I will not have time to research every issue on the ballot for the November 7th election, however I will study as much as I can and post my decisions here. I am going to post each proposition / candidate that I decide on in a separate post so that comments can be posted about each issue.
----------------------------
Proposition 87: New taxes on oil companies that drill within California to create revenue to study and implement clean energy methods.
This proposition was the first one that I looked into because the issue interested me the most. There are passionate arguments for and against this proposition, however after looking into each one it seems to me that the arguments against 87 are designed to try to trick voters into believing things that aren't factual, while the arguments for 87 are genuine; even if there are still some unknowns.
The major arguments against 87 are as follows: 1) It will raise taxes by $4 billion dollars, 2) It will raise the price of gasoline at the pump, 3) It will take money away from education, and 4) it will create a new "bureaucracy" that can spend the new tax dollars any way it wants without accountability.
Proposition 87 would create $4 billion dollars in taxes, however this tax is a direct tax on the pumping of oil, paid by oil companies. There is no new tax or tax increase for consumers, and it is illegal for the oil companies to pass the tax on to consumers at the pump. The only way that 87 could make gas prices go up would be due to an increase in foreign oil imports because of decreased drilling in California due to the tax (importing foreign oil is more expensive). This is a possibility, however it is most likely that gas prices would remain the same because California's dependence on oil would decrease due to the initiative, and less gas needed means less gas imported.
The thought that prop 87 will take money away from schools is completely misleading. The argument goes as follows: If taxes for oil companies increase, they may sell some of their drills and land. If they sell some of their land, they will no longer be paying property taxes on the land. If they no longer pay property taxes on the land, then schools will no longer receive a portion of that tax money. So really, the argument is simply that property tax revenue will decrease. I'm not exactly sure how that would work, though, because if the companies were selling the land, they would have to be selling it to someone else, and that someone else would then have to pay the property tax. More so, $1.8 billion of the money collected from the new tax will go directly to schools, as shown in this breakdown.
The "bureaucracy" part of the bill is the hardest for me to understand, but I think I get the just of it. Prop 87 will appoint 50 new people to a committee charged with deciding how to spend the new funds. There is no requirement that these new funds be spent in any particular way, so long as they further the cause of clean energy use within California (I'm generalizing, of course). Opponents of the proposition are worried that this committee may decide to spend this money outside of California, or even the United States, and that none of the money is required to be spent on education.
The interesting thing here is that we are talking about new money, new revenue for the state of California that is not currently in the economy. Even if this committee, which is made of these people did decide to spend the money outside the US or give none of it to education, they aren't taking away anything from the current system. Plus, in the current plan, almost half of the new revenue will go directly to education. And if money needs to be spent in foreign markets to promote energy saving, money saving technologies here, then that is probably a good investment. Remember, it is money from the oil companies that will be spent, not money from California citizens.
Arguments for Prop 87
I won't go in to all of the pro-arguments for prop 87 in detail. They include short-term benefits such as the creation of many new jobs and more money to schools, and long term benefits such as decreased reliance on fossil fuels, less pollution, and money savings. You can a list of benefits here.
I would be excited if something like prop 87 passed because it would greatly accelerate the transition to clean energy without a high direct cost to the average California citizen. California is one of the few states that doesn't already impose a drilling tax, so doing so is not something experimental. Many states already do this, so the method is tried and true (it is also interesting to note that gas prices in these other states remain lower than in California). The profit margins of the oil companies are already insanely high, and they can afford to pay it here just like they do in other states.
I also think we should be very wary of ads that try to trick and deceive voters. If you go to the No on 87 Website, you will notice that the first thing you see is "No on the $4 Billion Oil Tax." Most of the ads that I have seen opposing the proposition are leaving out the fact that this tax is not on citizens, but on oil drillers. They are trying to get uninformed voters to mistakingly think that this is a tax that will be imposed upon them directly.
I am also wary of the opposition because of the funding. Almost all of the funding for the campaign against the proposition is comping from the oil companies themselves: Over 98 million so far. This website from the Secretary of State shows who is making the contributions. Be sure to notice the cleverly misleading headline at the top of the page =)
So anyway, that's my take on the issue so far. Best of luck to everyone trying to weed their way through this stuff -- it is dense, of course. I want to especially encourage anyone voting on this proposition not take any of the ads at face value. Also, if you are a conservative voter, don't feel like you have to vote no on something like this just because it involves the environment and has Bill Clinton as a spokesperson =) Issues regarding fuel and energy involve everyone and it is okay to be a Conservative, a Republican, and a Christian and still be concerned about God's Creation!
Please leave comments about this stuff too and point out any mistakes that I have made =)
Here are some links to help:
http://www.votecircle.com/proposition.php?id=87
http://www.yeson87.org/
http://www.nooiltax.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment