Cruise ships
It's
up or down on a head tax-not maybe
Welcome
to my world. In the August 22 primary election, you'll have
to make a decision on a complicated piece of legislation.
You must decide whether or not Alaska
adopts a substantive but flawed cruise ship ballot initiative-Initiative #2.
And just like the thousands of bills I've voted on in committee and on the floors
of the Alaska House and Senate, this cruise ship bill falls quite short of perfect.
There are gold nuggets to like and moose nuggets to dislike in the complex initiative,
just as there are in almost every bill I've had to vote on over 12 years in the
legislature and four years on the CBJ assembly.
Nevertheless, when it comes time to
vote, you must vote 'yea' or 'nay'. 'Maybe' isn't a ballot choice.
And while I'd hate to suggest how any
Alaskan votes on the cruise ship initiative, I've decided to vote yes. I'm pulled
to the affirmative because: 1) the head tax receipts will be plowed back into
cruise ship industry projects; 2) I'm disappointed by the pervasive cruise ship
industry practice that steers passengers toward select businesses that pay a "fee" for
deceptive onboard promotions-promotions not labeled as advertising even though
it is paid for; and 3) cruise ships pay no taxes in Alaska, unlike other tourism
industries like airlines, rental car companies, or hotels.
Let's look more closely at each of
these three issues.
First, passage of this initiative simply
moves some money out of the pockets of cruise ship companies based outside of
Alaska and into onshore investments in Alaska that support and sustain these
same outside-based cruise ships. We're not taxing these very profitable outside
companies to provide 'bennies' to just anyone. They get the benefits.
Opponents of the initiative argue that
ain't necessarily so. They note the initiative simply says the head tax receipts "may" be
used for industry enhancements. But the initiative says "may" because our state
constitution prohibits dedicated taxes; so the mandatory "shall" is unconstitutional.
I'd note, though, that taxes levied on the fishing industry to support marketing
or fish production also use the constitutionally correct predicate "may" and
the legislature has never broken faith with the intent.
Second, the onboard promotion practices
that steer passengers toward specific onshore vendors because those vendors pay
whopping fees or commissions, undisclosed to unwary passengers, bother the heck
out of me. These recommended vendors are not touted in port lectures because
of the quality of their goods or their level of customer service, they are recommended
because vendors pay for the recommendation and the recommendation is given regardless
of quality of goods or service. The vendors who dish out the promotional fees
know this; the cruise ships that reap the fees know this. The only folks who
don't know this are the passengers who take the recommendations as helpful hints
from crew members who've been here before.
Shops, mostly locally-owned ones, that
don't pay surreptitious big buck fees or commissions to the multi-national companies
don't get the traffic flow they should. Many passengers walk right on by and
pull out their wallets when they walk into the "recommended" stores.
Opponents say this initiative component
isn't needed because state law already mandates these types of fee disclosures
but the assistant attorney general charged with enforcing the law they cite says:
the law is too broad; and enforcement requires onboard sleuthing that isn't now
being done.
It's bad enough that cruise ship crew
members will, and do, pass off paid-for speech as friendly tips. But it's worse
when they do it knowing it violates the intent of existing state law and that
onboard sleuthing isn't happening.
You'll note that I didn't list a fourth reason-something along the lines of a
$50 head tax is fair. I confess, I'm more comfortable with a smaller head tax
but the gravitational pull of these three issues I've discussed above outweighs
my concerns about the magnitude of the head tax.
In fact, several years ago I introduced
a head tax bill that was about a third the size of what this initiative proposes.
At the time, I proposed the more modest tax receipts I sought be used to pay
for an enhanced tourism marketing program (still paid for from general funds
raised by taxing others-remember, the cruise ship industry pays no state taxes)
and to pay for onshore impacts created by industrial tourism.
So, for me, 50 bucks is high and I'm
confronted with one of those classic but pesky "yeah but" votes. What we have
in front of us is the choice between $50 and $0. Is $50 too high? I think so.
Is $0 too little? Definitely. So, yeah, it's too high but staying at nothing
keeps it far too low.
In the end, though, $50 isn't a tipping
point for me. After all, if you have to pay a lot of money to fly to San Diego
or Anaheim then pay an additional $50 for a one-day pass to SeaWorld or Disneyland,
maybe a week-long $50 pass to the splendor of Alaska isn't totally unreasonable.
Phone: (907) 465-4947
Fax: (907) 465-2108
Mail: Sen. Kim Elton, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
 Got a scoop? Call or email your tips and suggestions to any of the email addresses below: |
Capitol Undercurrents
Just toooooo swept up in
it-- For those of you expecting
an analysis of what the legislature wrought during the special
session that ended late Thursday night, my apologies. Frankly,
I needed to step back from the oil tax and gas pipeline issues
after four months of dealing with them as a member of the Senate
Resources Committee and an additional two 30-day special sessions
where I dealt with the same issues, again, as a member of the
senate committee of jurisdiction-the Senate Special Committee
on Natural Gas Development. Maybe by the next edition of the
newsletter I can get back to it.
Hickelism-- One of the celebrity guests at one of the innumerable
Senate Special Committee on Natural Gas Development hearings
was former governor Wally Hickel. He passed out 'gimme' hats
to us senators with "Alaska First" emblazoned in
gold across a blue background. He summed up his pro-sentiments
about an All-Alaska line and an oil tax that reflects we're
the owner state by saying: "If it's good for Alaska,
do it! If it's bad for Alaska, screw it!"
Big bucks talking-- Former governor Hickel spoke to us from
his heart, not from his wallet. Not everyone did. The three big
oil companies spent nearly $4.5 million from April through June
lobbying the public and we legislators on behalf of the tax and
gas pipeline deals they struck with the current governor. That
second quarter spending is on top of the $1.9 million they spent
during the first quarter of this year. BP was the big spender
with expenditures reaching $3 million in the second quarter alone.
You've gotta believe, given the governor still hasn't
finalized a gas line contract and that the legislature significantly
boosted the governor's proposed oil tax, that they might
have been better off spending those millions on corrosion prevention
for Prudhoe Bay feeder lines.
Buttoning it up-- My colleague Sen. Fred Dyson sat with
me all through the Senate Special Committee on Natural Gas Development
in the two special sessions. A week or so ago, he tried to elicit
some information from a witness for ConocoPhillips. His first
question didn't work so well. Instead of impolitely saying
the answer was non-responsive, though, he simply noted: "I
gave him [the CP spokesman] a button and he sewed a shirt on
it but didn't yet answer the question." That gentle
prod prompted a better answer the second time around.
Ouch-- Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour was practicing
opening oysters at the recent National Governors Association.
He said shucking oysters reminded him of dealing with his legislature: "put
a knife in and twist."
