Kirk Johnson of the New York Times recently wrote a piece describing Governor Palin’s Alaskan legacy as something that Democrats can like. I find the piece troublesome for it leaves out a tremendous amount of information. I am writing to set that record straight. At the outset, I should note that I am writing through the lens of one of the few people in Alaska whom Parnell might regard as an actual “Frienemy.” The term “dear Doctor” has been applied from time to time, I have been a donor, a supporter, and a critic.  I have been deeply disappointed with Parnell on a variety of issues, particularly his deceptive venture into committing Alaska to the Common Core Initiative while denying he has done so. In fact, the only major policy initiative of Governor Parnell that I have supported is the reform of oil taxes, and even that he bungled the marketing miserably.

However, my point at present is to comment on issues surrounding Johnson’s piece with  information  he fails to  present. He paints a picture of Palin based on a man who was incredibly hateful toward Governor Palin, and that is Andrew Halcro.Andrew Halcro's favorite past time is to besmirch the Governor, and he delights in painting her as a leftist socialist wacko. If I was going to ask ANYONE in Alaska about Sarah Palin, the very last person I would talk to is Andrew. A bit of history here is worth noting to understand the history of that resentment.

Governor Murkowski had been elected in an effort to repel from office that horrible evil Governor Tony Knowles. Knowles was without a doubt the worst Governor and a proto-type for Barack Obama, a buddy of George Kaiser and a devoted socialist. Alaskans were desperate to get this man out of office, and Murkowski had agreed to run with Loren Leman grab the governorship. It was a tacit agreement between the populist, the Christian Conservatives and  the GOP establishment. I remember vividly when the deal was struck, and I know the time and place. Murkowski had been what many of us regarded as a good senator. It was tough to lose him, but Alaskans were desperate beyond desperate.

 Murkowski did some good things as governor, and that is deserving of its own op-ed.  We all had high hopes for him, and Alaskans were grateful for an end of the door to door searches, the evening snatch and grab squads, and the goons that preyed upon the people of Alaska with violence and deceit. Murkowski ended that, and I will be forever grateful for that. As time wore on, it became apparent Governor Murkowski was not perfect. For better or worse, Murkowski never grasped the difference between the U.S. Senate and the Governorship. Nowhere was this more evidenced than the DMV. Wait times for simple activities like a title or a license renewal was not a matter of hours, but days. The Governor bought a jet, and the dividend payment to Alaskans dropped to a pittance. The angst on the street was beyond palpable, perhaps more than that felt against Barack Obama today.

If Tony Knowles tapped the fear of every mother in Alaska to political action against him, Frank Murkowski capture the anger of every man against him. Those permanent fund dividend checks go to pay land taxes and top off the tanks that heat Alaskan homes. They are vital to survival. I began to wonder at the time if his name was actually changed to “G-d Damn Murkowski.”

Those among us searching for a replacement for Governor Murkowski initially looked at Andrew Halcro. He was from Anchorage, which was not regarded as a positive thing in the circles I was traveling at the time. However, he was young, good looking, and successful. He presented well, and had some business experience and a few folks rubbed a few dimes together to see what would come of it. He hired consultants to produce a long “ode to Andrew’s Ego” along with air time. I suppose Andrew’s mother liked it, and certainly it was something I would have put together for one of my sons, but honestly, it became apparent that Andrew was a case of a bloated ego on two long legs.

He was the last thing that Alaska needed. He still is.

Support swung to Governor Palin. She was actually qualified, unlike those who believed they were entitled to office by virtue of genetic material or happenstance of birth location. Wasilla thrived under Governor Palin and it was the only part of the state that was doing so. She put the people before her ego, and talked about the people, not herself. Establishment, populist, and Christians gravitated toward Governor Palin and decided that she was the one to propel into office. Andrew never got over it, and he spent her administration blogging hateful commentaries on her and her family. He was mean, vindictive, and a bundle of hate. By the way, that has not changed, but at least he has moved on with his life since she left office. One thing I know about Andrew Halcro,  he never refuses an opportunity to besmirch the name of the lady from Wasilla.

The piece in the New York Times detracts from her legacy. It attempts to align her with socialists would would fashion Alaska into a Norwegian Socialist Paradise that Tony Knowles attempted to create. If anyone has any doubt that this is so, they need only listen to a speech by Hollis French called, “The Very Best Partner” made on the floor of the Alaska Senate in 2012.

In that speech, Hollis French detailed a plan to turn Alaska into a socialist utopia based on the notion that government should control the inner workings of the oil industry like Norway. It harkened back to the Carter era. He claimed Norway uses oil tax revenue to support the state. The problem is that Norway supports its economy on revenue garnered from an EU monopoly LNG contract with the UK, and oil revenues are a small slice of the matter. In other words, the speech, while nice, is based on false assumptions and a political ideology that is so remote from Palin that it is laughable to associate her with it.

These people are in no way aligned with Governor Palin. To use her as a “human shield” for their “backbone” to defend their socialist utopia is despicable. Hollis French would be a return to the very practices of the Knowles Administration, and in no way resembles anything Governor Palin represents. For Andrew Halcro to perpetuate that myth just shows his ignorance and inability to comprehend anything outside the Anchorage bowl.

It is these Alaskan Democrats like Hollis French that Andrew Halcro also attempts to use to besmirch Palin. He is playing off two sides to his own advantage, or so he thinks.  The Times played into his effort to paint Palin as a socialist and dip her in “Hollis French dung.” He believes it vindicates him and perhaps set himself up to run for Govenor. Halcro is hardly the person I would ask about Palin’s legacy. For Governor Palin’s legacy is not ACES, but the philosophy that ACES enshrined. That is her legacy.  That philosophy was never repealed, nor can it be. I rather doubt it could be understood by an elitist like Halcro. What is really her legacy is far greater than a legislative agenda. The agenda was something of the moment that worked in that part of history. The historical circumstances changed that required the policy to change, but the philosophy of Alaskans owning their resources cannot be repealed.

Her legacy is that the government belongs to the people, and that the people decide what is important. It is the idea that the people own the state government, not the federal government, not the oil company, not the unions, not the Tri-laterals, and not the United Nations. Her legacy is that Alaska is owned by the people of Alaska. It is a rejection of colonialism and the assertion of self-determination.

Her notion was that Alaska was a sovereign state owned by the people.  The people chose to be part of  the United States. It was not a colony to be governed by a distant land or exploited by multinationals and state policy should reflect the right of the people and their assertion of the right of statehood detailed in article 4 of the U.S Constitution. That was the Palin Legacy.

Now, many may think that is not much of a legacy. I differ. Alaska has been over-run in its history by those who seek to rape of her resources and repatriate them to distant lands at the detriment of Alaska. The state is replete with enclaves with weak economic linkages to the rest of Alaska. Just forcing these companies to hire Alaskans is an ordeal, for they would rather bring their own people into the state.  These exploiters who have come under various guises, give no thought to the people on the land, to sustenance, to issues of basic survival for the people of the Arctic region. The Russians didn’t care, corporate miners didn’t care, and the oil companies didn’t care, the commercial fisherman didn’t care, and multinational interests didn’t care. Alaskans always seemed to fighting one faction or another over the rights to their coastal areas, land, minerals and air. What Governor Palin asserted was Alaska’s right to her own resources and their right to manage them.

That is not something that anyone can repeal.

Governor Parnell was right to seek changes to ACES through the legislative process. At the time ACES was crafted and passed, Alaska’s major competitors were run by dictators largely in politically risky regions. These nations had tax rates upward of 80%. Most of the oil fields in the lower 48 were no longer in production. At that time, any tax rate under 70% would keep Alaska competitive because while the environment was harsh, there was political stability. At the time that ACES was passed, I was asked what I thought of it, as an economist, by legislators at the time.  I thought it needed some modifications, but I thought that was something that could be addressed later. I thought “later” would be 2015 or 2020, not 2011.  I since have regretted not speaking out more ferociously on that point, for those modifications might have saved the state some heart ache, but it is what it is. My plate was full with family matters at that time, and I had, and continue to have, the utmost faith in Sarah Palin’s judgment on matters. We seldom disagree, and yet we’ve never spoken a word to each other.

 Economic circumstances changed as did the oil industry and that distant someday came much sooner than any of us anticipated. Oil was discovered in North Dakota. Technology changes made old fields in the lower 48 productive. Alaska’s competitors were no longer Saudi Arabia and OPEC, but North Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. These states have similar political freedoms and risks as Alaska, and have lower tax rates and a less harsh environment.  Nobody in their right mind is going to drill for oil in Alaska’s -40 degrees and pay a 70% tax rate when they can do so in North Dakota above zero degrees most of the year at a 15% tax rate.  For Alaskans to remain competitive with their oil, the rate of return for those who produce had to be competitive. For Alaskans to continue to reap the benefits of their resources this tax change, or lease rate change, was necessary. This is a straightforward application of supply side economics, nothing more. It is not a reversal of populist politics, nor is it a repeal of the Palin legacy.

Unlike the Common Core adoption, the oil tax change was not made by executive order. It was done through the legislative process. There were hearings. There was evidence presented. It was not done in a corner in the dark, but in the full light of day. The hearings were on TV and broadcasted on the internet. There was no secrecy here. Alaskans weighed in, and they did so loudly.

If there was any “failure” on the part of the Palin administration, it was the failure to extend this philosophy to other sectors and fully reclaim Alaska for its citizens. There was hope that Parnell would follow through on this. Sadly, Sean Parnell has proved himself to be more a son of Frank Murkowski than an extension of the Palin agenda. He is the very big government Republican that we threw out with Murkowski. Alaskans had hoped he would use action, not words, to protect the state from federal overreach as he promised. Sadly, he has become an enforcer of federal overreach in action and full of words to deny it or justify it.  If I had to give past Alaskan governors a single word, it would be Hickel-vision, Knowles-evil, Murkowsi-hope, Palin-faith, and Parnell-betrayal. There can be no doubt that a proper populist can beat Parnell, particularly since he is cavorting with that evil Tony Knowles and we all know it. The question is who will it be, and can a man or woman be found to do the job? 

However, that populist replacement cannot be found in the person of Andrew Halcro. Andrew is for Andrew and that is all. In the event that might have changed, I watched him recently on the Education Task Force. It was nothing more than apologetics for the old order and him defending his past legislative service. It was Andrew for Andrew and nothing more.

Sorry, New York Times, but you missed the mark on this one. Palin is no socialist, even if Halcro wants to make that case. Besides, to consider Halcro an Alaskan is absolutely ludicrous. Yes, he has an Alaskan address and yes, his body is here, but his mind in somewhere in Seattle. He married a Planned Parenthood activist. He has never held a gun, or so he claims. He also claims to own a pair of jeans, but no one has seen him in them.He might have gone north of the Alaska range a few times to visit the Chamber of Commerce, but generally trips outside of Anchorage are beneath him.  There is no evidence he has ever fished, hunted, or eaten food that did not come from a grocery store. He is like a military wife condemned to Alaska who hides in the Anchorage bowl for fear that the sap of a tree or some wild flower might touch him. Next time, the Times might want to ask someone who is actually an Alaskan.