Originally Posted by TromboneAl
I was surprised that these propositions were defeated.
Proposition 86 was defeated 54.6% to 45.4% Prop 86 would have imposed an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs.
14% of people in California smoke. So why wouldn't a non-smoker vote for this?
Proposition 87 was defeated 74.4.6% to 25.6%. Prop 87 would have established a Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California's oil and gasoline consumption through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training. More money was spent on both sides of the Prop 87 campaign than on any proposition in state history.
This proposition would have taxed oil producers in California. It had a provision that didn't allow them to pass on the cost of the tax to consumers. Everyone seems to hate the high profits that oil companies make. So why didn't it pass?
My take on the $2.60/pack smokers tax proposition:
It was defeated as it didn't pass the fairness test. Although I believe that tobacco companies should be sued out of business, The smokers themselves are not to be blamed. Why should smokers have to fund the failing emergency room issue and people without healthcare issue ?
Per the tax on oil companies:
It didn't pass based on three reasons.
Firstly the money was being spent outside traditional oversight and legislative scrutiny. Some believe that the money would go to pie-in-the sky pork-barrel spending with little to show down the road. There were also real questions, revealed by the LA times about the billionaire who bankrolled this initiative and the substantial windfall that he would receive from it. Also it wasn't really pointed out during the campaign, but almost all of the money was going to be spent outside of California.
Secondly, The money paid for extraction taxes would be a legitimate income tax deduction for the oil companies. Therefore their taxable income would go down and their INCOME taxes paid to local, state, and federal governments would decrease based on their tax bracket. So some percentage of the oil-extraction tax would be lost from normal government revinue. So one of the questions becomes do we want to drop funding for schools etc. to fund research much of which was out-of-state and (by some accounts) of questionable value.
Thirdly, Most people (myself included) do not believe that there would truly be no increase at the gas pump for this boondoggle. Even if prices just went up by a small percentage that is too much.