The one-year suspension of Alaska's 8-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax ends in September. Lawmakers should resist the popular idea of extending the break, as proposed by Anchorage Sen. Bettye Davis and backed by Gov. Sarah Palin.

Even before we cut our state gas tax to zero, Alaska had the lowest gas tax and lightest overall state tax burden in the United States.

When Alaska gasoline prices closed in on $4.50 a gallon last summer, the suspension had a rationale -- with oil prices so high and the state treasury swollen with the revenue from those prices, we could afford to cut the gasoline tax and give ourselves a little consolation at the pump. The same logic fueled the $1,200 energy rebate.

Today, it's a different world.

Oil prices have dropped about $100 from their peak last summer, and the state is looking at a budget shortfall with the word billion in it. At the pump, we're paying about $2 a gallon less than last summer.

In normal times, state gas tax money is how we help pay for the upkeep of our roads. Without the gas tax, the state gives up $40 million a year that is used to match federal highway funds.

To use our share of traditional federal highway funds, we still need to contribute a state match. If we don't pay for it at the pump, we'll have to take increasingly scarce dollars from something else.

Backers of continuing the tax suspension make three arguments:

• The tax is unfair to the Bush, where fuel prices are far higher than on Alaska's road system and have strapped villagers. All right, then tailor tax relief for deliveries off the road system. Even then, that 8 cents won't be make or break. We'd be better off looking at ways to stabilize fuel prices in rural Alaska with increased storage and the capability to lock in purchases when prices are low.

• Alaskans continue to pay well above national averages for gasoline. Yes, but that has much to do with refiners' margins and little to do with the gasoline tax. If we want to bring our prices closer to Lower 48 prices, look at gas price legislation now in the House and Senate, not at tax pennies that pay for pavement.

• We're in a recession; Alaskans deserve a break. Nobody wants to pay more taxes than necessary. But Alaskans should remember that we're the lightest-taxed state in the union and each of us pulls down a Permanent Fund dividend check to boot. We've got breaks.

Let the suspension expire. We can stand eight cents a gallon to help maintain our roads.

BOTTOM LINE: Enjoy the break, but in September let's pony up at the pump again.

90 days

Session limit hasn't worked

Some legislators are griping that Gov. Sarah Palin didn't submit two of her top priority bills until nearly halfway through the voter-mandated 90 day legislative session.

It's getting too late to finish up work on those bills this session, they say. If the measures were so important, the argument goes, she should have had them in sooner -- and critics note she might have been able to do this if she hadn't been so busy last fall running for vice-president.

Gov. Palin's side responded with a jibe at legislators for basically taking a week off so nearly half of them could attend an energy conference in Washington D.C. Each side has a valid point, but pointing fingers is not going to ensure the business of the state gets done. Alaskans want the state's business done reasonably quickly and reasonably well -- but the 90-day session limit isn't helping on either count.

Last year lawmakers were in session for 150 days, despite the nominal 90-day limit. The year before, they worked 121 days.

What happens is this: During the 90-day regular session, lawmakers spend their limited time focusing on non-controversial matters or highly time-sensitive tasks like passing the budget. A complicated or politically charged issue like the gas line or oil tax reform has to be handled in a special session.

North Pole Republican state Rep. John Coghill Jr. is not a lawmaker who's happy to stick around Juneau collecting per diem and passing unneeded laws. He likes less government -- but he worries that the 90-day session limit is producing worse government.

The shorter session means less legislative oversight of the executive branch and fewer opportunities for the public to be heard, Rep. Coghill told the Juneau Empire.

"You want to allow your Legislature ample opportunity to discover what the administration is doing," he said. "Did you really get less government, or are you just turning over authority to the bureaucrats?"

Also, in a short session, bad bills have a better chance of getting passed. When lawmakers need to act, committees are pressured to keep a bill moving and cut short the time they spend dealing with technical details that can make or break a new law. In the rush to "do something" about an issue, lawmakers may not take the time to make sure that "something" is well-thought-out.

Two years have passed since voters told legislators to take only 90 days for a regular session. In those two years, lawmakers have worked an average of 135 days. That's an average of two full weeks beyond the old 121-day session limit.

This is not a case where less is better. Setting a deadline for legislative work helps force lawmakers to finish up instead of dragging things out. But the last two years have shown that the 121-day limit set in the state constitution is a more reasonable deadline.

BOTTOM LINE: The old session limit of 121 days worked better for Alaska.

ADVERTISEMENT