Time to take another view of oil tax debate

To the editor,

It seems that Alaskans are going to be required to cough up $750(ish) million dollars, in dividend money, in order to pay debts that the Legislature incurred in good faith.

I get it. It makes me sick, but I get it.

What I don’t understand, and cannot conscience, is the idea that we will have to do it again next year. And the year after, and the one after that — etcetera, ad nauseum.

The career politicians in Juneau have failed in their responsibility to provide a sustainable, long-term plan for funding our state government. They have allowed partisan rhetoric and pet projects to sink any chance they had to work together for the best interest of Alaska.

Let us take, for an example, the oil tax credit debate. Republicans contend that ending the credits and incentives would result in a decline in exploration and production, exacerbating the current problem of low prices. There is a lot of truth to this argument.

On the other side, Democrats argue that the state cannot afford these programs during the lean times ahead, and that taking money from the citizenry to fund them will only sharpen the recession to come. There is a lot of truth to this argument as well.

The problem, then, is that the two sides feel that their positions are mutually exclusive. Loyalty to the Party line prevents them from looking outside of their respective boxes in order to find an answer that is to the “maximum benefit of all Alaskans.”

For instance, what would the effect be if we set the production (severance) tax rate at 0 percent and suspended all tax credit and incentive programs for a period of five years? We could amortize the credits earned to date over that same period.

The state would still receive royalties, where applicable. The oil companies would see their tax burden reduced to property and income taxes only. This would provide both parties with a great degree of certainty for the short-term, as well as time in which to reach a negotiated agreement on what any future production tax might look like.

I’m just spit-balling here, and I make no claims that this is the “perfect” idea, but it is certainly a new idea — something which we are sorely lacking in Juneau. It is my fervent hope that next year we send representatives to the capital who have the wit and courage to explore new ideas to old problems.

Tim Hale

Butte