Posted on 10/20/2006 8:03:43 AM PDT by SmithL
LOS ANGELES -- A little-known and rarely used California authority could soon be setting a $4 billion agenda to curb California's "addiction to oil."
The California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority has been in existence for more than a quarter-century. But it has no staff and hasn't financed a project in 11 years.
This bureaucratic backwater could become the largest state-run source of alternative energy financing in the nation, if voters approve Proposition 87, one of the hardest-fought initiatives on the Nov. 7 ballot.
"Our president said that this is a nation addicted to oil, a nation that must move away from that addiction," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in endorsing Proposition 87. "We have to put our money where our mouth is and make the necessary investments to move to this technology."
Voters have heard little about how Proposition 87 would accomplish that goal, despite the record spending spree by both campaigns on ads featuring, among others, former President Clinton and his vice president, Al Gore.
As the election campaign enters its final weeks, both sides are scheduling debates, press conferences and speeches to help voters understand the proposed transformation of the California Alternative Energy authority.
The authority would get a new name, the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. It would also get a new revenue source, a new structure and a new mission -- reducing California's petroleum usage by 25 percent over 10 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Clinton and Gore both did pro-Prop 87 ads.
My only comment was that if it's such a great idea, why don't you two clowns push for the same type of tax in your OWN STATES?
I believe that is what you were going for...
"California Renewable Alternatives Program" (CRAP). That should do it.
Whatever the name, hehehe, I won't be voting for it.
It won't pass.
when Clinton endorses anything...It is zilch. I
always vote absentee ballot (here in California)
I voted no on 86-87-88-89. The 86 prop was an
increase of $2.60 on each..yes, each...pack of cigarettes.
I don't smoke but this extra tax hits the lowest income
people. as they are usually smokers...I also think it
will exacerbate crime and cause more chaos..and by
the way..where are the Liberals on this?- Jesse, Al,
and Clinton? They want the Black vote, but won't do
anything for them unless it is a photo Op...Jake
I don't understand why 'conservatives' don't support this - if we become an energy independent nation, we can starve the arabs ...
as long as it produces real results and not just pork, i'm all for it.
I'd buy this whole "foreign oil dependence" the pro-87 people harp on if they allowed drilling off California - where there are massive oil reserves.
I find that if I don't have time to study the California initatives in detail, a "NO" vote is correct 99% of the time. Rarely do you get a conservative initiative. I can think of Parental Notification this time around.
In the past, conservative initiatives that justified "YES" votes included Prop 13, shutting down affirmative action in the UC system, denying benefits to illegals and the four Schwarzengger special election initiatives (before he went to the dark side).
I'm sure I'm missing a few more, but generally speaking, in my 30 years in CA, it's been very rare that an initiative has justified a "YES" vote.
Gore lives in California now, bought a condo in San Francisco. So now he and his dinner pals can sit around with perplexed looks and exclaim how no one they know voted for Nixon...
You're kidding! I THOUGHT the stench of hypocrisy was a little stronger downtown lately!
Maybe because conservatives understand that the free market works much better than the government. This will amount to Californians throwing billions more dollars down a rat hole.
Another bureaucracy is more unionized jobs for Democrats, by which to make campaign donations.
Another bureaucracy is more extortion, graft, and corruption of energy markets, assuring that the productive will move offshore.
No on 87.
Are you kidding? This Prop has absolutely NOTHING to do with energy independence. As a matter of fact, it encourages importing out-of-state (and out-of-country) oil by taxing oil produced in California.
How do you know how to vote on 87? Gore & Clinton came to CA to say vote YES.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
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.