Redistribution of Wealth in Alaska
There is a lot being made by the McCain Palin campaign about the redistribution of wealth as proposed by the Obama tax plan. What seems to have gone unquestioned in the discussion on this question is the redistribution of wealth that occurs in the State of Alaska. This year every man, woman, and child that is a resident of Alaska will receive a redistribution of wealth from taxes on oil revenues of over $3000 each. A family of four will receive a distribution of over $13000. Palin, was apparently instrumental in increasing that distribution this year by about $1200 a person. It is noteworth that Alaskan's do not pay income or sales tax.
It might also be tempting to call this redistribution of wealth a rebate, but logically for it to be a rebate the recepient must have, at least theoretically, contributed to the orginal tax to begin it. It is the closest thing we have to a welfare state or socalism. McCain and Palin should be required to explain how this clear redistribution of wealth is fine for Alaska, but much more milder and traditional means of taxing proposed by Obama is not. They should be asked if they are prepared to denounce the redistribution of wealth that occurs in Alaska.
It might also be tempting to call this redistribution of wealth a rebate, but logically for it to be a rebate the recepient must have, at least theoretically, contributed to the orginal tax to begin it. It is the closest thing we have to a welfare state or socalism. McCain and Palin should be required to explain how this clear redistribution of wealth is fine for Alaska, but much more milder and traditional means of taxing proposed by Obama is not. They should be asked if they are prepared to denounce the redistribution of wealth that occurs in Alaska.
Advertisement
It's not socialism - it's just every Alaskan's due royalties from the commonly held mineral wealth of the state of Alaska.... - d'oh
See, it's only socialism if you steal from the rich to give to the poor. Since everyone in AK gets the same check it's just their distribution from the state's permanent fund - funded by the mineral wealth of the state that is held in trust for the people of Alaska ... - d'oh
Methinks they don't know what socialism means.
October 22, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
nothing anyone has discussed is socialism ... not even the partial nationalization of the banks. but taking money from oil companies and giving it to citizens is redistribution of wealth, no matter how evenly it's spread.
October 23, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"mineral wealth held in trust for the people of Alaska"?
You mean, like, socialism, as in "owner of the means of production"?
October 23, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do love how Palin conveniently forgets all the things she has done in her "executive" position. I love the fact that McCain forgets how he said that ACORN was one of the best things in this country four years ago. These two people are a shining example of what the Republican Party has become. They remind me of the boyfriend who is cheating on you and blaming you for cheating on him. You are too busy trying to defend yourself to see that he is the quilty party.
The Republicans have really pulled some crazy, borderline illegal stunts the past eight years. I especially like the K Street Makeover plan. Lets see how much we can bastardize the Constitution and the election process just so we can stay in office. The Republican party represents nothing but the worst of America, greed and intolerance.
October 22, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made a similar post about the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign with this socialism charge and the fact that the media has not mentioned it. Its absolutely ridiculous. I also, however, want to chastise Senator Obama and his campaign for allowing McCain to get off scott free on this issue. Where's your research Axelrod and Gibbs?
October 23, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good post.
I knew about the payments and, of course, everyone has heard the red-baiting. But I did not appreciate the irony until I saw them so neatly juxtaposed. Nice.
October 23, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another example of redistribution of wealth is the Economic Stimulus Package of 2008 which was passed with the vote of Senator McCain. I have been fortunate enough that my income was above the cutoff, but essentially Senator McCain proudly supported a program which took my tax dollars and distributed Economic Stimulus checks to people earning less than me.
I guess I will never find out how many Joe the Plumber or Sarah the Hockeymom sent these checks back to the government not wanting to participate in such a socialist program?
October 23, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least "Joe the Plumber" (real name Samuel) isn't socialist: being unlicensed is illegal, but at the same time he avoids being in the union, which requires the license.
October 23, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"joe the plumber"....hump...the latest trick that the republicans can do. REAL regular joe the plumbers earns 12.00 to 20.00 buck and hour. i guess joe the plumber is still living with his mom to save all that money....oops, he's not licensed...no proof that is has license, so that makes him another sarah palin...oh, maybe it's her costume for halloween and we just don't know it...yet...seems like some one is a lair. i think the RNC party is just crashing and burning...cause i can smell it.
October 23, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is how every state should run, selling resources that belong to the people instead of hand-outs or freebies to corporate elites who profit to the exclusion of the people.
This isn't socialism, Alaskan's don't own the industry--we own the resource.
October 23, 2008 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even were it socialism, I agree: the resources, and such as utuilities, should be owned by the people, and managed by the people's gov't for the benefit of the people. Same with the Internet.
Corporations want to profit from developing the resources? Fine -- but the owner of the resources gets at least 80 per cent of the profit.
October 23, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea cynder, except that other states have already extracted and sold off their most lucrative resources. Alaska is the last we've gotten around to plundering, and by "we" I mean Americans, not Alaskans. If you live on the other side of the state from the north slope, your claim of ownership of the resource is one of convenience. We could just as easily say the county line, or the national border, is the relevant political boundary--not the state line. Or we could get really funky and say the natural resource mostly belongs to those descended from people in the territory thousands of years before "we" moved in looking for easy gold, and then oil money. But none of those are my preference, which is to tax oil on the consumption side so that America gets a cut regardless of the source (obviously, it's usually foreign). And if Alaska as a state insists on skimming, we (Americans) should absolutely stop financing the thousand-mile highways they need to pick our pockets.
October 23, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
One needs to ask what is the source of the money being given to the people of Alaska. Clearly, the oil companies aren't giving away their profits. They simply charge the rest of us in the lower 48 and any foreign buyers of that oil enough to make a tidy profit and give nice gifts to the people of Alaska. Talk about a redistribution of wealth! Palin manages to take money from hard working people from the rest of the people in the US and give it to her constituents.
Of course, if all that oil being pumped in Alaska is sold strictly to foreign interests, such as the Japanese, that would be another story. Does anyone know who the purchasers of the Alaskan oil are?
October 23, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin is a welfare queen, but without the Cadillac. Who needs a Cadillac when one has a chauffeur?
October 23, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does Cadillac sell a snowmobile? ;)
October 23, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
My uncle, who is now dead and buried in Alaska, once told me that the oil shipped out of Valdez, where the pipeline ends, goes to Japan.
The extra oil on the world market, because of the pipeline, supposedly helps keep the oil prices down, which in turn is the benefit to the lower 48 states.
I would like also to mention the natural gas pipeline, that Palin keeps talking about. As proposed starts on the northern slopes and ends in Alberta, Canada. This is the area where Canada extracts their oil and it requires 4 gallons of hot water to produce 1 gallon of crude oil. This then would become Canada's heat source for crude production. So like the oil pipeline, the natural gas pipeline, as proposed, would only benefit the lower 48 states indirectly.
October 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Alaskan this is why I do not support Palin's license to TransCanada. Her rush to make a name for herself 'taking on' the Oil companies set aside the long term interests of Alaskans.
She granted $500 million to a Canadian company to create Canadian jobs in Canada.
The Oil Sands in Alberta will cost more and pollute more to extract and refine into gasoline - there are no savings in redirecting Alaska's Natural Gas to Canada for this process.
Palin is a poll-minded politician, much like Bush she views her Historical Legacy as inconsequential because of course she'll be dead by then.
October 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, let's not forget the fact that McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts once...but no, that's not socialism!
Even though Obama is opening up a sizable lead, it's amazing how many people can't see through the BS.
October 23, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska has become one of the largest recipients of congressional plus-ups since Palin took office. Currently ranked #2 in total dollars of supplemental funding from congress. So let's see...Alaska has no state income tax, sales tax or property tax but they recieve billions of dollars from the tax payers in the other 49 states? definitely redistribution of wealth!
October 23, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Alaska has no state income tax, sales tax or property tax"
It's true that Alaska has no state income tax.
The state as a whole has no sales tax, but there is a sales tax where I live in Wasilla - something around 3%.
The state as a whole does not have property tax, and neither does the City of Wasilla but last year I paid over $4000 in property taxes to the Matanuska Susitna Borough on my home valued at around $250,000.
Also Alaska has a cost of living somewhere close to Hawaii - we pay 30% more for just about everything, including medical care and groceries - and I filled up my tank to the tune of $3.54 a gallon when the average price nationally is a dollar less than that. You can't rent an efficiency apartment for less than $1000 anywhere where you can find a job, (i.e. Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks).
Finally, there have been years when the Permanent Fund Dividend was about $300, this years dividend was so large because of the gains on the investments earned on the Fund averaged over the past 5 years - with the recent losses the Permanent Fund has lost $5 billion in value on a $35 billion balance. The payout in the coming years won't be anywhere near the one this year.
October 23, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This year every man, woman, and child that is a resident of Alaska will receive a redistribution of wealth from taxes on oil revenues of over $3000 each."
As an Alaskan let me correct you on this comment in particular. The Permanent Fund Dividend payments are actually paid from the interest earned on the taxes deposited into the fund - not the taxes themselves.
Also, it should be noted that Alaskans do not own the mineral rights to their personal land holdings, i.e. if someone finds oil underneath my backyard I get nothing; collectively, the residents of Alaska own it. We gave up personal property mineral rights in exchange for the collective ownership and the Permanent Fund.
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/home/index.cfm
Also, the $1200 was a separate payout completely independent of the Permanent Fund Dividend. It was paid out of the General Fund approved by the State Legislature - Palin did not approve it by herself - arguably paid directly from the Oil Tax Revenue.
For a little bit of history - the Alaska Permanent Fund was set up as a way to 'bind' all Alaskans to a common economic purpose, and has been put forth as a model to do the same for oil-rich nations in the middle east as a way to ease tribal friction. What you'll find in Alaska is that Republicans and Democrats are equally 'pro-oil' - mission accomplished.
It might not seem 'fair' but it does put the citizens of Alaska in a very powerful position against the Oil companies that extract 'our' oil. Not much goes unnoticed in the Oil industry - it is completely incapable of running a shadow industry.
Also, jobs extracting the oil on the North Slope of Alaska are Union Jobs.
Alaska is a pro-oil, pro-union state and I think you'll find it's not so GOP'ish after Palin loses the Presidency for McCain. We're far more Libertarian than Republican - but still understand the mechanisms of power well enough to know that Libertarians have no power in D.C.
Finally, it should be noted that since statehood in 1959 Alaska overall has been grossly shortchanged when it came to Federal spending - the largesse of Federal spending here has been rationalized as a 'catch up'. Although the bridges to nowhere have been put forth as the largest example the Federal projects I've personally witnessed were upgrades to Military housing that had been plagued with asbestos and lead paint because our Military personnel and their families were living in housing from the 1950's.
It should also be noted that the Mat-Su valley and Anchorage are connected by a single highway - over 30,000 people commute on this single highway every single day back and forth - there is NO alternative transportation, none. Although the bridge from Anchorage to Wasilla has been made famous its a minority of developers that are pushing for it - ask anyone in the Valley what they would prefer and they would say LIGHT RAIL, which would probably be cheaper than any bridge.
October 23, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink