Election Round-Up

I ended up not posting last night, because Obama’s win became too thrilling and non-environmental propositions became too heartbreaking.

But here is the final tally of the ballot measures across the country:

California:
Proposition 1A: Approved, 52.3%
Proposition 2: Approved, 63.3%
Proposition 7: Defeated, 65%
Proposition 10: Defeated, 59.9%

Colorado:
Amendment 58: Defeated, 58% (so many 58′s… too funny)

Georgia:
Amendment 1: Approved, 68%

Maine:
Question 3: too close to call

Minnesota:
HF 2285: Approved, 56%

Missouri:
Proposition C: Approved, 66%

Ohio:
Issue 2: Approved, 69%

Rhode Island:
Question 1: Approved, 76%
Question 2: Approved, 68%

Colorado Amendment 58

Anyone who knows me knows this occupies the smallest of special places in my heart. I mean, come on…. Amendment 58 involving the environment. It’s like it’s destiny….

So here goes. Let’s hope I can do it justice.

Amendment 58: Scholarship Initiative Fund

It will end a 30 year tax subsidy only allowed to big oil and gas companies. It increases the amount of severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies and put this money towards college scholarships for state residents, renewable energy projects, transportation projects, water treatment grants, and wildlife habitat.

If passed it would:
– End property-tax deductions for the oil and gas industry that allow producers to take a credit of up to 87.5% of the prior year’s property tax liability from their severance taxes
– Direct the new revenues as follows:
o 60% to the Colorado Promise Scholarship Fund
o 15% for local impact of the oil and gas industry on transportation and water quality
o 15% for wildlife habitat
o 10% to clean energy projects.

Bottom line, for the last 30 years, $300 million dollars of taxpayers money has been, effectively, handed over to big oil and gas companies. This is a chance to invest that money in scholarship programs, renewable energy and land preservation.

Argument FOR:
– It ends a tax subsidy given to big oil companies, and instead uses that money for scholarships, renewable energy, and preservation.
– It will maintain energy cost to consumer at one of the lowest rates in the region
– It does not increase taxes, it makes oil companies pay taxes.
– economists report that there will no effect on gas and oil prices.

Argument AGAINST:
– will not solve higher education issues and the requirements for the scholarships will not be met by the target group of low and middle income families.
– claims there is a tax increase, as well as, a increase in gas and oil prices.
– “If Colorado policymakers want to pursue a sound energy policy, they ought to keep taxes low and reduce government interference in the markets that are capable of delivering innovative energy solutions to consumers. Attempts to punish successful industries and redirect money to programs favored by politicians have failed to solve our energy problems in the past, and there’s no reason to think this effort will be any different.”

My recommendation: YES

There is a lot of money being dumped into negative ads by the oil and gas industry. They want to serve their best interest by retaining the $300 million they get every year. From what I have read, which includes the plethora of supporters on this amendment, from the Governor to all of the environmental organizations to most of the major newspapers, I think it is safe to conclude that this should pass.

There is a website in FAVOR of the amendment.
There is no website for the opposition.