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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

I figured it was because Brad Pitt was for it.

 

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.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 9 2006, 07:15 AM) [snapback]346206[/snapback]</div>

What, are you kidding? You must be trying to lose credibility when you say something like this. Of course there's been a huge outcry for these things...what do you Tuesday was all about? (not that it'll change all that much)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 9 2006, 07:15 AM) [snapback]346206[/snapback]</div>

If you really want to have an effect on global warming, you don't drive a car at all. Prius owners who think they're saving the environment by buying a Prius are fooling themselves. In order to make the car, many natural resources were pulled from the earth and tons of fossil fuel energy was used in the manufacturing process. If you want to have a positive effect on global warming, DON'T DRIVE A CAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Many millions of people on the planet don't drive cars and are perfectly able to survive. I always find it amusing that fat Americans are always quick to rationalize why they NEED to drive a car everywhere they go...that's just how conditioned we've become.

Finally, those "details" are the reason why you vote against an initiative that's as badly written as Prop 87. Otherwise, you end up with more crappy bureacracy and taxpayer money being pissed down the drain. If you're so concerned with pork barrel, then you would've voted agains Prop 87, too.

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 AM) [snapback]346216[/snapback]</div>

I voted no on all propositions except those supporting schools. It is Arnold's way of remaining 'republican' by not 'raising taxes' but instead to put all public projects out to fund via bonds. BAD IDEA!!! When you pay for a $100 project with tax revenues, the project costs...$100. When you pay by bonds a couple of things happen: First, The project still costs $100 PLUS interest over 30 years making that $100 project cost $300. Second, you are making future generations pay for this generation's benefit. Third, taxes still haven't been raised so the next project still needs funding, but taxes haven't been raised so more bonds/hidden costs. Third, who buys those bonds? those with disposable income (the rich(er)). So, the rich have now had their taxes kept artificially low, and have made interest off the bonds which fund the project, so the rich have low taxes AND an income source from the bonds. The rich get richer....

No, no bonds when raised taxes should be the answer. Cowards costing us more than necessary should not be rewarded. Politicians are paid to do a job and they should be forced to do it or not get paid, just like me. No productivity, no eatie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Nov 9 2006, 07:22 AM) [snapback]346209[/snapback]</div>

In case that you are curious enough, here is a link to the Official Voter Information Guide on Proposition 87.

 

I voted against all bonds in my local election save one, for the reasons stated above: the money should be taken out of the general fund, if the populace deems it a high enough priority. I think most people do not realize that a bond funded project does not even guarantee increased funding; it is likely to simply allow the politicians to revoke previously earmarked general funds, in effect adding the bond money to the general fund.

The single bond I said yes to was for bicycle paths, simply because it is more important than keeping politicians out of my pocket.

BTW, all bonds passed except one. People are happy to spend on credit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 9 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]346206[/snapback]</div>

California has had plenty of fires and is still suffering from the details.

We needed property tax reform. What we got was a very bad bill, Prop 13. We're still suffering from it now. Or I should say, our children's education is. We used to have the top education system in the country. Now it's on the bottom. The students that come to my library are using 10 year old computers that can't access the databases the district subscribes to because the browsers are so old they don't support the javascript. I've got no money to replace them. And still I hear the Republicans scream about the pork and waste in education. Right....with the roofs leaking and the toilets backed up because the first "pork" to be cut was maintenance. What condition would your house be in if you deferred maintenance for 20 years? Then how much would it cost for you to fix what you neglected for 20 years?

Then the California economy went into the toilet. No, it wasn't Gray Davis. It was Pete Wilson. He cut a deal with energy and deregulated. Then Enron decided to take advantage of that and manufactured a shortage. Then Davis was forced to pay through every orifice to get any power to California because of blackouts and people screaming at him to do something. Again....a really bad law that we're still paying for the details of.

I certainly am in favor of the intent of the propostion. But I'm not going to vote for a badly written law and suffer the details. From now on if they can't get it right the first time they can redo it until they do. I'll hold my elected officials to the same standards I hold my students. Or I'll fail them (at the polls).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 9 2006, 12:50 PM) [snapback]346335[/snapback]</div>

Ummm, and which part of the real legislation didn't sound worth voting for?...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Nov 9 2006, 11:00 AM) [snapback]346393[/snapback]</div>

This part sounded bad to me...

"tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California"

Strike the in CA part and replace with "imported oil" and it would have been much more palatable to many voters.

I'm w/ Godiva on this one - if you can't get the legislation right, I'm not going to vote for a half-arsed solution.