Op-Eds
“$10 billion lemon makes one firm richer” - By Richard Holober, Consumer Federation of California, The Reporter
A trucking company gets the $50,000 “clean” truck rebate even if it is not replacing a “dirty” truck. Interstate trucking companies could collect California tax handouts to subsidize their fleet purchases, relocate the trucks out of state, and sell their used “dirty” trucks to California truckers who will keep on belching fumes on our roads.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Propositions 7 and 10 Offer Californians No Real Alternatives: Sierra Club California Opposes Both” - by Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California, California Progress Report
The Sierra Club opposes Proposition 10, because it fails to promote the development of true alternative fuel vehicles and protect California taxpayers. It offers little for better and cleaner fuel alternatives like battery-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prop. 10 a ‘windfall’ for Pickens - not state budget, Tom Elias, Pasadena Star News
About the only thing you can be certain of with this measure is that purveyors of CNG with make money. And Pickens’ firm is among the largest of these. Which makes Prop. 10 as self-serving a measure as California has ever seen, and one that deserves defeat - even before mentioning the impact of $5 billion more in bond obligations on an already-strapped state budget.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Voters also complicit in state budget disaster” , Pete Schrag, Sacramento Bee
Then there’s Proposition 10, Texas oil-and-gas-man T. Boone Pickens’ play for a $5 billion bond to subsidize gas-powered and other fuel-efficient vehicles and other alternative energy programs. Its total cost to taxpayers over the next 30 years, including interest, would be $10 billion, or roughly $325 million a year, assuming there’s still a market. If it works, guess who’d be the biggest winner.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Memo to Congress and FCC on California Prop 10: Time to Revisit Fairness Doctrine” - Roy Ulrich, President, California Tax Reform Association, California Progress Report
Unless the opponents of Proposition 10 are granted the ability by Congress or the FCC to respond to Mr. Pickens’ multi-million dollar ad campaign, voters will only get one message: “Vote ‘Yes’ on Proposition 10.” This is hardly the kind of open and free debate the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“T. Boone Pickens’ ‘clean’ secret - Proposition 10 would put California taxpayers on the hook for his natural gas plan.” - By Anthony Rubenstein, clean energy consultant, Los Angeles Times
“Given that Pickens can also play rough — he was a funder of the nasty “Swift boat” campaign in the 2004 presidential election — it’ll take guts to challenge him. California’s governor, attorney general and treasurer should be the first to say no, because there’s certainly a case against a $5-billion bond that results in almost no lasting infrastructure, could siphon taxpayer money out of state and would distort the clean-vehicle market. The makers of hybrid and biofuel vehicles, and California teachers, hospitals and firefighters, who would be on the losing end of Proposition 10, should also think hard about what Pickens’ plan would do to them.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No on Proposition 10 – Stop T. Boone’s Pickpocket Initiative” - By Richard Holober, Consumer Federation of California, The Desert Sun
Hang onto your wallet. Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens is spending a fortune on Proposition 10. His initiative would cost California taxpayers $10 billion…in tax giveaways to manipulate the marketplace to favor natural gas as a “clean” vehicle fuel to the disadvantage of cleaner alternative energy technologies.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
“Clean Energy Leader Opposes California Prop 10″ - By Anthony Rubenstein, clean energy consultant, California Progress Report
Think about Prop 10 this way: would you ever buy yourself a car on a 30 year mortgage? Not with your own money, you wouldn’t. And neither would Prop 10’s backers, Pickens & McClendon - that’s why they’re trying to spend yours. Many of us who oppose Prop 10 believe that Pickens & McClendon’s secret reason for spending millions to pass Prop 10 is to fund their national natural gas agenda on the backs of California taxpayers.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
