Why do we care ...

Some recently have questioned why we have and continue to spend so much time discussing the issues around the cashable oil tax credits program.

That's a very easy question to answer.  Some companies and their hangers on are trying to convince the state currently to fork over around $750 million of the state's money -- for those that like to use the CBR to define the state's savings, about 20% of the state's remaining financial reserves -- when, according to the statutes that have governed the program since its inception the state only currently (i.e., this year) owes about $77 million.

At a time when the state is in a challenging financial situation and already defaulting on other, statutory obligations to the state's own citizens (see "The Alaska Legislature tosses out the Rule of Law,"  https://goo.gl/ZXh5RN), it is simply neither good fiscal practice for the state to be paying more than it is statutorily obligated on any program, nor fair to Alaskans not being paid even their minimum statutory entitlement for others to receive more than theirs.

Those advocating for the higher payment have tried various arguments -- that the state "owes" the larger amount, that the state "promised" to pay it (even if it doesn't currently, strictly "owe" it), and that even if the state neither strictly owed nor exactly promised the amount, that the state nevertheless should pay it to "preserve the state's reputation."

In various columns we have responded in various ways by calling "BS" on all of those arguments because they deserve it.

Last evening we had a relatively straightforward exchange with Alaska Journal of Commerce editor Andrew Jensen that, in the last back and forth provided us with the opportunity to sum up our motivation even more clearly.

Here is what we said in response to a comment from Jensen:

... you should keep in mind I have been in and around the industry for nearly 40 years now and have seen repeatedly the various games that various segments of the industry play. These guys read the statutes and knew the risks going in. Now that one of those risks has come to pass -- the drop in oil prices and resulting fall in production tax revenues, and thus, the level of the annual repayment obligation -- they are playing the "victim" card in an effort nevertheless to extract a financial benefit to which they otherwise are not entitled. 

Normally, I wouldn't care much and would watch their efforts unfold (amused) from the sidelines, but given the state's current fiscal situation its become a game with material fiscal consequences to Alaska and thus, one which needs to be called out. My disappointment with the stories in your and other publications is that you are falling for their tactics hook, line and sinker and not even attempting to present a balanced view of what is going on. I have been in conference rooms back at company HQ's or banks when that has happened elsewhere and everyone has a good laugh at the "rubes" that fell for it. I am disappointed to see that working here.

That's about as clear as we can put why we care about the issue -- and why we are concerned others don't.

Those interested in the full exchange from the beginning can find it here: https://goo.gl/uBcKpt.