It’s been said that Kalifornia is the state that starts all trends in this country. Rather than being called the “Golden State”, based on the history involved, I think we should be called the “Bellwether State”. That’s unfortunate for those of you who don’t live here, because there’s another nutty idea coming down the freeway (instead of the “pike”, as it’s known in many of the more rational areas of the country).

In taking another look at some of the proposals coming up in this year’s elections at the website of the Secretary of State, I’ve come upon another doozy: Prop 87.

You can see it for yourself here, at the official website:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vig_publicdisplay.htm

Then scroll down to Prop 87. The official title of this little gem is:

Fifteen words in the title, fourteen of which are irrelevant, because of the fifteenth: TAX.

Some background: California is a fairly oil-rich state. We’ve been producing crude for decades. Of course, much of the current potential production lies in off-shore fields, which can’t be developed because it might spoil the view from some millionaire’s estate in Santa Barbara or Montecito or Santa Monica or… well, you get the picture. And, of course, we can’t even build new refineries to process the crude oil we’re forced to import from other sources because, well… you get THAT picture, too.

Further, Kalifornia has just about the highest tax burden per gallon of fuel (gasoline) in the nation. As of late 2005 (the latest data I could find) Kalifornia’s tax burden on a gallon of gas was 60 cents/gallon, comprised of 41.6 cents state, and 18.4 cents federal taxes. The only states I find on this chart with higher taxes are Hawaii (which has to import all its gas), and New York (home of Schumer and Clinton). Even Taxachussetts was lower! See the chart here:

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/Gasoline-taxes.pdf#search='california%20gasoline%20tax%202005'


Moving on, what’s the purpose of this new tax? Once you wade through all the Barbra Streisand on the title page of the document, it sets up a committee. This committee’s goal? “Reduce petroleum consumption by 25%”. How is it going to do that? Well, according to the proposal, by simply being a committee! And, of course, imposing a new tax!

This new committee, political appointees all, is accountable to no one. Sounds like a great deal to me if you’re a committee member. They have the power to reorganize or initiate “new programs” apparently without accountability to anyone, with only the most nebulous of goals mentioned, and certainly not defined.

They have the power to impose taxes on oil produced in Kalifornia according to a sliding scale that even the State’s own analyst couldn’t make sense out of. It could be anywhere from 1.5% to 6% of value, but the measure is unclear as to how this would be imposed. But it would be IN ADDITION to extant taxes. Further, any imposed taxes couldn’t, by law, be passed on to the consumer. Back to that in a moment.

So, you ask yourself, what does this mean to me? I don’t, thank God, live in Kalifornia. Here’s your answer.

Remember earlier, when I wrote that the tax couldn’t be passed on to the consumer? What does that mean to the PRODUCER of the product? Oil companies operate on a thin margin, because their profit depends on volume. Add another 1.5% to 6% tax burden, ONLY to be absorbed by the producer, and Kalifornia oil production could dry up even further, if that’s possible. The mandated adjusted selling price of Kalifornia oil, with the new taxes, would exceed any profitablitity that could be recouped by the producers in the world- or spot market, because any profit would be more than absorbed by the new taxes. That would make Kalifornia crude unprofitable to produce, which would subtract Kalifornia oil production from the domestic oil-production scene.

And here we are, a nation dependant for its energy existence on importing oil from the Middle East where our avowed enemies are located, adding even more ammunition to their fiscal arsenal.

Why, in the title, do I write “Coming to a State Near You”? Because your state is either an importer or exporter of gasoline. And if this kind of lunacy, intellectually bereft in every way, can pass here, totally ignorant of the larger issues involved, as only a “feel good” measure, in a state literally awash in oil if only we were allowed to produce it, what can happen in YOUR state? And what does this mean to our country as a whole, while we’re engaged in a War on Terrorism centered in the currently-largest oil producing region in the world?

Instead of even considering this kind of idiocy, we should be realistically looking at ways of enhancing our domestic production capacity, from developing and exploiting new fields, to bringing on-line new technologies like wind-farming, boosting our nuclear power capabilities, and expanding our refinery capacity for fossil fuels.

Instead, we are being held hostage to the environmentalist extremists.

Back when I was a kid, in prehistoric times, that was a catchall phrase used sardonically to express the thought that sometimes you simply have to put up with things with which you don’t agree.

It was said then in jest. Not anymore.

“You say you want to enjoy the sense of freedom and exhilaration that comes from riding your Harley up the coast, the wind blowing through your hair? Tough! Get that helmet on!”

“You want to take a nice Sunday drive along Mulholland, and view the Pacific from the cliffs? Buckle up! Click it or ticket!” (I hate that puerile phrase).

When the seat belt law was proposed back in the day, it couldn’t pass until the proponents promised that the seat belt violation alone would never be cause for one to be stopped by the cops. Turned out to be a big, fat lie. What a shock, I’m sure.

“You want to smoke? You’ve gotta go over THERE! That’s right, behind the dumpster where no one can see, hear, or smell you. Move it, bud!”

“You want that Ferrari, the one that only gets 8 miles to the gallon? The penalty tax will be about a gazillion dollars. Pay up!”

Liberals lose sleep at night worrying that someplace, someone might be enjoying himself, and having a good time. Can’t have that!

“You don’t like the fact that this school is teaching your 10 year-old how to put a condom on a banana? We’re the school board. We know what’s best. Shut up!”

“You want to mention God at the commencement address? You’re crazy! Turn off the mike!”

I guess the only law liberals don’t want is one that prevents doctors from poking a hole in the skulls of unborn babies and vacuuming their brains out.

I had another topic planned for this week’s essay; in fact it’s already written and stored on my desktop. It’s pretty funny, too, though it makes a pretty good point (at least in my mind).

But in driving around over the last few days and listening to talk radio, and from what I’ve read in the recent columns, I’ve simply got to jump into this issue.

The Left, of course, is taking this opportunity to jump all over Gibson because, frankly, they hate him. This is the guy who brought you “Passion of the Christ”. He’s Catholic, and conservative in his values. Omigod, he’s a Christian Conservative! And a Hollyweird success!

Can’t have THAT!

I expect that from them. That’s what they do. It’s the nature of the beast. They hate Gibson, Tom Selleck. They hated, HATED Charleton Heston. How dare he become the President of the NRA?!

They grudgingly put up with Clint Eastwood, because he’s the ultimate Hollyweird success story, his movies make gazillions of dollars, and all of them want to participate, as actors, writers, producers, studios, whatever.

Those of you who know me personally know I used to be an actor. Now you know one of the main reasons I left that industry, and never looked back in regret.

What I find especially disturbing is that conservative writers, and writers whose columns supposedly reflect a Christian perspective, are also jumping on the “Gibson is despicable” bandwagon. Sometimes, this is the hubristic failing of those of us on the right: sanctimony.

I don’t know what their motives are; one can’t read the mind of another. But it makes me question, especially those who write from the “Christian” perspective, their true values. The only exception to this whole shivaree I’ve come across is Dennis Prager, and to him I give kudos.

Look into your hearts and be honest.

Did every one of you also condemn Cynthia McKinney when she slapped a simple Capitol guard doing his job? And she was supposedly stone-cold sober.

You ever flip someone off in traffic?

You ever "beam" bad thoughts at the jerk in the grocery express lane with 25 items?

You ever curse at the idiot in the fast lane doing 55?

Ever look at that kid with the Mohawk haircut and think he's a druggie?

Ever look at the three black teens coming your way and cross the street or duck into a store?

Do you harbor thoughts, about any person or group, that you consider un-Christian?

Do you make a conscious effort to suppress or compensate for those thoughts in your everyday life?

If, when out of control or in an inebriated state, you gave voice to those thoughts though you never acted on them, would you like that held against you as a matter of course?

And lastly, if you can honestly say, in your deepest heart of hearts, that you've never had any un-Christian thoughts, why haven't you stepped forward as the next Messiah?