School Voucher Supporter Learns "Religion" Does NOT Mean "Christian"

Naw, Vouchers aren't a Great Right-Wing Christian Conspiracy. A Louisiana State Legislator nearly had meowlings when she learned that "religion" meant "religion" and not "Christian". Oh my... Louisiana state representatives were shocked to find that opening taxpayer funding to religious institutions actually meant all religions. Louisiana Representative Valarie Hodges, (R-Watson), nearly pulled her support of the bill when she found out the funding could be used to support Muslim schools (although the Muslim schools that originally applied have since removed their applications – this year). Representative Hodges mistakenly believed that the term “religious” only meant “Christian.” http://educatefortexas.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/texas-school-voucher-scheme-yet-another-blow-against-public-education/

Lindsey explains that she's just the same ol' Lindsey but with an R instead of a D. No big deal, right? Lindsey still believes in choice and education and a strong economic future for Alaska. Her "just l'il Ole me" thesis breaks apart when one notes that this isn't about 'Lindsey'. Although 'Lindsey' IS her favorite subject, it really, really isn't about her. She just gave Chenault a 'super-majority': 30 of them and 10 of the others looks a lot like 3/4 to me. She is about to learn what Super-Majorities can do. They can defund Planned Parenthood. They can raid the Constitutional Budget Reserve to fund government whilst giving away billions to Exxon, BP, and Conoco, they can dump every environmental and commerce regulation on the books and turn Alaska into a Right-to-Work State and they won't even have to consult with Lindsey on any of it. That's the beauty of Super-Majorities: they can move from first reading to the floor vote in days. While Lindsey is checking out her new Republican look in the mirror, the 'values' that she claims to believe in will be shuttled into the dumpster by her Committee Chairs. Smooth move, Ex-Lax (as my Brother used to say when we younger siblings did something really stupid). SEE Compass: Lindsey Holmes talks about her decision to switch parties http://www.adn.com/2013/01/25/2765796/compass-lindsey-holmes-talks-about.html#comment-779198331

The Best Political Ad of the 2012 Season

Stage - YouTube

Replatforming: Don’t Digg Your Own Grave

Replatforming: Don’t Digg Your Own Grave

pics on Sodahead

Indiana As An Example of the Failure of One Party Government

By JEFF SCHULTZ Eleven northern Indiana lawmakers attended the Indiana State Teachers Association legislative breakfast on Saturday, not just for free coffee and doughnuts but to share insights with educators on contentious bills circulating thorough the General Assembly. The event at Michigan City High School drew all four Duneland legislators and a surprise visit from Indiana House Minority Leader Pat Bauer, D-South Bend. Bauer, an educator himself, urged teachers to continue taking a stand against the majority of Republican lawmakers introducing bills that include vouchers, restricting teacher’s bargaining rights, transforming public schools into turnaround academies and allowing schools to teach creationism from the viewpoints of various religions. “You’ve got to fight because if you don’t, they will take away all of your rights,” said Bauer, telling teachers to speak with their voices firm, loud and with conviction. “You are the target. Don’t forget it.” Bauer said whenever there is such a difference in the number of Democrats and Republicans in the Statehouse as there is now, that is the time when radical bills make their way into state law. He hinted a change in power could be coming as a result of this year’s state elections. “We need balance in this state. When we have balance, we have success.” Indiana Assistant Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, deemed last year as the “worst for public education” since he’s been in office, mentioning the massive cuts public schools have endured. The laws on vouchers and school takeovers are already in effect and Pelath said his next move would be to see that some funding is restored and investment made in programs such as full-day kindergarten and early education. “We can’t undo what’s been done but we will do our best going forward,” said Pelath. Pelath said effective ways for constituents to have their views heard would be to stop “trying to finesse and cajole” state lawmakers and become more involved at the community level such as starting discussion groups, blogs and writing letters to the newspaper. Echoing Pelath’s comments, State Rep. Nancy Dembowski, D-Knox, said citizens should never underestimate the power of working as a group. Dembowski said building an educated workforce would surpass right-to-work in terms of creating jobs and advocated investing the $320 million found in an “unnoticed fund,” before the Assembly began, entirely into public education since that was roughly the same amount cut in 2010. State Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, a member of the Budget Committee, said the $320 million was corporate income tax that was “stuck in the drawer” and she and fellow committee members made cuts wondering why revenue forecasts were not being met. She insisted the money should go to programs that were axed. “These cuts have to be put back in the next budget cycles. They have to be,” Tallian said. Weighing in on funding, State Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said his bill to ban smoking in public places statewide could indirectly generate more state revenue. Approximately $1 billion is spent in Indiana due to the effects of secondhand smoke and less health problems would mean being able to pay for children’s education or helping families put food on the table. While many local legislators expressed the need to increase the number of students participating in Kindergarten (more than 21 percent of Kindergarten-aged children are not enrolled), a bill authored by Tallian, D-Portage, mandating half day kindergarten did not even receive a hearing. However, full-day kindergarten could get an $80 million boost from the House Ways and Means committee proposed by chairman State Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale. A large portion of the $320 million has also been considered for teacher pension funds. Meanwhile, ISTA Public Education Advocacy Coordinator Nancy Papas thanked State Sen. Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, and State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, for coordinating with ISTA on legislation that would help schools be tested more fairly. Senate Bill 265, co-authored by Charbonneau would drop the lowest five percent of student scores on ISTEP testing on one of the two report cards sent to the state. A second bill, Senate Bill 280, would change school funding to be based on a fiscal year rather than a calendar year in order to streamline schools with the state budget which is determined every two years. SB 280 could bring $30 million to schools a little earlier in these crucial times, although none of those contains any new money, Charbonneau said. Running on a fiscal year will also make it easier for schools to understand how much funding will be coming their way, Charbonneau said. Soliday worked language into a bill that calls for the state testing reports to exclude students who cannot read or write in the English language. Schools in the lowest category of ISTEP scores are targeted to become turnaround academies where a special management team is appointed by the state to replace a community school board, thus creating an “independent” school. As the amount of testing continues, Papas said more teachers are finding themselves working long hours into the night just to fill out paperwork “burning themselves out” when they should be spending more time preparing lesson plans or other student activities. “There is so much more to a school than a test score,” said Papas. Soliday said he finds the pay-per-performance approach for teachers a less than effective way of solving problems and said the state needs to start changing its way of thinking by holding management liable for when a school is failing. “Holding a manager accountable is how you get things done,” said Soliday. Many of the laws passed in the 2011 General Assembly for items like school vouchers are being watched over by house members to see just what effect the new laws will have before any other major changes are made, Soliday said. State Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, encouraged teachers to form an association or be part of a movement against the “painful changes.” “Change is what it is by description. It’s not a permanent thing,” he said. Papas said parents can also do their part by understanding their child’s needs. More parents are unfortunately finding less time to spend with their children because of long work hours, she said. Members of the audience included a number of Valparaiso teachers who reminded the legislators of the $3.2 million shortfall in the school district’s General Fund for 2012, and without any relief money coming from the state, many teachers are concerned about whether the schools can perform basic functions. “We’re in a crisis,” one teacher said. Valparaiso Community School board is considering a voter referendum on creating a special tax levy to salvage staff and curriculum, not unlike the Duneland School Corporation which is contemplating establishing a new property tax as an additional revenue source. The Duneland School Board will host two public input sessions this week, the first of which begins tonight at 7 p.m. in the Chesterton High School auditorium, followed by a second session on Thursday. Duneland School Board member Ralph Ayres said the board must decide at their Feb. 13 meeting whether to pursue a referendum in time for the May 8 primary elections and that is why it is crucial to hear from local residents this week. The legislators will gather again on Saturday, Feb. 25 for another public forum hosted by the Indiana Retired Teachers’ Association at Thomas Jefferson Middle School in Valparaiso at 9:30 a.m., UniservDirector of ISTA Andrew Borrelli announced. The discussion which will include a broad range of public policy bills will be moderated by Ayres, a former state representative. Posted 2/6/2012

Another Blast From The Past, Circa 2008

As I suspected, the Channel 11 News Report, which has been picked up by Indian Country publications around the country, incorrectly characterized our Tribal governments as perpetrators rather than the victims of mismanagement. The thrust of the report is that the BIA and the IRRP program mismanaged the funds, failed to fill technical positions despite the availability of funds and failed to provide the oversight required as the fiduciary agency. As a result, needed Tribal infrastructure has not been built. I will call and get details on the $14 M fiasco but, I suspect, it wasn’t a single Village, although it was characterized as such. Channel 11’s presentation of the finding was misleading. Channel 11 states... “In the federal audit- of $32 million D.O.T. dollars handed out to Alaska Native communities every year only $3 to 4 million worth of road projects were actually verified as completed.” ...While the Report states “While 32 million in program funding was distributed to approximately 230 Alaska Native communities each year, only about $3 to $4 Million in road projects had any physical oversight or verification of work completed.” The first implies that only 3 or 4 million were completed. That is NOT true; the Report says that there was oversight provided on $3 or $4 Million dollars worth of projects meaning that we DO NOT KNOW the status of the other $28 M worth of projects. The point being NOT that $28 M worth of projects was mismanaged or incomplete, but that the OVERSIGHT over $28 M in projects was not provided. This is a VERY IMPORTANT difference. The Channel 11 spin implies that there is $28 M in failed projects and that is not what the report says. One of the specific instances cited in the report involves a $2 M unauthorized road project where the BIA itself was responsible for the directing that unauthorized use not the Tribe. The most egregious error in the Channel 11 report, however, is the following statement: “The letter from the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Interior to Secretary Ken Salazar warns; give Alaska Native tribal governments money and they will likely misuse it.” [Emphasis added] NOWHERE in the IG’s transmittal letter to Secretary Salazar was this stated. This conclusion was fabricated by Ms Gusty or her staff. Finally, the Report is, itself, not the source documentation and raises as many questions as it answers. 1. The $14 M conversion of funds to support tourism is vague. How exactly were those funds expended? Was it on a related road project or was it spent on non-transportation services? If it was the former, then there is some mitigation of value and benefit; if not, then the misuse is even more eggregious; 2. The “overtime” may have been a result of severe winter weather conditions required airport/road maintenance and the absence of qualified personnel. It may have been associated with emergency erosion or flooding. Again, there is insufficient data to judge. It is neither surprising nor shocking to me that the bureaucrats in charge of the program were unable to explain the circumstances. Having said all this, there appear to be at least one real instance of misuse/fraud on the local level; namely, the $500,000 used to purchase a restaurant/bar. Mismanagement, including failure to complete timely reports, is also doubtless rife throughout the villages. This speaks to the issue of capacity-building and local project management support. Elstun W. Lauesen,

BLAST FROM THE PAST-Letter to the Editor 10.10.09

'Efficient' system not always the best In response to the flag-waving chest-thumpers attacking Michael Moore for his movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," here's a bit of shocking news: 1. Capitalism is not a pure system or 2. Socialism is not devoid of enterprise. Americans who paid attention during the debate over auto bailout/loans from Congress should have picked up on a major point that American manufacturers made about their competitive disadvantage: European and Japanese socialism. The social safety net and health-care system provided through taxpayers in Europe and Japan effectively moves the unemployment insurance and health care cost "off the books" and away from the price of labor. America insists on financing those costs through an employer-based system, which pushes up commodity pricing. Since health care insurance costs are now almost 30 percent of labor pricing, the sacrifice comes out of wages. All that "efficiency" that politicians like to brag about? That is a result of more production with lower labor cost. Based on that theory of labor productivity, the cotton industry in the South before the Civil War was highly efficient. -- Elstun W. Lauesen Anchorage Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2009/10/09/968167/letters-to-the-editor-101009.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

Requiem for a Dream

http://youtu.be/22ut_pzoWgY

Neil Davis takes 'A Citizen's Look at Oil Taxation'

Neil Davis takes 'A Citizen's Look at Oil Taxation': UPDATE: Laurie Fagnani, president of the marketing firm MSI Communications, said that the Make Alaska Competitive Coalition is not funded by the Alliance, as alleged by Davis. She also said that h...

Alaska Energy Dudes and Divas: Permitting under way; Repsol presents lease plan ...

Alaska Energy Dudes and Divas: Permitting under way; Repsol presents lease plan ...: Eric Lidji For Petroleum New s Repsol YPF S.A. is planning to conduct one of the broadest single-season North Slope exploration campaigns i...

We Who Are Your Closest Friends

[Note- I heard this on Keillor's 'Writer's Almanac"; it is simply brilliant in its smoldering effectiveness. There are sometimes in our lives, narcissistic personalities who see themselves as victims, who view their lives as a fateful target and who exhaust us with constant emotional demands of their squid-like ego they keep ensconced in a grainy twisted clamshell.-Dagoog]
 We Who Are Your Closest Friends
Phillip Lopate

We who are
your closest friends
feel the time
has come to tell you
that every Thursday
we have been meeting,
as a group,
to devise ways
to keep you
in perpetual uncertainty
frustration
discontent and
torture
by neither loving you
as much as you want
nor cutting you adrift.
Your analyst is
in on it,
plus your boyfriend
and your ex-husband;
and we have pledged
to disappoint you
as long as you need us.
In announcing our
association
we realize we have
placed in your hands
a possible antidote
against uncertainty
indeed against ourselves.
But since our Thursday nights
have brought us
to a community
of purpose
rare in itself
with you as
the natural center,
we feel hopeful you
will continue to make unreasonable
demands for affection
if not as a consequence
of your disastrous personality
then for the good of the collective.

A Roundup of My Favorite Rapture Images circa May 21, 2011

Two Views of the Movie "Atlas Shrugged"

View One. The Tea Party Express.

Normally we're not too focused on what movies are playing in local cinemas, but the release of Atlas Shrugged The Movie (based on Ayn Rand's monumental book) has become a seminal event in the tea party movement.

And we've got some good news to report to you on the success of this movie that has liberal film critics up in arms.

In its debut weekend, Atlas Shrugged surprised everyone, grossing more in ticket sales per movie screen than any other movie save the hit family movie, "Rio."

And this week, Atlas Shrugged expands - from 299 screens last weekend to 423+ screens this weekend.  You can find the closest movie theater showing the film near you - FIND MOVIE THEATER HERE

The movie, like the book, serves as a wake up call to the dangers posed when governments take on too much power and subvert the will and freedom of the individual.  Specifically, it showcases what happens when entrepreneurship and free market principles are deemed to be unseemly and unacceptable to Big Government.

When you watch the movie you'll feel like you could be watching the real-live events of today, not a fictionalized account written by Ayn Rand some 60+ years ago.

And the fact that this movie touches on many of the problems we face today, and that we in the tea party movement are fighting, explains why so many liberal movie critics have slammed this movie and urged people not to see it.   They don't want you to see this movie, because they don't want you to see the truth about what is happening in America today.

Michael Phillips, writing in the Los Angeles Times, complained about the film's "tea-stained politics."
Peter Travers in RollingStones vented, "Who's the idiot responsible for this fiasco?" Roger Ebert gave the film just 1-star and whined:  "And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault."
Peter Debruge incorporated a swipe at Fox News Channel in his review for Variety, writing that: "...Atlas Shrugged" becomes a series of polite policy conversations interrupted by Fox News-style updates whenever exposition is called for..."

Yes, we get it, liberal film critics.  You all can't stand free markets, and you can't stand that there is a film out there that echoes many of the same evils that the tea party movement here in America is fighting against.

You can see the movie for yourself this weekend, and in the process angry a Big Government, autocratic, liberal.  Watch it again, even if you've already seen it once.  Oh, and  be sure to take a friend with you too.

To find the nearest cinema showing "Atlas Shrugged" - JUST CLICK HERE.


View 2.  The Washington Post.

By Michael Gerson, Thursday, April 21, 8:00 PM

The movie “Atlas Shrugged,” adapted from Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel by the same name, is a triumph of cinematic irony. A work that lectures us endlessly on the moral superiority of heroic achievement is itself a model of mediocrity. In this, the film perfectly reflects both the novel and the mind behind it.
Rand is something of a cultural phenomenon — the author of potboilers who became an ethical and political philosopher, a libertarian heroine. But Rand’s distinctive mix of expressive egotism, free love and free-market metallurgy does not hold up very well on the screen. The emotional center of the movie is the success of high-speed rail — oddly similar to a proposal in Barack Obama’s last State of the Union address. All of the characters are ideological puppets. Visionary, comely capitalists are assaulted by sniveling government planners, smirking lobbyists, nagging wives, rented scientists and cynical humanitarians. When characters begin disappearing — on strike against the servility and inferiority of the masses — one does not question their wisdom in leaving the movie.

None of the characters expresses a hint of sympathetic human emotion — which is precisely the point. Rand’s novels are vehicles for a system of thought known as Objectivism. Rand developed this philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a napkin. Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible. “The Objectivist ethics, in essence,” said Rand, “hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.”
If Objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and prone to stormy egotism and hero worship. Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand’s achievement was to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of acne.
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
Many libertarians trace their inspiration to Rand’s novels, while sometimes distancing themselves from Objectivism. But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea — a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness. This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory — at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity — is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path, embracing equality as an absolute value. Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.
Conservatives have been generally suspicious of all ideologies, preferring long practice and moral tradition to utopian schemes of left or right. And Rand is nothing if not utopian. In “Atlas Shrugged,” she refers to her libertarian valley of the blessed as Atlantis.
It is an attractive place, which does not exist, and those who seek it drown.
michaelgerson@washpost.com

Oil Tax Winners & Losers

In any language, oil tax haste a bad idea
COMPASS: Other points of view

By ELSTUN LAUESEN

(04/16/11 19:01:50) Scott Hawkins' compass piece attacking the Senate ("Senate stands idle as pipeline dries up," April 14) for resisting lobbyists pushing for oil tax breaks is a classic piece of rhetoric and should be studied in all classrooms for its flaws.
First, Hawkins commits the fallacy of "argumentis ad populum" by treating us to a dog-and-pony parade of all tax-break supporters.
Next comes a false premise, which also poisons the well: "ACES is not working" is the premise. It is a "policy disaster" and is based on "punitive tax hikes."
Then Hawkins commits the error of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" or confusing a correlation with a causation -- specifically, that a drop in production on the North Slope is tied to ACES. It isn't. The governor's own charts show a long decline since the 1980s.
Then he "appeals to authority" -- quoting Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan of all people -- and sauces his rhetorical salad throughout with ridicule: the Senate is "out of touch," "obtuse," "sits on its hands."
He ends with arguments of emotive persuasion, fear: "oil pipeline close to shutting down."
Of particular note is his angry rejection of "study." He is angry that the Senate wants to study the issue. This seems odd coming from an economist, which he once was, but I guess it is understandable coming from a businessman beholden to the industry, which he now is.
The "studies" that Hawkins contemptuously rejects are precisely what is required by the fiduciary trust embedded in the oath of office that the senators took, to uphold our state constitution (e.g., Title VIII) and to look out for our collective interests, not just those of Mr. Hawkins.
There were so many red flags on the field of play during this debate over oil tax cuts that for the Senate to do anything less than deliberate would be an abrogation of their responsibility; Sen. Gary Stevens and his colleagues deserve applause rather than ridicule.
One red flag in particular has not been talked about much but deserves to be mentioned. The governor hired a consultant to review the House version of the tax break in February. The consultant is Richard Ruggiero with Gaffney, Cline & Associates of Houston, Texas. Here is a summary of what he told the House Resources Committee:
The companies may or may not invest the proceeds of their tax cuts in Alaska. There are no guarantees. Mr. Ruggiero wisely took no position on HB 110. Instead he presented a range of possibilities based on his reading of the bill. If Sean Parnell's gamble pays off and the oil companies vigorously reinvest in Alaska's fields, the state could realize $210 billion over the life of the fields; if, however, they reinvested those tax-break dollars elsewhere, the state would lose $20 billion over the next 15-20 years. In so many words, Mr. Ruggiero was telling us that HB 110 (and its companion Senate bill) is a crapshoot.
Since then, a new analysis reveals a somewhat more pessimistic view of the crapshoot. Mr. Ruggiero gets wiser by the day.
On April 13, Sen. Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) produced a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of the effects Conoco Phillips' proposed $5 billion investment if HB 110 were implemented.
As Sen. Wielechowski put it: "Essentially ... Alaskans are being asked to give up $13.5 billion ... in exchange for about $3.2 billion in new state revenues (from new oil production). I don't know many CEOs who would be OK with a deal like that."
Now back to Mr. Hawkins and his echo chamber of real and alleged supporters. They all would be more intellectually honest to say that they need the state and future Alaskans to lose so they can win. That way, when they all leave us to follow Big Oil out of Alaska to work in some other center of global investments funded partly by our dollars, we won't take it personally.

---

Elstun Lauesen is a lifelong Alaskan, financial development consultant and former socioeconomic officer with the state Pipeline Coordinator's Office.

Let The Big Dog Out!

Big Dipper Oil & Gas. Have you heard of it? It operates here in Alaska. It owns Billions of Barrels of oil and it owns trillions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. It pays you a dividend every year. Unlike Conoco-Phillips that claims to be “Alaska’s Oil and Gas Company”, Big Dipper Oil & Gas really is. Big Dipper Oil Company or “Big Dog” is, of course, the State of Alaska.

Now let’s see a show of hands: how many Alaskans have received a dividend directly from Conoco-Phillips? Ok…I see a few of you out there. How many of you receive a dividend directly from he State of Alaska. Do you get it now?

There is only one oil company that cares about maximizing benefits to Alaskans; there is only one Oil Company that gives a fig about Alaska’s ‘public interest’ and that is the Big Dog.

All the other companies are up here pretending to be our friends because they want what the Big Dog’s got. Oh, they spend a pretty penny on the gauzy lens and inspirational music, showing our First People in moving shots and lots of neighborly faces talking sincerely for the camera. But in the end, when the easy money is gone, so will they. As Walter Hickel once told a reluctant ARCO regarding undeveloped leases: “You drill ‘em or I will!”

Wally Hickel went eyeball-to-eyeball with the industry and the industry blinked.

Now that was a CEO of Big Dog that all of us Alaskans could be proud of.

Contrast THAT CEO to Sean Parnell. It appears to me that the main reason Governor Parnell can’t go eyeball to eyeball with the industry is that the Governor closes his eyes when he kisses.

Here are a few facts that haven’t been made in other articles on the Governor’s proposed Tax rollback for the Oil Companies:

·      A consultant hired by the Administration, Rich Ruggiero, of Gaffney, Cline & Associates of Houston, Texas, told the House Resource committee last month that he couldn’t endorse the Governor’s bill, but could only give an up and down scenario; In other words: it’s a crap shoot. 

·      Conoco-Phillips most recent 10-K report openly discusses its plans for the next 5 years: sell old assets, buy-back shares, enhance shareholder equity and invest in proven, emerging ventures.

·      Over 47% of new hires for Alaskan oil fields have come from outside the state. Let’s make certain that any employment deal that may be struck is not just an assurance of jobs, but hires inside Alaska and the best way to ensure that is through a project-labor agreement and a unionized workforce.

·      None of these oil companies are standing still, they are all investing to meet the changing future and so should we. $2 B worth of holes in the ground, if the desired reinvestment is realized, would rerun the last 20 years but would not diversify or transform our economy for a new century. Perhaps a $250 M a year University-Conoco partnership that would effectively shift their Research and Development unit to Alaska from Texas would look like more sincere investment than some vague promise to spend $5 B of our dollars enhancing oil production.

The bottom line is that our oil and gas future should be driven by Alaska’s real Oil and Gas Company and NOT by someone else. Alaskan’s don’t care how they do it ‘Outside’? It’s time we prove it.

Elstun Lauesen is an economic development consultant, writer, and lifelong observer of the Alaskan political scene.

How To Bargain With An Oil Company For Its Tax Break

If Conoco-Phillips wants a 40% reduction in oil taxes in Alaska, here is what I would ask for in return: Move CP's R & D unit to Alaska and finance it with part of the tax roll back. Alaskans have this crazy notion that if only the oil companies invest in field exploration and development that the next 30 years will be jut like the last 30. Well--that ain't gonna happen. Why? Because it is not in the interest of the growth in their stockholder's return on equity that they go back to the future--they are going forward to the future and they are going to finance part of that acceleration with our Tax dollars. These Corporations aren't going to stand still; they are dynamic and they are going to change and Alaska should be positioned to change as well--right alongside them. So, here is my modest proposal--if CP wants a 40% reduction in its tax burden in Alaska, we will propose that they bring their Research and Development subsidiary up here and capitalize advancements in emerging technologies right here in Alaska. The profile of their Research and Development unit can be found on page 22 of their current 10-K Report. As part of their investment in research, CP is currently making significant investments in University Research in Colorado and Texas. In Financial Note 23, Pp 130 of the 10-K report, R&D expenses were roughly $230 M in 2010. At that level of funding, and assuming a $750 M annual tax benefit for Conoco Phillips from lowering their taxes, those investments from our tax breaks could anchor a significant R&D backbone within our University System, fund quality support jobs and still leave enough money for significant investment in Alaskan fields.
**********************************************************

Technology Development
Our Technology group focuses on developing new business opportunities designed to provide future growth prospects for ConocoPhillips. Focus areas include advanced hydrocarbon processes, energy efficiency technologies, new petroleum-based products, renewable fuels and carbon capture and conversion technologies. We are progressing the technology development of second-generation biofuels with Iowa State University, the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels and Archer Daniels Midland. We have also established a relationship with the University of Texas Energy Institute to collaborate on emerging technologies. Internally, we are continuing to evaluate wind, solar and geothermal investment opportunities.

In early 2011, we announced we will partner with General Electric Capital and NRG Energy, Inc., to form a new joint venture, Energy Technology Ventures (ETV), which will focus on development of next generation energy technology. ETV will invest in, and offer commercial collaboration opportunities to, venture- and growth-stage energy technology companies in the renewable power generation, smart grid, energy efficiency, oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy, emission controls and biofuels sectors.

In addition, we are equal co-venturers with General Electric Company in a Global Water Sustainability Center in Qatar, which researches and develops water solutions for the petroleum, petrochemical, municipal and agricultural sectors.

We offer a gasification technology (E-Gas™) that uses petroleum coke, coal, and other low-value hydrocarbons as feedstock, resulting in high-value synthesis gas used for a slate of products, including power, substitute natural gas (SNG), hydrogen and chemicals. This clean, efficient technology facilitates carbon capture and storage, as well as minimizes criteria pollutant emissions and reduces water consumption. E-Gas™ Technology has been utilized in commercial applications since 1987 and is currently licensed to several third parties. We have also licensed E-Gas™ to third parties in Asia and North America, and are pursuing several additional licensing opportunities.

Parnell's Own Advisor Refuses To Endorse HB 110

This is an excerpt from the Teamster's Legislative Newsletter:

"The Governor has said the state would continue to receive its fair share of revenue, while establishing a secure investment climate for our industry. A consultant hired by the Administration, Rich Ruggiero, stated in his testimony last week to the House Resource committee that he was not endorsing the Governor’s bill, but did give an up and down scenario. If the legislature passes HB 110 the upside could result in companies redoubling investment on the North Slope and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and they will continue to operate through 2050. His downside scenario is the legislators cut taxes and the companies don’t invest, and TAPS stops flowing sometime before 2030. If TAPS last longer, the state could receive $210 billion dollars in tax revenues or lose $20 billion dollars over the next 15 to 20 years by reducing taxes without an effect. According to Ruggiero, if companies want to take Alaska oil and reinvest somewhere else, then the state should get its share, if they want to develop the North Slope then the state should encourage the companies to do so. The bill, with a few amendments, moved out of House Resources on February 28th."

Richard Ruggiero LNG Manager

Gaffney , Cline & Associates
1360 Post Oak Blvd # 2500
Houston, Texas 77056
713 850 9955
United States

GCA is an international advisory firm focused on the provision of integrated technical and managerial services and independent advice to all sectors of the oil and Gas Industry.

http://www.gaffney-cline.com/default.asp

Senator Bill Wielechowski Defends ACES: Moore Up North, Taped 03/03.11