New Contact Email

adambrickley.brickyard@blogspot.com

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Task Force Palin YouTube Channel

As we slowly but surely build the infrastructure of Task Force Palin, I wanted to point you to our new YouTube channel. Right now, it contains all of the Youtube ads that have been produced, and I'm hoping to add some new content soon. I'll probably be putting out a video of my own this week, as I am in the process of getting copies of our petition printed and sent to the McCain campaign and Gov. Palin's office (I don't have a big enough stapler for the petition, so I have to get that done tomorrow).

Please stay tuned to TFP, as the setup is going to be a gradual process rather than a sudden launch.

42 comments:

Ted said...

I certainly hope the petition going to Sen McCain (and Gov Palin) includes all the comments by those who signed. Those are, by far, the best and most persuasive feature of this great site -- coming from a true cross section of Americana, all calling for Sarah Palin as McCain's Veep.

If Team McCain just sat down and took the time to read ALL OF THE COMMENTS, they do say it best. While I think McCain will comply with their request, were Team McCain to not satisfy the more than yearnings from what I think is the most productive feedback his campaign will ever get, his chances of winning the White House are far more than perilous -- he would turn an excited and victorious race to the White House into a disillusioned and despondent voter base, paving the way for Socialist-Obama's victory.

Nothing less than that is what's at stake, not merely for the GOP, but more importantly for America!

God Bless America, and thank you Adam Brickley!

Anonymous said...

Palin is getting slammed at the HotAir blog, about issues of windfall taxes on oil companies. I think there should be some explanation or rebuttal???

Anonymous said...

Interesting that they are slamming her so hard, from the right (supposedly) on this issue. Palin's press release last week regarding Obama's energy plan specifically criticised the plan for windfall taxes, as below:

"The Governor did question the means to pay for Obama’s proposed rebate — a windfall profits tax on oil companies. In Alaska, the state’s resource valuation system, ACES, provides strong incentives for companies to re-invest their profits in new production.

“Windfall profits taxes alone prevent additional investment in domestic production. Without new supplies from American reserves, our dependency and addiction to foreign sources of oil will continue,” Governor Palin said."

I think she, or someone, should provide an explanation on HotAir and/or here, before long.

I'm sure would take issue with the article sited by HotAir, but this is too complicated for me to understand. But she should answer this attack.

Anonymous said...

Anon, there is no simple explanation or rebuttal.

The tax in Alaska is a graduated tax on profitability based upon the price of a barrel of oil. For example, if oil is $52 per barrel, the tax rate is 25%. If it is $120 per barrel, then the tax rate is about 50%.

In a way, that tax structure provides incentive when oil prices are lower and provides punishment when oil prices are higher. But, it is a variable tax rate that does not discourage more drilling.

By contrast, a windfall profits tax, in the traditional sense, is a tax based upon total profits (as opposed to the variable profitability of a barrel of oil).

It's a really subtle distinction that a lot of people won't get, especially when any tax or recently enacted tax on oil companies is deemed a windfall profits tax.

So, again, a windfall profits tax is a percentage charged when a company's total net income hits a certain point. What Alaska enacted was a progressive net income tax per barrel of oil based upon the the price of a barrel of oil.

On the one hand, if it were a flat tax, then oil companies would have more money to explore. On the other hand, if it were a flat tax, the oil companies would have no incentive to explore since drilling more and increasing supply would bring down the price of a barrel of oil.

It's almost as if the Alaskan model doesn't care what an oil company's total profit is and, in effect, rolls back previous tax breaks granted when oil was under $100 per barrel.

Now, I'm not sure how you explain that simply. But, there probably is a way.

And, if you look at McCain, he also opposes a windfall profits tax but, with oil at its current price, favors rolling back tax incentives granted to oil companies when prices were about $30 per barrel.

In an odd way, a progressive tax structure based upon the price of a barrel of oil is not inconsistent with the McCain position which opposes further taxes but also opposes continuing tax breaks granted when oil prices were lower (look at personal income taxes . . . you have a progressive tax system but not some millionaire 30% surcharge or windfall income tax).

Anonymous said...

I just read that Bobby Jindal wrote an article or in a book about performing an emergency exorcism. I appreciate that Catholics and particularly Cajun Catholics are into that sort of thing. But I think that would nix him from the veepstakes. That's just too out of the mainstream and the press would really have a heydey with that one. Right up there with Dennis Kucinich and his UFO. I think as he gets older and further away from it, he'll be able to overcome it, but in a race this tight I think it makes him too risky. I see him as the biggest barrier to vp. Mac will either go traditional or nontraditional. If he goes traditional Palin is out. If he goes nontraditional, I think she's at the top of the list.
dr. v

Anonymous said...

Anon, it's a tough explanation. That's the problem. But, here's the language I would use:

"We instituted a new tax structure to roll back tax breaks given to oil companies when oil was $50 per barrel. We now have a progressive tax structure like the federal income tax. If the profit on a barrel of oil is lower, then the tax rate per barrel is lower. If it is higher, then the tax rate per barrel is higher.

This way, the profitability on a single barrel of oil is pretty close whether oil is $60 or $120 per barrel. When we open up OCS and Anwar and other spots to the oil companies for more drilling, then they'll have an incentive to drill, because increasing oil supply isn't going to hurt their profit per barrel. It's a win-win for everyone.

But, that's not a windfall profit tax. People like to throw around slogans and say anything is a windfall profit tax. But, a windfall profit tax encourages oil companies to drill less. Our system doesn't do that. I want the oil companies to drill more. And, in Alaska, we have a tax structure that encourages oil companies to drill more, increase supply, and bring prices down."

That's probably the best spin.

Anonymous said...

I saw on one of the news shows yesterday. I think it was Fox. That oil companies have not made particularly high profits percentage wise. They showed three other products, soft drinks, tobacco and pharmacueticals, all making about double the profits (percentage wise) that oil companies made. It was only about 8%. Which to me, 8% is pretty reasonable. You hope to get 4 or 5 off your money market. The records are being made in the dollar amounts because it is such an expensive product and so widely used. If they want to windfall tax something it should be cigarettes. My husband is a nurse, and he'd tell you in a heartbeat that at least a third of hospital patients are there all or in part because of smoking and it's related illnesses.
dr. v

Ted said...

Alaska is, correctly seen by Palin, a unique situation -- a situation which does NOT exist throughout the lower 48 states. Therefore there is absoultely no basis or analogy for Obama to propose such rebate nationally to pander (and, if anything, Obama appropriating the idea makes a mockery of it). With Alaska's extreme high wealth of oil/natural resources, yet ironically (because of transport out to refineries) extreme high cost for those needed resources to Alaska residents (by far highest in the nation), this presented a unique situation for that State, which Palin, wisely weighing the pros and cons and costs benefits, etc., made the proper call (knowing whe would get some criticism). That's exactly what great leaders (like Palin) do. They weigh everything and make a decision, take the heat, and get the job done!

Anonymous said...

I might suggest that a few of you folks, who understand this issue better than me, log onto Hotair and help in the debate on Palin's behalf.

Anonymous said...

Adam! If you are sending the petition together with the comments the petitioners made, I would argue you to send a copy to Meghan McCain and her mother as well. Do not underestimate the role family members play behind the curtains! MK

Ted said...

Anonymous, boy that's a great idea, sending the petition with comments to McCain's daughter and mother!!!

BY THE WAY, I'M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF THIS -- for what is really not much money, compared to other ad buys, people/groups who don't want Palin tapped as a Veep by McCain are buying shares of Ridge and Pawlenty on intrade to make it seem those two are more popular and/or likely picks than Palin. Those groups, likely Dems/Campaign Obama WHO ABSOLUTELY KNOW ABOUT PALIN AND CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE HER ON THE MCCAIN TICKET know that intrade gets mentioned in the media, blogs, by politico types etc. etc. There is no way Ridge, especially, can now be going (abortion views, boring etc.) up as a real consideration by McCain and/or Pawlenty going (no real benefit to Mac, boring etc.) up for consideration as well. Any investor, genuinely interested in making some bucks on intrade (as opposed to trying and manipulate to disillusion Palin support), would very likely be familiar with Palin and/or have done some research -- and would KNOW Palin's where the money should go.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I don't think it will be Ridge. He's a stuffy white guy as well as pro choice. You'd lose evangelical enthusiasm and any chance of grabbing the disenfranchised Hillary folks.
On the Alaska thing, I think something like only one percent of Alaska is privately owned. People in the lower 48 don't get that. Here in Arkansas we have a natural gas drilling frenzy going on because it is under privately own property and there's no regs to stop it. There's a place in North Dakota that's having the same boom. People don't get it, that it's the feds blocking a lot of this drilling. And the Repubs really need to blast the Dems out of the water on that Use it or Lose it. They keep blabbing about all these acres that are leased and not being drilled on. They're not being drilled on because they haven't found oil there. The Repubs need to roust them on that.
dr. v

Anonymous said...

These people on the Hotair site (from the conservative side) are harsh in their attacks re: the oil tax. I wonder whether this is a coordinated effort by certain enemies she has made, or whether this is truly a matter of debate. I hope her side on this oil issue is voiced...I tried signing up and logging on, but am having problems. By the time my user name gets approved by Hotair, this particular topic of discussion will likely be "old", and therefore her side will barely have had a chance to rebut.

Anonymous said...

This one looks bad. As I said, it's not a windfall profits tax.

The Alaskan tax system basically, because it has a progressive rate, basically says that oil companies can make about the same amount of net profit per barrel of oil whether the price is $80 or $120 per barrel. It's not exactly the same, but it's pretty close.

Now, there is an incentive inherent in this to drill more. Drilling more means more supply. More supply means lower oil prices. Lower oil prices means a lower tax rate per barrel. But, and this is the important part, an oil company in theory would make more money (more total profits) through more drilling because they'd be selling more barrels of oil.

As an aside, there's also an incentive towards greater efficiency. The tax takes effect after something like $25 or $30, which is considered the break even cost for a barrel of oil. If a company can figure out how to be more efficient and how to retrieve that oil for $20 per barrel, for example, then there's an additional savings.

By contrast, a windfall profits tax addresses those total profits. The idea is to look at how much a company makes in total profits for a quarter and, depending upon conditions, to assess an additional tax.

Now, I still think, as a matter of political perception, that the language to use is that Palin is against oil companies getting per barrel tax incentives that they got at $60 or $80 per barrel. But, if the oil companies drill and prices go down, then those tax incentives or rebates come back into force. The idea is that everyone wins: If oil companies drill more, then prices go down. If they sell more barrels, then their total profit is better. And, if the state still gets its money (lower tax per barrel of oil but more barrels of oil).

Oil companies will say that it provides a disincentive to explore, but the reality is that the federal government won't allow them to explore where the oil is. If that obstacle were removed, then there most assuredly is an incentive to explore, as oil companies would realize even greater total profits through greater supply.

That's the theory . . . not a huge fan in practice because a progressive per barrel tax structure can be confused for a traditional windfall profits tax.

Anonymous said...

One more thing: A windfall profits tax discourages drilling because it taxes the total profits of a company. The Alaskan structure is drilling neutral, in that more drilling means a lower tax rate or similar profitability per barrel.

Anonymous said...

Very, very interesting debate. Explained in this manner, this sounds like a smart, and unique strategy. In fact, perhaps this explanation helps in many ways to protect AGAINST Palin (and McCain) being seen as totally in bed with the oil companies, but at the same time being in favor of increased drilling, lower oil prices, and hence enhanced domestic security.

A complex topic, but one that needs to be explained quickly if she wants to go national now or some day. And one that I think MOST Americans, not just the far right or complete "purist" conservatives, would find attractive.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that constitutes a windfall profit tax. I think that would be defined as a progressive tax. Just like income tax. The higher the income the higher the tax bracket. Those are progressive taxes. I don't know what the dems' plan is re: a windfall profits tax. Are they going to tax them higher when they reach a certain dollar amount? or are they going to tax them higher when they reach a certain percentage of profit? Which I think is a bit problematic, as I mentioned in an earlier post, because we don't do that to other industries. Pharmacueticals are making record profits and there is no windfall profit on them. And for the last couple of years people have made crazy profits on real estate. There was no windfall profit on them. Why single out the oil industry? Anyone with a business (or a 401K for that matter) should be opposed to this strategy. I mark up my cupcakes about 60%, but that's because I only make about 25% on my lunch combos. It's the market that sets those prices. If I raised my lunch combos, I wouldn't be competitive. In the end, you hope you have enough to pay your bills and your help. I mean are we going to start telling people they can only make a certain amount of money? I understand putting certain limits on how much interest you can charge on a credit card and some things like that. But what has our nation come to if we start telling investors they can't make more than an 8% return on their investments? So much for innovation. Who would go through all the headaches and risk of starting a business if they thought the government would cap them at an 8% profit rate?
dr. v

Paul said...

Guys - if we don't organize and work fast to not just chat on blogs, but do specific things to get Palin elected, we'll just be twittling our thumbs when Mccain announces in the next couple of weeks.

Likely Mccain has made his decision, or is down to 2 or 3 people and it is likely too late.

I gave Adam a call this morning and left a vmail hoping to get in touch.

If anyone else wants to work together on doing specific things, give email me at paul007ex@gmail.com

-Paul

Anonymous said...

anon, there is one difference between this progressive tax and a progressive income tax. A progressive income tax is based upon total income. What one might call the progressive tax in Alaska on oil is based upon the price of a barrel. As such, there is no disincentive to drill more. Again, drilling more means lower prices per barrel, which in turn means a lower tax rate per barrel. As such, an oil company doing business in Alaska would realize the greatest total profit when it drills more.

And, here's where the distinction with a windfall profit tax comes into play. The point of a windfall profits tax is that, no matter how much you do or do not drill, there is a point at which a company's total profits will receive an additional tax. A progressive oil tax, whether or not you like it, really is the societal alternative to a windfall profits tax, in that it says "drill to your hearts content, make as much total profit as you like, but do not expect similar tax breaks if oil is $120 per barrel as what you got or still get at $80 per barrel".

What Palin-- and McCain-- ultimately are is the modern version of Teddy Roosevelt Republicans. Government can and always does affect the market through tax policy, regulations, etc. Dems use it to affect things like income redistribution and a world free of oil. What Alaska is doing is the type of thing TR would have done . . . use government tax structure to give oil companies an incentive to drill more (lower prices, lower tax rate, more production = higher total profit) and to reward companies that follow that prescription (i.e., no windfall profit tax when oil companies do what you want them to do).

I'm just explaining the distinctions at play and why what Alaska does is something completely in sync with McCain. After all, wasn't this the argument McCain used against GWB's latest batch of oil company goodies, that it's one thing to help oil companies with lower tax rates when oil is $80 per barrel and quite another to give them the same breaks when oil is $120 per barrel?

Anonymous said...

Anon, there are three ways to tax oil companies:

The first is to bend over and take it up the rear in the form of giving tax breaks and other goodies that have been in effect since the 1990's.

The second is to have flat taxes regardless of the price of oil. When oil prices rise and oil companies make what looks like a fortune, it opens up the door for people to talk about windfall profit taxes. They look at the bottom sheet balance line and see a total dollar amount that oil companies are making and say "they need to pay more" without consideration of return on revenue and other things.

The third way is something similar to what Alaska instituted, a progressive tax that means for oil companies a similar profit margin per barrel of oil whether prices are $60 or $120 per barrel. But, and I repeat this as a distinction to a windfall profit tax, there is no disincentive to drill more. In fact, there is an incentive to drill more, as total profits under this type of tax system are supply driven (i.e., more drilling helps lower prices and is how oil companies can make higher total profits).

Anonymous said...

I'm not particularly opposed to progressive tax, because the more money that is rolling through your company or your bank account, more than likely you're reaping more benefits from society and therefore should contribute more.
What I see as the flaw in this discussion, and the point I was trying to make with my bakery sales, is that the price per barrel is not necessarily an indication of the profitability/earnings for the company. For example, I sell ham, turkey and beef sandwich combos. They all three sell for the same price, but I actually pay a different price for each meat, the ham is the cheapest, the turkey slightly higher, and the beef is the most expensive. It would be nonsensical however to have three different prices on my menu, and frankly customers don't care. I have no doubt it is the same for oil companies (having a dad who worked in that field for many years) some wells are expensive to produce and some cheap. Well, cheaper. And there is no guarantee that more oil coming out of Alaska will bring down the overall price. The market is too big and there are too many global factors affecting the demand. More than likely the price per barrel will continue to rise. My hope for increasing domestic production is that prices won't absolutely sky rocket.
I think the more salient feature of Palin's plan is the part that requires them to reinvest a given amount to continued exploration and production. Personally, I think a pitch, though not a very Republican one or free market one, that should be made is that any oil pulled from federal or state land must go into the domestic market and not on the open market. It does, in a sense, belong to all Americans. So you could argue that it should stay in the American market. It seems that would have great voter appeal and would blunt the Dem argument against expanded drilling that it was just get sold to the highest bidder.
dr. v
dr. v

Greg said...

Any tax on the cost of oil per barrel would have to accommodate the cost of pumping that barrel rather than just look at the sale price.

So profit per barrel would be a better statistic to look at, since shale oil is more expensive to pump, you wouldn't want companies to not go after hard to pump resources in this high demand market.

So if it costs my company 50$/barrel to pump and I sell it for 120, I should be taxed less than for barrels I pump for 20$.

I assume this is accounted for in Alaska's approach?

Anonymous said...

drv, you do cite the danger of a progressive tax on oil, in that you basically set the ROI for a barrel of oil whether the price is $80 per barrel or $120 per barrel.

But, here's the part that you miss. If you remove the supply related restrictions, then you in theory allow an oil company to double the number of barrels of oil that they produce. In doing so, you increase their total profit because revenues will be higher, even as prices fall (this is where the progressive per market price per barrel tax versus windfall tax on total profits distinction comes into play).

And, make no mistake, the moment the Congressional bans are lifted and the matter is left to each state to decide, prices will fall. Price is a function of supply and demand now and speculation as to what supply and demand will be in the future. I have no problem with the speculative element. I mean, any investor, in any industry, is going to bet on prices going up or going down.

Now, there are two reasons why the price of oil has dropped $30 per barrel in the last month. The first reason is that demand has dropped due to high prices. That's an anti-growth item. The second reason is that the market is hedging bets that $4.00 per gallon gasoline may shock the American political system into accepting far less restrictions when it comes to increasing supply (i.e., there is a future anticipation of supply increase from the US).

Now, you can look at the idea of a progressive tax rate on oil per barrel in a couple of ways. You can think that it is bad as a matter of principle. You can like it.

Or, you can look at is as a market price triggered roll back of tax breaks put into place when oil was half the price per barrel and which can be triggered back into effect if prices fall again due to supply and demand related forces. In this regard, there is an incentive to drill more, even if prices fall, since price drops trigger lower tax rates per barrel.

Anonymous said...

greg, you absolutely are correct. For example, the Alaska tax figures the cost of extraction at $25 per barrel. Shale oil (or even the relatively more expensive off shore drilling) would have to have higher cost basis under a system like this.

Anonymous said...

Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., has been a prolific fundraiser from the lobbyists and interest groups that McCain says hold too much sway in Washington. In 2006, he donated to charity $10,000 he had received from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who had named a sandwich after Cantor at a deli he owned, according to the Jewish newspaper The Forward. McCain helped expose the Abramoff scandal.

Rob Collins, Cantor's chief of staff, pointed out in an e-mail that Abramoff funded a group that attacked Cantor during the 2000 primary. "Cantor or his staff never met officially with or did any actions for Jack Abramoff," he said.

Anonymous said...

Pawlenty amended his financial disclosure forms in 2003 after revealing that a businessman had paid him $4,500 per month — a total of $60,000 — for legal consulting while he was campaigning for governor in 2002. He had listed his consulting business, BAMCO and Associates, as an investment on the state form designed to disclose his income.

State campaign officials and local prosecutors quickly absolved him of any wrongdoing after Democrats charged the payments amounted to illegal campaign contributions. The allegations "were deemed to be without merit," Pawlenty spokesman Bob Schroeder said.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic back and forth regarding oil companies, effects of taxes, and incentive to drill. And I see someone on Hotair's discussion linked here. Good to see high level discussions, rather than just "Ra, Ra" cheerleading. As hopefully more folks are coming to read this site, this can only help the cause.

Adam Brickley, aka "ElephantMan" said...

Sorry for not getting in on this earlier, but I was out in the middle of nowhere today (Lincoln County, CO), and I didn't even have cell phone service, let alone internet.

For now, I just want to remind everyone that Gov. Palin condemned windfall profits taxes in a press release just last week. I will be posting in detail about Alaskan oil taxes tonight or tomorrow (it's a very complex issue, and it will have to be a long post).

I'm also in the process of tryign to contact Ed Morrissey to talk to him about this issue (which was based on a very poorly-researched article in the Seattle Times). Unfortunately, Gmail is down, so I'll have to see it he responds to a message from my personal adress on another server.

flapper said...

I like Ed, generally speaking. He's nowhere near the caliber of Allahpundit, but few are.

On the Veep issue, though, Ed has a problem. He's from MN, and he's a Pawlenty mark. He bends over backwards to praise a guy who adds nothing to the ticket, with meaningless slogans like "energetic campaigner", and discounts Pawlenty's liberal stances as political necessity in a blue state.

As soon as I saw the headline at HotAir, and Ed's name under it, I knew there was gonna be trouble.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking the flare up in Russia will bring energy and nat'l security back to the forefront. Gas prices had dropped some and the war winding down in Iraq I think were ironically hurting McCain. And get Obama, he's saying everyone should remain calm when they're over there bombing one another. Surely people will see his chummy chummy approach just doesn't always work.
Does Palin have to deal with the Russians any? Alaska sort of borders Russia. Can't you theoretically walk to Russia in the winter months from Alaska?
dr. v

Paul said...

Head's up: I am in contact with Adam and others from www.palinforamerica.com and taskforce palin and we are working on putting together one plan that we can all focus going forward.

As such, we are looking for some bodies in Alaska that can assist.

If you have friends or families, or know who might, please contact them or provide me the contact information.

It would only be a few hours of work at most. The work is still tbd.

We need everyone's help in this. We're hoping to communicate a clear plan of action soon, hopefully as early as tomorrow and maybe sooner.

Thanks,
-Paul

Kelly in Alaska said...

Uh-oh! What are you guys gonna do? People are starting to see Palin as the RINO liberal tax-and-spender that she is!!!!

Anonymous said...

Alaska owns the land the oil is coming from (it's not Jed Clampett's land) and Alaska is taking their fair share of the profits on their own oil. This is not a "Windfall Profits Tax".

By the way, this is what the big scandal in Alaska was all about that put many Alaska state politicians in prison. These corrupt politicians were bribed to pass a lower tax and they did. (Veco) This is the same company that is accused of bribing Sen. Ted Stevens in his recent indictment.

After the scandal broke and Palin was elected Governor, Palin and the legislature decided to address the previously tainted bill and they passed a new bill that put the revenue sharing where it would have been had the bribing of legislators not occurred.

Oh, and if you just noticed, these oil companies just recorded record profits for last quarter across the board, so the old 'sharing oil revenue with Alaska makes oil drilling unprofitable' argument doesn't hold too much water.

As witnessed by the 20 year long Exxon Valdez court fiasco that ended up with the devastated fishermen being screwed by (my) conservative Supreme Court (who favored Exxon for no constitutional reason or prior precedent), oil companies will fight endlessly with no mercy and will not think twice about ruining people to save a dime.
These recent attacks on Gov. Palin are not an accident or random. There are many from the top to the bottom in Alaska politics/oil who hate her for cleaning up this corruption and working for the people of the state.
If you haven't figured out who these posters are that blast her on these blogs, just think about it and you will come to the right conclusion.

flapper said...

adam,

I'm sure your post tomorrow will be great, just like your answer to the "scandal" a few weeks ago.

But if you don't mind, will you keep us updated as to whether or not Ed responds? HotAir gets massive traffic, and to have a one-sided accusation about Palin on their front page is damaging. I saw in the comments that some strong Palin supporters were backing off.

HotAir should update this tomorrow on their front page, with new facts that the article (and Ed) omitted.

Anonymous said...

If the oil is coming out of Alaska's state land, then they're not sharing profits nor are they taxing. They're selling it. It's just a matter of semantics. They could say "we're going to give you this oil for free, but turn around and tax you X amount" or they could say we're going to sell you this oil for X per barrel or X percent of your profits.
The timber industry does the same thing. The state and federal gov't give them permits to cut timber off of state and federal land. In exchange they get a cut or a per acre amount. I don't see what the big deal is.
The Repubs really need to jump out in front on these issues. They're letting the Dems mislead the public. A lot of Americans don't understand that in many western states, these lands are public lands, and thus belong to the public and therefore the public should get a chunk of the profits.
dr. v

Anonymous said...

I'll do anything I can from here in Arkansas. Don't know anyone in Alaska.
dr. v

Anonymous said...

I do find it interesting how history repeats itself a century later. Sarah Palin is a Teddy Roosevelt style Republican. The old school Republicans are Taft style Republicans.

The former type is your Republican version of progressive, someone sees government as an instrument to make the market work for the country's citizens (for Roosevelt, it was trust busting; for someone like Palin, it is a progressive oil tax structure that rewards oil companies most when they supply more oil to the market).

The latter type is your beholden to industry Republican group, your economic libertarians who think, in a case like this, that a flat tax on oil is the way to go, even if it means that oil companies have an incentive to see higher prices and can negotiate additional tax breaks as a prerequisite for exploration.

How one perceives the Alaskan tax structure depends upon how one looks at the issue. Much like the Taft Republicans from a century ago, the Stevens Republicans would call the tax structure the equivalent of a windfall profits tax.

By contrast, a Roosevelt Republican would call the tax structure progressive, something that rolls back previously granted tax breaks depending upon market prices while, at the same time, providing tax based incentives for more drilling.

Now, which type of Republican is better can be debated for an issue like this, although the problem is that supply is artificially limited (so there's already much more significant market interference at work).

But, what cannot be debated is what type of Republican is better suited to win in this election environment.

If you take away some of McCain's WTF moments like campaign finance reform, the fact is that there is a similar TR type of outlook on things.

Anonymous said...

This is DEFINITELY a Teddy Roosevelt-style reformer year due to the normal Republicans in Congress being just as sleazy and corrupt as the Dems.

Taft Repubs. (Syrin anybody?) need to be convinced that this is the year we push reforms.

Now that I know more about the Alaska tax/royalty system, it makes sense. A flat tax gives NO incentive to produce more oil but to keep supplies tight to drive up prices with a fixed tax amount.

McCain/Palin need to whip out the big stick and start whacking. Keep in mind that this would HELP Taft Republicans much like young boys who need some discipline, limits,and tough love. The answer is not to give them the cookie jar, but smack their hands when they go for it.

Sarah is the perfect VP match for McCain this election.

Bob said...

Dont understand the Repub party and how they eat their own in a heartbeat. If someone isnt 100% in their belief system, they not only dump them but demonize them. What a way to bring unity. I saw the hot air comments. Come on, these people probably dont even know anything about Palin. They probably havent even seen the great videos of her and her family and the troops, etc. Just because of a perception of a liberal act or because they want their guy to be VP and they toss her out. I want Palin but I could live with "their" guy. Why can't they? This is why the party will lose the election. No unity. Just cannibalism among their own.

Adam Brickley, aka "ElephantMan" said...

Just so that you all know, I am in active contact with Mr. Morrissey and am providing him the appropriate documentation, which will also be posted here.

Anonymous said...

Adam, I've posted a few times in here with the reference to the tax system as progressive. Actually, the more technical reference is that the tax rate is indexed against the market price for oil (something I posted in the newer thread). It's not unlike how a COLA works. Now, one can question whether that is a good thing or a bad thing-- and one can call it a tax hike or rolling back tax breaks based upon the market price for oil-- but one thing this tax structure is not is a windfall profits tax, which is attached to an oil company's total profits (regardless of whether it drills one or one hundred million barrels of oil and regardless of the price per barrel of oil).

flapper said...

bob,

I totally agree. It's sad to think that anti-Palin Republicans would come to this site as anonymous trolls. There are several potential Veeps that I oppose, but I wouldn't even think of doing that.

adam,

Thanks.