Posted on 10/22/2006 8:34:46 AM PDT by thackney
The point of putting this in the newspaper and on the Internet is not to inform the backers, but to inform the voters.
I am somewhat dubious that informing the voters is the raison d'etre of the LAT. If exposing dirty dealing in energy regulation was really their goal, they'd investigate and publicize the corrupt dealings of the NRDC.
So you believe they run the article in the paper just to inform the backers of the proposition?
So if this is for the masses, why make your comment in #20? It wasn't for the backers, it was for everyone.
The LAT was dispensing what was supposedly superior wisdom and knowledge to the masses. They talked about the supposedly unintended consequences of the legislation, deeming it "foolish." The article presumed no possible motives of the backers other than that as if wealthy people with access to lawyers, financial advisors, and political consultants necessary to organize an initiative and the willingness to spend millions of dollars to make it happen, do so based exclusively upon whimsical idealogy.
Yeah, right. What makes the LAT so certain that the obvious consequences of the legislation are unintended when in fact the backers either don't care about those consequences, or (in some cases) NEED those consequences to make their proposed alternative energy sources economically competitive?
So, I said,
What makes this idiot think that the backers of Prop 87 don't know that it will increase oil imports?
The idiot being the author, who thinks the backers of the proposition are merely "foolish." I can assure you, there are people behind increased taxation of oil supposedly to subsidize alternative energy sources who are deadly serious, know precisely what it will do, and want those consequences. They want higher energy prices resulting from greater dependency upon imports and are willing to sell the idea using the mirage of its supposed antithesis.
James Taggart and his cronies, eh?
Regulation and taxation in this state has become a feeding frenzy of investors either looking for a subsidy, seeking to kill their competitors with regulations, to sacrifice small landowners for a sweet deal carving up their assets...
The question is whether it's better to pay a lot and get exactly the legislation you want by iniative or to buy a legislator or two and take your chances with that misbegotten claque of incompetent whores up in Sacramento.
If you've never read H.L. Richardson's book (What Makes You Think We Read the Bills?) it's worth your time.
Nah. I read the overview of it, Atlas Shrugged.
Taxing any domestic group of oil producers to fund alternative energy research is an abuse of government power.
The only assistance government should offer alternative energy producers is a price guarantee -- below the current prevailing price for energy, but enough to protect against predatory pricing by existing energy sources.
For any new energy source -- oil shale, wind, solar, biodiesel, methanol, etc. -- there will be a huge investment required. When crude can be pumped from the ground in most of the world for only a few dollars per barrel, the risk to new energy investment is that cheap foreign crude can always swoop in and deprive them of a market. If oil returns to $20 barrel for a few years, people in general are better off but the investors in new sources go bankrupt.
If California wanted to encourage investment in alternative domestic energy sources, the MOST the government should be allowed to do is provide a guaranteed market at an energy-equivalence price of $30 per barrel of oil.
Oil shale research at Chevron and Shell claims it can extract oil from shale in-situ for under $25 barrel. Fine. Agree to buy xxx barrels per year for ten years at $30 per barrel. As long as the prevailing price for oil is above that, it won't cost the taxpayer a dime since the producers will sell on the open market instead. If crude oil falls below $30 per barrel, then the investment in the alternative is protected by still getting the $30 price. It would start to cost the taxpayer, but the taxpayer would also benefit from the lower overall cost of energy.
The same is true for other alternative energy sources -- wind, solar, etc. -- and even domestic crude oil exploration. A government that wanted to encourage investment in those sources could agree to buy xxx amount of energy produced that way at an oil-equivalence price of $30 barrel.
No direct subsidy. No grants for "research" that really just lines the pockets of CEOs of the "Research" companies. Just a guaranteed market waiting for the successful production of energy from alternative domestic sources at LESS than today's cost.
Well, I don't think taxes on any business make sense. It just gets added into the cost and therefor the price the consumer pays. I think the tax system is a bad place to put incentives. Too easy to hide the actual costs to the taxpayer.
A price guarantee is at least clear cut and only kicks in if existing producers attempt to undercut prices to put a new guy out of business. It protects the investment but only costs the taxpayers if energy costs fall to less than half their current prices.
How does your tax break incentive reduce the risk to investors in the new energy sources ?
It doesn't. It exposes them to a similar risk that petroleum exploration companies have. But it is harder to get a "dry hole" on 10,000 acres of corn. You might get less than expected, but not zero.
Frankly, selective or targeted taxing of any sort is an abuse of government power. The purpose of tax is to raise money for the government, not to influence behavior, carry deadwood, or reward voters.
You mean the purpose of a tax *should* be to raise revenue.
I agree. Writing tax law as a tool of social engineering just results in a mess. And tax "breaks" or "incentives" for one group just narrows the tax base, forcing the remaining taxpayers to pay higher taxes to bring in the old revenue.
Prop 87 is perhaps the very worst kind of tax proposal -- a blatant punishment of one group to benefit another.
I vote "no" for every additional tax, and I vote "no" for any increase in any existing tax. I would like to vote "yes" for replacement taxes if the new tax system is less complicated than the old. Those plans never seem to make it onto a ballot, though.
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.