Originally Posted By EdisYoda Looking for opinions on this. I'm not sure how I feel about it. Please no right vs left, just a civilized discussion about it. <a href="http://yeson87.com/" target="_blank">http://yeson87.com/</a> <<<1. Should oil companies pay their fair share in California -– the same oil drilling fees they pay in Alaska, Louisiana and Texas? 2. Should we invest that new revenue in clean energy, breaking our dependence on oil, cleaning up the air and creating new jobs for Californians? 3. Should we allow oil companies to cynically claim that if we pass Prop 87, they’ll simply break the new law and pass it on to consumers? The road to cleaner energy will be a tough one. The oil companies know that Prop 87 makes them pay by making it illegal for them to raise gas prices and pass along their cost to us. That's why they're waging an all out war against the Initiative. Just last week, Chevron and a Shell/Exxon joint venture dumped $18 million into the campaign to stop Prop 87. They've contributed almost $30 million so far to protect their record profits and hide the truth about Prop 87.>>>
Originally Posted By cmpaley Prediction: Partisan Republicans will say that it's a bad idea. Everyone else will probably agree. Personally, I agree with the concept.
Originally Posted By berol If they can't pass the cost onto Californians, they'll pass it on elsewhere where the law doesn't have jurisdiction.
Originally Posted By berol <a href="http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections /elections_j.htm</a> ick, too many props!
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.kcbs.com/pages/60763.php" target="_blank">http://www.kcbs.com/pages/6076 3.php</a> >>The Clean Air Initiative would charge oil companies as much as 6% on the price of every barrel of crude oil they pump in California. The money raised would be used to expand alternative energy use and subsidize mass transit. "What Proposition 87 does is make the oil companies finally pay their fair share of their obscene profits," Yuesef Robb, of the Yes On Proposition 87 campaign, told KCBS Reporter Larry Chiaroni. "Proposition 87 is about reducing our dependance on oil; the result will be less foreign oil. "This will make oil companies pay, not consumers," he said. "Proposition 87 would make oil companies pay their fair share, and that fair share would support cleaner energy, which would lead to cleaner, cheaper fuels for our cars, and cleaner air for our children." But Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union would rather see the free marketplace provide the pressure needed to expand alternative energies. Sepp told KCBS's Chiaroni that higher energy prices are already doing that now. Sepp said it's obviously tempting to beat up on oil companies right now, due to their high profits, but it's nevertheless a bad idea. "Oil firms will not invest as much money and hire as many people in California, or consumers will somehow wind up paying more for their gasoline at the pump, even though the measure claims, very spuriously, that it can somehow avoid that from happening," Sepp said. "These kinds of punitive taxes on oil often lead to the same problems: you get less production, higher prices, and perhaps even more dependance on foreign sources for oil," Sepp said.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nooiltax.com/pdf/NoOn87_Ag_Fact_Sheet.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nooiltax.com/pdf/No On87_Ag_Fact_Sheet.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/3499291.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailybreeze.com/opi nion/articles/3499291.html</a> >>Who's cashing in on California's ballot measures? Direct democracy in California is becoming the latest hot investment for venture capitalists looking to merge their societal goals with a good return on their money. By backing ballot measures tailored to promote their personal and financial interests, investors can quickly change public policy and make a buck at the same time. Proposition 87 on the November ballot, which would tax oil to promote alternative fuels, is winning support from a key financier who is heavily invested in the kind of technologies that the initiative would reward. Vinod Khosla, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems and now a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, put up more than $1 million in seed money for the alternative fuels measure earlier this year. He is also a big investor in ethanol, an alternative to gasoline and one of the energy sources that could benefit if Proposition 87 passes..... Proposition 87 would impose a severance tax on California oil production to fund the research, production and promotion of alternative energies. The tax is expected to raise about $400 million a year. Like the stem cell measure, Proposition 87 would also create a quasi-independent board to spend the money outside the purview of the Legislature and the governor, under guidelines set by the initiative. More than half the money raised by the measure would have to go for incentives to reduce the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. Since ethanol is defined in the initiative as a clean alternative fuel, Khosla's ethanol company would be eligible for grants for research, production and start-up costs for its ventures. The firm and other investments Khosla pursues could easily receive state money that matches or exceeds the $1.1 million he has invested in the initiative so far. California voters should be concerned about the proliferation of narrow-interest measures written to lay claim to a piece of the public treasury to achieve a particular goal. That's generally not a good way to make policy, because while each goal in isolation might sound great, the piecemeal approach discourages voters from putting an initiative's goals in the context of all of the state's other needs. And when an initiative's goals also dovetail with the financial interests of its sponsors, such skepticism is warranted all the more.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nooiltax.com/pdf/NoOn87_QA.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nooiltax.com/pdf/No On87_QA.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15152306.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld /mercurynews/15152306.htm</a> >>Self interest? Critics charge that because Khosla and Kleiner Perkins invest in companies that will probably benefit from the oil tax, he is trying to enrich himself. ``It's inappropriate for one industry to go out and tax another industry,'' said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. He said market forces are boosting investments in alternative fuels, with Bill Gates and major venture capitalists making substantial investments. Anti-tax activists also question why some valley leaders are espousing tax increases on others at the same time key valley lobbying groups are asking legislators in Sacramento to cut corporate taxes and renew manufacturing investment credits.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://ga1.org/ntu_action/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2246144" target="_blank">http://ga1.org/ntu_action/noti ce-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2246144</a> >>California's Tax-and-Spend crowd is at it again -- and the National Taxpayers Union needs just a few minutes of your time to speak out against a terrible new tax scheme that will be coming to a vote in the next election. It may sound crazy, but a measure called Proposition 87 has actually qualified for the November ballot and if passed, would place a new $4 billion tax on California oil. And where does all that money go? It would fund a new state alternative energy bureaucracy run by more than 50 political appointees. Worse, there's absolutely no requirement that this bureaucracy show any results and no requirement that it spend all the money in California! Don't take our word for it -- click here and read the initiative for yourself. You'll be amazed at what you find in the fine print. That's a recipe for waste -- not progress. Even the Los Angeles Times has problems with this initiative. If you think it's ridiculous to add a brand new $4 billion tax on California oil, you can VOTE NO on 87 in an online poll sponsored by Californians Against Higher Taxes. NTU is helping this diverse coalition of more than 100 citizen, business, and taxpayer groups spread the word about the dangers of Proposition 87. Backers of the tax hike say that their measure specifically forbids companies from passing along the new burden to consumers. But that's silly -- the State's own Legislative Analyst's Office says "it is unclear the extent to which BOE (the Board of Equalization) would be able to enforce this statutory prohibition." Prop. 87 would make California's oil by far the highest-taxed in the nation. Economists report that higher taxes on in-state oil production would slow this vitally-needed component of our energy security and increase our dependence on foreign oil. Oil from the Middle East and other countries costs more to get here and more to refine once here. The election seems far away, but unless you speak out now against Proposition 87, the pro-taxers will have months to spread their half-truths. Please visit www.nooiltax.com today and make your voice count. THANK YOU for your help.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From the LA Times.... <a href="http://www.nooiltax.com/pdf/LA_Times_EDITORIAL_2_10_06.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.nooiltax.com/pdf/LA _Times_EDITORIAL_2_10_06.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder More nothing from Darkbeer. So what do YOU think, Darkbeer? Your name here should be Sausage Link, for all the links you post.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Hmm, I guess I will need to apply for an absentee ballot this November. How one votes on this issue is definitely based on whether you would like insane oil profits to continue, or to harness some of those profits and direct them toward researching and producing alternate fuels.
Originally Posted By berol I don't think it'd harness. They'd raise prices in another state or country if they had to.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger I don't see how they can prevent the oil companies from raising prices. And if they do... "Oops! Well wha'd'ya know! We _really_ underestimated the demand for gasoline in California this year! Our bad. We'll make more next year, we promise."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.nooiltax.com" target="_blank">http://www.nooiltax.com</a> >>There’s no question we need to advance energy alternatives, but Proposition 87 is not the way to get there. It would increase California oil taxes by $4 billion and create a new state bureaucracy of 50 political appointees to spend it -- with no accountability to taxpayers and no requirement they produce any results. The independent Legislative Analyst reports Prop 87 would also reduce revenues available for schools, public safety, health care, local government and transportation needs. Not surprisingly, Prop 87 is opposed by a coalition of more than 140 organizations, including the California Taxpayers’ Association, California Small Business Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce, California State Firefighters’ Association, labor, senior groups, public safety officials, local governments, and educators.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/commentary/editorials/article_1196764.php" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/ocre gister/opinion/commentary/editorials/article_1196764.php</a> >>Oil tax increase. Want to pay even more when you fill up your big, sinful SUV? Then this initiative is for you. It would impose a tax "of 1.5 percent to 6 percent, depending on oil price per barrel, on producers of oil extracted in California ... ," says the ballot statement. The annual cost, "depending on the interpretation of the measure's tax rate provisions," would be "either about $200 million or about $380 million." (The initiative would also establish a "program to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25 percent, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative-energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training.") But get this: the initiative "[p]rohibits producers from passing [the]tax on to consumers." That's a socialist dream. In a free market, producers must pass on higher costs to consumers – or go broke. If producers somehow were to be prohibited from passing on the cost, the state could suffer 1970s-style shortages and lines at the pump. This is really a nice pork initiative for alternative energy companies and environmentalist groups. Consumers should drive it into a ditch.<<
