More on Proposition 10 and High Gas Prices

Sweet Melissa, a brilliantly funny Georgian transplant, weighs in on statewide November 2008 California ballot measures, including Proposition 10. She takes no position for or against, just gives an analysis and suggests some slogans:

Let the Names Begin! Part Two
http://sweetmelissa.typepad.com/sweet_melissa/2008/07/let-the-names-b.html

Local, unnamed, public transportation and bicycle advocate responds to question in an email thread about his/her earlier posting in opposition to Proposition 10, which we have already posted below, but will post again here:

Proposition 10, the Greenwashing of Elitist Car Dependence.

Prop 10 would authorize the state to issue $5 billion in bonds --
borrowing money from investors (and paying back with interest from
general fund revenues that pay for schools, health, public transit,
etc.) mostly to subsidize purchasers of high fuel economy and
alternative fuel vehicles (in payments from $2,000 to $50,000 per
car), $1 billion in incentives for research, development and
production of renewable energy technology (easily fundable through the
regular budget process); $550 million in incentives for research and
development of alternative fuel vehicle technology (also easily
fundable through the regular budget process); $250 million in
incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology (also easily
fundable through the regular budget process); $25 million for each of
eight cities to educate their public about these technologies ($25
million!? WTF), and $150 million to colleges to train students in
these technologies.

Borrowing from future revenues to subsidize private car purchases is
bullshit greenwashing, wrong-headed environmentalism, and the Green
Party should be strongly against it.

And here's a clarifying question:

Sorry if this is a question I should already know the answer to - but why specifically do you object to this?

And the response:

Because subsidizing the purchase of automobiles with future general fund money is incredibly regressive. $5 billion on transit would go much further to reduce vehicle emissions than $5 billion helping rich people buy cleaner cars. In fact, the money to pay back the bonds, plus interest to rich investors, will come from future public transit operating funds, among other sources.

We should issue bonds to fund big capital projects which we cannot pay for out of our regular budget ... You definitely don't issue bonds to pay for education or relatively small grants for incentives. Very regressive. Please vote 'no' on this. We need that $5 billion for real environmental improvements, not this fake thing that must have been put together by energy and car companies.

Meantime, for all of you Fourth of July travelers:

Gas prices hit another high for holiday weekend
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080704/ap_on_bi_ge/gas_prices