I guess you like Jimmy Carter too I presume.
Is what you're really saying that instead of basing the State's leasing charge to oil companies (I think that's what you're calling a "windfall profits tax") on the unit of oil produced, the leasing charge is based on the going price of the unit of oil produced?
And IF that is so, if the going price of oil was at a low and the unit charge was fixed at a price that made its production too costly, wouldn't the oil companies be a whole lot less incentivized to increase production? And if the unit charge was fixed at a price extremely low compared to the going price of oil, while the companies would have incentive to produce more oil, would that be an extraordinarly stupid business move on the part of the owners of the land being leased? Wouldn't that be a pretty dumb exective decision for someone watching out for the state's self interests?
In other states, lease income derived from activities on state-owned land goes right back into government bureacracy. If I correctly understood the material I spent hours reading after googling the issue online (which, again, I urge FReepers and lurkers to do as well, because this serious charge against Palin is worth investigating) the leasing negotiation change that Palin made ended up putting more than $1000 MORE on top of the $1200 already being paid in dividends to individual citizens in Alaska that year (I think it was 2007) to spend, invest, or save as they please. HOW exactly was that a negative impact to business?