Thanks to Lurk, over at OC Blog, for digging up this story. According to a Yahoo Finance article, U.S. House Representatives Loretta and Linda Sanchez are teaming up to support Prop. 87, which is essentially a tax on oil drilling in California.
Prop. 87 aims to “reduce our use of oil by expanding the use of existing technologies, funding the development of improved and new technologies, and brings alternative fuel and energy technologies to the market faster. Prop 87 will provide financial incentives to make clean energy options more affordable in order to expand their use. By reducing oil consumption, Prop 87 will reduce pollution that causes global warming, asthma, lung disease and cancer.”
Apparently, oil companies in California do not pay much currently fo drilling oil in our state, and this measure seeks to establish fees that will comparable to those paid in states including Oklahoma, Texas and Alaska. Will consumers end up paying for these fees? According to Prop. 87 backers, “The California Attorney General has confirmed that Prop 87 makes it illegal for oil companies to raise gas prices or to pass the cost of the fee to consumers.”
So how will the money be spent? According to the website for Prop 87, it will fund:
- Consumer rebates for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles
- Incentives for increased use of wind, solar and other renewable energies
- Assistance to local governments to upgrade public vehicle fleets (emergency, school bus, waste disposal, mass transit)
- Matching funds to make new technologies available to the public by clearing hurdles such as engine certification, crash-testing, and Underwriters
Sounds like a good tax to have.
It taxes the wealth (oil in the ground)owners, Does not pass it on to consumers, and the complainers (opponents) are life long government leeches, and their main complaint is they are not beneficiaries of the gravy train.
Of course a better idea for lowering energy costs and ending USA
Art –
Do “trustees” really deserve to be called “educators”?
Come on.
While some trustees are indeed educators (teachers, professors, insrtuctors), most are not. What are the credentials of those you cite as “educators”?
Standing by.
Surprised Cambell is against the Prop. He loves raises taxes. Just look at his Measure M.
sac,
Prop. 87 is a horrible idea. While the direct cost cannot be passed on to consumers, the net effect will be less money for oil exploration, less money for improvements to existing refineries, less money to pay the workers and contractors at the refineries, etc.
When will we learn that good ideas come from the marketplace, not from the government? I am sure we all want alternatives to oil, but they will have to come from enterprising Americans, not interloping bureaucrats.
How about getting rid of all car pool lanes and making them toll lanes instead? Then the extra revenues could be used to fund highway improvements. That will do more to fix traffic than creating more diamond lanes.
How about lowering tariffs for all imported cars that meet a certain mileage requirement?
What about waiving all state sales tax proceeds on cars that use alternative energy?
Even better – why don’t we let consumers decide for themselves what they want to drive? That’s the best idea yet!
7:33,
Good point. I don’t know who the guys cited in the example are. I copied the text from the No on 87 website.
Then again, it’s not like either of the Sanchez sisters are educators either – and yes I know their mother is a teacher. Listen, my father was a mechanic, but I have no idea how cars run, nor any interest in that. Therefore, just because Mrs. Sanchez is a teacher doesn’t mean that her daughters know the first thing about education. One thing for sure, they don’t know anything about how the economy works.
I haven’t seen the oil companies fold up shop in Texas and that tax has been there for some time. I understand the economics argument but if it had such devastating effect that is predicted here Red Texas would have dumped it long ago.
We’ve subsidized and continue to subsidize the oil and related industries so I’m thinking that the No on 87 campaign is all about the sky is falling, nothing more.
The folks listed there on the No on 87 are enough for me to lean towards a Yes vote.
So, Bimbo and Boozer are teaming up on a stupid idea again, what’s new?
By the way, apparently Bimbo didn’t get the memo that she’s suppposed to wear blue now…
Bladerunner – When is the last time you checked on Texas oil production stats? Half the producing wells in the state were capped 20-years ago because of the taxes, costs to refine and OPEC price controls.
JR—When’s the last time you checked on Texas political stats? It’s a one party Red State, you know,the anti-tax party. It’s so one party that the Demss have to leave the state to try and block their own dismemberment and even then they fail to stop the GOP blitkrieg.
If the tax was such a bad deal you Southfork Rexall cowboys would have ended it long ago. As W said in 2000, what’s goof for Texas…..
Art —
You “copied” the text from the website – that’s your defense? You’re not responsible for the sources you choose to use?
Hmm.
I didn’t say a word about the Sanchez sisters and their mother’s profession — but I’ve read you on that topic before. You can’t stay away from it. Why’s that?
La Profesora,
I copied text from both the pro and con websites re 87, so yes, I tried to be fair in that respect. I am not however going to take the time to doublecheck what they are posting. You however are welcome to do so.
As for Sanchez, she often sells herself as an expert on education and I continue to take umbrage at that. Her education is in business, not education, and she has no experience as a teacher, nor is she a parent of schoolchildren as her only dependent is a cat.
Now we know that Sanchez is weak not only on education, but also on energy and the economy. Pray tell what exactly are her strong points?
Art,
No attempt was made to defend Sanchez on my part. I am no fan.
I am interested in critical thinking though, especially in public discourse.
It doesn’t surprise me that the propaganda put out by supporters and detractors on an issue would be weak. This is why I teach my students to verify sources.
You seem to focus on Sanchez at times, drawing attention to, among other things, the fact that she isn’t a parent as if parenthood gave someone instant insight in education.
I simply wonder whether or not you make the same judgements about male candidates, if their fatherhood imbues them with some kind of credibility on education issues. Or maybe their lack of fatherhood (other people can use other terms) makes them somehow less credible.
When you offer your support or criticism of female candidates/ politcians, you do seem to characterize them and their skills differently than you do men.
Have you ever mentioned a male politican’s pet before?
It’s a, excuse the pun, a catty remark.
That’s it.
Yeah, Art, just don’t go there unless you’re willing to talk about the big dogs that all the guys keep on leashes. Guys have dogs right?
Bow wow.
Maybe the Republican dudes have dogs but I bet the Dem guys keep those well-lighted aquariums full of endangered fish.
La profesora,
Oh, we hashed this out before. I hold men to the same standard. Essentially if any candidate says they are an “Education” candidate, I expect them to back up their words.
As for Gretzky the Cat, Loretta made him fair game by mentioning him in several interviews, and by featuring him in her annual Christmas cards. He is as much a public persona as she is.
Free Gretzky!
I’ve read the hash before, Art. I’m just saying that I’d love you to mention the children (or lack of children) of male candidates or politicians, that’s all.
Maybe we could have an lineup or something and then some kind of rating system. One child equals a minor in education while triplets makes you an expert.
Then, there’s the fallacy in the thinking that having children necessarily results in any kind of expertise in education…
Art is cute when he gets like that.
Bladerunner – You’re drowning in the deep blue seize. You may need a lesson in conservative logic. We did end the oil taxes in Texas when we capped our wells.
La Profesora,
This issue drives me nuts! Let’s try again:
1. If an politician is going to call him or herself an expert on education, he or she should be either a teacher or school administrator, or trustee.
2. Barring that sort of background or experience, a politician who has raised children will have more experience in education than someone who has only raised a cat. Anyone who has put children through the public school system can attest to that.
3. In my case, I have actually completed curriculum in education, at Coastline Community College and at the University of Phoenix. I have taught for three years at Cerritos College and I have three children in the public school system. I have also done my time with the PTA. What has Loretta done? Nada.
4. I concede by the way that Loretta’s current male GOP opponent is also inexperienced in education, and he will admit it if you ask him. The difference is that he does not pretend otherwise.
JR–I don’t know what is in the water at Southfork but ya missed the 150,000 active wells in the Lone Star state that are not capped, earning those Red State cowboys $682 million in taxes. I guess they talk the rexall conservative talk, but walk the white wine liberal walk.
Art-
Please demonstrate, with facts not assertions, where Congresswoman Sanchez has proclaimed herself an expert on education.
I know plenty of people who have many kids and not a whit of interest in edcuation issues.
anon at 12:57 –
You want “facts” not “assertions”?
Picky, picky, picky.
That won’t leave much to write about….