CALIFORNIA: Prop. 23 celebrations turn to fears over Prop. 26

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/5/10 | Andrew Ross

[SmithL]

Has the popping of Champagne corks been premature?

We're referring to the defeat of Proposition 23, which has been hailed as the game-winning home run for California's climate change law.

But celebrations have turned to fears about the impact of what some have called its "evil twin" - Prop. 26, which passed Tuesday. That's the initiative relabeling environmental mitigation and other fees as taxes, requiring the virtually impossible to get two-thirds vote, thus starving state and local treasuries even further.

"In effect they will stop (AB32, the climate change law) with this," said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California, who supports the law, "along with many of us in the business community." Hauge was referring to San Ramon's Chevron Corp. (which was "neutral" on Prop. 23) and the California Chamber of Commerce, both of which poured millions of dollars into Prop. 26.

According to a UCLA School of Law study last week, the initiative "could have substantial and wide-ranging impacts on implementation of the state's health, safety and environmental laws," including AB32. Noting that the state imposes regulatory fees for such programs, the study said Prop. 26 will "make it harder to fund these programs in the future."

Responding to reporters' questions on the matter, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the state Air Resources Board, said, "We have an administrative fee in place now under AB32. As far as any future fees and how they would fit into a regulatory program, that's something we would have to take a look at on a case-by-case basis. Undoubtedly there will be issues raised as a result of (Prop. 26) passing."

But, said Nichols, whose agency is in charge of implementing the law beginning next year, "We do not believe our efforts will be derailed as a result of Proposition 26...

[samtheman]

I thought there was yet another initiative that passed that made tax increases a simple majority, not 2/3.

[gusopol3]

I’m confused,too; glad I don’t live there.

[Oldexpat]

NO..there is a simple majority to pass the budget..but not the tax increases to pay for it.
The people voted to keep the supermajority on taxes and included so called”fees” as well. Now the courts will decide if these definitions will stand. My guess it that somehow they will slice and dice fees, fines and taxes to help the greens..but we can only hope that the new law will stand.

[samtheman]

I’m confused,too; glad I don’t live there.

Well, oldexpat in post#4 explains it all and ends the confusion (thanks oldexpat) but I agree with you on your last point: glad I don't live there.

[SeekAndFind]

AB 32 was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, and mandates the following:

1. Reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

2. Producing one-third of the state’s electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2020.

The intent of Prop 23 is to delay the implementation of AB 32 until unemployment levels in California drop to 5.5 percent or less over four consecutive quarters.

It is not surprising that President Barack Obama and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore came out against Prop 23.

Gore has been promoting for the past several years his doomsday scenario of terrible, catastrophic happenings unless the world deals with the underlying causes of global warming.

IN SHORT, THE CLIMATE DOOMSAYERS WON !!

GOOD LUCK CALIFORNIA, PLEASE DON’T EXPECT THE REST OF THE USA TO BAIL YOU OUT IF YOU DECLARE BANKRUPCY.

[gusopol3]

ok ! Thanks

[antiRepublicrat]

That was approving budgets. Tax increases still require 2/3. And now these people are mad that they can’t raise taxes and institute new ones simply by calling them “fees.”

[AndyTheBear]

Prop 25 is the budget one, and per my understanding, the legislature can use it to "raise revenue" in order to pass a budget with a simple majority "not withstanding" laws like proposition 26. Seems it lets them circumvent any 2/3 majority requirement if they can only frame the tax or fee as a budget issue.

Hope I am wrong about this.

[az_gila]

IN SHORT, THE CLIMATE DOOMSAYERS WON !!

GOOD LUCK CALIFORNIA, PLEASE DON’T EXPECT THE REST OF THE USA TO BAIL YOU OUT IF YOU DECLARE BANKRUPCY

---

We should start the campaign now...

Slogan -

NO BLUE STATE BAIL-OUTS!

[goldstategop]

Proposition 25 made passing spending bills easier. Proposition 26 made passing revenue bills - fees- AKA taxes harder.

[umgud]

No new fees or taxes? The simple answer would be to start issuing heavy fines to CA businesses to make up for any shortfall./s

[desertfreedom765]

“equiring the virtually impossible to get two-thirds vote, thus starving state and local treasuries even further.”

This is what its really about. Its like a 350 lb man claiming he’s starving...

[goldstategop]

The Democrats can spend money on a majority vote. But to raise that same money they need a two thirds vote. Its a perfect Catch 22 for them!

Heh

[jetson]

This is an example of what I had written about on another blog. The propositions were VERY hard to understand. My friends and I went around and around trying to figure out what the REAL wording was in these props. I don't think half the people in Calif know what they voted for on these propositions. I know the Mexicans and the old folks didn't.

[SeekAndFind]

Proposition 25 made passing spending bills easier. Proposition 26 made passing revenue bills - fees- AKA taxes harder.

---

If spending is going to be easier and taxing is going to be harder, how is California going to raise their revenue if :

* The budget INCREASES (as it usually does and surely will under Gov. Moonbeam )?

* They don’t get the super majority they need to increase taxes ?

I can only think of the following possible scenarios :

1) Revenue grows as a result of a prosperous business climate where new companies are formed, and unemployment is very low ( which increases the tax base ).

2) Go into debt ( sell more of their state junk bonds ).

3) Ask Washington (AKA as the rest of the other states ) for help.

4) Print their own money ( OK this one was facetious, but their printing IOUs is very close to similar ).

With the regulatory burden increasing in California (they just voted down Proposition 25 ) and the strength of their unions, good luck with achieving #1.

#2 will probably be the only other card they have left to play with. But the interest they’ll pay on their debt is going to be HIGH.

#3 Will happen only if the new Congress caves, and if they do, I’ll keep track of every single one of the Congressmen who votes yes to the California bailout and target them for defeat in 2012.

[PATRIOT1876]

*GOOD LUCK CALIFORNIA, PLEASE DON’T EXPECT THE REST OF THE USA TO BAIL YOU OUT IF YOU DECLARE BANKRUPCY.*

Yes. I agree. If California is SO stupid as to go through with these ridiculous Cap n’ Trade type laws based on a hoax, we should not help them with one penny! I’d rather see their entire economy collapse. Even IF the climate change scam was real, it would be too devastating to the economies of the world to implement the draconian freedom stealing business crushing laws.

Fortunately, the hoax has been exposed over and over and over again. It’s amazing that there are still people that believe in this. Do they still teach that the earth is flat and do the doctors there still treat people with leeches?

[Vor Lady]

do the doctors there still treat people with leeches?

Actually, modern doctors DO use leeches.

http://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20040628/leeches-cleared-for-medical-use-by-fda

[PATRIOT1876]

*do the doctors there still treat people with leeches?
Actually, modern doctors DO use leeches.

http://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20040628/leeches-cleared-for-medical-use-by-fda *

You know, I have heard that they sometimes do.

I’m guessing that doctors that believe in global warming use leeches for nearly every ailment a la Theodoric of York in 935AD.
;-)

[Vor Lady]

LOL. I bet that leeches are too progressive for the libs, what with milking cows being animal cruelty and all.