Evil Twin of William Jennings Bryan California Voters Guide Part 2

Prop 87: The oil tax
So we've probably seen the most publicity for this proposition including former president Clinton supporting it. Essentially, this would place and additional tax on oil "produced" in California. The tax could be as little as 1.5% and as much as 6%, depending on the cost of a barrel of oil. This would go towards programs encouraging the use of alternative energy sources. The tax would be in place until they got $4 billion for these programs. Under the law, producers would not be allowed to pass the cost of this tax onto consumers
My Vote: NO. Although I like where this law is going, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. First, how do you keep producers from passing the cost on to the consumers (that's us)? Well, in section 42004(c) says that "the board shall investigate whether a producer, first purchaser, or subsequent purchaser has attempted to gouge consumers by using the assessment as a pretext to materially raise the price of oil, gasoline or diesel fuel." That's it: investigate. No "if oil companies are gouging consumers their testicles will be summarily chopped off and deep fried in a vat of old peanut oil and served to ferrel cats". And that's my real problem. Unless there is some real threat, these costs will be passed on to the buyer. I know this because oil companies are blaming the cost of oil for high prices while they're raking in record profits every quarter. Second, the ads are absolutely true: there is no required results. They have to issue reports and hold public meetings, but really nothing else. Finally, if you read the state legislative analysts report, it shows that the oil companies will actually gain some tax exemptions from Prop 87. All in all, this adds up to a no vote for me.

Prop 88: Property tax for education funding.
This would add a $50 per parcel property tax to give more money to schools for specific programs.
My Vote: Leaning towards no. I think that the small amount of $50 wouldn't kill anyone. However, there is no guarantee that the funds taken will stay local. Also, it looks like there is a special grant for schools that are already successful. Finally, there are so many rules that it seems like a good chunk of the money won't actually get spent in the classroom. I think if you really want your $50 to make a difference donate it to one of your kids' teachers.

Prop 89: Public Campaign Financing
This proposition does 2 things: (1)it creates a new system of public financing that would give a candidate for a public office in California a reasonable amount of money to run a campaign. They would not be allowed to accept private donations except for "seed money" which could only be used up to 90 days before and is very limited depending on the office they are running for. (2) there would be new limits on how much money a person could accept from private donors including individuals, committees (like PACs I suppose) and political parties.
My Vote: YES. I think it takes too much money for a person to win political office in California and too many people are making our legislature the first step to higher office instead of focusing on their job. Plus, California faces many challenges, especially in the budget. A state politicians decision could be compromised by the interest groups that donate to his/her campaign. This bill would allow our local candidates to remain somewhat sovereign in their decision-making. Finally, those opposed to this bill argue that the only thing this bill would do is create public funding of negative ads. I say "so what". How they choose to advertise is up to the candidate in my view. If they choose to go negative, that's their decision and we the voters can hold them accountable at the ballot box.

Prop 90: Eminent Domain
Under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, governments can take control of private property under eminent domain rules and give that land to other private interests, such as businesses. This proposition would create a law that prevents private property from being taken for other private use. It also defines "just compensation," which is the re-payment that someone gets when their property is taken.
My Vote: NO. I like the idea of protecting private property being taken and given away/sold to other private interests. Indeed, the cases described in the argument for Prop 90 tell about a guy who was forced to give up his family restaurant so a Mercedes dealer could build a new parking lot, another guy whose luggage store was in the family for almost 60 years was torn down for a hotel, and a priest who almost lost his church to condos. These stories pissed me off as did the Supreme Court decision. However, if blocking these types of transactions is the purpose of the law, why include the part about compensating businesses for losses based on potential profits, which is what Prop 90 looks to do. The example given in the anti-Prop 90 argument is a developer that wants to build 2000 homes is limited by the city to 500, thus he sues for compensation for the other 1500 houses. This is pretty much what this law would do since it defines just compensation as including "economic loss" and setting the value at its "highest and best use".

Finally, my predictions for the election:
1. The Democrats will win the House and Senate.
2. Arnold will be governor still (not exactly a tough pick at this point)
3. Props 1B, 1C, 1E, 85, 87, and 89 will fail.
4. 1A, 1D, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 90 will pass
5. I'll be pleased nationally and upset locally.
6. Lauri and Amanda will tire of Pete and I talking politics for so long.
7. I'll have a few beers.