Why Were These Propositions Defeated?

[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?

 

[BigMoneyJim]

I've met quite a few "non smokers" that will have a cigarette while drinking, after sex or during times of high stress. I have trouble believing only 14% of Californians buy cigarettes.

 

[Zathras]

For the 2nd, my guess is people didn't believe that the costs wouldn't be passed on to the consumer.

 

[Texas Proud]

Maybe it is because the gmt is too big already and why give them more money to spend

Also, no politician will allow a tax to go away.... for the oil one, when it is time to expire, well, vote to extend it for something else... it happens all the time..

 

[lets-retire]

I would think it would be impossible for the state to prevent the company form passing the tax onto the customers, without the government being involved with the corporation nationwide.

 

[Gumby]

Proposition 87 would have added a $6 per barrel tax only on oil produced in the California. That always seemed dumb to me. If you tax only oil produced in California, won't that just drive up imports? Oil is fungible. If I am an energy company with oil fields all over the world, I will produce more oil outside of California and less in California. In terms of energy security, this seems to have it precisely backwards.

 

[mb]

(1) No idea? I voted for it!

(2) Because Chevron spent a lot of money on TV propaganda!

 

[Patrick]

1. a) The smokers got out the vote. b) People are sick and tired of taxes.

2. a) People in CA want to drive their cars. They were afraid that oil would become unavailable (or at least scarce) due to the tax. b) See 1. b).

 

[OAG]

Frankly most of these Levies/propositions are just a way for politicians get out of doing the job they were hired to do. If these things are such good ideas why don't they just pass the law. Many of these things pass with about 5% positive votes (of the effected electorate), are hawked pre-election by so called public interest groups, and you do not see the real cost until you see your next RE tax bill. Why do small groups of people sit around and find "good things" to do that cost ALL of us more money? Putting it on the ballot is just a cop-out way around legislation. Of course Politicians love it since they can just point out that "the electorate did it" don't hold it against me.

Rainy day in central OH. Need more coffee?

 

[saluki9]

Perhaps because people are sick and tired of all the special taxes in California. On top of that they probably realize that none of the money will actually go for what they said.


Why ANY business would locate in that quasi communist republic is beyond me. I was thrilled to get a letter from my life insurance company (pacific life) that they are changing their domicile from Ca to Nebraska so they don't have to pay the oppresive 2.35% California premium tax. Talk about scaring away business!

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Perhaps because people are sick and tired of all the special taxes in California. On top of that they probably realize that none of the money will actually go for what they said.


Why ANY business would locate in that quasi communist republic is beyond me. I was thrilled to get a letter from my life insurance company (pacific life) that they are changing their domicile from Ca to Nebraska so they don't have to pay the oppresive 2.35% California premium tax. Talk about scaring away business!

Good post, but here is the problem. The "quasi communist republic"
is coming at you from both coasts. Think of the "Katrina" of socialistic
government, taxing and regulating it's citizens to death. They are not manufacturing Soylent Green (yet), but they may as well be since they are cutting the heart out of the country. That's
your future folks. You will be dining on your neighbors soon enough
even if only in a figurative sense.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

1. a) The smokers got out the vote. b) People are sick and tired of taxes.

2. a) People in CA want to drive their cars. They were afraid that oil would become unavailable (or at least scarce) due to the tax. b) See 1. b).

We had a local (city) smoking ban go down in flames. Made me very happy
even though I am not a smoker and so had no dog in the hunt.

JG

 

[saluki9]

Good post, but here is the problem. The "quasi communist republic"
is coming at you from both coasts. Think of the "Katrina" of socialistic
government, taxing and regulating it's citizens to death. They are not manufacturing Soylent Green (yet), but they may as well be since they are cutting the heart out of the country. That's
your future folks. You will be dining on your neighbors soon enough
even if only in a figurative sense.

JG

JG, we live in IL. Th e communist government is a lot closer than the coasts! It's about 10 miles south of me and moving north.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

JG, we live in IL. Th e communist government is a lot closer than the coasts! It's about 10 miles south of me and moving north.

So true! I feel your pain.

JG

 

[2B]

I am surprised the oil tax didn't pass. It hits all the right buttons -- anti oil company and pro alternative energy. In reality it would have been a total bust but I have trouble believing the Ca voters understand that much.

The higher oil tax would have reduced the "breakeven" cost of extracting oil. At a certain point, the $6 tax would have made the many wells that were producing marginally economical oil to become uneconomical. They would have then been shut down. From a past life, I know that California has lots of "stripper" wells that are marginally economical. When oil prices fall, these wells will shutdown sooner with a $6 tax.

The alternative energy funding would be a great way for the Ca politicos to reward their contributors and "friends." Every crackpot would be lining up with their perpetual motion machines and go for the big grants that would be sloshed around.

The

 

[Texas Proud]

I am surprised the oil tax didn't pass. It hits all the right buttons -- anti oil company and pro alternative energy. In reality it would have been a total bust but I have trouble believing the Ca voters understand that much.

The higher oil tax would have reduced the "breakeven" cost of extracting oil. At a certain point, the $6 tax would have made the many wells that were producing marginally economical oil to become uneconomical. They would have then been shut down. From a past life, I know that California has lots of "stripper" wells that are marginally economical. When oil prices fall, these wells will shutdown sooner with a $6 tax.

The alternative energy funding would be a great way for the Ca politicos to reward their contributors and "friends." Every crackpot would be lining up with their perpetual motion machines and go for the big grants that would be sloshed around.

The

It's funny how people think that putting a tax on extracted oil hits the oil company hard.... when in fact it is hitting the mineral rights owner the most..

As you said, if it is a marginal well, shut it down and the mineral rights owner went from making money to nothing... but the oil company still has many places where they get oil..


What happened to that BTU tax proposed awhile back? If you want to 'change behavior', do that... it is the most FAIR tax around.. you want to drive that HUMMER... pay us for burning all those BTUs... You want to heat a 9,000 sq ft house, pay up....

 

[laurence]

Perhaps because people are sick and tired of all the special taxes in California. On top of that they probably realize that none of the money will actually go for what they said.


Why ANY business would locate in that quasi communist republic is beyond me. I was thrilled to get a letter from my life insurance company (pacific life) that they are changing their domicile from Ca to Nebraska so they don't have to pay the oppresive 2.35% California premium tax. Talk about scaring away business!

It's interesting to hear people outside CA be mystified as to why any business could survive in the people's republic of the Golden State. But I think CA punches a big hole in the idea that higher taxes/regulation automatically leads to destroying the business climate. Unemployment in CA is lower than the rest of the country, and San Diego is under 4%, and by some measures under 2%!! If our system was so bad for business, where are the bread lines? And why is it states with much lower taxes, like say, Mississippi, have much more poverty and unemployment?

I'm not picking on you saluki, I just promised myself I wouldn't directly respond to our board's neanderthal chatty-cathy doll.

But to Trombone's original post, I voted against them not because I didn't like the idea, I just thought the law was poorly written and there wasn't enough oversight on how the money was spent. I'm still a little miffed at the state lotto all these years later....

 

[youbet]

I voted against them not because I didn't like the idea, I just thought the law was poorly written and there wasn't enough oversight on how the money was spent. I'm still a little miffed at the state lotto all these years later....

How refreshing to hear someone say the law was poorly written and there wasn't enough oversight......... I get tired of the normal story the losers tell........that the voters were dumb. Over time, I don't believe they're as dumb as losers like to describe them.

 

[kramer]

The oil proposition was just plain foolishness that would not achieve its goal (whatever that was) so I will not discuss that here.

The smoking proposition was just rampant majoritarianism (~$3 tax per pack). I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. Why should I excessively tax others to do that? Smoking actually reduces public pension costs significantly due to life expectancy reductions (yes there are studies that show this). Second hand smoke is not a problem in California (and this prop would not solve it anyway) -- you can hardly smoke in public anymore. I have much more respect for the person working to ban tobacco than the person trying to tax it out of existence. But some people just can't stand it when others are making unhealthy choices in their eyes. Many of my family members are anti-smoke "nazis" who literally hate smokers and curse at them under their breath -- however, they do not look down on people who make many other kinds of unhealthy choices -- but they just don't like smoking and want to compel others to obey them.

For instance, using the same logic, you can make a much better case for banning motorcycles. They are much more dangerous per unit time than cigarettes, cause huge "second hand" noise problems in metropolitan areas (in my downtown noise pollution is a 10 times bigger problem than air pollution), have high public health costs relative to their usage, and affect younger people to a much a greater extent. But I am not voting to ban motorcycles, either, as I respect the choices of the minority who choose to do this.

Kramer (from Silicon Valley, California)

 

[Alex]

These propositions were defeated because they are bad laws that perpetuate more government and nanny statism with little or no accountability to the public. . I voted no on every proposition across the board.

The one that was the worst was the oil tax? WTF? Apparently the writers of that proposition forget the first rule of economics and government: if you want more of something subsidize it, if you want less tax it.

 

[riskadverse]

I've met quite a few "non smokers" that will have a cigarette while drinking, after sex or during times of high stress. I have trouble believing only 14% of Californians buy cigarettes.

They may be "non smokers", but they surely weren't "former smokers".

 

[MasterBlaster]

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.

 

[ronin]

Voted no on every prop for most of the reasons already stated. Guess its my basic rule of thumb, just say no to more laws sponsored by special interests. I do take the time to read the voter guidebook cover to cover looking for that rare gem of a proposal that makes sense.

 

[Patrick]

Robert Redford just stated on CNBC that he thought #2 was defeated because Big Oil spent $100M on advertising to defeat it and his side couldn't buy any air time for commercials - it was all taken. Sounds plausible.

 

[livnlow]

I voted no on all. I read each prop. description assuming a 'yes vote' until I find something objectionable that would make me vote no.
It's usually a short read. I keep hoping I'll find one worth voting yes on, but it seems unlikely. I don't smoke, but why in the world would I
vote yes on a B.S. tax on smokers simply because it doesn't cost me anything personally? I'm sure I do things that annoy other people,
and I hope the voters don't all decide to tax me for all my annoying habits one day just because it doesn't cost them anything personally.
Did anyone elses B.S. meter peg when they basically said "it's for the children?" How could any decent person vote no after that?

They'll be coming after one of your habits next. Don't worry, I'll vote no on that too.