Should Alaskans trust recent PPP poll on gun control?

I’m a little late on reporting on the PPP poll released last week which shows both U.S. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich having lost support in Alaska because of their opposition to the gun control bill. And if that and other polls about gun control conducted by PPP and paid for by a Democratic group wasn’t continuing to make headlines, I might continue to be late forever.

I’d chalk that poll up, as I have other PPP polls, to the kind of crackpot group that you find on both sides of the political spectrum intent on spreading propaganda and false narratives.

But the media can’t seem to get enough of the PPP gun polls, which have been conducted in at least five states, and are dutifully reported on even as some of the polls’ findings are patently absurd. Get this: according to PPP, only about 35 percent of Alaskans oppose expanded background checks.

Alaska-based Dittman Research, which tends to get these things right, recently conducted a poll for Alaska’s House majority which shows only 23 percent of Alaskans supported Obama’s efforts to tighten gun control laws, with 67 percent approving state legislative actions to oppose those efforts.

Was the PPP poll conducted solely on Homer residents or did it only poll those who live in Rep. Les Gara’s House district? We’ll never know because geographical location is among many things that are left out of the crosstabs.

I don’t know much about the other states that PPP has polled and I haven’t looked much into the crosstabs of the polls from those other states, but if they are as full of sample errors as the poll conducted in Alaska, then not one poll conducted by PPP should be taken seriously, perhaps ever again.

Here’s a few blatant examples of what a botched polling sample looks like, a la PPP:

  • Gender: Alaska is roughly 50 percent male to female, but the firm sampled 56 percent women to 44 percent men.
  • Party affiliation: Of the total registered voters in Alaska, only 14 percent are registered Democrats. About 27 percent are registered Republicans. The sample size that PPP used was 25 percent Democrats and 30 percent Republicans.
  • “Independents/other.” About 53 percent of registered voters are registered “undeclared,” and “nonpartisan.” Then there’s the Alaska Independence Party, which is a whole other breed of people, and the Libertarians.  The two of them make up about 6 percent of voters. The PPP’s sample lumps them all together, calls them “Independent/other,” and only uses a 45 percent sample size.

The errors go on. Let me be clear here: I think that Begich’s voting against his party on gun control was a decision based on political expediency more than principle. Everyone knows that Begich isn’t a gun enthusiast. He likely doesn’t believe that the federal government is going to invade homes of gun owners, or that a foreign force is going to somehow take over the military industrial complex, capture our soldiers and leave the defense of the homeland to those in the Kenai amassing assault weapons.

What Begich does care about and what he’s good at is politics and about getting reelected. His vote against gun control was evidence of that.

The upcoming Senate race is going to be a monster. Joe Miller has announced that he’s running, but the race will likely also draw a handful of good, solid Republicans like Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, who’s already in exploratory committee phase, and DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan, who is said to be getting close to making a decision. A vote for gun control would have likely put the end to Begich’s Senate career.

So he had a choice: stand on principle and vote with his party, or lose the race and become the last Democratic senator Alaskans will likely see in this lifetime.

He might lose anyway, but now he stands a chance with the help of some Republicans and independent voters. What he doesn’t need is for some left leaning polling group, a group tied to the party to which Begich belongs, trying to sell a lie, in a state where many think that the left are a bunch of liars anyway.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

The ‘quiet governor’ creates noise

Early evening Friday announcements are normally reserved for bad news and document dumps. So, that Gov. Sean Parnell would announce his future intentions on a Friday after 5 p.m. struck many, including this writer, as flatfooted. Then again, Parnell’s not known for his ability to generate excitement. In fact Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell once called him a “quiet governor” in front of a group of businessmen and officials from all across the globe visiting Alaska to discuss opportunities in the Arctic. The president of Iceland was there. Parnell was somewhere else being quiet.

But sometimes—well at least once anyway—he gets it right. In the weeks leading up to Parnell’s announcement, nearly all of Alaska’s political establishment had assumed that he would forgo a run for U.S. Senate against Sen. Mark Begich and instead stay the course. But in the hours leading up to Parnell’s 5:50 p.m. announcement in Fairbanks, the political trap lines were buzzing. Had everyone been wrong?  In the past weeks, had Parnell been able to muster the political courage to take Begich on?

Why else would he choose to make an announcement at an event—the Alaska Republican Women’s Convention– where both Rep. Don Young and Sen. Lisa Murkowski were in attendance?

Even those who should have known were second guessing their assumptions. The backbone of Alaska’s Republican Party was in Fairbanks waiting to hear his plans. Party stalwarts like don’t-mess-with-Paulette Simpson from Juneau was there.  Rhonda Boyles from Fairbanks and newly elected Rep. Lynn Gattis from Wasilla, were there.  (Everyone knows that you shouldn’t mess with them either.) Sen. President Charlie Huggins and House Speaker Mike Chenault showed. The room was packed. Everyone waited and whispered.

So, an announcement that might have been as exciting as waiting for water to boil-turned into an event. It might just be the most exciting one of the governor’s race.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

Thank God it’s Friday’s random facts

HEALTH INSURANCE: Alaska is one of four states that don’t require its state workers, including state legislators, to pay for monthly health care premiums as part of their health care benefits package. The average that other state workers pay is 20 percent. The Legislature could fix this, but then lawmakers would be forced to pay monthly premiums. Source: Alaska Department of Administration.

ABORTION: Fifty percent of American adults describe themselves as pro-life. Sixty four percent of American adults think second-trimester abortion should be illegal. However, according to a review of hospital based studies, 85 percent of American women abort after a prenatal Down-syndrome diagnosis (typically in the second trimester). Source: Atlantic Monthly, May 2013.

TREADWELL’S TRAVELS: In 2012,  Alaska Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell spent $56,589 on official state business travel, which was $15,969 more than Governor Sean Parnell spent on travel in 2012. Source: Alaska Department of Administration

BIGGEST ALASKA CONTRIBUTOR TO THE BUSH LIBRARY AT SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY:  Art and April Hackney ($100,000.00). Source: George W. Bush Presidential Library.

DATE THAT ALASKAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES CAN LEGALLY START RAISING MONEY FOR THEIR 2014 CAMPAIGNS: Tomorrow, May 4, 2013. Source:  Alaska Public Offices Commission.

17 REASONS NOT TO BET ON WILL TAKE CHARGE: Despite the pundits and odd makers, no one really knows which post position in a horse race is best ; however, when it comes to the Kentucky Derby, there is only one post position never in the Derby’s history to produce a winner – – Number 17. The unlucky horse to draw No. 17 this year is Will Take Charge. Place your bets accordingly. Source: Kentucky Derby/Churchill Downs.

SLAVERY:  Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the 21st century – – a $32 billion industry. It is estimated that there are 27 million slaves in captivity today ‘around the world. There are estimated to be 17,500 children, women and men trafficked into the U.S. each year. Source: CAST – Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking.

SIZE MATTERS: The State of Rhode Island could fit inside Alaska 425 times. Source: 50states.com

Facebooktwittermail

Hockey politics: Is UAA beginning to listen?

It took awhile, but it appears that the University of Alaska Anchorage might finally be at least giving lip service about  listening to the people. The Anchorage Daily News reported that on Thursday, the university is suspending a search for a new hockey coach pending a reevaluation of the search criteria. (Read more about the hockey fiasco that here and here).

This is how UAA Chancellor Tom Case explained the decision:

“There was tremendous interest in the process, in the future of Seawolf hockey and in the coach selection. We had a search process that was good, but there was so much interest in the process we decided to open it up to further input and ideas.”

That’s one way of putting it. What he doesn’t mention is that those “interested in the process” included a plethora of noisy, alienated hockey fans, some of whom contacted their state legislators to tell them so.  In turn, some of those state legislators contacted the university to ask them if the university understands that times will soon be lean and that community support is vital when funding decisions are going to be made?

It took awhile, but it appears that if the hockey fans can’t get the attention of the university, then legislators who hold the university’s purse strings can.

In any event, it appears that Case is still missing the point: both the Alaska State Hockey Association and the UAA Hockey Alumni Association has called on the university to find a new athletic director, one who won’t, as the current one has done, let UAA’s hockey team continue to flounder.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

North Pole refining Koch brothers likely to be involved in upcoming Alaska Senate race

The New York Times reports that the thumping conservatives — particularly tea party conservatives — have taken in the past few years isn’t scaring off the mega donating Koch brothers. The pair, along with their long list of advocacy groups, foundations and tangled knots of libertarian whatnots plan to be out in full force come the next election cycle.

According to the NYTs:

“(T)he brothers want their network to play a bigger role in cultivating and promoting Republican candidates who hew to their vision of conservatism, emphasizing smaller government and deregulation more than immigration and social issues. They are also seeking closer control over groups within their network, purging or downgrading those that did not deliver last year and expanding financing for those that performed well.”

The NYTs said that the pair hasn’t decided whether or not it will be involved in primaries. But it’s hard to see them resisting, considering that the primaries are where the battles for the Republican soul are fought, battles that are the raison d’être for the brothers.

What does this mean for Alaska? For one, the upcoming race against U.S. Sen. Mark Begich is expected to be one of the hottest in the country. And the Republican primary will be especially smoking. Rabid conservative Joe Miller and newly invented conservative stalwart Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell have both said that they’re all but in. And then there’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan, who is looking increasingly like the dark horse candidate.

All of this is perfect Koch brother fodder, and all of this will happen on the heels of a contract for royalty oil that the state approved with Koch brother owned Flint Hill Resources, which has a refinery in North Pole, Alaska.

Under the terms of the contract, the state will deliver a maximum of 30,000 barrels a day of its royalty oil to Flint HIlls for five years, beginning next year. The contract is worth an estimated $3.5 billion to $5.9 in revenue for the state and billions for the Koch brothers.

In addition to being one of the state’s largest refineries, Flint Hills is one of the Alaska Railroad Corporation’s largest customers. They also own a tank farm in the Port of Anchorage area by Ship Creek. And they hope to own a majority of the U.S. Senate, including a new Republican senator from Alaska.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

Nixon and Eisenhower’s strange relationship

Below is an excerpt, with a link to The American Spectator where you can read the rest, from a brilliant book review written by my brilliant father. The book, Ike and Dick: Portrait of a Strange Political Marriage by Jeffrey Frank, chronicles Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower’s strange relationship. My father is a former Nixon speechwriter so he knows a little about which he writes. I’ve been told, mostly by him, that I’m a chip off the old block. I might someday believe it if I can ever write anything as close to as good as this review:

“Damn,” was the initial reaction. Although 40 years have passed, here comes another one: another book by another of those East Coast liberal scribblers—Pat Buchanan calls them “the offspring of the old jackal pack”—out to kick Richard Nixon around one more time, and in the process embellish the Nixon caricature that has replaced the man in so much of today’s popular historicizing.

But as it turns out, that’s not it at all. True, Jeffrey Frank has all of what normally would pass for anti-Nixon credentials: stints as an editor at the Washington Post and New Yorker and author of four well-received novels, including the “Washington Trilogy.” But despite those bona fides, Frank appears, if not admiring of, then not hostile and perhaps even sympathetic to Nixon as a striving politician struggling to win the approval of Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the truly great figures of the last century. Frank even seems sensitive to the relationship that would necessarily develop between these two unique and highly intelligent men, culminating in the union of their families with the marriage of Julie Nixon and David Eisenhower.

“Nixon’s early relationship with Eisenhower,” Frank writes, “who was old enough to be his father, had a filial aspect, though one without much filial affection.” Eisenhower, Nixon believed, expected “rapid, absolute obedience,” and while serving as Ike’s vice president, he often felt “like a junior officer coming in to see the commanding general”—as indeed he was. And that is no doubt the way Eisenhower looked at Nixon: as a junior and later senior staff officer, with a specific place on the organizational chart. Later, writes Frank, Eisenhower would come to value Nixon’s “logical mind” and his loyalty. He also appreciated the standing Nixon gave him with the anti-Communist right.

Problems first arose between the two in 1952, shortly after Senator Nixon had been chosen as Eisenhower’s running mate, when news stories charged Nixon with benefiting from a secret fund supplied by wealthy donors. Eisenhower was annoyed that his still unproven vice presidential candidate was tainting his campaign with a whiff of scandal, no matter how faint. He gave Nixon a choice, although it was never quite expressed directly, and Eisenhower preferred to send indirect suggestions through emissaries like Murray Chotiner and Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, a political friend of Nixon and an Eisenhower favorite. Nixon was to clear his name or drop off the ticket. He, in effect, was told he was on his own.

In a speech delivered live on television from the El Capitan Theater in L.A., Nixon did just that. In what became known as the “Checkers speech,” called by the author and journalist Sam Leith “a rhetorical classic,” Nixon accounted for every cent that had been donated to his campaign. And when that was settled, in a move he called “unprecedented in the history of politics,” he told his audience he would give “a complete financial history: everything I’ve earned, everything I’ve spent, everything I own.” He referenced Pat Nixon’s “respectable Republican cloth coat” (they couldn’t afford a mink). He added that there was one gift from a supporter his family intended to keep: a cocker spaniel puppy named Checkers. In response, Republican Party headquarters was flooded with some 4 million communiqués.

General Eisenhower, watching from Cleveland where he was to speak, would later tell his audience: “I have seen many brave men in tough situations. I have never seen any come through in such fashion as Senator Nixon did tonight.” Yet, writes Frank, “Eisenhower was not entirely pleased by Nixon’s performance.” It took the decision of whether to keep Nixon on the ticket out of his hands, and when Nixon suggested all candidates reveal their finances, that included Eisenhower. But for the moment, the speech had demonstrated that his determined young staff officer had something extra, and when the Nixons flew to meet him in West Virginia, Eisenhower “came bounding up the stairs” of the plane, put his arm around Nixon, and told him, “You’re my boy.”

According to Frank, that would remain somewhat in question. But perhaps, as he points out, although the ongoing uncertainty about Nixon’s relationship with Eisenhower would make life harder, “there was no way to pretend that important decisions about Nixon’s future belonged to Eisenhower alone.” Or perhaps, put another way, Nixon would have to take his future in his own hands and not depend on General Eisenhower for prompting or direction. Eisenhower liked officers able to take the initiative.

Read the rest here. 

Facebooktwittermail

Why is UAA letting hockey go up in smoke?

This is what I know about hockey: that there’s a puck and a net involved and that on the handful of games that I have attended, I can’t keep track of when the puck goes into the net. I know that the people at those games know more than I do, and I know that many of them are die hard, committed hockey fans.

I also know that in Alaska, there are many of those die hard, committed hockey fans and I’m told that there used to be a lot more of them, particularly at UAA Seawolf games.

The seats used to be filled I’m told. Now, when you go to the Sullivan Arena to watch a Seawolf game, only about a third of the seats are filled. I’m here to tell you that it’s kind of a drag to be at a game that you don’t know much about without being surrounded by a crowd that does and can signal when to cheer, when to hiss and when to tell the ref that he sucks.

Unless things change and the crowds get bigger, I won’t go back.

Many, including the person with whom I am currently involved, are blaming the athletic director Steve Cobb for the Seawolf’s continuing decline on the ice and the subsequent lack of enthusiasm in that arena. Many are calling on UAA Chancellor Tom Case to fire Cobb.

Recently, long pent-up frustration among former and would-be Seawolf fans found a vent in the search for a new hockey coach. (Read more about that here and here). I may not know where the puck is, but I do know steam when I see it, and this was a gusher.

It was enough of a gusher that the Alaska State Hockey Association recently issued a vote of no confidence in Cobb. The following Sunday, the UAA Hockey Alumni Association issued their own resolution. About 40 men sat in a small room in an ice rink in South Anchorage on Sunday, working on the resolution. Many of them are fathers with busy lives. Many had never written or even spoke the word, “whereas.” Many of them spent the better part of their 20s bleeding for the Seawolves, and none of them took that resolution lightly.

They thought they could change things.

They were apparently under the assumption that an institution for which they fundraised and were a part of, an institution paid for out of their state funds, cared about them and their passions.

They thought they mattered.

The responses that they and others have received from the university make it very clear that they don’t.

I don’t know if Cobb should be fired, but I do know a few things about communication and I know in a been-there-done-that-way how to alienate a whole group of people. The university has been successful, at least at that.

I know that UAA’s response to the situation has been a PR failure, from one liners responding to heartfelt letters, to an arrogant “no comment” from Cobb in the Anchorage Daily News about the alumni resolution, to the very anemic and very late invitation the university sent out to a select few in the hockey community asking them to be involved in the search for the new hockey coach. (Say nothing about the silence surrounding the allegation of an assault and the cover up of the assault involving the former hockey coach and a student player. It’s the best known secret in the hockey community.  Case, here’s a head’s up: it will come out eventually and it won’t be pretty.)

And then on Friday was Case’s incomprehensible and inadequate defense of Cobb’s job as athletic director in the ADN.

Bradford Keithley writes better than I ever could here about the possible financial implications of UAA’s disastrous response, implications that might have real impact.

Legislators are talking. Headlines are screaming. Talk shows are buzzing. And now, normal, average people, people like me who don’t know a thing about hockey, are wondering how the university can continue to go to the people with hands and fingers out while being so insensitive and non-responsive to the people.

The university is, after all, a very well funded state school. And if there is anything to the owner state philosophy—and I believe there is—Alaskans own the university as much as the oil.

The 40 some guys who sat in that room on a Sunday trying to make their voices heard should matter as much, if not more than one arrogant, chain smoking athletic director. They should even matter as much, if not more, than a chancellor who appears hell-bent on keeping him in cigarettes, while hockey goes up in smoke.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

Will Bill Walker’s big line campaign resonate big again?

The earliest that a candidate can start raising money to run for governor is May 4, yet the once and future gas line candidate Bill Walker has announced that he’s in. On Thursday, Walker said that he’s throwing in his hat for governor on the Republican ticket because, “Alaska needs a strong, aggressive leader with a proven track record of putting Alaska’s interests first,” he wrote.

Walker ran against Gov. Sean Parnell in 2010, after he was handed the reins to his seat by former Gov. Sarah Palin. For a little known candidate who hadn’t held political office, Walker did better than expected in the primary, getting more than 33 percent of the vote to Parnell’s 50 percent.

He smoked Ralph Samuels, the guy who was supposed to be the one who gave Parnell a run.

As a lawyer for the City of Valdez and for the Port Authority, which has paid his firm millions of dollars, Walker has for years advocated that the state more aggressively pursue and even fund the building of a large diameter natural gas pipeline that would run from the North Slope to Valdez, appealing to many who, for years and through subsequent administrations, have seen that dream, slowly slipping away.

Indeed, the final nail on the big line’s coffin was likely hammered with the passage of a bill that will facilitate the building of a smaller diameter pipeline that will carry gas from the North Slope to Southcentral.

That happened last legislative session, under Parnell’s watch and with Parnell’s tacit approval.

It’s hard to say how much momentum Walker will build on the gas line this time around, which seems to be his largest issue. (Say nothing of the potentially telling fact that he announced nine days before he can legally take a check for his run). In 2010, some still had faith in that decades-long big line dream, which would be big enough to both power Alaska and allow for importation.

Now, when residents of Fairbanks are choosing between heating their homes and paying for groceries, when the cost of fuel in threatening to ruin some rural Alaska villages, and when Anchorage is bracing for natural gas blackouts, the public seems less interested in big dreams and more interested in just keeping the lights on.

What Walker’s run will undoubtedly do, however, is to shine a light on the fact that while, under Parnell’s watch, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to energy projects, many of them competing with each other, while the one project that was supposed to solve all of Alaska’s energy woes has all but died.

What Walker’s run will do is to highlight the fact that, for better or for worse, the dream of the big line died under Parnell’s watch.

Contact Amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Read Walker’s statement in full below:

Bill Walker Announces Run for Governor

ANCHORAGE — Today, Bill Walker announced that he will run for governor in the 2014 Republican primary. Walker said he is entering the race because Alaska needs a strong, aggressive leader with a proven track record of putting Alaska’s interests first. “The only side of the boardroom table I have ever sat on is the Alaska side, and the only interests I have ever advanced are those of Alaskans,” Walker stated.

Walker is the son of Alaskan pioneers, Ed and Frances Walker, who came to Alaska in the 1940’s where Ed served in the Alaskan Scouts in the Aleutian Islands during WWII and Frances worked on the building of the AlCan Highway. Bill was born in Fairbanks and grew up in Delta Junction and Valdez where he worked alongside his dad and brother in their construction business starting at the age of eight, helping later to relocate and rebuild the town of Valdez after the devastating 1964 earthquake that took the lives of many of their friends and neighbors.

To finance his college education, Bill worked summers on the oil pipeline construction as a laborer, teamster and carpenter. After earning his business degree, Walker owned his own construction company, travel agency, hotel, restaurant/bar and gift shop while serving as a transportation commissioner and city councilmember. At the age of 28, he was selected as the Mayor of Valdez. He and his wife, Donna, graduated from Seattle University School of Law in 1983 and relocated to Anchorage where they practiced law for several years with the Hughes Thorness law firm before they started their own practice, Walker Richards LLC, which focuses primarily on Alaska’s oil and gas law and municipal law. The Walkers have four children, all West Anchorage High School graduates, who continued their education and have returned or will return to Alaska to establish their careers and raise their families.

Bill Walker serves also as the general counsel for the Alaska Gasline Port Authority. He is on the steering committee of the North America Gas Summit and participated in the 2011 Institute of the North Norway Policy Tour, the 2011 World LNG Summit in Rome and the 2012 World Gas Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

According to Walker, “Working hard and investing my time, energy and resources into providing for my family and building up Alaska are what make my feet hit the ground running every single day. As governor of the state I love and am fiercely committed to, I am convinced that we can turn Alaska around, grab the reins and assume our rightful position as a global energy leader providing first for Alaskans, and then the world.”

Facebooktwittermail

This is the way the oil tax debate ends: not with a bang but a whimper

The session that finally put an end to the current chapter of the decades-long tax debate, the one that has seen political careers ruined, millions of dollars spent, a state fractured. The one that’s pitted Alaskans against Alaskans, party member against one another. The one that began when former Gov. Sarah Palin took the help and helped her rise to the national stage. The one that since, has stoked fear in the hearts of some Alaskans, and the one that made long time Alaskans who were here before oil wonder what had happened to their state.

The one that will now give billions of dollars back to some of the largest companies in the world in hopes that they will stay in the state and produce more oil and continue to nearly completely fund state government.

That very debate officially ended when both chambers gaveled out at midnight Monday morning—the first time since 2010 that it wrapped up in time–to relatively little fanfare. All told, the legislature passed 71 bills, including a controversial 737-mile in-state gasline that had been debated for years. (Read more on that here).

But the real story of the session was the oil tax bill, which for all intents and purposes ended when it passed the in the wee hours of Sunday morning.

In prior years on a night like that, as politicians grandstanded in the chamber, as amendments were offered and killed, hallways would be chalked full of lobbyists and citizens showing up for the spectacle. Pizza boxes would have piled up. Soda cans tipped. Harried aides would have been flitting about carrying stacks of paper to harried legislators.

This time it was different. As Saturday night turned into Sunday morning, there were only a few scattered observers in the hall outside of the chamber. As the last business was wrapping up at 2 a.m., the only person left was the security guard roaming a long empty hall.

The lack of excitement was due to many things, the first being that the votes were locked in early. This, in part, was thanks to Senate President Charlie Huggins, House Speaker Mike Chenault and House Finance Chair Bill Stoltze, all three of whom herded the cats and kept trouble, real trouble at bay. (Gov. Sean Parnell, it should be noted, kept his distance, which is one way of putting it. Others in the Capitol building weren’t nearly as kind when referring to his absence.)

It was also probably due to an electorate that chose to usher in Republicans in both chambers. The Republican Senate Majority’s motto is “Time to Act,” and act they did. Sen. Fred Dyson probably said it best when he said, “What a difference an election makes.”

Mostly everybody just seemed wary from the battle. On the surface, and when the cameras were on them, it looked like the Dems and others opposed to the tax bill were fighting vigilantly. Off camera, they looked defeated. They knew the score, and they knew that it was not in their favor.

Some of them who have lived this battle session after session, year after year, knew that you can only fight so hard against that which you have allowed yourself to become so dependent.

That’s not to say that the oil companies, the majors at least, got what they wanted. (The independents got all they wanted and more. More on that later.) The tax break will cost the state, at current projected prices and at current production, somewhere between $650 million to more than $1 billion a year. During committee testimony, the companies said that it was too little of a tax break to really stem production declines.

They all said the flat 35 percent tax is too high, the $5 per barrel exempted for all produced oil too low, and the tax credit for new oil not generous enough. In fact, there was talk that at least one of the major hated the bill and wanted to kill it through amendments offered in House Resources, chaired by Rep. Eric Feige but controlled by Rep. Mike Hawker.  Among other things, the amendments offered in Resources by Hawker lowered the base rate, and significantly decreased state accounting oversight.

Had those amendments survived the bill would not have passed the Senate. (Rep. Bill Stoltze, who knew that, stripped out the amendments in Finance and kept the capital budget in committee until he was assured that those amendments wouldn’t make their way back into the bill.)

You could heat Juneau with the paper that was printed this year alone devoted to charts and graphs and powerpoints. Citizen legislators worked extraordinarily hard to figure it all out. And still nobody really knows—in this state at least– what the tax break does or how it’s going to work.

But what is clear is that since the state raised oil company taxes in 2007, Alaska has been used by the majors as a cautionary tale around the world of what happens when an oil province dares to take on an industry that feeds it, literally. Raise our taxes and we’ll decrease production, the majors said. We’ll starve you out, they warned. Just look at Alaska, they said.

It may be true. It may not be true. The oil is indeed running out, as it was bound to. Prudhoe Bay—the largest oil field in North America– began pumping from its vast reservoir in 1977. Most of the easy oil from that field is gone. New technology is supposedly available to squeeze more oil out of the ground, but that could only happen if the tax rates were lower, oil companies argued. And argued, and argued. And they did that here in the state with enough Chinese-water torture type insistency that the citizens here said enough.

Now eyes, both here and around the world, are going to be on the industry, to see if those companies will make good after such a large tax break. The testimony that it wasn’t likely big enough to stem decline will be lost on most. All the public will remember is that Alaska reached out its hand. If they don’t take it, then they’ll likely be punished, again, as they were in 2007 after Palin took over.

And it will happen sooner or later. The pendulum will swing back. And forth. Again and again, as it has been swinging since Prudhoe was discovered in 1968. Whole legislative sessions will be devoted to oil taxes. The best minds in the state will be busy working on it. Bumper stickers will be plastered on cars and slogans will be used to further careers, and the state, as it has been, will be consumed. We will all be consumed with oil taxes as our schools continue to be some of the worst performing in the country, as our sexual and domestic violence rates are some of the highest in the country, as our citizens continue to be divided. We will all be consumed with oil taxes as the oil steadily runs out, and we will be consumed with oil taxes as we don’t try other things, don’t try to get our money elsewhere, as we don’t plan for what happens when that day comes.

Indeed, even before the Senate concurred with the House changes to SB 21 on Sunday afternoon, there was already talk about plans being made by the majors to come back next year to get some additions and changes that they were hoping for. That will likely be another fight. It will likely last for years.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

The session that dismantled Palin’s legacy

It took awhile to purge Gov. Sarah Palin. It took longer than people expected. After all, what could one governor do to a state in less than two years?  Ask those who are busy in Juneau dismantling her two big initiatives, ones that she ran on as a vice presidential candidate: oil taxes and her attempt to incentivizing the building of a large natural gas pipeline.

Palin, for better or for worse, was an active governor at a time when the public was ready for action. As most know, she swooped in on the heels of what appeared at the time to be an Alaska-sized corruption scandal. She swooped in on the heels of a split in the Republican Party between the more urban chamber of commerce Republicans and their more ideological brethren. She swooped in during record high oil prices. She swooped in as the first female governor. And swooped with the public firmly on her side.

That gave her a lot of leverage to do big things, for what at the time seemed to many like really good reasons. She pounded the oil industry with a huge tax increase, and she passed law to get a large diameter natural pipeline built by sidestepping the industry. Now Palin in the rear-view mirror, oil production on the decline, and a large diameter pipe dream once again sound asleep within the arms of the industry–those so-called good ideas don’t seem so great anymore.

None of the alternatives are perfect — any policy in reaction to another piece of policy won’t be — particularly ones that’s been leveraged on the state. More specifically, the oil tax revamp probably gives too much away to the big producers — ConocoPhillips, BP and Exxon. It will likely result in budget deficits before production increases, if production does indeed increase. And it has, once again, showed how weak the state has become by allowing itself to be nearly completely dependent on oil revenue. (It should be noted that if oil prices drop, which many predict, this bill gives the state more protection than current law.)

And then there’s House Bill 4 which will facilitate the development of a small diameter pipeline running from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska. The bill provides funding to bring the project to open season, at which time the economics will dictate if it makes sense, or at least tell us what kind of state dollar infusion it will need. In other words, it’s not a done deal yet, but it’s a big statement that the big dream of a big pipeline is all but dead, as is Palin’s big pipeline plan, AGIA.

HB 4 too is less than perfect and it only passed in tandem with, SB 23, the LNG trucking bill, which has its own problems. The plan to truck LNG to Fairbanks is just a band aid. Everyone knows that, and an expensive one at that. There are likely cheaper, more efficient ways to help solve Fairbanks’ energy crisis. But state leadership is so weak, ideas have been put off for so long, it’s the only short-term, politically palatable solution left.

In any case, no matter the flaws in the bills, this legislative session put the last nail in the Palin-regime coffin. And she’ll never again be able to point to what she did in Alaska to further any political aspirations she has left.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

The final stretch

Adjournment is close at hand. And to the extent that the people knew what they were doing when the elected a predominately Republican legislature to get things done, they got what they wanted. Big bills, bills that have been debated in the Legislature for years, bills that have been the subject of hundreds of hours of committee hearings, of debate, those bills are now a hair’s-breadth from making their way to Gov. Sean Parnell’s desk to be signed. For better or for worse, depending on how you’re wired.

From oil taxes to money for construction of a small diameter natural gas pipeline that would run from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska. From LNG from the North Slope to Fairbanks. From gun laws to the Knik Arm Bridge, insurance and drug laws, abortion and the Judicial Council. All the pieces seem to be fitting together nicely for an orderly adjournment by Sunday night right before midnight.

That is, of course, barring some unforeseen melt down or huge personality clash, which would likely come from one of the many divisions in the House, particularly from the faction that wants to lower the base rate on the oil tax bill. That amendment would likely come from Rep. Mike Hawker, who lowered the base rate to 33 percent in House Resources. At least two members of the Senate have drawn the line on 35 percent. So, if it succeeds, it will likely kill the bill. Some in the know say that because the tax break isn’t big enough, killing the bill is the goal of at least one of the three major oil companies. (Guess which one?)

However, given how well House Speaker Mike Chenault has been able to herd the cats so far—the demise of KABATA being case and point—the success of such machinations is unlikely.

Here are the four key bills that are “must haves” for adjournment:  SB 21 the oil tax reform bill, HB 4 the small diameter pipeline bill, the operating budget and lastly the capital budget.

What isn’t being reported on much is nonetheless important to note as some of these bills have huge impacts on the lives for average people. One bill that has gotten extremely little media attention–introduced by freshman Sen. Mike Dunleavy, and referred to only one committee which he chairs–was a bill to allow insurance companies to use credit scores as a factor in setting insurance rates.

During the public hearing process, the only witnesses testifying in favor of the bill were employees of the insurance industry and the state’s new Director of Insurance (it should be noted that the previous state insurance director opposed the bill for years). On the other hand, a lot of Alaskan consumers testified against the bill, citing its unfairness and questioning why in the world the Alaska legislature would consider advancing such a measure. Unfortunately, their concerns fell on deaf ears as committee members paid deference to Dunleavy who wanted to move the bill to the floor. (It should be noted that Dunleavy campaigned as the voice of the people.)

The half dozen or more lobbyists working together to advance this bill were gleeful. However, that euphoria crashed when the bill ran into the Senate Rules Committee, which schedules bills for floor action and is chaired by Sen. Lesil McGuire. She thought the bill was against consumer interest and she had enough courage to stand up to the insurance industry and the leaders of her caucus to squash it. Like a bug. With her stilettos.

Then there’s a bill sponsored in the Senate by Dunleavy and in the House by Rep. Lynn Gattis, who’s turning out to be one of the freshman stars, which would bring public education employees into the state’s large insurance pool. As of now, most of them are covered through an National Education Association trust. The state, which already pays for the insurance, says that combining the two pools will result in savings for all. The bill is being fought by the NEA and Sen. Bill Wielechowski, both of whom called it a “big government takeover of healthcare.” If that’s not irony for you, then there’s none of it left in the world.

There’s lots of other bills, but one of my favorites is a bill by Sen. Fred Dyson, a staunch conservative, which would make simple possession of schedule I and II substances a Class A misdemeanor, which still can carry with it up to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine. It’s supported by the ACLU, the Department of Corrections and a bevy of defense lawyers who have long been bemoaning the havoc our drug laws has wrought. It passed the Senate 17 to 2.

Here’s more irony for you: Two of those most vocal Dems in Alaska, Sens. Bill Wielechowski and Hollis French, voted against it after French offered two failing amendments that would weaken the bill.

That bill is now in House Finance, and will likely take a backseat to the other huge order of business on today’s schedule: the capital budget. The committee is expected to release the first draft later today.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

The governor tries to sell the public on oil tax reform

Governor Sean Parnell isn’t much known for using a heavy hand or voice in passing bills. Last year, he got about as antagonistic as he gets when he called the bipartisan Senate a “do nothing” body when they failed to pass his oil tax bill. That kind of backfired, temporarily at least, because for all the world the Senate was working very, very hard.

Anyway, things are going better for the governor this session, at least as oil taxes are concerned. (Trouble is brewing on other fronts, however. HB 77, a major bill that would revise Alaska’s water and land use laws to benefit mining and other commercial interests appears to be in trouble.) Even Rep. Les Gara conceded in a committee hearing that a reform to ACES will likely pass this session.

But Parnell’s success on this front has little to do with his own efforts, which seem to involve only talking to the Legislature through the Associated Press and writing a weekly oil tax message. (If that weekly message had done one little thing to change one heart and mind, then writers and thinkers with any talent everywhere should just give up and declare themselves the uncles of monkeys. The same goes for industry sponsored commercials on Gavel to Gavel, but that’s another story.)

Anyway, Parnell did get a little cutting edge on Thursday, trying to reach the masses today through twitter and urged others to do the same. In his tell-tale, conversational style, Parnell tweeted the following:

As one pundit put it, “The third floor’s political acumen remains less than stellar,” and then, in his real voice, he said, “This is how he’s trying to sell this bill?”

A few made fun of Parnell’s tweet, and two hours after he urged a re-tweet, only ten had done so, including Deputy Press Secretary Luke Miller, who, when he worked for U.S. Rep. Don Young, spent his days reaching out and actually talking to reporters. Strangely enough, that seemed to work.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

Incremental oil tax update

The draft of the House Finance Committee substitute on the oil tax bill emerged Thursday morning, and is likely to take up most of the air in the room of the committee meeting this afternoon and evening. In a nutshell, the bill generally strips the amendments proposed in House Resources and follows more closely what the Senate produced last month, which should make concurrence a relatively painless process. I’ll have more on this later this evening, but for now, below is a list of the main changes in the substitute:

1. The base tax rate has been raised from 33 percent to 35 percent.

2. For now, the small producer credit has been taken out of the bill.

3. A Competitive Review Board that was proposed by Sen. Lesil McGuire and killed in Resources is back in.

4. An accounting requirement called joint interest billing, which the producers lobbied hard for, was taken out.

5. There’s a $5 per-barrel credit for new oil produced and a 20 percent tax break, known as a gross revenue exclusion, for production of new oil. And there’s an additional 10 percent for new oil from fields outside the legacy fields which pay a higher royalty rate that those inside the legacy fields.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

Kaboom Kapow KABTA?

For nearly a century, those who were wired that way–and Alaska always had plenty of that type of wiring–dreamed of a bridge over the Cook Inlet, connecting Anchorage to the mysterious swath of land in the Mat-Su Valley. (One particularly creative idea in the 1960s involved a monorail that would connect Anchorage to a domed, temperature-controlled community.)

If nothing else, you’ve got to give the Kink Arm Bridge and Toll Authority kudos for coming as close as you can get to bridging the divide. If the agency’s bill passed this session–and for awhile it looked like it might–the authority would have been well on its way to building the $1.6 billion bridge (others have estimated the cost to be much more). Had the bill passed, KABATA would have been authorized to sell $600 million in bonds and the state would have set up a reserve fund to pay for the agencies costs. And it likely would have been the agency’s last dance in front of the legislature, for awhile at least.

But as everyone knows, close doesn’t cut it and neither did what appears now to be an ill-fated agency. It’s not a done deal yet, but on Thursday morning, the House Rules Committee is set to vote on an amendment which would put KABATA in the hands of the state agency du jour, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, run by the man of the moment Dan Fauske.

The buzz is that it’s a fait accompli, as are most bills by the time they make it to Rules.

Fauske is prepared to set up yet another state agency under AHFC that would take over the project and give it a fresh look. KABATA was created by Gov. Frank Murkowski in 2003, and seeded with $110 million in state and federal funds. Since, it has amassed more than $56 million state funded assets.

Ostensibly, the problems with the bridge and the agency arose after a scathing legislative audit concluded that KABATA’s projected revenue through tolls were overly optimistic.

But many legislators had been leery of the project and the agency since its inception and it only got worse as the numbers KABATA released continually bumped up against conflicting numbers and as the agency became increasingly defensive about the project and how it was going to be funded.

Increasingly, it appeared that those who ran KABATA were seen less as objective, trusted stewards of state resources than a group hell bent on getting a project underway, regardless of cost.

What all this means to the fate of the bridge, and the enormous number of bills still yet to pass out of various committees, remains to be seen. The Mat-Su Valley delegation, which has supported KABATA and the bridge,  is a powerful one this year. The delegation is led by Senate President, Charlie Huggins, and House Finance Chairman Bill Stoltze.

Stoltze’s committee still has possession of the oil tax bill and the capital budget, which gives him significant added influence this time of the year.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail

Parnell’s BOF choice gets sunk

Monday saw a bit of dramatic theater on the House floor in the capitol building when a re-nomination to the Board of Fisheries went down in a squeaker. The vote against Vince Webster pitted big monied commercial fisherman against powerful sports fisherman, urban and rural politicians, and Gov. Sean Parnell against the chairman of one of the most powerful legislative committee.

The vote tally was 29 to 30.

Webster was first picked by former Gov. Sarah Palin to sit on the board in 2007. He lives in King Salmon and is a commercial fisherman and is said to favor that user group over sports fishermen.

On the floor on Monday, House Finance Chairman Rep. Bill Stoltze, who took the lead in the legislature to capsize the confirmation, said that Webster was a “very clever and effective spokesman” for the commercial fisheries and to that end, he “does things legally but not always right,” to help commercial fisherman.

He also mentioned Webster’s association with Palin. “He was Todd Palin’s guy,” Stoltze said. He hasn’t been “Alaska’s guy,” he said.

Parnell had spent at least some political capital fighting for Webster, though the governor himself appeared to be absent on the debate, as he has been for many debates on important issues. On the night before the vote, an email did emerge from the governor’s office urging support, but it was sent by Parnell’s chief of staff Mike Nizich instead of the governor himself, a small signal that likely ended up mattering.

It also likely didn’t help that the Nizich’s email appeared to be directed at claims against Webster brought by the politically active Kenai River Sportsman Association. Among other charges, KRSA said that Webster “directly participated in precariously and unnecessarily lowering the escapement goal of Kenai River king salmon during a time of record low abundance and uncertain future production.” He did this, the group said, to benefit commercial salmon setnetters at the expense of sports and personal use fish interests.

Nizich called such claims against Webster “misleading, “incomplete,” and “inaccurate.”

KRSA obviously represents sportsman’s interests, as does Stoltze, who has nearly every bill that Parnell has taken interest in in his committee.

In other words, this is not a good time to take on Stoltze. Counting votes, others obviously felt the same. But you wouldn’t know if you were an audience member watching the floor during the debate, where a handful of legislators spoke on Websters behalf, urging fellow members to disregard the attacks against Webster. Indeed, a group of college students from across the state, who were in the gallery, said that they were sure Webster would make it.

Only one other legislator, Rep. Les Gara, spoke against Webster.

At times during testimony in House Finance, the tension between Stoltze and Rep. Les Gara, who sits on that committee, has been knife cutting. They made nice today, however. We’ll see how long the love-fest lasts.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amandamcoyne@yahoo.com

Facebooktwittermail