Aw common, you are now making a case for a different standard for Alaska than every other state; mineral rights in any other state are the state's. Are you suggesting that the oil in Alaska should be the property of the Federal Government like it is in, er, RUSSIA?
No wonder you are so familiar with the "dribbling of Stalinists!" Takes one to know one, right?
>> Aw common, you are now making a case for a different standard for Alaska than every other state; mineral rights in any other state are the state's. <<
Mineral rights belong to whoever owns the land (although the states do have the prerogartive to regulate such rights as they do many other possessions, like in Virginia, cars are taxed :^( ). Especially in many Western states, the land either belongs to the state, or the state permitted the transfer of the land to the federal government with the proviso that they retain mineral rights. In some cases (i don't know whether this is the norm or the exception), the territorial government was considered the owner of the land when the territory was organized. In very famous Clinton-era struggles, certain states (Vermont? West Virginia? Nevada? I'm not sure which ones) tried to increase mineral rights' costs when the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's attempts to do so.
In fact, while I would consider it corrupt, I can't even think of any way to block the federal government from taking state land for "national parks," and then selling mineral rights (aside from the obvious, very severe political consequences of such an act, which in the case of Alaska would be a far less heinious act, since the federal government paid for Alaska precisely because of the promise of natural resources and key geographic positioning.)
But even so, I would agree with you that it would be heinious if the federal government did indeed sieze the land and then either developed the oil fields themselves, or sold it to parties to whom the state would not have permitted to acquire the land. (There are some situations I could foresee where I would approve of this Congres authorized the purchase and sale of the land precisely to permit its development, as a way of helping Alaska be exempted from some other law...)
As it stands, as far as I know, in many cases, it is the oil and gas companies who own, or lease, or make other arrangements to control the land. In other cases, it is the federal government which owns land, although I'll admit I don't know if federal lands generate a substantial amount of oil or gas.
Now, what Ive written so far is a rebuttal of your notion that other states automatically own mineral rights. And even if Alaska does own its', big deal: the tax in question is paid by consumers. I never claimed to be an expert on Alaska in specific, and I can easily imagine that there are laws and conditions unique to Alaska. I don't know if you are asserting that the federal government siezed land which it had not previously owned, or was recognized as already privately owned previous to the purchase of Alaska from Russia, or was the legally recognized communal land of indigenous peoples, and that the land had been seized for the purpose of developing oil or gas rights (as opposed to say, legitimate military purposes). If you are asserting these things which were not previously part of the discussion, than I'd be glad to hear the state of Alaska's side. But what I was confronted with was the apparant assertion that the gas tax represented the federal government taking Alaska's property away from her, when plainly it is the consumers whose money is being taken.
The fact that a given state produces a disproportionate share of a commodity which is taxed does not demonstrate that the state has been unfairly taxed. Lots of trans-Atlantic flights come from Newark, while few come from Kansas... should Newark get more federal money? And sure Alaska produces a lot of fuel... but so do Texas and Louisia ... OK... well, Louisiana recently did.
So, in summary, if you have an argument to make that the feds siezed something unfairly from Alaska which they were not entitled to, make your case. But don't whine at me that somehow Alaska deserves more pork because New Yorkers pay gas taxes.
>> Aw common, you are now making a case for a different standard for Alaska than every other state; mineral rights in any other state are the state's. <<
Mineral rights belong to whoever owns the land (although the states do have the prerogartive to regulate such rights as they do many other possessions, like in Virginia, cars are taxed :^( ). Especially in many Western states, the land either belongs to the state, or the state permitted the transfer of the land to the federal government with the proviso that they retain mineral rights. In some cases (i don't know whether this is the norm or the exception), the territorial government was considered the owner of the land when the territory was organized. In very famous Clinton-era struggles, certain states (Vermont? West Virginia? Nevada? I'm not sure which ones) tried to increase mineral rights' costs when the Republican Congress rejected Clinton's attempts to do so.
In fact, while I would consider it corrupt, I can't even think of any way to block the federal government from taking state land for "national parks," and then selling mineral rights (aside from the obvious, very severe political consequences of such an act, which in the case of Alaska would be a far less heinious act, since the federal government paid for Alaska precisely because of the promise of natural resources and key geographic positioning.)
But even so, I would agree with you that it would be heinious if the federal government did indeed sieze the land and then either developed the oil fields themselves, or sold it to parties to whom the state would not have permitted to acquire the land. (There are some situations I could foresee where I would approve of this Congres authorized the purchase and sale of the land precisely to permit its development, as a way of helping Alaska be exempted from some other law...)
As it stands, as far as I know, in many cases, it is the oil and gas companies who own, or lease, or make other arrangements to control the land. In other cases, it is the federal government which owns land, although I'll admit I don't know if federal lands generate a substantial amount of oil or gas.
Now, what Ive written so far is a rebuttal of your notion that other states automatically own mineral rights. And even if Alaska does own its', big deal: the tax in question is paid by consumers. I never claimed to be an expert on Alaska in specific, and I can easily imagine that there are laws and conditions unique to Alaska. I don't know if you are asserting that the federal government siezed land which it had not previously owned, or was recognized as already privately owned previous to the purchase of Alaska from Russia, or was the legally recognized communal land of indigenous peoples, and that the land had been seized for the purpose of developing oil or gas rights (as opposed to say, legitimate military purposes). If you are asserting these things which were not previously part of the discussion, than I'd be glad to hear the state of Alaska's side. But what I was confronted with was the apparant assertion that the gas tax represented the federal government taking Alaska's property away from her, when plainly it is the consumers whose money is being taken.
The fact that a given state produces a disproportionate share of a commodity which is taxed does not demonstrate that the state has been unfairly taxed. Lots of trans-Atlantic flights come from Newark, while few come from Kansas... should Newark get more federal money? And sure Alaska produces a lot of fuel... but so do Texas and Louisia ... OK... well, Louisiana recently did.
So, in summary, if you have an argument to make that the feds siezed something unfairly from Alaska which they were not entitled to, make your case. But don't whine at me that somehow Alaska deserves more pork because New Yorkers pay gas taxes.