OMG - Palin is the Socialist we have been looking for.

[LaughingCat]

I just reviewed this transcript from Hannity on FNC:

Palin: We are the only state with a negative tax rate, where we don’t have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.

Hannity: And it went up higher since you’ve been the governor and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.

Palin: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.

So basically, her state owns the oil and spreads the wealth of revenues to it's people. Sure, they aren't getting the tax revenues from wealthy and spreading to the poor. But she does have state ownership of a resource that is generating revenue and she is redistributing.

Let's the LaughingCat-lampooning begin.

 

[BBB725]

If it's state owned property who should get the mineral royalties?

If the state takes in more money then it spends, without state taxes, where should that excess money go?

Should the state take less in royalties or just enough to cover the budget and let the oil companies off paying less?

 

[Chris]

Socialism is a collective form of government where the state owns or administrates much or all of the enterprise and distributes the proceeds equally. Passing back to the population a tiny bit of cash that results from a natural-resources windfall is pretty far off of socialism. In fact, it's somewhat contrary to socialism. If Alaska was attempting to practice socialism, they would apply those funds inversely, giving more to those with less and none to the wealthy. They could have even chosen a mezannine step and used their funds for public purposes as determined by their legislature. But they decided that the best use of the funds would be determined by the individual. Not only a highly democratic idea, but a very Republican one at that.

Lastly, this system dates back to the 70's when oil first started to flow out of Alaska. It predates Sarah Palin by 3 decades. In addition, Palin doesn't have the power to do anything like this. The Alaska legislature put this mechanism into place. Governors are executives- they run the place. Just like presidents. Legislatures (like Congress) make the laws (policies) that the executive administrates and the judiciary makes certain that what the other two are doing meshes up with the core governing principle of the state (constitution).

 

[phragle]

Its called a "dividend check" the people of alaska have been getting them for years. I was dating a girl in 91 who had just moved to san diego from fairbanks... 19 y/o unemployed and got a $2,500 check....

 

[cuda]

I really don't think you have grasped the concept of socialism. If the mineral rights are generated in Alaska, by all means the Alaskans should benefit from it. Socialism would mean distributing it to the poor unemployed that wants to declare nuclear war on Detroit (their own city) any time they win a title at any sport. Should they get a slice of the pie?

 

[MetalBrosRacing]

My Mother gets a dividend every year from Alaska oil revenue, big deal.

 

[fund razor]

I really don't think you have grasped the concept of socialism. If the mineral rights are generated in Alaska, by all means the Alaskans should benefit from it. Socialism would mean distributing it to the poor unemployed that wants to declare nuclear war on Detroit (their own city) any time they win a title at any sport. Should they get a slice of the pie?

Agreed.... but....
Kind of interesting analogy.... because the whole country benefited from what was going on in and around Detroit for several generations, and the auto industry helped us win a few important wars too. The auto industry paid dividend to the entire country for a long time, in terms of standard of living.
I suspect that everyone will share just a little in it's time of change.

People don't even THINK of going after Alaska's resources. But many states are busy trying to figure out how to force the great lakes states, primarily Michigan to "share" fresh water. Just wait. You will see an attempt by one state to claim rights over the resources of another in your lifetime.

 

[cigdaze]

You will see an attempt by one state to claim rights over the resources of another in your lifetime.

The fight over water between Florida and Georgia that's been raging for the last couple years comes to mind. Florida essentially strong-armed (sued and won in federal court) Georgia into continuing to allow the release of nearly a billion gallons of water per day from Lake Lanier and other lakes citing - get this - the environmental protection act because of some sort of stupid endangered mussel. Meanwhile Lake Lanier is down nearly 30-some-odd feet, and Georgia is in the grips of a serious water shortage. The irony is that Lake Lanier was created by man, for man. Of course, Florida's real motivation was cooling water for power plants as well as recreational (tourist $) use.

 

[gerritm]

I just reviewed this transcript from Hannity on FNC:

Palin: We are the only state with a negative tax rate, where we don’t have any income, sales or property tax statewide, and yes we have a share of our oil resource revenue that goes back to the people that own the resources. Imagine that.

Hannity: And it went up higher since you’ve been the governor and you negotiated with the oil companies. That all went up so people get a bigger check.

Palin: There was a corrupt tax system up there and we had a couple of lawmakers end up in jail because of the tax system that was adopted so we cleaned it up and said we wanted a fair and equitable share of the resources that we own, and the people will share in those resource revenues that are derived.

So basically, her state owns the oil and spreads the wealth of revenues to it's people. Sure, they aren't getting the tax revenues from wealthy and spreading to the poor. But she does have state ownership of a resource that is generating revenue and she is redistributing.

Let's the LaughingCat-lampooning begin.

So let me get this straight. Alaska has no income tax, sales or property tax, and a negative tax rate and each residents gets a rebate from the oil, and you are calling her a socialist? Damn that's socialism I can live with. How about these for socialism.

 

[VtSteve]

Here's an interesting alternative to the discussions of a budget gone bad in Alaska.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Investigators-say-Fed-apf-15495647.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve threatened to force the ouster of Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis if he didn't follow through with plans to buy Merrill Lynch & Co., Republicans said Wednesday after reviewing internal documents.

Republicans also said there was evidence that the government tried to restrict information related to the merger from being publicly released.

However, none of the documents showed that the government explicitly instructed Bank of America to hide Merrill Lynch's losses from shareholders, they said.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating claims that top government officials, including then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, urged Lewis to go through with the acquisition and not disclose to shareholders the details of Merrill Lynch's deteriorating financial state.

Lewis was scheduled to testify on Thursday before the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y.

Bank of America has received $45 billion from the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. As part of that money, the bank received $20 billion in January after Lewis requested it to help offset mounting losses at Merrill Lynch.

According to an internal memo prepared by the committee's Republican staff, Paulson and Bernanke "put a gun to the head" of Lewis and Bank of America's board of directors to force the merger even though Lewis "felt it was his duty to his shareholders to try his luck in the legal system and back out of the deal."

As proof, Republicans cite several documents including an e-mail by an employee at the Richmond Federal Reserve who said Bernake had made it clear that if Bank of America backed out and needed financial assistance, "management is gone."

Just a few weeks after the deal was completed, Bank of America's fourth-quarter earnings report showed the hit its balance sheet took on the Merrill Lynch transaction, making Lewis the target of shareholder anger.

In January, Bank of America reported a $2.39 billion fourth-quarter loss and Merrill Lynch disclosed a loss of more than $15 billion.

 

[VtSteve]

Oops, forgot about Alaska.

Seriously, have you guys looked at the state of the Alaskan budget shortfall this year? Not exactly as projected. Perhaps if oil gets to 90 they can get back on track.