One of the most powerful lawmakers in this year's oil-tax debate just happens to be dead.
Proponents of slashing the state's oil production tax -- who argue the overhaul will stimulate development -- are leaning on the wisdom of late Gov. Jay Hammond to bolster their positions.
But opponents of the cut charge that Hammond's views are being misrepresented.
And former First Lady Bella Hammond, reached at her home across Lake Clark from Port Alsworth in Southwest Alaska on Wednesday, said her late husband wouldn't support Parnell's proposal to sharply reduce oil taxes.
'Don't think he'd agree'
"I don't think he'd agree with the present governor at all," Bella Hammond said on Wednesday, as the state Senate met 700 miles away and seemingly moved closer to passing a bill that could cost the state billions of dollars in the coming years.
"I think his stance would be that we don't give away the farm. I've watched some of what's going on, and I'm just totally opposed to what Parnell is doing -- and I think Jay would certainly view it the same way," said Bella, who recently turned 80.
Her sometimes plain-spoken and sometimes poetic Republican husband is best known as the father of the Alaska Permanent Fund, the state stash of oil wealth that sends dividend checks to every Alaskan each fall.
Hammond died in 2005 at age 83, but the specter of the two-term governor continues to cast a long shadow over the long-running battle over how much the state should tax oil companies. Hammond's memory was recently part of a TV ad produced by tax-cut supporters.
'Poor taste'
"I thought that ad that came out was in poor taste," Bella said. "The inference was Parnell was a great leader like Hammond and worked for the people, something Jay certainly did. And I was not consulted at all about that ad, and our family resented it."
Her husband was not sympathetic to the oil industry, Bella said. As for Parnell, "I just feel that he is a little too friendly with the oil companies and at this time in our history, I just think we should be more prudent."
Hammond's wit and wisdom was pulled again from the grave on Monday, when Sen. Peter Micciche, R-Kenai, read statements made by Hammond three decades ago suggesting the then-governor would have supported the Senate-amended version of Parnell's bill.
Hammond believed a 30 percent tax on oil companies was a fair shake for Alaska, according to the comments read by Micciche. The bill on the table meets that criteria and more, Micciche argued.
"I think our current discussions all seem to be above 30 percent, actually approximately 10 percent above in the higher oil price range," Micciche said Monday, according to a press release sent by Senate majority caucus. "I just ask that we recognize the wishes of those great and diverse Alaskans that came together over 30 years ago on this very day to discuss their definition of a fair share for Alaskans."
But Democrats fired back with their own press release on Wednesday. They argue that Micciche is wrong, and that his statement ignored key distinctions.
They say Hammond wanted the state and federal government to share in two-thirds of the wealth, while the oil companies get the final third. The current tax system -- which Parnell supported just three years ago before flip-flopping -- already meets Hammond's criteria, they add. Econ One, the analyst hired by Parnell, recently presented a slide showing total government take was at 66 percent under the current tax regime, said Mark Gnadt, press secretary for the House Democratic Caucus.
The federal government now takes less than it did in 1981, so the state's take should be higher than 30 percent to meet Hammond's goal.
The tax system proposed by Parnell and amended by the Senate doesn't do that, Gnadt said. In fact, it gives the companies more than the 34 percent Hammond and other Alaska leaders wanted in 1981.
Also, while the Senate Finance Committee has proposed a flat tax of 35 percent on net profits, there's a $5 per barrel state grant that would lower the state's take by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That grant effectively lowers the tax rate to 25 percent, though that percent will rise and fall as the price of oil rises and falls.
'I resent people using his name'
Bella Hammond said she's not aware of all the details surrounding the bill's amendments. She's trying to follow the debate on TV from her remote home in Southwest Alaska, and cut through the "mumbo jumbo" of a complex discussion rife with terms such as "Gross Revenue Exclusion" -- another benefit to oil companies that calls for excluding 20 percent of new oil from taxation.
Bella said she knows her husband wouldn't like his words being misused to support a view he didn't hold. "I resent people using his name for their agendas," she said.
"I remember some of our conversations. He mentioned for instance, that the oil companies want to take care of their shareholders. (He would say) well, what about us? We should be doing the same," meaning taking care of Alaska citizens, the state's shareholders.
Contact Alex DeMarban at alex(at)alaskadispatch.com