

26 Jan 2012
Obama's Faux Populism Sounds Like Bill Clinton

I'll admit it: Listening to Barack Obama, I am ready to enlist in his campaign against the feed-the-rich … Read More.

Palin's State Reaps the Windfall Profits McCain Decries

Share Comment

Welcome to the People's Republic of Alaska, where every resident this year will get a $3,200 payout, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Sarah Palin, the state's Republican governor.

That's $22,400 for a family of seven, like Palin's. Since 1982, the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests oil revenues from state lands, has paid out a dividend on invested oil loot to everyone who has been in the state for a year. But Palin upped the ante by joining with Democrats and some recalcitrant Republican state legislators to share in oil company windfall profits, further fattening state tax revenue and permitting an additional payout in tax funds to residents.

No wonder she is popular with voters in a state whose residents pay no income or sales taxes but are blessed with state coffers rolling in cash at a time when all other states are suffering. Indeed, when the oil companies pay more taxes to the state of Alaska, they get to write that off against their federal tax obligation, leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.

The state of Alaska owns most of the oil-producing land and has been getting upward of 85 percent of its budget from the oil companies that lease the fields, even before Palin helped increase the state's cut.

While other states fire schoolteachers because of the economic downturn, Alaska has, as Palin indicated in accepting McCain's offer to join him on the GOP ticket, more money than it knows what to do with. In a display of plucky arrogance at her coming-out press conference, Palin boasted deceptively that if Alaskans wanted that infamous bridge to nowhere, "we'd build it ourselves."

She originally had supported having U.S. taxpayers finance that boondoggle before McCain and others in Congress blasted it.

Not that I blame Palin for wrangling for her state a bigger cut of oil company windfall profits — it's just not an option that will work wonders for states without oil. Of course, we can remedy that by having a federal windfall profits tax of the sort that Barack Obama dared propose, and which McCain and his fellow congressional Republicans have managed to quash. Their argument, rejected quite pointedly by Palin for Alaska, is that it would discourage oil companies from investing in increasing oil field yields.

McCain derided Obama's call for the windfall profits tax, saying it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need." I am far more interested in how McCain handles the contradiction between his and Palin's position on windfall oil profits than whether he properly vetted her on her family values commitment to the abstinence-only teenage sex education program.

Why is it a good thing for the folks up in Alaska to get a cut of exorbitant oil company profits, but not the rest of us, if we are all part of one nation? Didn't taxpayers from the lower 48 states buy the place from the Russians? Isn't it our federally collected tax dollars that have been subsidizing Alaska more lavishly than any other state, both before and after the bonanza of oil? And subsidizing Alaska mightily, despite the state's enormous oil revenue.

Just witness the success of Palin, who as mayor of the hamlet of Wasilla hired a big-time lobbying firm intimately connected with the state's now-indicted Republican Sen.

Ted Stevens and thus obtained $27 million in federal earmarks during her tenure. As The Washington Post calculated in a devastating report on Mayor Palin's assault on the federal treasury, her home town of Wasilla (with 6,000 inhabitants in 2002 when she was mayor) received $6.1 million, or $1,000 per resident in earmarks — almost as much as Boise, Idaho, got this year with a population that is 30 times larger.

It obviously helped to have Alaska's now-indicted senator as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And despite McCain's claims that Palin has distinguished herself by breaking with Alaska's discredited Republican establishment in February, the governor sent Stevens a request for $200 million to support various state projects. With representatives like that, it's no wonder that Alaska, despite its oil boom, is still at the top of states subsidized by federal dollars, receiving $1.84 back from Washington for every $1 that Alaskans pay in federal taxes. (California receives 78 cents for every $1.)

Unfortunately, looking to Palin for advice on helping the rest of us during the oil crunch, as McCain has promised, is a bit like asking a Saudi oil minister or Russia's Vladimir Putin to provide a model for our nation's economic woes. They hardly feel our pain at the pump.

Robert Scheer's new book is "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America." E-mail Robert Scheer at rscheer@truthdig.com. To find out more about Robert Scheer, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
First, learn United States history. There was not 48 states in 1867 when William Seward purchased Alaska. Second under your theory then every state that was formed from the land purchased uner the Louisiana Purchase should pay money every year to every state that paid France for it. Third, you need to study economics, (communism has never worked), if you tax the oil companies one of two things are going to happen. Either they are going to demand a higher price to off set that tax or they cut supply to decrease their profit. Guess what is going to happen to the price of oil. You think $4.00 per gallon is high, you will see the price of gasoline goto $7.00 to $9.00 a gallon under the yours and Obama's plan. Fourth, the reason it works in Alaska is that they do not have a larger population. They are limited in what they can do in Alaska do to all the "Nature" people. In the Obama plan were is he going to come up with this extra $80+ billion. Don't say the Iraq conflict because that will have to goto his healthcare plan. You can tax someone only so much. Of course if you have no business or economic experience (like the democratic party) then you can always say you are going to fix something you have no idea about. Would you go get medical care at a auto repair shop?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Lyle McGinnis
Sun Sep 7, 2008 10:18 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Robert Scheer
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Larry Elder
Larry ElderUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 16 Feb 2012

28 May 2008 Where Is the Outrage?

16 Dec 2011 Christopher Hitchens: Reason in Revolt

22 Sep 2010 So Long, Summers