Why are we californians so shortsighted? Prop 87 goes down.

[burritos]

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=46504

Granted this wouldn't have solved our dependence from oil, it was at least a step(any step would be better than stay the course of sucking down oil) in the right direction. I can't wait for peak oil. Sorry for the rant.

[skruse]

People live in the "here and now," and think and act "least cost, first use" (short term). It takes critical thinking to think, act and live "least cost, end use" (long term). We are overwhelmed by stimulus, advertising and choices - hard to know who to believe. Many voters find voting "No" is the easiest and safest choice.

[VinceDee]

I voted against Prop 87, so I guess that makes me retarded. Instead of calling people retarded, why don't you just ask people why they voted against it?

I love the idea of an initiative that explores alternative energy, even at taxpayer expense. But this one just doesn't seem well thought out and I believe that it would have a detrimental effect on California overall.

Here are some quotes from the Legislative Analyst:

Additionally, property owners in California pay local property taxes on the value of both oil extraction equipment (such as drills and pipelines) as well as the value of the recoverable oil in the ground.

The measure is unclear as to whether the severance tax would apply to oil production on state-owned lands (which includes offshore production within three miles of the coast) or production on federal lands in the state.

...severance tax would not apply to oil wells that produce less than ten barrels of oil per day, unless the price of oil at the well head was above $50 per barrel.

The wording of the measure regarding the application of the tax rates could be interpreted in two different ways.

And the winner is:
Though "...producers would not be allowed to pass on the cost of this severance tax to consumers through increased costs for oil, gasoline, or diesel fuel...it may be difficult to administratively enforce this provision (due to the many factors that determine oil prices)" meaning that gas prices would go up.

Go ahead and read the whole Analysis:

source: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/gene...tire_prop87.pdf

Vince

[RonH]

I also voted against it. My problem is with these mind numbing propositions foisted upon us. If its a good idea to put a severance tax on oil, just do it. If its a good idea to fund alternative energy boondoggles then just do it. They don't have to be coupled; they don't need hundreds of pieces of pork to give everybody something.

But that's just me.

[Godiva]

It's not so much that Californians were against the intent of Prop 87. The problem was it was a very poorly written law. I didn't vote against the environment. I voted against crappy legislation. Now if they tried again only wrote it right, I'd vote for it. And I wouldn't be the only one.

[tripp]

sorta sounds like the first go at SB1. Perhaps they can come up with something better the next time around.

[prez1]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 8 2006, 08:30 PM) [snapback]345946[/snapback]</div>

I voted against Prop 87, so I guess that makes me retarded. Instead of calling people retarded, why don't you just ask people why they voted against it?

[/b]

I figured it was because Brad Pitt was for it.

[burritos]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 8 2006, 08:30 PM) [snapback]345946[/snapback]</div>

I voted against Prop 87, so I guess that makes me retarded. Instead of calling people retarded, why don't you just ask people why they voted against it?

[/b]

Funny, there's no outcry at the waste(pork) in capitol hill, there's no outcry in the 300 billion spent in the war to rebuild iraq, but there's outcry for 4 billion dollars on taxes(6 cents a barrel).

When the house is on fire, you don't ask the firemen whether all the money they receive is legitmately used and whether or not there's any waste in their department. You just grab a hose and start putting out the fire. This is the example used in the movie "and the band played on," a drama documentary where the federal administration dragged their feet and hemmed and hawed at the overwhelming evidence of the existence and spread of HIV, yet because it wasn't politically popular, the politicians didn't do anything about it. By the time anything was done about it, the epidemic was inevitable.

People the house is on fire(ie global warming), we needed to take steps against it as of 20 years ago, yet we still squabbling on the details? Whip out the hose and worry about the details later.

[efusco]

As a non-Californian I have to think that there must've been a bit more to this bill for it to have failed. Clearly CA is the most progressive state in the Union as regards environmental issues, emissions control, alternative energy, etc. Failure of a single bill isn't exactly cause for alarm.

I won't pretend to understand the issues, I haven't paid any real attention.

[hill]

I have to admit, anything the oil industry is willing to spend 10's of millions on to prevent, is likely to be good for the public. The greater wrong is THIS: Legislators are paid BIG bucks (not even counting their life time retirement, which then gets passed onto their spouse ... while the lion's share of the population has to survive on welfare ... but don't even get me started on that) to MAKE LAWS. But in stead, legislators DONT legislate because they fear losing their job. Keeping the job / power becomes the goal. In stead of making or not making laws / regulations ~ legislators get financial support from special interest lobbies (OR NOT) turning on how they vote or don't vote. So if we pay legislators to do the job but they don't, why are we paying them at ALL? Better yet, give ME their sallary and retirement, and I'll legislate! I have to vote NO on all initiatives simply out of principal.