Gov. Sean Parnell gave his first, somewhat preliminary, reaction to a new oil tax bill introduced by the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday.
The governor’s comments at the Native Issues Forum were somewhat critical, but were also somewhat hopeful an agreement could be reached.
Parnell’s own bill offering the state’s oil producers much more dramatic tax cuts has stalled in the Senate, but its powerful Finance Committee on Tuesday put forward a new version of Senate Bill 192, offering much bigger cuts than did a previous version.
The new version is not just a tax cut, but it is also a significant change in how taxes are calculated, said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, who proposed it.
Parnell said it might be too complicated.
“It takes what is already a complex tax regime and makes it more complex,” he said.
He likened the change to going from algebra to calculus to figure Alaska’s oil taxes.
Cautioning the latest version was still being reviewed, Parnell said it would increase taxes at less than $60 per barrel, hold taxes steady between $60 and $100 and reduce them “only a little bit” above $100 barrel.
Alaska needs to offer oil companies a better deal than Texas or North Dakota to attract investments, but Parnell said he thought a deal would be reached.
“I’m still very hopeful that we can work out an accommodation or a compromise with the Senate,” he said.
There are 11 days left for Parnell to come to an agreement with the House of Representatives and the Senate, he said, and that can be done.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 523-2250 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.
Comments (22)
Add commentParnell 's tutor
MAybe Parnell should get a tutor to help him figure out the complicated arithmetic. Sean, maybe $arah can to help you.
Taxes
It is too bad the State has to lower themselves to the standards of North Dakota or Texas. North Dakota is a mess and Texas sold out to the oil industries decades ago.
Stedman
It seems Stedman talked a good game but when it came down to it, showed he's bought by the oil industry just like the rest of our legislators and Congress. There's one state, Montana, who is trying to fight corporate take-over in their state, but no surprise that while the MT Supreme Court backed them up, the Supreme Court chose to defend the corporations. At least MT showed some guts, unlike Alaska. Soon to come will be our legislators saying we have no money for this or that....oh wait thats already happening and its just going to get worse. The oil reps testified in front of Congress that they didnt need the Federal subsidies they receive but apparently our Congress doesnt believe them because they still voted to continue their subsidies.
Simplicity
Agree with the governor. It's much easier to hand the oil industry your wallet and let them take what they wish than it is to count the cash out to them.
vote
This should be put up for vote by the people of Alaska, let them decide instead of our leaders who have been bought and brain-washed.
No promises from the oil companies
From everything I've read, this is still a billion dollar giveaway to the oil companies with no promises of anything in return.
Any reduction or revision of ACES should be contingent upon promises of increased production and throughput by the oil companies themselves.
But they've offered little more than vague and ambiguous promises with no real timelines.
Which means...
The oil companies continue their shameful tradition of bribery, dishonesty and greed at Alaskan's expense.
I've finally figured it out -
I've finally figured it out - all the blather about the "billion dollar give-a-way" to evil oil coming from the greedy, self-centered progressives showcases the difference in thinking.
Free market thinking people see lower taxes as a way to attract business, generate revenue and a product and it's a win-win for all.
'What's in it for me liberals' would rather personally attack and cry that it's not fair. In reality they don't have the first clue about how to pump the free market - unless government dollars are involved. Case in point - Solyndra.
Wingnut Welfare
Shorter Calypso: "won't somebody THINK OF THE CORPORATIONS?!"
It's funny how some people are adamantly against welfare for actual persons, but are totally gung-ho when it comes to welfare for artificial persons.
Hey p, quit changing the
Hey p, quit changing the subject.
Dispute one thing I said. If you can't agree that corporations drive America's economy then you better study capitalism and economics some more. Get all your investments out of the stock market too because you're just furthering the evil corporations' strangle hold on the world. Please...
By the way, did you see where another of your beloved, model European countries is about to go belly up? Now it's Spain's turn. Man, that socialism plays well in the real world!!!
Uh oh, Calypso's trying to
Uh oh, Calypso's trying to put words in my mouth again. I must have riled him. You can always tell, because even though he has demonstrated ignorance about the basic premises of economics time and time again, he's now trying to pretend he understands it perfectly well (yes! Tax breaks encourage job creation! It makes perfect sense that corporations would hire people when they don't need to!).
And then, the kicker: bring up a European country with a history of problems (a history dating back, in fact, to the defeat of its Armada in 1588), blame its problems on socialism while knowing full well that he has no facts to back up his claims and secretly hoping no one brings up Germany, Canada, Scandinavia, Iceland, or any of the other plethora of welfare-states that are doing not just well, but better than the United States.
Oh, Calypso! It's almost as if you have a template you simply copy and paste into each post, adding only the names (Greece, Spain, China, George Soros, Saul Alinsky, etc.).
That, or you're a semi-sentient artificial intelligence that only knows one or two ways to respond.
@p , what the heck are you
@p , what the heck are you raving about? It's hard to tell once one gets past the mockery.
Canada you say - ummm (to use your 'word') have you read about the new policies Harper is proposing? I thought not. Just like you tried to tell us a few months ago how well France is doing. And you also know that you were holding up Spain as the model for green energy and windmills too.
So we don't need to go back to 1588 to explain Spain's economic problems. That's laughable! But you are a history wiz - we're all impressed!!!!
Maybe there is hope for you when you write statements like this(even though I know you're mocking again) - "yes! Tax breaks encourage job creation!" You're right on. Are you starting to think like a conservative now? Stick your toe in the water - it's warm over here!
Oh, Calypso! How poor your
Oh, Calypso! How poor your memory and reasoning skills are. Germany is the model for wind energy, as you'll recall. Remember how you said wind energy can never make up a significant amount of our consumption and I then pointed to Germany, which gets a very significant portion of its electricity from wind (and plans to get even more from it)? Good times.
But Spain and Greece? Wasn't lack of tax breaks for oil companies that caused their problems.
Anyway, you're (purposely) ignoring reality here. Corporations create jobs when demand for their product or service increases. When economic conditions are favorable, they need no stimulus to expand, because they're already making money. When economic conditions are not favorable for growth, they won't expand, even if they get a stimulus, because expansion will ONLY HAPPEN if expansion is profitable.
Econ 101. Or in your case, a quick Wikipedia search, some profane mutterings, and a quick jaunt over to Tucker Carlson's website for a red herring.
You know p, I'm tired of
You know p, I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole. You're all over the board.
Germany and wind power? Who cares. It's not worth any time to research. You can tout their supposed achievements for awhile but I'm guessing you'll be eating your words before too long.
And discussing economics with you when you believe in the Keynes model and I don't is a waste of time too.
But when you write this -
"When economic conditions are not favorable for growth, they won't expand, even if they get a stimulus, because expansion will ONLY HAPPEN if expansion is profitable."
- is that your justification for BO's billions of wasted taxpayer dollars? And you have the gall to whine about oil companies...that's funny.
@Calypso
Re: Solyndra-The Bush Admin started a loan guarantee program under the Energy Act of 2005 in an effort to advance clean technology. Solyndra was one of many companies approved for a loan but yet leave it to the big oil defenders to cite the one that went bankrupt. If you are so into "free market", then one would think you would also be for ending subsidies for big oil but yet for some reason you defend that. You cant call it "free market" when they receive subsidies from the government that the majority of other businesses dont receive. You say liberals "In reality they don't have the first clue about how to pump the free market - unless government dollars are involved"....I would say that describes the oil companies to a T.
North Dakota only has a
North Dakota only has a billion barrels ALL TOLD from what I understand. Are these guys really trying to convince us that if we don`t give them two billion a year they are foing to walk away from 40 billion barrels of oil and gas liquids and 235 trillion barrels of gas?...for old North Dakota`s one billion barrels of recoverable oil? This is the blarney that the judge said Alaskans were dumb in falling for. It`s basic due diligence and I hope somebody in the Senate is doing it. Stedman is starting to roll over by starting out saying "Alaska takes too much" at "high" prices. What are high prices in this day and age Mr. Stedman? We have been in a war over oil for twenty years that has seen oil go from 12 bucks to 144 a barrel. Why should Alaskans take less as the price (and profits, to the companies side of the table) goes up due to depletion of a valuable and finite resource? We shouldn`t. The oil will run out some day. We need to get Alaska ready for that, and it won`t be by caving into extortion every five years to let them "skim the cream" while our own infrastructure and fiscal health suffers further.
For those who didn't have the opportunity that I had
I had the opportunity, some might say the luxury, of watching on Gavel to Gavel live coverage of all new information the Senate has received of the past year, the presentations and testimonies from the oil industry, specialists in world wide studies of the oil industry, comments from local people.
I am certainly not an elected senator for Alaska, but I appreciate the massive amount of information they have tried to absorb, understand and then figure out what seems to be best for Alaska and not special interests.
Things are much more complicated that I had ever known before. There are no quick and easy answers.
One thing I did note was that those with a great knowledge of the oil industry said that taxes or royalties, are only one factor among many when it comes to oil companies exploring for new fields or expanding known fields. But taxes are a factor, and as far as I can tell, our State Senate has tried to find some kind of balance, some kind of compromise that will encourage the oil companies, and yet provide a steady income for Alaska.
I read many comments by people who seem to think that the taxes or royalties are the only concern or basis for decisions made by oil companies.
Hey folks, its not all that simple.
A suggestion
For those of you interested in the question of royalties or taxation on oil in Alaska. At 3:13 pm on Gavel to Gavel, the Senate Finance committee is listening to an independent consultant.
Rather than commenting, I suggest that one tunes into Gavel to Gavel on channel 18 television and listens to what is presented.
Thank you.
Gavel to Gavel
I tuned in shortly after 3:30 and I didnt see anything like you described, Wally. Maybe I missed it. I see the House Finance Committeenot Senate and no independent consultant. Maybe you could describe what was presented if you saw it? Im curious if they have said anything about any legal clauses being written in that guarantees increased investment and jobs for Alaskans, something that seems to be missing from any of the bills but doesnt seem like it should be too complicated to insert.
the score:
Calypso.....0
Persimmon......4
ka-SMACK !
ka-BLAM !
ka-SPANK !
My favorite line from Calypso: "In reality they [liberals] don't have the first clue about how to pump the free market - unless government dollars are involved. Case in point - Solyndra."
Um...isn't big oil asking for Alaska's government dollars???
My favorite quote from PP: "And then, the kicker: bring up a European country with a history of problems...and [Calypso] secretly hoping no one brings up Germany, Canada, Scandinavia, Iceland, or any of the other plethora of welfare-states that are doing not just well, but better than the United States."
SMACK!
Well done PP.
Nice try, Caly.
@ Calypso
Dude, for the record, I would be all in support of giving the oil companies $2 billion in tax/royalty reductions, IF...
1. It translated into at least $2 billion in added revenue for Alaska;
2. They could guarantee they would spend that $2 billion in new investment IN ALASKA;
3. That they could give realistic and verifiable timelines when they would invest that money and how;
4. That they guarantee an increase in Alaskan jobs, oil production and throughput.
But, um, they haven't promised any of that.
Which means,
It would be nothing more than giving away billions of Alaska's dollars every year, with no guarantees of any return on our investment.
Which means,
This is a corporate welfare giveaway at the hands of a former oil lobbyist turned Governor taking care of his friends at the expense of the people he was elected to represent.
Which means,
Status quo.