The Benasaur Election Guide - Part I

[hermes9291]

I have decided to publish an Election Guide this year so I can crystallize the issues to my satisfaction and logically justify my positions before going into the voting booth. Feel free to comment. Read the official voter information guide here.

California Ballot Propositions

Proposition 1A - High Speed Rail Bonds

YES. You don't need me to tell you

Comments

No on Prop 7?

[anonymous]

Benasaur, I have read your election guide and I like your thinking! You seem to have a progressively down-to-earth approach for reasoning which is in fact, very similar to mine.

I must however, make a couple of corrections on some mis-information that you might have received about your opposition to Prop 7. Now, more than ever, increasing the amount of renewable energy we consume IS a sexy idea. If the so-called “expert” legislators that represent us in Sacramento had been actually working for us, 4 “Renewable Energy” bills would not have died on the desks of legislators in the past 2 years with no new solutions in the horizon. Countries like New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, and Brazil are smoking us (no pun intended) in our Renewable Energy Independence. I highly doubt it’s because of our lack of money, technology, or education. May I add that currently, DWP’s 2007 Power Mix was 46% Coal, 29% Natural Gas, and 8% Renewable. Just like you, I have also read this Prop from cover to cover. If you take out 35 of it’s 42 pages that quote prior, you are left with only 8 simple pages of new provisions. Let me just sum it up for you real quick…

50% Renewable by 2025
Utility bill CAN’T increase more than 3% per year.
Creates a minimum of 370,000 new prevailing wage jobs that CAN’T be exported
DOESN’T raise taxes.

It leads me to wonder why something like this can't be left up to the voters of California. We should be able to decide what is best for us. As a general rule, be suspicious of a $27 million contribution to the NO on 7 campaign.

Please take my words with the best of intentions as I too am a concerned Californian that also wants to understand what I’m voting for and that I am doing it for the right reasons.

Re: No on Prop 7?

[hermes9291]

Thanks for your input. Your points are well taken. However, also consider these issues:
1. The provision limiting the utility bill increases to 3% a year has no enforcement provision, which means it has no effect.
2. 370,000 prevailing wage jobs is an estimate. The program doesn't contain any explicit hiring provisions.
3. I am always suspicious of claims that a certain law doesn't raise taxes. In this case, utility ratepayers may be on the hook for costs that are not apparently from the difficult language of the law. That would be scarier than taxes -- at least with taxes, you know how much you'll be paying.

Re: No on Prop 7?

[anonymous]

Both the “3% Guarantee” and the “370,000 Jobs Statement” are two statements that were challenged in the Sacramento Superior Court. Here’s what they came up with… “Substantive provisions are structured such that there is a verifiable and mathematically assured result that consumer bills will not experience an increase greater than 3 percent as a result of the initiative”

In short, neither of these 2 statements were found to be “false or misleading.”

I understand that you may have many suspicions of anything “claiming” to not raise taxes. But I must ask you, is that the sole reason that would lead you to not support this Prop? How about being suspicious of the $27 million that has been contributed to the No On Prop 7 campaign by the big 3 utility companies (PG&E, Sempra, and Edison). Isn’t that scarier?