Change the tax policy if you want a green industry

Once again, the U.S. Congress is where it was during the 1970s with the politically driven and politically correct desire to reduce the environmental impact of U.S. industry. Instead of providing tax incentives to allow our industry to reduce atmospheric emissions, and to eliminate the impact upon our water ways and soils, Congress at that time chose to leave the tax code intact, and so began the great exodus of heavy industry to elsewhere in the world.

In his 1980 run for president against Ronald Regan and George H. Bush, John Connolly, former governor of Texas, proposed a sweeping change to the tax code. Connolly proposed to allow business to add pollution control equipment and to modernize plants when doing so with the ability to immediately write off the entire amount of the needed changes to meet EPA’s new regulations. Unfortunately, this idea failed with his candidacy.

Ronald Regan fought for tax cuts, but not the specific changes needed to allow a business to write off millions in new pollution control equipment in one fell swoop, rather than amortizing the expense out over 20 years, the life of the building under IRS code.

What happened to our heavy industry? Over the next 20 years it went to Japan, China, India, Argentina, Chile, and Thailand to name a few places benefiting from our stupidity. Our industry went to places without controls. And, our Congress watched it go bye bye in the name of “free trade”.

Instead of making it feasible for U.S. industry, including the car makers, to reduce their environmental impact, and to upgrade and to modernize production facilities that in many cases were unchanged since the end of WWII, Congress elected to leave that portion of the tax code unchanged.

Business, being profit driven was driven to looking offshore to compete with the burgeoning Japanese heavy industry.

Our steel, and other heavy industry went elsewhere along with hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. This exodus is continuing today in the service sector. All because Congress cannot figure out that a simple change in the tax code was necessary to allow our industry to meet pollution control laws.

Yet, by contrast, in response to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress authorized the Trans Alaska Pipeline System construction by passing the most the liberal construction tax package in the history of Congress. The oil companies comprising what became Alyeska Pipeline Company enjoyed tax breaks off of the construction cost for years beyond the pay off date for the pipeline. Which pipeline, by the way, was paid for within 3 months of the first barrel of oil flowing south to Valdez.

A good start is a rational tax policy designed to achieve the national goals of environmental protection and to achieve the strategic national defense goal of maintaining our industrial and labor base by keeping industry here.

Our industry has always had to compete with countries—not businesses, countries—who subsidize their industry. Try to compete with Mitsubishi when Mitsubishi can get a 2% forever loan from the Japanese government to improve production technology, whereas CAT must acquire financing at the going rate and terms in the U.S. financial market, as well as deal with unchanged tax code that punishes innovation. Hence, Mitsubishi owns part of CAT, Chrysler, on and on in order for our companies to get some degree of competitiveness.

On a micro economic scale, even this peon had that lesson brought home the hard way. In the 1980s when the price of gold was high, IHC Holland came to Alaska. Ever tried to sell a “home grown” mineral processing plant when the local banks would not support the local miner, but the foreign firm could offer national financing through the Dutch national bank for their project?

What would be the impact upon the U.S. steel industry, for example, of being allowed the full write off at the time of expenditure of the cost of meeting EPA regulations by reducing green house gas emissions and meeting environmental regulations, which tax write off also allowed renovating a steel mill to include robotics and other improvements to increase production efficiency?

The impact would be immediate and beneficial.

What business wants to depend upon the third world for manufactured goods?

My experience with Chinese fittings, hoses, and other materials handling equipment is not good. These items fail before they should. The accelerated replacement of that junk was a major factor in my job cost this summer.

I further believe, that such a tax policy would have the impact of attracting foreign industry to the U.S. That would not hurt the labor force.

The U.S. provides a stable, educated workforce. A workforce that would grow and provide generations of Americans opportunity. These workers would have a standard to meet and would need to educate themselves to meet the needs of industry.

I believe that such a need would have a positive impact upon education, as where would be a need for education in the workplace.

Even the common laborer has to be literate and able to read and write English.

However, Congress will not be able to figure this out. There are too many ways to split the dollar, and business is evil in the dem mind. As bad is the globalist Republican mindset that is too focused on a "one world" economy that the rest of us has to pay for with our jobs and the country's industry in order to raise the standard of living in every rat hold in the world. This in the face of the reality that the best way to nation build is for a nation to develop its business infrastructure to serve a domestic market rather than be used as a cheap labor pool for the U.S.

IZEMBEK OUTRAGE!!!!!

There are few things that will torque me as much as the BS about "pristine wilderness". There is nothing "pristine" about Alaska's wilderness. It has been walked over, hunted upon, mined and developed at one time or another for over 10,000 years. Yet, a few, who have appointed themselves as the unofficial protectors of this great land--read exploiters who shamelessly use Alaska to raise funds to promote their insanity--blocked for many years something that should have been a no brainer.

Alaska, unlike the lower 48, is a state without surface transportation infrastructure, excepting a limited road and rail infrastructure within south central Alaska. There are few roads linking Alaska's western, southern and northern villages.

Many of Alaska's outlying villages comprise the United State's third world. No sewer, water, or roads. The village of Hoonah in southeastern Alaska managed to get its first generator for electric power (50KW unit) back in the late 1970s.

One of the most egregious and outrageous situations for many years has been the plight of the villagers of Kings Cove on the Alaska Penninsula. King Cove suffers from such lousy weather that the USCG will not fly their aircraft into King Cove. The nearest IFR airport is at Cold Bay, some 20 miles away.

Gee, that's not far. . . .

Except, that 20 miles is through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge that did not exist at the time of Alaska's becoming a State in the Union of States.

There is an ATV trail that links the two communities that is illegal to use, because of the INWR.

This no trespass of Uncle Sam's wildlife refuge meant that any villager in King Cove who has a medical emergency was in very dire straits.

For many years, Senator Ted Stevens tried to get a road built. In 1996, the feds invested in a $30 MILLION dollar clinic in Kings Cove to avoid upgrading the existing trail across the edge of the INWR. In 1998, to give the villagers better access, Congress authorized an appropriation for a hovercraft.

The bottom line is that 10s of millions of dollars have been spent to avoid bringing up an existing trail to a pioneer gravel road standard, such as is common throughout the Midwest. This money has been spent to circumvent the logical, rational, and necessary solution, which, all along, was the road.

What was the cost to the State of Alaska for the Senate of the United States accepting the road?

61,000 acres.

The sovereign State of Alaska had to bribe the Congress of the United States with land.

Why?

The Congress of the United States is so sensitive to the environmental lobby, that Congress seeks the satisfaction of those greedy, self-centered, arrogant twits over the needs of someone fighting for their life whose salvation is a few miles away through the INWR.

What is the impact of the road in terms of the number of acres actually impacted in the INWR? About 200 acres.

The necessity of this land swap was an egregious affront to the sovereignty of the State of Alaska.

Why is there no outcry from our Legislature, our Governor, or our Congressional delegation?

Cowardice, and the fact that most of these folks have grown up with placating the feds and their elitist environmental lobby.

Alaska's Statehood Compact was a compromise with Congress made with the recognition by Congress in the late 50's that the federal government did not have enough money in the treasury to provide Alaska with roads, airports, and harbours to the standards enjoyed by the rest of the states in the union. In lieu of the government spending money that it did not have, the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, gave the State of Alaska 90% of any non-renewable resource development in the state on both State and Federal lands. Since 1959, the federal government has continually reneged on this promise.

One of the implied promises was that the federal government would not impose stricter land classifications, nor classify additional lands more restrictively as to use. Then came ANILCA under Carter.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was one of the most egregious acts against the intent in the Statehood Compact.

The land swap shows that Alaska is a State in name only. That Alaska must buy its citizens' needs from the environmental lobby.

Welcome to the colonies!