Prop 87

The "Voter Guide" provides almost 10 pages of fine-print on Proposition 87. If you don't have a law degree, a magnifying glass, or if you don't have the time to wade through a multitude of Chapters, Articles, Sections and Sub-Sections outlining the Findings & Declarations, General Provisions, Purpose & Intent, Definitions, Standards, Allocations of Funds and lastly, Accountability, then take my word for it, just vote NO.

Al Gore is "starring" in an ad in support of this 4 billion dollar tax hike.

The wording of this state measure sounds like we're really going to give it to the oil companies in assessments (read tax hikes) thereby forcing them to come up with alternative fuel sources. And of course they'll cooperate fully. And while they're cooperating with this coerced creativity, they will have the consumer's best interest at heart by shielding us from trickle-down taxation.

For those who believe the consumer is protected, read Sec. 2 - F:

Consumers should be protected from any attempt at price gouging by big oil companies if they try to pass along their assessment costs by increasing gas prices at the pump.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but the language here is ambiguous. "Should be protected" does not mean we will be protected. Does "price gouging" mean no increases over $1.00? $3.00? $5.00? I recall Clinton's painful parsing of the word "is"; this proposal is chock-full of words the liberals can parse. "Well, raising the price of gas by $1.50 is not gouging in the purest sense of the meaning of 'gouge'." "It depends upon what gouge means." "Passing along a tax is NOT the same as passing along an assessment."

Section 18. Part 21. 42004 (c) states:

The assessment imposed by this part shall not be passed on to consumers through higher prices for oil, gasoline, or diesel fuel. At the request of the authority, 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.

The usage of "this part" in the first sentence makes me ask, well, if not this part, then what part does allow an increase in fuel costs.

Section 18. Part 21. 42005 would make me very nervous to be in the oil industry, either as a producer, or purchaser:

The assessment imposed by this part shall be in addition to any ad valorem taxes imposed by the State...

So whatever assessments this Proposition proposes are in addition to any new taxes imposed at the whim of our great blue state liberals, who never met a tax they didn't like and certainly never failed to impose on the fair citizens of California.

I read the entire proposition and what I got in return was a headache. The wording sounds good, looks good, but I don't trust Democratic California lawmakers. They love power, and 4 billion dollars is way too much power for the Democrats to have at their disposal.

My best advice is to remember who is starring in the ad supporting this as you enter the voting booth.