This week, the big political news (other than the continuing saga of Weiner-gate) was the release of Sarah Palin’s emails. The emails – about 24,000 of them – were distributed by the state of Alaska in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by news organizations during the 2008 presidential race.
To be fair, I have no interest in sorting through tens of thousands of work-related emails written by Palin. And I sympathize with her on some level because it feels incredibly invasive even though I know that much of the personal material in the emails has been redacted. I also realize they are work-related and I understand that her work is as a public figure. But keeping work and personal emails separate can be tough: emails may cross, questions in work-related emails may have a personal component and occasionally, you just plain ol’ forget that your email account is supposed to be for work purposes. It is the instant nature of email which opens itself up to be more informal and breezy.
For kicks, I opened up my work email this morning to see what would have been included over just the past week – notwithstanding years and years. Mostly, there were a number of client emails. There was also a reminder from the Pennsylvania Bar Institute about a seminar that I’m working on, attorney and tax-related list-serves materials and some queries from my staff about drafts, vacation days and the like. But there was also a note from my dad asking about my daughter and a forwarded invitation to a family event at the arboretum – emails that would have been better suited to my personal account.
No great revelations there and certainly nothing that would make the press. But then I haven’t been governor of any state and I’ve never been asked to run on the presidential ticket for the United States.
I do, however, get the interest that taxpayers have about the emails. They show a glimpse into the everyday work of our elected officials, much in the same way that the presidential letters do. On the policy side, they offer an interesting perspective as to what really goes on behind closed doors. It is all too easy to perpetuate an image, especially in Palin’s case, as being one-dimensional and singular-minded.
So what do Sarah Palin’s emails have to offer in terms of policy and perspective? Most notably, when it comes to taxes, they paint a picture that’s not as anti-tax as Palin’s vice presidential run would suggest.
In 2007, Palin put forth a plan called “Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share” (sometimes called ACES) which imposed a progressive tax on oil profits. The tax, which was passed in a special legislative session, bumped the oil profits tax up to 25% on net profits with an increase for each dollar over a fixed cost (about $52 a barrel).
The tax has been compared to the federal windfall oil profits tax proposed by Democrats in 2008 and criticized by Palin’s running mate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain’s economic team, however, has disagreed with the characterization.
Interestingly, Palin’s emails show that the push to get the plan passed was not easy. Republicans in the Last Frontier were opposed to a tax which they felt would discourage investment and Palin found it necessary to approach them individually in an effort to garner support. However, her technique was considered as very heavy-handed by many lawmakers who accused Palin, among other things, of threatening to withhold district funding in retaliation for not supporting the bill or to campaign against them if they did not cooperate.
In an email from November, Palin denied the accusations and asked staffers how to best deal with them. She suggested that not talking to lawmakers anymore might be the best course of action.
The emails show that Palin did continue to talk to lawmakers about the plan. At the same time Palin was talking up Republicans about the bill, she was courting Democratic allies. Democrats in Alaska were thrilled to have Palin support a plan which they helped champion, a fact that led many to believe that Palin was more populist than conservative. However, Palin has indicated that her support of the bill was primarily to give more money back to the people of Alaska, a move that was influenced by a fellow Republican.
(If you have interest – and time – you can read Palin’s emails here.)
Despite the internal struggles in the legislature, ACES made it through the legislature relatively unscathed. You can read an analysis of the plan prepared by the Alaska Legislative Budget and Audit Committee here (downloads as a pdf).
Now, however, with Palin out of office, the tax law is back in the news. The new governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, is making waves about reducing the tax, arguing that higher taxes are discouraging oil companies from new investment in Alaska. Gov. Parnell said about the plan to roll back the tax:
Lower taxes means more competition. It means more jobs.
Kind of sounds like a presidential campaign speech we once heard, doesn’t it?
But not everyone is on board with eliminating or reducing the tax, citing it as a success. Taxes on oil production provide nearly 90% of Alaska’s state revenue. And while other states are floundering in the current economy, Alaska is sitting on a surplus, a surplus which is largely related to the increase in oil company revenue. Under the ACES scheme, the amount of tax payable by the oil companies increased when profits increased. That sort of structure isn’t generally embraced by Republicans as a policy rule but it has worked for Alaska, at least on paper.
Palin continues to stand behind the plan, even as it comes under attack by Republicans in her state. It’s not yet clear what will happen but chances are that the terms of ACES will come up again for a vote in January 2012. Gov. Parnell will no doubt have to do some political maneuvering of his own to garner support. I’m betting, after the disclosure of Palin’s emails, Parnell may be a bit more measured in his online correspondence. And you know what? I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Do you?
