What do you believe on Prop 87? Here are some of the latest quotes on it from various sides of the issue. You read them and then tell me what you think. Alternative energy or big oil?

Prop. 87 Gets An F Grade By Marian Bergeson Past President California School Boards Association For many parents, the last couple of weeks have meant the beginning of a new school year - taking kids to the bus stop, packing lunches and buying school supplies. For educators it has meant getting back to the classroom to set them up, planning lessons and meeting a new group of students. Those of us worried about the future of our schools should be concerned about one particular ballot question - Proposition 87 - which not only will impose an oil tax, but would hurt education too. According to California's independent Legislative Analyst, Prop. 87 would decrease state and local tax revenues available for schools and other vital services. In addition, the initiative skirts preexisting education funding requirements contained in the state Constitution, passed nearly two decades ago through Proposition 98.

Editorial: Yes on Prop. 87October 31, 2006 By Editorial Board The Editorial Board urges readers to vote yes on Prop 87. The measure, if passed, would impose a tax on oil production in California. The revenues generated by this tax will be used to fund the development of alternative energy technologies, thus decreasing our dependence on oil, accelerating the adoption of cleaner technologies and improving the environment.

Arguments Against Prop 87 (Oil Severance Tax) Crumble Under Analysis–Even That of a Conservative Economics Professor By Frank D. Russo "Slicker than Oil: The Debate Over California’s Proposition 87" appeared last week on the Applia Econ Blog; News for Econ Students. It is written by Paul Romer, a Stanford professor of economics. He is a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, a fairly conservative think tank named after Herbert Hoover. All the more important for his conclusions. His analysis of Proposition 87 shows that it will not increase gas prices (using what he calls an "introductory macroeconomics course" level analysis) and lays to rest the arguments of the oil industry. While he remains neutral with regard to 87, he does say that opponents are totally off base in the main arguments they are making. This is a little of what he has to say: The market for oil is global, and the price of oil is set by global supply and global demand. California produces less than 1% of all the oil produced in the world, so changes of a few percent in its output would be far too small to have a noticeable effect on global supply and demand. Taken together, all the producers in California are in the same position as a single firm in a competitive industry. … Understandably, these producers have raised a lot of funds to support a campaign to oppose the imposition of this new tax. The tax would raise up to $4 billion before it expires, so for oil producers as a group, it makes sense to spend millions of dollars to defeat the tax. What is interesting about the campaign ads that they support is their repeated claim that the tax will raise the price of gasoline. No doubt, their campaign consultants have found that raising this irrelevant issue is the most effective way to get people to vote against this proposition . The article is very short and has only one graph. It is clearly worth a perusal of at least a few minutes to be able to analyze some of the policy issues in this debate. This isn’t the only claim of the oil companies that is showing to be false. They have a record $90 million in their war chest to spend on ads that don't hold up to economic or factual analysis. Take a look at the argument that Proposition 87 will decrease California oil production, which is dealt with in Professor Romer's article. There is now an additional fact in the way of this argument to buttress what the good professor had to say. Chevron basically confirmed that Prop 87 will not reduce California oil production yesterday, in announcing its $5 billion third quarter profits. Chevron's CFO said "we could see at current prices and current production levels a penalty on Chevron in the order of $200 million." Implicit in this admission by Chevron CFO Steven Krowe is that Chevron expects to continue at least the current level of oil production in California after Proposition 87 passes. This is in stark contrast to the oil company ads that claim oil production will decrease in California as a result of Prop. 87. "Today's campaign finance filings showed how much the oil companies have spent on buying endorsements for their sham coalition. Chevron today showed how false No on 87's economic arguments are. The No on 87 campaign was created by and is bankrolled by the oil companies to keep us dependent on the oil they sell. Their coalition and arguments are lies," said Beth Willon, the Yes on 87 Press Secretary. "The oil company puppeteers pulling the No on 87 campaign's strings have finally come out from behind the curtain and exposed the farce that their campaign is."

Prop. 87: Higher Gas Prices, Imported Oil and $4 Billion Open Check Opinion — Jaime Rojas Jr. Would a $4 billion tax on oil produced in California be good for the people of California or bad? That’s the question we’ll decide next month, when we vote on Proposition 87. Proposition 87 does try to take on a serious issue, developing more alternative energy sources – and you won’t find many of us who disagree with that. But the supporters of Proposition 87 chose a lemon of a vehicle to try and reach that goal. Proposition 87 will result in higher gas prices, increased dependence on imported oil, potential budget cuts to local services like public safety. Education leaders say schools will suffer under Proposition 87. “Proposition 87 is double-trouble for our schools. It will reduce state and local revenues to our schools right away, and because it bypasses the constitutional guarantee protecting school funding, it could rob education of $1.9 billion over the next ten years,” said Jose Luis Solache, vice president of the Board of Education of the Lynwood Unified School District in Los Angeles County. Proposition 87 will mean higher gas prices, and make us more dependent on imported oil. Proposition 87 is not a tax on oil company profits or oil companies in general. It’s a tax on oil production in California. Production Goes Down That will mean oil production in California goes down. And for the foreseeable future at least, to make up for that loss, we’ll have to import more oil from overseas. It costs more to get that oil here, and if the oil costs more, the gasoline made from that oil would also cost all of us more of our hard-earned money at the pump. Proposition 87 has no guarantee that we’ll see a dime’s worth of progress on alternative energy for our $4 billion. All that money will be turned over to a new state agency to be run by political appointees (who will be named only after the election), and that agency will only be required to do one thing – spend that $4 billion.

» Link to this article

I personally think that if the oil industry is putting millions of dollars into defeating this measure then it must be worth voting for in the end. What do you think?