Comments on: Lipstick 4: Caribou Barbie wants more Californians to die. http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die Orange County's top political blog Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:09:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Carl Overmyer http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69682 Carl Overmyer Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:07:02 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69682 Ok, Vern that may have been an overstatement of the "liberal cause" in general, (or how I see it) my apologies for the characterization. I have asthma too, which is set off by diesel fumes to boot. I'm not sure about NFTA in general, but some parts of it I sure am. You still have not addressed the issues that CalTax talks about and they are very real. The damn thing isn’t legal, it isn’t going to be upheld in court, and it will cost us, the state, the taxpayer’s, money to litigate a bill which never should have been passed. Bottom line is it isn’t a legal remedy. The figure being thrown around for this "small fee" is ½ Billion dollars, that’s not a little fee, and if it isn’t containerized it isn’t taxed. How fair is that? The claimed purpose of this bill is to finance infrastructure improvements and environmental mitigation projects. Despite suggestions to the contrary, acceptable alternatives to this illegal solution do exist: Ports are financed with billions of dollars in private sector investments, paid for mostly through revenue bonds financed by port terminal operators and others through true user fees. California ports are carrying close to $3.5 billion in revenue bonds for maritime infrastructure improvements, and these funds continue to be spent on updating and building new roads, rail capacity and a variety of other projects. In addition, public-private partnerships offer a viable way to fund goods movement-related projects outside of the ports. In principle, a public-private partnership must provide real and tangible benefits to all who contribute funds. This concept is most applicable to individual projects because funding sources may derive varying levels of benefit from each specific project and, therefore should have varying levels of financial involvement in those projects. The one-size-fits-all approach offered by SB 974 does not constitute a true public-private partnership. BTW AQMD has been involved in some of the "cleaning up" of the transport system down there already and they aren't going anywhere, so the ports will be forced by federal clean air standards to do something. Yes the costs will be passed on. But everyone should be paying that price, not just containers. It's a bad bill! Ok, Vern that may have been an overstatement of the “liberal cause” in general, (or how I see it) my apologies for the characterization.
I have asthma too, which is set off by diesel fumes to boot. I’m not sure about NFTA in general, but some parts of it I sure am.

You still have not addressed the issues that CalTax talks about and they are very real. The damn thing isn’t legal, it isn’t going to be upheld in court, and it will cost us, the state, the taxpayer’s, money to litigate a bill which never should have been passed. Bottom line is it isn’t a legal remedy. The figure being thrown around for this “small fee” is ½ Billion dollars, that’s not a little fee, and if it isn’t containerized it isn’t taxed. How fair is that?

The claimed purpose of this bill is to finance infrastructure improvements and environmental mitigation projects. Despite suggestions to the contrary, acceptable alternatives to this illegal solution do exist:

Ports are financed with billions of dollars in private sector investments, paid for mostly through revenue bonds financed by port terminal operators and others through true user fees. California ports are carrying close to $3.5 billion in revenue bonds for maritime infrastructure improvements, and these funds continue to be spent on updating and building new roads, rail capacity and a variety of other projects.

In addition, public-private partnerships offer a viable way to fund goods movement-related projects outside of the ports. In principle, a public-private partnership must provide real and tangible benefits to all who contribute funds. This concept is most applicable to individual projects because funding sources may derive varying levels of benefit from each specific project and, therefore should have varying levels of financial involvement in those projects. The one-size-fits-all approach offered by SB 974 does not constitute a true public-private partnership.

BTW AQMD has been involved in some of the “cleaning up” of the transport system down there already and they aren’t going anywhere, so the ports will be forced by federal clean air standards to do something. Yes the costs will be passed on. But everyone should be paying that price, not just containers.

It’s a bad bill!

]]> By: Vern Nelson http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69676 Vern Nelson Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:40:30 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69676 OK, where were we. Wow, that is one long-ass list of companies that would have to pay a little more for shipping under SB 974, and would prefer not to. <i>Why is a new tax always your answer rather than private enterprise paying their own way to be competitive?</i> Well, that's sure a caricature of me, I hope my caricature of you isn't as inaccurate... I've been trying to wrap my mind around this alternative "solution" of yours. Well, first, let's be sure we both agree there's a problem to be solved. I've been reading for a few years about the health problems near the Ports, mainly in poor neighborhoods like Wilmington, thousands of kids growing up with asthma, mainly Latin kids (so who cares?) I grew up with asthma in the Inland Empire until we moved out to HB. And you cast doubt on the 3700 number, but even if it's half of that, I think we're talking about society trying to act in its self-defense.... And you solution seems to be - Like ALWAYS - let the Invisible Hand of the Market take care of it? What's gonna compel these trucking companies and railroads to make these changes you seem to agree are necessary, any time soon? What does that legislation look like? AND you make the leap, which I won't contest, that any container fee will be passed on to the consumer and hence really be a "tax", but if these companies made these changes, whether "out of the goodness of their hearts" or under legal duress of some sort, why would that cost also not be passed on to consumers? Interesting point about the port in Mexico. We shouldn't be letting those DIRTY MEXICAN TRUCKS up here anyway! Glad we're both against NAFTA. Puzzled, but still pro-SB974.... your Juice-Brother Vern OK, where were we.

Wow, that is one long-ass list of companies that would have to pay a little more for shipping under SB 974, and would prefer not to.

Why is a new tax always your answer rather than private enterprise paying their own way to be competitive?

Well, that’s sure a caricature of me, I hope my caricature of you isn’t as inaccurate…

I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around this alternative “solution” of yours. Well, first, let’s be sure we both agree there’s a problem to be solved. I’ve been reading for a few years about the health problems near the Ports, mainly in poor neighborhoods like Wilmington, thousands of kids growing up with asthma, mainly Latin kids (so who cares?) I grew up with asthma in the Inland Empire until we moved out to HB. And you cast doubt on the 3700 number, but even if it’s half of that, I think we’re talking about society trying to act in its self-defense….

And you solution seems to be – Like ALWAYS – let the Invisible Hand of the Market take care of it? What’s gonna compel these trucking companies and railroads to make these changes you seem to agree are necessary, any time soon? What does that legislation look like? AND you make the leap, which I won’t contest, that any container fee will be passed on to the consumer and hence really be a “tax”, but if these companies made these changes, whether “out of the goodness of their hearts” or under legal duress of some sort, why would that cost also not be passed on to consumers?

Interesting point about the port in Mexico. We shouldn’t be letting those DIRTY MEXICAN TRUCKS up here anyway! Glad we’re both against NAFTA.

Puzzled, but still pro-SB974…. your Juice-Brother Vern

]]> By: Carl Overmyer http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69662 Carl Overmyer Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:15:01 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69662 Vern, did you forget to answer this one? Vern, did you forget to answer this one?

]]> By: Carl Overmyer http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69524 Carl Overmyer Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:39:35 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69524 Since reading my earlier response I wasn't crystal clear on the matter. I am against this bill and will voice such to the Gov. Also in researching it I found some very interesting things about it. If it is signed by the Gov. it will end up in the courts and will be defeated, wasting taxpayer moneys and those of industry that should be used elsewhere. It isn't legal in any way and as such should never have been passed by the Legislature or the Senate. Naughty Naughty! They should have been dealing with the state budget instead! But NO they are too busy making BAD and ILLEGAL resolutions. Thanks Vern for the tip off. We are talking about a ½ BILLION DOLLARS here NOT chump change! The complete text of the bill for anyone interested is here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_974_bill_20080805_enrolled.html http://www.caltax.org/ContainerTax-SB974.pdf From Cal Tax, their conclusion follows; • Under Article XIIIA, Section 3 of the California Constitution, the "fee" imposed pursuant to SB 974 is a tax subject to a supermajority vote. • The "fee" is not part of a regulatory effort to mitigate the adverse impact of the feepayer's operations because the feepayer is the owner of the cargo, not the shipping company. There is only a minor, indirect, nexus between the feepayers' products or operations and their adverse effects for the same reason. • Most notably, only 50% of the vessels coming through the ports are containerized. Thus, the fee is not fairly apportioned. • The "fee" is also a tax under the Commerce Clause, as it does not pay for the costs of regulating the feepayer, only those the feepayer has chosen to transport his or her goods. • As the "fee" is a tax, it must undergo greater scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. The tax also violates the Commerce Clause because it does not approximate the actual benefit conferred on the feepayer. The feepayers under SB 974 are those who pay shippers to transport their goods. They receive no benefit from meeting air pollution standards already required by law, and in fact are paying for any purported benefits received by those who do not transport their cargo by using containers. • Finally, SB 974 violates the Foreign Commerce Clause, as it is inconsistent with the Customs Convention on Containers and poses the risk of multiple layers of taxation for instrumentalities of foreign commerce. A partial list of those who oppose this measure: Abercrombie and Fitch ACG Cotton Marketing LLC Ag Processing, Inc. Agricultural Council of California Agriculture Transportation Coalition Allenberg Cotton Co. Allen Group Aloha Airlines American Apparel & Footwear Association American Chemistry Council American Cotton Shippers Association American Council for Food Safety and Quality American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. American Electronics Association American Foods Group American Forest and Paper Association American Import Shippers Association Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Anzco Foods North America, Inc. APL Association of International Automobile Manufacturers Badger Forest Products Bank of Hawaii Beall’s, Inc. Belk, Inc. Best Buy Blue Diamond Growers Bonanza Foods and Provisions, Inc. Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. Border Valley Trading LTD Borders Group, Inc. Borges of California Boscov’s Department Stores, LLC. Braun Export Burger King, Inc. CA Commodity Export Corporation Calcot LTC California Bean Shippers Association California Business Properties Association California Cattlemen’s Association California Chamber of Commerce California Citrus Mutual California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association California Farm Bureau Federation California Fisheries and Seafood Institute California Grain and Feed Association California Grape and Tree Fruit League California Grocers Association California Independent Grocers Association California League of Food Processors California Manufacturers & Technology Association California Metals Coalition California Nevada Soft Drink Association California Railroad Industry California Restaurant Association California Retailers Association California Seed Association California Taxpayers Association California Warehouse Association Carriere Family Farms Castle &Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc. Casual Male Retail Group, Inc. Central Pacific Bank Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii Charming Shoppes, Inc. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of California Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Southern California Colorado Food Products Columbine Vineyards of Delano, CA Corona Chamber of Commerce Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc. CTP Transport, Inc. Dairy America, Inc. Del Monte Foods Derco Associates, Inc. Diamond Foods, Inc. Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S. Dole Food Company, Inc. Dressbarn, Inc. Duncan and Sons Lines, Inc. Dvn Louis Dreyfus Corporation E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. ECOM USA, Inc. Edwards Luggage EFI Logistics, Inc. Ethan Allan Global, Inc. Food Marketing Institute Gap Inc. Grain Millers, Inc. Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association Harland M. Braun and Company / Braun Export Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce Hawaii Korean Chamber of Commerce Hawaii Tourism Authority Hedley Construction and Development Heineken USA, Inc. Hewlett-Packard Home Depot Intel Corporation J.C. Penney Corporation Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores Kailua Chamber of Commerce Kohl’s Corporation Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce Limited Brands, Inc. Limtiaco Company Liz Claiborne, Inc. Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Lowes Macy’s Macy’s West Mallory Alexander International Logistics Mathiesen Maritime Services, Inc. Maurice’s, Inc. Mazda North American Operations Meat Importers Council of America Meridian Nut Growers LLC Midwest Shippers Association Miller Brewing Company Murphy Imports LLC Murrieta Chamber of Commerce NAIOP Inland Empire NAIOP SoCal National Association of Industrial and Office Properties – California State Council National Association of Manufacturers National Chicken Council National Federation of Independent Business National Industrial Transportation League National Retail Federation National Turkey Federation Natural + Organic Imports Neiman Marcus Nike Nisei Farmers League North Dakota Department of Agriculture Office Depot OZ Logistics, Inc. Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight Forwarders Pacific Egg & Poultry Association Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Panasonic Corporation of North America Payless ShoeSource, Inc. Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation Preferred Freezer Services Red Wing Shoe Company Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau Regional Legislative Alliance – Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Rekerdres and Sons Insurance Retail Industry Leaders Association Retail Merchants of Hawaii Rite-Aid Safeway, Inc. SAMPCO, Inc. San Rafael Luggage Center Seaboard Foods LP Securakey Smurfit-Stone Container Company Sonnet Technologies Southlands Organic Ltd Southwest California Legislative Council Southwest Hide Company Specialty Crop Trade Council Spencer Gifts LLC Spirit Halloween Superstores Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association SSA Marine Starboard Alliance Company LLC Sunview Marketing International Target Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce The Refrigerated Shipping Association Toy Association of Southern California Toy Industry Association, Inc. Transgroup Worldwide Logistics Travel Goods Association U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel U.S. Chamber of Commerce United Laundry Services, Inc. United States Council for International Business US Dairy Export Council USA Poultry & Egg Export Council Valley Industry and Commerce Association Vergel N. Adonis Realty, Inc. Voit Development Company Walgreens Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Washington State Potato Commission Waterfront Coalition Weil Brothers Cotton, Inc Western Cotton Shippers Association Western Growers Western United Dairymen Wilson Homecare Wine Institute World Sake Imports WS Badcock Corp, DBA Badcock Home Furnishings and More Any wonder why I’m against it? Rock & Roll Jazz Man, lets dance! Since reading my earlier response I wasn’t crystal clear on the matter. I am against this bill and will voice such to the Gov. Also in researching it I found some very interesting things about it. If it is signed by the Gov. it will end up in the courts and will be defeated, wasting taxpayer moneys and those of industry that should be used elsewhere. It isn’t legal in any way and as such should never have been passed by the Legislature or the Senate. Naughty Naughty!
They should have been dealing with the state budget instead! But NO they are too busy making BAD and ILLEGAL resolutions.
Thanks Vern for the tip off.
We are talking about a ½ BILLION DOLLARS here NOT chump change!

The complete text of the bill for anyone interested is here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_974_bill_20080805_enrolled.html

http://www.caltax.org/ContainerTax-SB974.pdf
From Cal Tax, their conclusion follows;
• Under Article XIIIA, Section 3 of the California Constitution, the “fee” imposed pursuant to SB 974 is a tax subject to a supermajority vote.
• The “fee” is not part of a regulatory effort to mitigate the adverse impact of the feepayer’s operations because the feepayer is the owner of the cargo, not the shipping company. There is only a minor, indirect, nexus between the feepayers’ products or operations and their adverse effects for the same reason.
• Most notably, only 50% of the vessels coming through the ports are containerized. Thus, the fee is not fairly apportioned.
• The “fee” is also a tax under the Commerce Clause, as it does not pay for the costs of regulating the feepayer, only those the feepayer has chosen to transport his or her goods.
• As the “fee” is a tax, it must undergo greater scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. The tax also violates the Commerce Clause because it does not approximate the actual benefit conferred on the feepayer. The feepayers under SB 974 are those who pay shippers to transport their goods. They receive no benefit from meeting air pollution standards already required by law, and in fact are paying for any purported benefits received by those who do not transport their cargo by using containers.
• Finally, SB 974 violates the Foreign Commerce Clause, as it is inconsistent with the Customs Convention on Containers and poses the risk of multiple layers of taxation for instrumentalities of foreign commerce.

A partial list of those who oppose this measure:
Abercrombie and Fitch
ACG Cotton Marketing LLC
Ag Processing, Inc.
Agricultural Council of California
Agriculture Transportation Coalition
Allenberg Cotton Co.
Allen Group
Aloha Airlines
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Chemistry Council
American Cotton Shippers Association
American Council for Food Safety and Quality
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
American Electronics Association
American Foods Group
American Forest and Paper Association
American Import Shippers Association
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Anzco Foods North America, Inc.
APL
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
Badger Forest Products
Bank of Hawaii
Beall’s, Inc.
Belk, Inc.
Best Buy
Blue Diamond Growers
Bonanza Foods and Provisions, Inc.
Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.
Border Valley Trading LTD
Borders Group, Inc.
Borges of California
Boscov’s Department Stores, LLC.
Braun Export
Burger King, Inc.
CA Commodity Export Corporation
Calcot LTC
California Bean Shippers Association
California Business Properties Association
California Cattlemen’s Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Grocers Association
California Independent Grocers Association
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Metals Coalition
California Nevada Soft Drink Association
California Railroad Industry
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California Seed Association
California Taxpayers Association
California Warehouse Association
Carriere Family Farms
Castle &Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc.
Casual Male Retail Group, Inc.
Central Pacific Bank
Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii
Charming Shoppes, Inc.
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of California
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Southern California
Colorado Food Products
Columbine Vineyards of Delano, CA
Corona Chamber of Commerce
Crain Walnut Shelling, Inc.
CTP Transport, Inc.
Dairy America, Inc.
Del Monte Foods
Derco Associates, Inc.
Diamond Foods, Inc.
Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S.
Dole Food Company, Inc.
Dressbarn, Inc.
Duncan and Sons Lines, Inc.
Dvn Louis Dreyfus Corporation
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
ECOM USA, Inc.
Edwards Luggage
EFI Logistics, Inc.
Ethan Allan Global, Inc.
Food Marketing Institute
Gap Inc.
Grain Millers, Inc.
Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association
Harland M. Braun and Company / Braun Export
Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce
Hawaii Korean Chamber of Commerce
Hawaii Tourism Authority
Hedley Construction and Development
Heineken USA, Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
Home Depot
Intel Corporation
J.C. Penney Corporation
Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft Stores
Kailua Chamber of Commerce
Kohl’s Corporation
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Limited Brands, Inc.
Limtiaco Company
Liz Claiborne, Inc.
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Lowes
Macy’s
Macy’s West
Mallory Alexander International Logistics
Mathiesen Maritime Services, Inc.
Maurice’s, Inc.
Mazda North American Operations
Meat Importers Council of America
Meridian Nut Growers LLC
Midwest Shippers Association
Miller Brewing Company
Murphy Imports LLC
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
NAIOP Inland Empire
NAIOP SoCal
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties –
California State Council
National Association of Manufacturers
National Chicken Council
National Federation of Independent Business
National Industrial Transportation League
National Retail Federation
National Turkey Federation
Natural + Organic Imports
Neiman Marcus
Nike
Nisei Farmers League
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
Office Depot
OZ Logistics, Inc.
Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers and Freight
Forwarders
Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Panasonic Corporation of North America
Payless ShoeSource, Inc.
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation
Preferred Freezer Services
Red Wing Shoe Company
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
Regional Legislative Alliance – Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties
Rekerdres and Sons Insurance
Retail Industry Leaders Association
Retail Merchants of Hawaii
Rite-Aid
Safeway, Inc.
SAMPCO, Inc.
San Rafael Luggage Center
Seaboard Foods LP
Securakey
Smurfit-Stone Container Company
Sonnet Technologies
Southlands Organic Ltd
Southwest California Legislative Council
Southwest Hide Company
Specialty Crop Trade Council
Spencer Gifts LLC
Spirit Halloween Superstores
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
SSA Marine
Starboard Alliance Company LLC
Sunview Marketing International
Target
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
The Refrigerated Shipping Association
Toy Association of Southern California
Toy Industry Association, Inc.
Transgroup Worldwide Logistics
Travel Goods Association
U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
United Laundry Services, Inc.
United States Council for International Business
US Dairy Export Council
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Vergel N. Adonis Realty, Inc.
Voit Development Company
Walgreens
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Washington State Potato Commission
Waterfront Coalition
Weil Brothers Cotton, Inc
Western Cotton Shippers Association
Western Growers
Western United Dairymen
Wilson Homecare
Wine Institute
World Sake Imports
WS Badcock Corp, DBA Badcock Home Furnishings
and More

Any wonder why I’m against it?
Rock & Roll Jazz Man, lets dance!

]]> By: Sweetelle http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69519 Sweetelle Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:26:37 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69519 Don't think that many people are turned off from the opportunity to laugh about Palin. Hey, it's better than getting an ulcer contemplating how many fathoms beyond evil the Reeps will delve to deceive the American people. I'm thinking that maybe I'm in the good company of people who don't know JACK about this issue and therefore aren't offering any commentary, pro or con ... Don’t think that many people are turned off from the opportunity to laugh about Palin. Hey, it’s better than getting an ulcer contemplating how many fathoms beyond evil the Reeps will delve to deceive the American people. I’m thinking that maybe I’m in the good company of people who don’t know JACK about this issue and therefore aren’t offering any commentary, pro or con …

]]> By: Vern Nelson http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69514 Vern Nelson Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:28:12 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69514 Dude, that's why I said "one quickie" I'm working on something else right now. But I promise I'll get back to this tonite or tomorrow. That reminds me, one of us should do something on Prop. 11, the anti-gerrymandering, pro-democracy redistricting bill. You should write that. There hasn't been a good Carl post in a while. I like it when we agree on stuff. I WILL BE BACH... Dude, that’s why I said “one quickie” I’m working on something else right now. But I promise I’ll get back to this tonite or tomorrow.

That reminds me, one of us should do something on Prop. 11, the anti-gerrymandering, pro-democracy redistricting bill. You should write that. There hasn’t been a good Carl post in a while. I like it when we agree on stuff.

I WILL BE BACH…

]]> By: Carl Overmyer http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69513 Carl Overmyer Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:23:27 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69513 Do you have any idea of the costs of anything in Alaska? NO! You still didn't answer my last paragraph either Vern. Why is a new tax always your answer rather than private enterprise paying their own way to be competitive? Do you have any idea of the costs of anything in Alaska? NO!

You still didn’t answer my last paragraph either Vern.

Why is a new tax always your answer rather than private enterprise paying their own way to be competitive?

]]> By: Carl Overmyer http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69512 Carl Overmyer Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:20:30 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69512 No Vern they were turned off by your continuing use of derogatory terms for Gov Palin No Vern they were turned off by your continuing use of derogatory terms for Gov Palin

]]> By: Vern Nelson http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69510 Vern Nelson Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:16:06 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69510 I will add more when I have time, about the real, disastrous health situation around the area of the Long Beach Port. Unless someone else wants to jump in and help out... HELLO? Anyone else read this post? I will add more when I have time, about the real, disastrous health situation around the area of the Long Beach Port. Unless someone else wants to jump in and help out… HELLO? Anyone else read this post?

]]> By: Vern Nelson http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69509 Vern Nelson Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:14:24 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69509 One quickie, I know you're religiously anti-tax (while others consider it the "price we pay for a civilized world) but this is a little deceptive on your part: <i>Since nearly 90% (her est.) of goods arrive in Alaska via 40 ft containers that adds $60 more to the cost of goods delivered to her state.</i> $60 to the "cost of goods" for Alaskans? How many "goods" do you think fit in a 40-foot container? Of course it all depends if we're talking about bars of soap or SUV's, but even assuming the companies passed on the entire $60 to consumers, it's more like pennies we're looking at. For breathable air, and longer healthier lives. One quickie, I know you’re religiously anti-tax (while others consider it the “price we pay for a civilized world) but this is a little deceptive on your part:

Since nearly 90% (her est.) of goods arrive in Alaska via 40 ft containers that adds $60 more to the cost of goods delivered to her state.

$60 to the “cost of goods” for Alaskans? How many “goods” do you think fit in a 40-foot container? Of course it all depends if we’re talking about bars of soap or SUV’s, but even assuming the companies passed on the entire $60 to consumers, it’s more like pennies we’re looking at. For breathable air, and longer healthier lives.

]]> By: Carl Overmyer http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/09/lipstick-4-caribou-barbie-wants-more-californians-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-69508 Carl Overmyer Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:06:18 +0000 http://orangejuiceblog.com/?p=10850#comment-69508 First off your title is off. "Oh yeah, my title. Right. That refers to the FACT that every year 3700 Californians die prematurely from ports and freight transportation pollution." Please prove this statement. You know it pure BS your own link says "The Air Resources Board ESTIMATES that 3,700 Californians die prematurely each year due to pollution..." Of course they have no ax to grind! "SB 974 would fund 1. “specific infrastructure needs to reduce congestion and air pollution” (including improving railroad crossings and removing heavy trucks from highways) as well as 2. “available technologies to reduce air pollution and protect public health” BY MEANS OF a $30 fee per (Per 20 foot, you left that out! Most containers are 40ft that's $60 ea.) shipping container at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland." Well Vern, the motivation for Gov Palin is very obvious if you look just a little bit into the issue. Her legislature and constituents and the already outrageous price of goods in her state. Since nearly 90% (her est.) of goods arrive in Alaska via 40 ft containers that adds $60 more to the cost of goods delivered to her state. Why should Alaskans pay more for their goods because a bunch of people here want to have someone else pay for new vehicles and rail systems to transport for their cargo around the LA basin. Nobody seems to understand that a huge new harbor facility sits just south of us in Mexico, that if we aren’t very careful, will kick our butts in hauling in cargo and sending it North to us on even dirtier trucks, running higher sulfur diesel fuels than we sell here. So what we may have, if this goes through is fewer high paying jobs, and greater air pollution. NICE WTF man why shouldn't those who benefit, pay for those general improvements in their own business. The port authority does not need to levy a new tax on containers to move toward cleaner more efficient transportation, they just WANT it. It's cost effective to change out the ageing diesel fleets to CNG as they are replaced. The rails do need to be upgraded but, shouldn't the rail companies be paying for that, not some new flat tax on the containers that goes on in to perpetuity? Yes the cost of moving goods is on the rise, but a new tax is not the way to cure the problem. JUST SAY NO TO NEW TAXES! Would you support a new tax on Santa Ana residents so Mike Tardif could improve his sheet metal shop too? Or one that would pay for Judy Ware to clean up her act? That's not a stretch at all in linkage, it’s totally fair considering your unbridled support for SB9700. First off your title is off.
“Oh yeah, my title. Right. That refers to the FACT that every year 3700 Californians die prematurely from ports and freight transportation pollution.”

Please prove this statement. You know it pure BS your own link says “The Air Resources Board ESTIMATES that 3,700 Californians die prematurely each year due to pollution…” Of course they have no ax to grind!

“SB 974 would fund 1. “specific infrastructure needs to reduce congestion and air pollution” (including improving railroad crossings and removing heavy trucks from highways) as well as 2. “available technologies to reduce air pollution and protect public health” BY MEANS OF a $30 fee per (Per 20 foot, you left that out! Most containers are 40ft that’s $60 ea.) shipping container at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland.”

Well Vern, the motivation for Gov Palin is very obvious if you look just a little bit into the issue. Her legislature and constituents and the already outrageous price of goods in her state.
Since nearly 90% (her est.) of goods arrive in Alaska via 40 ft containers that adds $60 more to the cost of goods delivered to her state. Why should Alaskans pay more for their goods because a bunch of people here want to have someone else pay for new vehicles and rail systems to transport for their cargo around the LA basin.

Nobody seems to understand that a huge new harbor facility sits just south of us in Mexico, that if we aren’t very careful, will kick our butts in hauling in cargo and sending it North to us on even dirtier trucks, running higher sulfur diesel fuels than we sell here. So what we may have, if this goes through is fewer high paying jobs, and greater air pollution. NICE

WTF man why shouldn’t those who benefit, pay for those general improvements in their own business. The port authority does not need to levy a new tax on containers to move toward cleaner more efficient transportation, they just WANT it. It’s cost effective to change out the ageing diesel fleets to CNG as they are replaced. The rails do need to be upgraded but, shouldn’t the rail companies be paying for that, not some new flat tax on the containers that goes on in to perpetuity? Yes the cost of moving goods is on the rise, but a new tax is not the way to cure the problem. JUST SAY NO TO NEW TAXES!

Would you support a new tax on Santa Ana residents so Mike Tardif could improve his sheet metal shop too? Or one that would pay for Judy Ware to clean up her act? That’s not a stretch at all in linkage, it’s totally fair considering your unbridled support for SB9700.

]]>