Skip to comments.
CA: Proponents, critics differ over Prop. 87's cost (Oil Tax)
Stockton Record ^
| Oct 14, 2006
| Alex Breitler
Posted on 10/14/2006 1:42:35 PM PDT by calcowgirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 last
To: calcowgirl
"...voting NO on all of them except Prop 85 and Prop 90.."
Same.
41
posted on
10/14/2006 7:50:20 PM PDT
by
MonicaG
(Praying for our troops, leadership, Israel & IDF. Thanks to our veterans & their families.)
To: goldstategop
Wow, I hope you somehow end up wrong about Commrade Brown winning, GoldstateGOP. All local indications confirm you are likely correct, though.
42
posted on
10/14/2006 7:55:25 PM PDT
by
MonicaG
(Praying for our troops, leadership, Israel & IDF. Thanks to our veterans & their families.)
To: SierraWasp
Thanks! I hadn't seen that one before... The National Tax Limitation Committee
Now we need a The State Debt Limitation Committee!
43
posted on
10/14/2006 8:00:53 PM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: goldstategop
They're not allowed to prevent an oil company from passing on the cost of a tax to consumers. Its an impairment of contract and is unconstitutional.By requiring that the tax not be passed on to the consumers, but rather come out of the pockets of the oil companies, it is a bill of attainder. Actually, it is a bill of pains and penalties, but the attainder clause was clearly meant to cover bills of pains and penalties as well.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson