Palin leaves door open for possible Senate run

[ImWithStupid]

I agree that any sort of taking from someone to give to another is redistribution of wealth. A form of socialism. The taking of profits from the oil companies to give to the citizens of Alaska is a socialistic practice.

 

Just because Alaskan's are paying more for gas than many others doesn't necessarily mean it's some kind of conspiracy to jack up prices. It costs more for transportation and most every other form of logistics in Alaska.

 

I also understand that under Alaska law and the Constitution of the State of Alaska that the natural resources belong to the citizens of Alaska and the profits should be shared.

 

With that said, I have no problem with individual states deciding to adopt some socialistic principals.

 

I do however have a problem with the Federal government doing so. It isn't right for states like Texas, Alaska, or even here in Nebraska, who work within their budgets, and don't overspend as a local government be made to give money to states like Ohio, or Delaware who through large tax laws have driven corportations to move to states with less stringant tax laws, because people who have no vested interest, and can outvote those who do, like what happens in Congress decide they should.

 

Social programs should be left to the states.

 

We need to move back to what the Constitution allows, as far as the Federal government goes.

[snafu]

Just because Alaskans are paying more for gas than many others doesn't necessarily mean it's some kind of conspiracy to jack up prices. It costs more for transportation and most every other form of logistics in Alaska.

 

.

 

Thats the thing though. It's not pipelined anywhere. It's not shipped or barged anywhere.

It's pumped and refined right here in Alaska. The logistics of bringing it to rural areas don't even come close to these other means of supplying it. Louisiana has no problem supplying their oil cheaper.

 

The people in the lower 48 get Alaskan gas cheaper than Alaskans do.

[ImWithStupid]

Thats the thing though. It's not pipelined anywhere. It's not shipped or barged anywhere.

It's pumped and refined right here in Alaska. The logistics of bringing it to rural areas don't even come close to these other means of supplying it. Louisiana has no problem supplying their oil cheaper.

 

The people in the lower 48 get Alaskan gas cheaper than Alaskans do.

 

But they have to pay more for the supplies shipped there, pay more for the employees to come there and so on and so forth. Just becasue it's done there doesn't mean the overhead is lower.

[snafu]

But they have to pay more for the supplies shipped there, pay more for the employees to come there and so on and so forth. Just because it's done there doesn't mean the overhead is lower.

 

Yes they do as apposed to me buying it in Anchorage but even in Anchorage we pay some of the highest prices and there is no excuse. The gas companies do not pay the same 37% tax they do in Louisiana and so they still charge us more. They are gouging Alaskans. Both parties up here see this and are going to put a stop to it.

[hugo]

Yes they do as apposed to me buying it in Anchorage but even in Anchorage we pay some of the highest prices and there is no excuse. The gas companies do not pay the same 37% tax they do in Louisiana and so they still charge us more. They are gouging Alaskans. Both parties up here see this and are going to put a stop to it.

 

I need to check this some more but I believe in Louisiana the states get 37.5% of the federal lease revenues.. There is not an additional tax.

 

The U.S. Minerals Management Service’s March 19 auction of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico totaled $3.67 billion, shattering 1983’s record $3.4 billion and October 2007’s $2.9 billion — then the second largest. For the first time ever, a portion of the federal lease sale in the eastern region and revenues generated from drilling will be returned to Louisiana and other producing states.

 

The MMS’ Gulf of Mexico Region collected 1,057 bids from 78 companies on 615 tracts offered in Central Lease Sale 206, which is off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and accounted for the bulk of the lease sale. Another 58 bids were received from five companies on 36 tracts an area about 125 miles from the Florida Panhandle. Known as Eastern Lease Sale 224 and totaling $64 million, this marks the first time bids have been taken in the eastern Gulf region.

 

In 2006, Congress opened up 8.3 million acres of additional territory in that region, an area estimated to have the capacity for producing 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — enough to heat 6 million homes for 15 years.

 

Most notable about Eastern Sale 224, however, is its impact on the state coffers in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, which will receive 37.5 percent of the revenues generated from all newly leased acreage in the eastern region. The history-making revenue sharing provision was mandated by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, giving the states royalties from production in federal waters off their coastlines. U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu co-authored the legislation, earmarking the estimated $13 billion in revenues over the next three decades for coastal restoration and hurricane recovery.

 

“Today the federal government finally begins fulfilling a promise President Truman offered Louisiana almost 60 years ago,” Landrieu says. “Since I came to the Senate in 1997, it has been my No. 1 priority to get Louisiana its fair share of offshore oil and gas revenues and to apply it to shoring up our natural hurricane protection.”

 

Two years ago Landrieu built a bipartisan coalition with the Republican chairman on the Energy and Natural Resources committee, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, passing the Domenici-Landrieu Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act into law. It provides Louisiana and the three other Gulf Coast states with the same share of revenues Truman offered six decades ago, an offer Louisiana rejected — holding out for 100 percent of the revenues.

 

“Today in the Superdome [where the lease sale was held], the first proceeds of more than half a century of effort came to fruition,” Landrieu says. “Over time, this law means billions for Louisiana — every penny of which will be directed to coastal restoration and hurricane protection, which the law directs and our state constitution now confirms. Today we closed Truman’s chapter of our history and opened a new one — one in which Louisiana has its own long sought-after source of independent revenue to secure our future.”

 

The four Gulf producing states will see immediate benefits from leases awarded in Sale 224, sharing both in the bonus bids and rents and any royalties collected down the road. Revenue generated from Sale 224 collected by MMS in fiscal year 2008 will be disbursed to the eligible states beginning in fiscal year 2009. Louisiana’s share from just the March 19 lease sale will total about $9 million this year alone, according to Landrieu.

 

“The ripple effect of today’s lease sale will be felt throughout the Gulf Coast,” says Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association President Chris John. “The economic benefits are deep, and everyone in Louisiana will feel them, from service companies to caterers to the ‘mom and pop’ small businesses.”

[snafu]

I need to check this some more but I believe in Louisiana the states get 37.5% of the federal lease revenues.. There is not an additional tax.

 

Yes and I'm saying Alaska was left out of this federal leased revenues.

 

Palin gave back money's from oil companies that were in our state lease agreement. Again we don't pay State taxes. But I do pay federal taxes.

[hugo]

Yes and I'm saying Alaska was left out of this federal leased revenues.

 

 

Sounds like Palin and Alaska's senators need to get on the ball and negotiate with the feds. Not place another tax on oil.

 

Palin backed Alaskan windfall-profits taxposted at 8:50 am on August 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly John McCain and nearly every economist agrees that a windfall-profits tax on the oil industry would drive away investment, increase prices to consumers, and make Americans more dependent on foreign oil. If anyone wants to see that in microcosm, they only need look at Alaska. With the backing of Governor Sarah Palin, the state managed to drive away investment in development by hiking taxes on oil companies drilling on state lands:

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared. …

BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.

“What the tax has done is take away all the upside,” said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter — far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles.

Investment dollars are flowing instead to places that have a better return, like the massive deep-water projects offshore in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, where ConocoPhillips said the government take equals less than 50 percent of the barrel.

In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.

However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.

If this plan gets pushed across the country in an Obama administration, then we can expect similar disincentives to curtail domestic production all across the nation. Oil companies will explore other parts of the world, but American oil companies will not have the access they enjoy here. Our own companies will be weakened in international competition, and we will have to both buy more oil from abroad, and more from state-owned companies, while American investors lose significant ground.

Palin has been a strong voice for opening ANWR to reasonable and planned development. Perhaps she needs to rethink her approach to overtaxing oil companies for their work on state lands while encouraging the use of federal lands, too.

 

She should have been Obama's running mate.

[snafu]

Sounds like Palin and Alaska's senators need to get on the ball and negotiate with the feds. Not place another tax on oil.

 

Yeah with a democratic majority in the senate I'm sure this will be a cake walk. But it is a top priority with politicians up here.

 

Hugo they're gonna come here and drill becuse this is were the oil is. So they will pay the 37.5% taxes in the lower 48 and not blink an eye but have reservations of drilling up here? That's bull .

[snafu]

I guess what we need to google is would it be in the best interest to lower the Federal taxes across the board or keep sending 700 billion dollars to the middle east for our oil.

[hugo]

Yeah with a democratic majority in the senate I'm sure this will be a cake walk. But it is a top priority with politicians up here.

 

Hugo they're gonna come here and drill becuse this is were the oil is. So they will pay the 37.5% taxes in the lower 48 and not blink an eye but have reservations of drilling up here? That's bull .

 

Snafu, the oil companies are not paying an extra 37.5% in the Gulf Coast state. The Gulf Coast states are getting 37.5% of the revenues from federal auctions of leases in newly approved zones. Alaska is not getting the same deal. You should be mad at the federal government, not oil companies.

 

In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.

However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.

 

She's a damn commie. Off with her head.

 

Daily Policy Digest

Get the DPD in your email

Get the DPD RSS Newsfeed

Daily Policy Digest Archive

Energy Issues

March 30, 2006

 

WINDFALL PROFITS TAX DISCOURAGES PRODUCTION

Experience with windfall taxes has not been positive, say H. Sterling Burnett and Christa Bieker of the National Center for Policy Analysis. In April 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the "Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax" to replace failed oil price controls. This was the largest tax ever imposed on an American industry and was designed to recover a portion of money politicians believed was unfairly received by oil companies. The money was earmarked to develop renewable energy, thus reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and to fund low-income energy assistance programs. But the tax failed to deliver either and the Reagan administration led its repeal in 1988.

 

According to the Congressional Research Service:

 

The windfall profits tax raised a total of $40 billion, instead of the $227 billion initially projected, and generated no revenue after 1986, because oil prices fell and domestic production was lower than expected.

The tax reduced domestic oil production 3 percent to 6 percent because it increased investment risk.

Imports increased 8 percent to 16 percent because of the competitive advantage the tax gave to foreign oil companies.

It is not surprising that a windfall profits tax fails to either increase domestic production or reduce prices. When profits are penalized, there are fewer incentives to increase capacity. Oil production is risky and requires heavy initial investment in infrastructure. Meanwhile, oil prices can fluctuate. New oil may or may not be discovered. Because of these uncertainties, investment in oil production requires the ability to forecast likely outcomes. A windfall tax complicates this task. When a company is unsure what the price of oil will be at a certain point in the future and consequently unsure whether it will be penalized by the government for making a profit that year, investment risk increases, explain Burnett and Bieker.

 

Source: H. Sterling Burnett and Christa Bieker, "Taxing Profits, Draining Energy," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 549, March 30, 2006

[snafu]

Snafu, the oil companies are not paying an extra 37.5% in the Gulf Coast state. The Gulf Coast states are getting 37.5% of the revenues from federal auctions of leases in newly approved zones. Alaska is not getting the same deal. You should be mad at the federal government, not oil companies.

 

In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.

However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.

 

She's a damn commie. Off with her head.

 

Ok I will concede for now.

 

In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there

 

Your gonna have to behead all of the politicians because most of my info came from the democratic nominee for the senate.

[hugo]

Media Darling Warren Buffett Decries Obama?s Windfall Profits Tax

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)

June 25, 2008 - 15:39 ET

 

 

 

In the past when Warren Buffett has spoken out the "super rich" needing to pay a higher tax rate, the media have hung on his every word. But, now that he has spoken out against a windfall profits tax on oil, will they notice?

 

Buffett said he disapproved of the windfall profits taxes in an interview with CNBC's Becky Quick on "Power Lunch" on June 25.

 

"I think it is very hard to have windfall taxes," Buffett said. "Steel has doubled in price. Is that a windfall for the steel producers? Sure. Corn is $7 a bushel; soybeans are at $15 a bushel. I don't think any candidate in his right mind with the number of electoral votes in farm states would say you ought to tax farms specially because they are getting a windfall."

 

Obama, who Buffett has pledged his support to, said on June 9 he would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

 

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," Obama said according to a June 9 Reuters story.

 

Buffett compared oil to other companies making money off of high commodity prices and disagreed with the principle of higher tax rates that are a result of market fluctuations.

 

"But they [farms] are getting a windfall from commodity prices," Buffett said. "Maybe they deserve it because commodities have been under priced, but to pick out one commodity - with copper at $3.60 a pound, you could say that the copper producers are getting a windfall. The networks are getting a windfall because of the Olympics. So, I don't think that picking anybody that's had a commodity that's increased in price a lot and saying that there's a special tax because of that makes any sense.

 

Sounds like Obama wants to take Palin's tax and redistribute plan national. Ronald Reagan campigned against and eventually got repealed the windfall profits tax imposed under the Jimmy "the Red" Carter administration.

[ImWithStupid]

Snafu, the oil companies are not paying an extra 37.5% in the Gulf Coast state. The Gulf Coast states are getting 37.5% of the revenues from federal auctions of leases in newly approved zones. Alaska is not getting the same deal. You should be mad at the federal government, not oil companies.

 

In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.

However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.

 

She's a damn commie. Off with her head.

 

Daily Policy Digest

Get the DPD in your email

Get the DPD RSS Newsfeed

Daily Policy Digest Archive

Energy Issues

March 30, 2006

 

I agree that what Palin did has socialistic implications, but as I said before, the difference is, what was done in Alaska was Alaskans benefiting from the oil companies profiting off of Alaskan resources. It wasn't the Federal government deciding, or people in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc... deciding and voting on what is to be done with Alaska's resources profits.

 

The federal government needs to receed back to basic Constitutional established dutys and leave the rest to the states and the people of those states to decide what is best for them. I mean, honestly, what is best or needed for someone in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklamoma, or Texas is a far cry from what is needed or best for someone in California, New York, or Florida.

 

To make blanket rules for everyone in every state in the US is ridiculous.

[snafu]

Lets go back a bit....

 

 

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you see the government was the one who prevented the oil companies to even explore let alone drill. If they could they would. So the lands are federally owned that are holding everything up.

[hugo]

I agree that what Palin did has socialistic implications, but as I said before, the difference is, what was done in Alaska was Alaskans benefiting from the oil companies profiting off of Alaskan resources. It wasn't the Federal government deciding, or people in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc... deciding and voting on what is to be done with Alaska's resources profits.

 

The federal government needs to receed back to basic Constitutional established dutys and leave the rest to the states and the people of those states to decide what is best for them. I mean, honestly, what is best or needed for someone in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklamoma, or Texas is a far cry from what is needed or best for someone in California, New York, or Florida.

 

To make blanket rules for everyone in every state in the US is ridiculous.

 

I agree that Alaska has the right to do what they did. I do not agree that it benefits Alaska. It discourages production and reduces employment for the sake of a welfare check.

[wez]

False, a free market does not mean everyone is born with equal assets. You will always have your rich and your poor, your ugly and your beautiful, your geniuses and your morons. No one ever suggests good looking people should take an ugly pill, or geniuses should take a stupid pill to negate an advantage they were born with. Yet people think inheritors of wealth should be taxed to make things fair. I'll let Paris keep her money, Just give me Brad Pitt's looks. He has had them long enough to make his fortune.

 

Life ain't fair, government makes it less fair--Hugo

 

The promise of a true free market ideology is that economically, every one starts at go and has an equal opportunity and plays by the exact same rules as everyone else til the heart stops.. Not that you'll be beautiful and smart..

 

 

It also does not promise that you will never fail, as it has with our current outgoing president. No matter how many businesses he ran into the ground, there was always some daddy's buddy there to bail him out. What was his "punishment" by the "free market"? President....

 

 

Hmmmmm.. all the bailouts happenin' now? Must be the guilt talking so he can validate his worth in this life..

 

 

Christ, I shoulda ran my dry cleaners into the ground, coulda been pres! Or at least gotten a bailout..

 

 

Free market my ass...

 

 

Government stinks ~ wez

[wez]

Hey Hugo.. What do think Daddy's buddies got back in return?

 

 

Me, you, and Adam Smith know it wasn't done out of the benevolence of the butcher, baker, and porno star, but out of self interest.. Right?

[snafu]

Snafu, the oil companies are not paying an extra 37.5% in the Gulf Coast state. The Gulf Coast states are getting 37.5% of the revenues from federal auctions of leases in newly approved zones. Alaska is not getting the same deal. You should be mad at the federal government, not oil companies.

 

In fact, Palin’s plan looks similar in concept to Barack Obama’s plan. The state gave Alaskans $1200 checks from oil revenues as a one-time bonus to pay for increased fuel prices, a move Palin pushed. That echoes the Obama plan to send one-time rebates to taxpayers, funded by similar levies on oil companies.

However, the results in Alaska should warn the rest of the country about pursuing this policy. Already oil companies have stopped drilling on state lands, thanks to the tax burden Alaska imposes. It should be cheaper to drill and extract from these areas, but the oil companies have decided to focus their investment instead on the Gulf, where the costs and risks would normally be higher. In Alaska, the government takes 75% of the price on a barrel of oil at current prices, which gives them no incentive to work there.

 

She's a damn commie. Off with her head.

 

Daily Policy Digest

Get the DPD in your email

Get the DPD RSS Newsfeed

Daily Policy Digest Archive

Energy Issues

March 30, 2006

 

Published: November 10, 2007

http://dwb.adn.com/money/story/9443714p-9355135c.html

 

 

Published: November 22nd, 2008 02:34 AM

Alaska's high gas prices bewilder state lawmakers: Money | adn.com

 

 

 

She's trying.