Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif.'s Little-Noticed Prop 26 Squeaks Through in Dead of Night (Climate Change Cultists Saddened)
NewYorkSlimes ^ | 11/3/2010 | Colin Sullivan

Posted on 11/04/2010 8:40:02 PM PDT by GVnana

Calif.'s Little-Noticed Prop 26 Squeaks Through in Dead of Night

By COLIN SULLIVAN of Greenwire
Published: November 3, 2010

The same California voters who rejected a proposition yesterday that would have suspended the state's climate change law also approved a separate ballot referendum that could undermine how cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are implemented by changing the definition of environmental fees.

Proposition 26, which passed officially early this morning, will tighten how the state constitution defines taxes and regulatory fees. It has been called the "evil twin" of Proposition 23 by environmental activists who fear it would inhibit the state's ability to regulate carbon emissions.

Proposition 23 would have delayed the state's climate law, A.B. 32, until unemployment dropped to 5.5 percent for a full year. The measure was roundly rejected, with more than 60 percent of the electorate voting against it (ClimateWire, Nov. 3).

But the same voters either did not see a connection between Prop 26 and climate policy or did not care. They voted to approve Prop 26, which will require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the state Legislature for many fees and new taxes.

An analysis released last week by the law school at University of California, Los Angeles, found that Prop 26 could "erect significant barriers" to many environmental programs in California, including A.B. 32 (Greenwire, Oct. 27). This despite claims by the "Yes on 26" campaign (and supporters like Chevron Corp.) that the measure would simply make it more difficult to increase taxes.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; globalwarminghoax; prop23; prop26
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
"It will make environmental regulation more difficult in many areas -- not just climate change -- as its reach is quite broad," said Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "Fees are an important funding source for environmental programs. I am not sure what it says about voters or the public and their support for climate change per se, but it could certainly make implementation and funding of climate change programs much more difficult."

Sometimes those unintended consequences can be a good thing.

1 posted on 11/04/2010 8:40:06 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Fear not. They’ll find some court somewhere to overturn it like they do everything else the voters approve.


2 posted on 11/04/2010 8:58:38 PM PDT by TheZMan (Just secede and get it over with. No love lost on either side. Cya.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

The leftwing extremists in the mainstream media keep saying that Americans and the TEA Party lost on Tuesday while these little BIG things just keep popping up. The November 2nd tsunami washed away a lot of mud.


3 posted on 11/04/2010 9:04:10 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We have not yet begun to fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

nothing in the way people voted here makes sense. They voted for Brown and Boxer, yet they also voted for prop 11... What about 19, so someone out there who voted for Boxer either doesn’t want people to smoke weed or doesn’t want to be taxed for it. I’m thinking the former, but it just doesn’t make any sense.


4 posted on 11/04/2010 9:06:17 PM PDT by DreamingWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

Yup. The Left is going to try to get a liberal judge to overturn it so they can raise fees to their heart’s content.


5 posted on 11/04/2010 9:09:14 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DreamingWest

Oh it makes sent. CA’s dependent class is happy to suck the government teats but they don’t want to feed the cow.


6 posted on 11/04/2010 9:10:28 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
and to top it off it was defeated in spite of the craftily worded deceptions built into these propositions on the face of the ballot, its like a word game the voters have to sift through.......
7 posted on 11/04/2010 9:12:47 PM PDT by KTM rider ( Liberty is hijacked by the wealthy elite, US political system is their mercenary force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

no kidding, we had to vote yes to keep a new redistricting panel on the same ballot we had to vote no to dismantle the new redistricting panel. What would have happened if both passed? 8{


8 posted on 11/04/2010 9:21:42 PM PDT by DreamingWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

Conservatives were taken in by language in Proposition 25 that promised to punish lawmakers if they were late in passing the budget. It cleverly disguised the majority vote poison pill that otherwise would have never passed.


9 posted on 11/04/2010 9:25:46 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

How in the world do Californians keep up with all the propositions they have to vote on every election?


10 posted on 11/04/2010 9:26:43 PM PDT by Ranald S. MacKenzie (It's the philosophy, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

one little proposition won’t undo the damage caused by the election of some really stupid dems.


11 posted on 11/04/2010 9:27:05 PM PDT by ari-freedom (Ding dong the Pelosi is gone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DreamingWest

If both Proposition 20 and 27 had passed, the California Constitution says that where two propositions are on the same subject, the one that receives the highest number of valid votes is the one that is adopted.


12 posted on 11/04/2010 9:27:19 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Somehow, our voters have decided that a two thirds requirement is a bad thing when it applies to the budget, but a good thing when it applies to taxes and fees. You have to wonder where they think the money to cover the budget comes from.


13 posted on 11/04/2010 9:27:45 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ranald S. MacKenzie

Californians like direct democracy. Most states have it also.


14 posted on 11/04/2010 9:28:07 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

Its simple. Someone else pays. Basically its, keep your hands off MY benefits but don’t tax me for them!


15 posted on 11/04/2010 9:29:50 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I needed a new tagline, and your post fits my needs perfectly. Thanks.


16 posted on 11/04/2010 9:35:58 PM PDT by The Citizen Soldier (California's dependents are glad to suck the government teats as they kill the cow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ranald S. MacKenzie
Any controversial political issue that comes up usually ends up as a proposition in California because the democrats in the State Senate and Assembly don't want to vote and have it go on record. They might have to actually defend their job.

So they end up debating useless crap like what should be the State Weed.

Slackers all.

17 posted on 11/04/2010 9:56:31 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ranald S. MacKenzie

Check who is writing the pro arguments in the voter guide. Unions, trial lawyers, Sierra club and the like tend to be a clear indications a no vote is in order. Taxes, bonds and fees get a no vote. If it makes it past those tests, read the bill.


18 posted on 11/04/2010 9:58:30 PM PDT by Dawggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Cutting off the water; it’s a good thing!


19 posted on 11/04/2010 10:01:12 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Good analogy.

Should be very interesting, not to mention fun to watch, as the liberals and econuts who now will run everything and will want to really crank up the spending, are going to be starved for cash since all new taxes AND FEES will require a 2/3 vote.


20 posted on 11/04/2010 10:13:12 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson