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.
Cal’s No on Prop 23, which would have suspended its Green Power Law, is not what it is cracked up to be. Tom Steyer, who donated $5 million to No On 23, is a hedge fund manager for CalPERS public pension fund. His firm, Farallon Capital Management, invests for CalPERS in stocks with dirty coal, nukes, oil and gas companies in TEXAS!!
Additionally, Farallon invests in Yingli Green Energy Company which scrapped plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in TEXAS or ARIZONA and instead will build in China - thus outsourcing potential jobs from California to China.
My guess as to why Steyer does not want Cal’s Green Power Law suspended is that the Law embargoes cheap coal and hydro power thus resulting in eliminating competition for higher priced oil and gas power. So CalPERs and Farallon investments will reap a windfall if Green Power is not suspended.
If I can embargo or blockade Walmart from my community then Macy’s or JC Penney or Safeway Grocery Stores can raise their prices. That is what Green Power is all about - inflating oil and gas prices (along with Green Power) by eliminating competition.
After inflating electricity prices, cash strapped cities in Cal will likely siphon the windfall they realize from Utility User Taxes into their General Funds to meet pension fund deficits. So pension fund deficits will be paid off by inflated electricity rates is my guess.
The last time California tried this was 2001 when it embargoed old polluting oil power plants along the coast and shifted to cleaner natural gas plants to meet Federal EPA air quality mandates. It was called the California Energy Crisis.
This is all documented here: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/10/28/prop-23-foe-profits-from-dirty-coal/