Thanks for visiting my blog, Serving Bread. Here you'll read stories, insights, reflections and ramblings from a campus minister, father, husband and Jesus-follower. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
What is it: This proposition imposes a new tax on oil that is pumped in California (12% of the oil pumped in the US comes from California). The money (about $4 billion) will be spent on a program to reduce our dependence on oil and promote clean energy such as solar, wind, etc. The tax would bring in about $225 million to $485 million each year and would stop after the $4 billion program was paid for.
What the Pro people are saying: The oil companies have certain exemptions in California and this proposition would make them pay taxes on their profits. It promotes alternative fuels, helping us be less dependant on foreign oil.
What the Con people are saying: By taxing oil that is pumped in California will increase the cost of oil from California and make it less competitive on the market. California will end up importing more oil and have higher gas prices.
Bottom Line: The pro-87 folks have brought in some big guns (Clinton and Gore) to promote the initiative and the oil companies have put up a lot of money to fight it. Though the con people say that the tax may continue even after the $4 billion program is paid for, I suppose that’s debatable. I like that it’s not an indefinite tax. However, I do have concerns that the tax could have a negative impact on California’s economy. With California oil being more expensive, this could cause a slowdown in production. The (non-partisan) legislative analyst writes that an indirect impact of the measure would reduce production, which means a reduction in investment in new technologies, and an increase in the cost of oil products. If done well, though, California could lead the way in developing alternative fuels and it could do so at a faster pace than without the tax. There seems to be costs and benefits to this measure–the question is, “which costs and benefits do we want to risk pursuing?” (With the amount of money that the oil companies have, I would not be surprised that if this proposition passes, it will be tied up in the courts for years!)
-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----
|
Related Posts: |
1 Responses to “Proposition 87”
Leave a Reply