Hi-ho, hi-ho …

It's off to work we go. The special session called by Gov. Sarah Palin to consider changes to our oil taxes starts Thursday, so I'm on an airplane to Juneau Wednesday afternoon. I'd complain about the cost and inconvenience, but I volunteered for this. What was I thinking?

Anyway, I'm going to try to send one of these each Friday we're in session. You can reach me the usual ways anytime you want to put in your two cents worth.

The ACES plan

You've got to hand it to Palin. The woman knows her way around an acronym. This one stands for Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, Palin's plan for changes to the current tax system. It should actually be called PPT Redux, since it's mainly an attempt to tune up the bad bill passed last year and claw back some of the money the state lost by letting the oil companies deduct whatever they wanted from their tax payments.

There are a lot of details – the bill is 46 pages long. But the short form is that it's a pretty timid attempt to increase the state's take from our own oil, which is selling at record-setting prices. I'd write more about it, but I'm still trying to understand the bill, and why we should be worrying about what Exxon might not invest if we actually take our fair share of the value of our own oil.

Say what?

I appeared on an Alaska Journal of Commerce/State Chamber of Commerce forum on oil taxes on Thursday. Talk about your stacked decks. Anyway, here's part of the Anchorage Daily New story on the event: “One panelist, state Rep. Mike Doogan, D-Anchorage, told the crowd his concern as a lawmaker isn't preserving oil company profits, it's making sure the state has the operating money it needs.”

Here's my question: This is news? Shouldn't every member of the state legislature be more concerned about paying for government goods and services than about how many billions in profits Exxon, BP and ConocoPhillips make every year? When the good people of House District 25 elected me to the state House, did I become an ex officio member of AOGA?

And don't give me any of that partnering nonsense. Alaska has two relationships with the oil companies, neither of which is partner. One is as the owner of oil and gas. In that sense, the companies work for us, pumping our oil (and our gas, if we can ever get them off the dime) because we don't want to do it ourselves. The second is as sovereign. In that sense, we make rules and levy taxes. In neither sense are they our equals. And just because they, and those Alaskans they hold in economic thrall, say different doesn't make it true.

Man, that felt good. I haven't gotten off a good rant in some time.

A confession

At one point during the program, I almost said, “It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” Honest to God, I almost said it. I'm thinking maybe the anything-for-oil crowd doesn't bring out the best in me.

Setting radio back decades

On Thursday, I also spent a couple of hours hosting Mike Porcaro's gabfest on KENI radio. Most of that was about oil taxes, too. I talked to Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin, House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels, R-Anchorage, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Hollis French, D-Anchorage. You can listen here if the spirit moves you. (Scroll down and click on the link that says “Listen” right below “Mike Porcaro Show – 10-11-07.”)

Polls, we got polls

On a more cheerful note, I've gotten 50 responses to the question about oil taxes I sent to the voters in my House district. Here are the results:

-- A whopping 72 percent -- that's 36 in real numbers -- said, “The law needs to be changed to tax the full value of oil from the big North Slope fields, a so-called tax on the gross.”

-- A paltry 12 percent -- six respondents – said, “The law is fine and we should leave it alone.”

-- Four percent – two people – said, “The law is broken but can be fixed without abandoning a net profits approach.”

-- Another four percent -- two people – said, “I need to know more before making up my mind.”

-- Eight percent – four people –had other ideas entirely.

Now, this poll is not scientific. But it does represent the opinions of people who cared enough to take the time to answer. And you know what? This is a game that you can win only if you play.

A much more scientific poll, this one by the Hays Research Group, supports the idea that Alaskans don't much like this net profits approach.

In June and again in September, Hays asked Alaskans, “In general, which state oil tax policy do you prefer?”

In June, 52 percent of respondents preferred a tax based on the market value of the oil. Thirty-five percent preferred a tax based on the producer's declared profits. The remainder either didn't know which of the tax systems they preferred or refused to answer.

Last month, 61 percent said they preferred a tax on the market value, 23 percent chose the profits-based tax and the rest either didn't know or refused to answer.

Many Alaskans also think that current state oil taxes are too low. In its most recent poll, Hays asked: Do you think currently that oil taxes are too high, too low, or about right?

Forty-two percent of those polled said the taxes are too low; only 14 percent said they were too high. Twenty-four percent were of the opinion that the taxes are about right, while the rest either didn't know or wouldn't answer.

You'll be hearing more from me. Can't say you haven't been warned.

Regards,