I like Palin, though I don't think she's presidential material--I state that upfront because it's important for some to know. But there's one thing that's always bugged me about her position on oil--how is making the oil companies send checks to Alaskans "conservative"?
___________________________________________________________
Because the Alaskan Constitution says that the natural resources of Alaskan our the people's of Alaska . She did want the Constitution says and didn’t spend the money on bigger government.
Care to expand with specifics? If you chose to respond, please compare and contrast with some one you considered ‘presidential material’.
I ask this in the spirit of trying to understand your position in all of it's fullness and political gravitas.
What you think is relevant how?
She is currently leading in plenty of polls amongst Republicans for the 2012 primaries. If Republican primary voters think Sarah Palin is presidential material, then she is presidential material. That's the only thing that counts.
“But there's one thing that's always bugged me about her position on oil—how is making the oil companies send checks to Alaskans “conservative”? “
How is that not conservative?
Where does it say that big oil companies shouldn't send checks to the citizens of the state where they are extracting huge quantities of oil from, just because the Governor is conservative? It all comes down to the terms of the contract between the oil companies and the state.
In the UK, when Britain started lifting vast quantities of oil from the North Sea, the British government took a very big cut of the oil revenues from the oil companies, even though Margaret Thatcher, the conservative icon, was Prime Minister at the time.
I believe that oil is on state-owned land. Would you rather the money go to the state legislature in Juneau and let the politicians spend it, or would you rather see the money sent to the citizens of Alaska and let them spend it?
The land is state owned. The oil companies lease the land from the state by paying royalties. Instead of spending the money, the state returns the money to the people of the state.
Next time, instead of being so "bugged" by God-knows-what, you should look it up yourself.
In 1959, neither was Jack Kennedy. In 1943, neither was Harry S. Truman. In 1968, neither was Ronald Reagan.
And in 2009, Kerry and Obama still aren't, and neither is Slick from Arkansas.
it’s conservative by giving the money to the people not the government...the resourses are OURS Not the governments.
Royalty checks. The oil rights belong to Alaska, and the oil companies get to extract oil under licence. The royalties are cheap compared with those charged in Iraq.
The concept of property and the right to dispose of that property for profit is a conservative one.
Because its required by Alaska's constitution and state law, which say that Alaska's natural resources belong to its citizens collectively.
Because thew Alaskans own the oil!!!!
I suppose Exxon could find oil on your property and you woulld be ok with their drilling, producing and shipping without paying you anything?