Supporters of Gov. Sean Parnell’s oil tax bill resent tying the consequences of losing billions in tax revenue to adequately funding our schools. They say it is a false choice. They might be right if there were any evidence that the tax breaks to big oil would result in more oil in the pipeline. Instead, here in Alaska, we have a 10-year track record where extremely low tax rates (12 percent to below 1 percent) coincided with the Kuparuk field on the North Slope actually declining by 7 percent. Sen. Bill Wielechowski goes further, stating, “We’ve had a 20-year experiment in Alaska with low taxes. During that timeframe, it did not create new production. It did not create new investment.” Furthermore, those representing big oil before the Legislature shy completely away from making commitments to produce more oil if the governor’s bill becomes law. Having neither evidence, nor commitment to link huge tax breaks with actual production increases by the major producers, Alaskans are left with making a real choice, not a false one. Do we want to further enhance the profitability of companies currently netting about $6 million every day in profits from Alaska, or do we want to maintain a fair and equitable tax rate that would allow us to make modest adjustments to the base school allowance?
On one hand we have a governor who proposes to give billions to big oil without any assurance of increased production in return, yet in the same breath he defends no increase to the base school allowance stating, “we need results first”.
In defending his double standard, Governor Parnell cites the unacceptable 70 percent high school graduation rate seen across the state. While this is indeed unacceptable, why doesn’t the governor take the next step and ask school districts what they are doing to increase graduation rates? If he did he would get a full report. Most importantly, why not ask school districts if they are willing to be held accountable in exchange for funding? If he asked, the answer would be a resounding ‘yes’.
Taking the Juneau School District as one example, graduation rates are up. They’re now 71.4 percent for 4-year and 79 percent for 5-year graduation. The district has new, higher standards for what students should be able to do at each grade level and has implemented Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) to measure how students are performing and progressing toward these higher standards. Furthermore, they have increased graduation requirements from 21.5 to 23 credits. These are just a few of the measurable steps that the Juneau School District has taken. Other school districts are stepping up as well. If the governor wants accountability and measurable standards as justification for increasing the base allowance for the first time in three years, it’s there.
Efforts to increase graduation rates only succeed with strong and stable funding, not starting and stopping based on funding that varies from year to year. Nor is it helpful when the only adjustment upward in school funding is based on rising energy costs to heat the schools and to drive school buses. The Juneau School District has already reduced 92 positions in the past three years. They, like school districts across the state cannot absorb more cuts without foregoing higher graduation rates. Yet, this will certainly be the case now and for the foreseeable future if the governor’s oil tax bill passes as is. For example, the administration’s own fiscal analysis projects a total loss of $5.4 billion to the state’s treasury over the next six years. With this drastic reduction in revenue, what are the prospects that education will be adequately funded?
Alaska’s oil is our oil and we should be fair in our tax structure. Legislators on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that we need to adjust the tax rate on the high end when the price of oil soars. Alaska’s schools are our schools, and deserve to be funded at levels that not only keep up with inflation but also sustain core programs aimed at increasing the high school graduation rate above 70 percent. This is a goal shared by legislators on both sides.
It is our oil, but on the issue of oil taxes, our governor acts more like a former employee of Conoco Phillips and contractor of Exxon. The question is, will the Legislature follow suit? For the sake of our schools, I hope not. For the sake of our schools, I hope all the parents and teachers who lobby school districts for fewer cuts, will understand the connection and begin lobbying the Legislature for level-headed action on oil taxes. Nothing short of Alaska’s future lies in the balance.
• Troll is a long-time Alaskan with more than 22 years of experience in fisheries, coastal policy and energy policy. She resides in Douglas.





Comments (11)
Add commentEscrow
I'll suggest it again. Any tax cuts should be held in an escrow account, and only disbursed to the oil companies once they have met very specific exploration and development milestones.
If they fail to meet those milestones by the specified dates, the funding in the account is distributed to Alaskan schools.
What's wrong with holding them accountable, Governor?
Don't forget the vouchers
While saying they want to give billions more to oil company shareholders and not a dime more to public school stakeholders- 'cuz "we need results first," the Parnell/Treadwell regime has no problem promoting vouchers for private, religious schools, including madrassas.
And when asked if they will hold the private religious schools to the same standards and regulations as the public schools they criticize, the Parnell/Treadwell regime said, "Of course not. They are private sector schools. They don't need no darned gummint rules. They just need gummint money."
Alaska is like a very pretty
Alaska is like a very pretty girl…she thinks she can act however she wants and the boys will keep coming around…but she better be careful or no one will ask her to prom.
Better she spread her legs
Better she spread her legs and give it all up right noroad?
Doing this would be tacit
Hey latitude58,...If we accept their suggestions about what constitutes "new oil", then doing this would be tacit agreement.. (an escrow) that we were "not" taking a fair share, and that this would spur them to do something that they were planning on doing anyway. Your way would reward them twice for the same work they do now on their current leases..without changing the decline curve one barrel! ACES is working. They are making record profits and we have sixty new taxpaying oil-related businesses since ACES was passed. All work on the slope leads to more production. Those are the companies` own words. If we didn`t alter the decline rate or get increased exploration (for all our PREVIOUS credits and cuts..) and production using "current technology" under ELF, we certainly won`t get a decline reversal gutting our first fair tax system. They say doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is...let`s say, "peculiar". The term used more commonly is "insanity",..trying to be kinder. If we fall for this extortion of two billion a year, based on charts or graphs or cherry picking "competitors",..we are, sadly, fools, led by the same. Debate, discussion, and facts are what is called for. And all of that in the public domain. Not in back rooms out of public or media earshot.
Good point, jmac
My terms are flexible. Hold the tax cuts until production increases then. The point being, no benefits to the oil companies until they deliver value to Alaskans.
And yes, absolutely, everything done other bright daylight.
Parnell & Company are only too happy to allow other distractions to take over the front page. When it comes to Alaskans, THIS issue should be on Page 1 every day until it's fully resolved.
With sunlight comes disinfection.
parnell
Governor Parnell. Formerly employed by Conoco and Exxon as a lobbyist. Was on the Exxon defense team in the 90's, arguing that Exxon should pay minimal compensation for the PWS oil spill. That's our governor. It's not exactly ambiguous whose interests he represents. Go back to California you oily carpet bagger.
No escrow.. why should we tie
No escrow.. why should we tie up OUR funds when the onus is on them to produce?
It is a matter of trust
I do not trust the teachers union and I wonder why administrators get paid so much. If I had confidence that the money the school districts get for each child were being used wisely it would be a different outlook on my part. But, education will NEVER EVER have enough money because every time there is increased money given the school districts, salaries increase for teachers and support staff and administrative staff....and there goes our tax dollars. These dollars are not going to the kids; they are going toward salaries. Why does more money make better teaching!? And, where are the volunteers. The unions do not want the volunteers because that takes jobs/money away from people. No, until I have more confidence in the system I will resent tax dollars going in these directions. What will it take? It will take going 2 or 3 years without salary increases to see if more money really makes for better education.
HJ1
How much does an entry-level teacher make in the Juneau schools? Answer: About $47,000. And that's after graduating from college, going through student teaching, probably being a sub/temp for years...and then enduring the level of disdain typically seen by your type.
Why aren't you a teacher?
Easy, because it's a helluva lot easier and more lucrative to become a miner, with minimal education, and pull down more than that with virtually no education, no student loans, and lots of opportunity for pay increases.
Lat - how do you know I am not a teacher?
At the university I graduated from the students in the College of Education were out virtually every night partying compared to those in most of the other degree programs.
Plus many teachers who graduated with me could not pass the teacher PRAXIS exams and that is why many states do not require those exams as a prerequisite to get teaching credentials. Other watered-down exams are used instead. I have been on that side of the fence and I know that it is not rocket science to teach...It is a calling. But, again I ask why does more money make for better teaching? I have nothing against teaching or teachers. But I know what goes on in the public school system...