March 7, 2013 | Volume 43, No. 9

Suggestion of intent unsupported

In answer to Mr. Norton’s letter in the Feb. 28 edition of the CVN. Norton feels free to state that the content of my letter uses words he believes are slimy. I cannot find evidence of this in my dictionary and for Mr. Norton, a teacher by profession, to use such words shows a little about his character. He also is geared up to include that my intent may be to support the oil companies. This is unsupported as I don’t recall taking a position of criticism or support of a tax beyond what is now in place and will not do so without a close look at what is in the issue if it comes up for vote or discussion.

I do not believe Mr. Norton throws his permanent fund check in the stove even if it is made possible by the oil industry. I am sure he feels comfortable driving the paved streets of Haines. As a teacher, his compensation and 90 percent of the cost of education statewide come from oil revenue. There is no one in the state who doesn’t receive some benefit from the efforts of the oil companies.

Fisheries, mining, tourism and other income to the state could not begin to provide the amenities we have due to income from oil. Every barrel of oil produced in the United States lessens, by $80-$100, the payment to our enemies to fight us just as shown on Sept. 11, 2001. Before I take any position on oil tax, I would search for facts and, above all, I would put more faith in the members of our state government than I would in John Norton.

John J. Schnabel