California Proposition 23
I occasionally
break from the nonstop frivolity that is 23 Breaths to weigh in on
important topics of the day.
With elections I
usually limit my comments to encouraging the voting population to first
study the issues and candidates and then to actually get out and
vote.
First let me say
that my personal approach to government is both liberal in social
areas (why have a government if it doesn't help people) and
financially conservative. Quite often these goals conflict and you have to
give some thought to the issues and go with the solution that does the least
harm.
If we were sitting
down enjoying a cup of coffee discussing the issues of the day, you would walk
away with the impression that "this dude's a tree hugger".
I provide this
preamble to the discussion because in my opinion people who don't tell you
up front where they are coming from later try to BS you.
So now you know.
++Text of Proposition 23 begins here++
This initiative measure is
submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of
Article II of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds a
section to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be
added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
California Jobs Initiative
SECTION
1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) In 2006, the Legislature
and Governor enacted a sweeping environmental law, AB 32. While protecting the
environment is of utmost importance, we must balance such regulation with the
ability to maintain jobs and protect our economy.
(b) At the time the bill was
signed, the unemployment rate in California was 4.8 percent. California’s
unemployment rate has since skyrocketed to more than 12 percent.
(c) Numerous economic studies
predict that complying with AB 32 will cost Californians billions of dollars with
massive increases in the price of gasoline, electricity, food and water,
further punishing California consumers and households.
(d) California businesses
cannot drive our economic recovery and create the jobs we need when faced with
billions of dollars in new regulations and added costs; and
(e) California families being
hit with job losses, pay cuts and furloughs cannot afford to pay the increased
prices that will be passed onto them as a result of this legislation right now.
The people desire to
temporarily suspend the operation and implementation of AB 32 until the state’s
unemployment rate returns to the levels that existed at the time of its
adoption.
Division 25.6 (commencing with
Section 38600) is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read
DIVISION 25.6. SUSPENSION OF AB 32
38600. (a) From and after the
effective date of this division, Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500)
of the Health and Safety Code is suspended until such time as the unemployment
rate in California is 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive calendar
quarters.
(b) While suspended, no state
agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation implementing Division
25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) and any regulation adopted prior to the
effective date of this division shall be void and unenforceable until such time
as the suspension is lifted.
++Text of Proposition 23 ends here++
So if you made it through the prop
congratulations
Here is the condensed version
Prop. 23 Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring
Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause
Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full
Year. (Source: Official Voter Information
Guide)
So who would be interested in suspending the air pollution
control laws? No one likes pollution and I think that people and
businesses that create pollution should have to manage it as cost of doing
business.
So who are the top contributors in support of Prop 23?
(this is always the first question I ask anymore)
In review,
we have a bunch of oil
companies
that given the high
unemployment rate in California
think it's a great time to
argue that having to report and control the
mess they make
is preventing anyone from
adding new jobs.
I don't see the connection.
In fact it just seems like an
opportunistic play to repeal some overhead costs to make the oil
business more profitable.
If you think the oil business
is unprofitable check out EXXON's P& L statement some time.
I will be voting NO on Prop 23.
(oh and next time you want to
pollute where I live can you pick a different prop number?)
|
Comments
Climate change will bring about far more 'job losses'