Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
ELECTIONS 2014
SENATE DISTRICT A
SENATE DISTRICT C
PETE KELLY
TAMARA ROSELIUS
CLICK BISHOP
DOROTHY SHOCKLEY
Republican, Fairbanks
Democrat, Fairbanks
Republican, Fairbanks
Democrat, Fairbanks
Do you support the oil tax plan created by Senate Bill 21, known as the More Alaska Production Act, or support its repeal? Please explain.
Voting yes on Measure 1 will kill the Fairbanks economy. In 2007, the legislature drastically raised taxes on oil production when production was already in decline. Predictably, the decline got worse. The 2007 tax, known as ACES, created a goofy business environment where at high oil prices oil companies were punished for producing more oil, but at low and mid-range prices they actually paid less money to the state. At current prices we get more money from the oil companies than we would from ACES. ACES was a mess, but a vote “yes” makes it law again.
I support repealing SB 21. With no incentives for Alaska Hire, or reinvestment in our oil fields, this isn’t the best way to manage our resources. Production qualifying as “new” oil will get such generous incentives under SB 21 that it will essentially bring the state little to no revenue. It was a giveaway to include in “new” oil the crude produced from fields that had started producing before SB 21 passed, and was moving forward under prior law. We need incentives for the provision of good paying Alaska jobs and increased production in new fields. There are better answers.
Yes, I support SB 21. The oil industry and Alaska needs stability in oil taxes. We are already seeing a large increase in oil related activities. Currently they are on track to increase capital spending that will increase oil production. If the industry isn’t moving the needle in the right direction, history proves the legislature is not afraid of changing the tax structure. I would welcome any one person or group of people who would like more information on this subject to contact me. I would be glad to have a deeper discussion.
I do not support the oil tax plan created by SB 21. I would amend the bill to ensure that tax incentives are given only when production goals are met. However, the reality is our major oil fields are mature and declining. If you look at the history of the three big oil companies they take the oil that is easy to drill, develop, produce and move on. Legislators need to stand up and get the best deal for our oil. We also need to plan for ‘rainy days’ when there is less oil in the pipeline. Setting up endowments for education, transportation, renewable energy and health care would be a start.
Do you support same-sex marriage? What type of same-sex legislation, if any, would you support?
I do not support same-sex marriage. The people have voted in this state and majority of the other states to not recognize gay marriage. By the way, states don’t “ban” samesex marriage. Instead, they just don’t recognize those unions as a marriage. Furthermore, this is not a civil rights issue either. If two guys want to get married in Alaska, they can. No one is going to beat down their door and arrest them. The state just leaves them alone. If the Alaska judiciary tries to reverse the will of Alaskans — I will fight them.
Yes. Marriage has become much more than a religious institution and confers many state rights on the partners; conferring everything from property rights, to legal status, to medical care to partners. Because federal judges are ruling consistently that a ban on same sex marriages is unconstitutional, it is time to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Alaska ban. This cannot stand under federal law, and our state has many more pressing issues we can turn our time, money, and attention to.
We all have different religions, beliefs and lifestyles. Who am I to judge someone who lives differently than me.
I support equal right for all regardless of race, color, religion and who one chooses to marry. Government involvement in personal issues is government overreach in my opinion.
The last two legislative sessions have seen large deficit spending. How should the state and the Legislature address declining income and spending in the next session?
As Senate chairman for the state’s operating budget, I, with my colleagues, produced a budget that reduced agency operations by $50 million. Runaway spending of 6.5 percent per year was the norm for ten years. In my first year as chairman we brought that growth to zero. Last year we actually reduced it — I intend to do it again.
We need to repeal SB21. Our state constitution is unequivocal; and Wally Hickle said it best, we are an “owner state”. Alaska has a wealth of untapped resources; it is shameful that our past legislature ran such deficits. Additionally, anything that can help Alaskans’ lives now, higher wages and lower fuel expenses, will translate into money flowing into our economy.
Reducing the rate of general fund spending is critical for Alaska’s financial future. Over the last two years, the legislature has reduced general fund appropriation in the state’s operating budget. This last legislative session alone we lowered the overall operating budget by 15.9 percent. We need to continue reducing general fund appropriations while doing everything we can to increase and diversify our revenues.
The state cannot continue deficit spending. We must make the hard choices of cutting back and balance our operating and capital budgets.
Should the state request or accept congressional earmarks? Explain.
Yes. Sometimes the process that produces earmarks is bad — sometimes it is not. It depends on the specific project and how it is handled. Believe me there are things about the Federal budget process that are far more scandalous than earmarks. In general, they are a thing of the past so it’s kind of a moot point.
On this, I agree with Sens. Murkowski and Begich. There is a place for earmarks and that is why we elect our officials, to advocate for us. Currently, Congress is giving the money to administrative agencies and the money is distributed with less oversight than when it is handled openly in Congress.
The state of Alaska should accept federal funds provided they help promote a more healthy and economic self-sustaining Alaska. Rejecting federal funding does not save money, it just allows federal agencies to spend it on their priorities rather than ours.
Yes, I believe the state could request and accept congressional earmarks. As citizens of the United States we are entitled to a percentage of what we pay out in taxes.
Would you support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers, to follow students to private or religious schools?
Yes. Vouchers empower families to make critical decisions about their children’s education and give them far more choices. The system is struggling. Thank God for good teachers; somehow they are doing a good job of educating our kids in a flawed system, but ultimately many of them get overwhelmed as well. Vouchers that follow students will improve the system.
No. This is the wrong time for this discussion. With public education in need of direct dollars to classrooms, to provide $100 million more for students to attend private schools is unrealistic and unfair. Additionally, private schools won’t want to have to change administratively to meet the legal requirements involved in needing to provide equal educational opportunity for all students.
No. I fully support the public education system in Alaska and will continue to do so if I am re-elected. A strong public education system is the great equalizer for all children. While I am always open to advancing public education, I have not seen evidence that adopting a school voucher program will either save money or further enhance public education.
I would not support a state program allowing tax dollars, such as vouchers to follow students to private or religious schools. Although I would support the base student allocation follow the student in the public school system and give it back if a student drops out of school. I think it would make School Districts more accountable.
Should the Base Student Allocation be tied to the rate of inflation? Why or why not?
No. The argument isn’t about money it’s about excellence. We have put a staggering amount of money into a system that is not giving us the results we want. This year we put a huge increase into education that has a three year funding life. If that money is to continue — we want ideas to improve our kids’ education.
Yes. Education is an important priority if we want to move Alaska forward economically with a well-educated work force. If we inflation proof the BSA, we can have more certainty with education spending from year to year. To provide a consistently quality service, we need consistency with budgets, so we can better plan for the future.
Conventional wisdom would say yes, but determining the amount of appropriation for education, is the job of the legislature. The amount allocated to education needs to be assessed each year in light of all state needs and available revenues.
Yes, I agree the base student allocation (ABS) be tied to the rate of inflation. It’s only fair. School districts should not have to worry about having enough money to pay fuel and electric bills.
With millions of dollars dedicated to the Alaska liquefied natural gas pipeline project, in-state pipeline project and the Interior Energy Project, should the state continue to fund the Susitna-Watana Dam? Why or why not?
There is a limit to how many mega projects we can do at one time. I support the idea of moving ahead on Susitna, but we have a limited amount of money and our priority right now is natural gas.
Yes, but not until immediate needs are met. Alaskans are being forced to leave Alaska because of energy costs. The $90 million necessary for prep work before we can apply for a construction license shouldn’t be a top priority. We need renewable energy sources, but limited dollars need to go for more immediate help, until a gas line is operational.
I support the dam. I recently toured Hoover Dam which has been in service for almost 80 years producing electricity and providing flood control. Hydroelectric is a renewable resource, and we need to preserve our options.
I believe the state needs to diversify its time and money when looking at cheaper energy solutions to benefit all Alaskans. I am not totally sold on the Susitna Watana Dam project at this time. I would like to hear from the people who will be closely affected by this project first then decide.
With less money to go around, how should the state prioritize the capital projects budget?
Finish the half-built projects, stay on deferred maintenance and invest in projects that will benefit the most people. After that, address regional issues.
Projects need prioritized by their ability to generate economic activity and income for Alaskans. We need an open budget system; requests available for public review and legislative discussion. This isn’t the case now. Secrecy prevails, with items placed in the budget during final days without hearings. The chairs of the finance committees should be held accountable to change this immediately.
I firmly believe the state should invest in energy and infrastructure projects that benefit Alaska and will grow the economy and lower our cost of living.
With less money to go around the state, the highest priority should be the health and welfare of the people, food security and education.
The Legislature signed off on tax credits for in-state oil refineries. Should the state be offering subsidies or tax-credits for in-state refineries? Explain.
Yes. We have to do something or the refining business in Fairbanks will fail. Our royalty system punishes refiners who refine Alaskan oil. This problem needs to be overcome. Tax credits are a step in the right direction. It’s too late to do anything about Flint Hills, but we must take measures to protect our only remaining refinery.
Subsidies used to help a business that helps Alaska like PetroStar, with their supplying of jet fuel to Eielson, are important for keeping Eielson viable. However, tax-credits given last session to a for-profit company not needing them or asking for them are wasteful. Such is the case with Tesoro, a company that additionally reaps large margins in our gasoline market.
A healthy refining business in Alaska is essential. Providing fuel refined in the state for our armed forces, the airline industry (especially cargo), and having a locally produced supply of fuel for our Alaskan residents are all important goals. Additionally, the people who work in the refineries are all Alaskans that live in our communities and contribute to the local economy.
First of all in-state refineries are extremely expensive to run, plus there isn’t a big enough demand/market in Alaska for them to be profitable. With that said, I would support a tax credit as long as the state is fair and gives other industries the same tax credits.
QUESTIONS
15