Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 


California measure fails clean energy promises


Recommended Posts



California voters passed the Clean Energy Jobs Act in 2012, raising taxes on corporations. Voters were told the additional revenues would fund energy-efficiency projects, and the Legislature decided it would create jobs by spending the money on school energy upgrades.


A look at the promises of Proposition 39:


Number of jobs expected per year: 11,000

Number of jobs created overall [in three years]: 1,700



Amount of tax revenues expected annually: $550 million

Amount of tax revenues received: $381 million (2013), $279 million (2014), $313 million (2015)



Amount of money expected for schools: $973 million

Amount of money given to schools: $297 million




Lawmakers call for oversight hearings on green jobs measure




The AP reported that three years after voters passed Proposition 39, money is trickling in at a slower-than-anticipated rate, and more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors. The board created to oversee the project and submit annual progress reports to the Legislature has never met.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm shocked that a proposition doesn't meet up with expectations.  




Yes on Proposition 39



I guess the argument against was right.  

Edited by gotbeer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why most of what the government wants money for is just a waste.  Instead of first holding the government in question accountable for it's waste, we just give it more money.



Who does business like that?


I edited this because I first put liberals regarding asking for money but then I remembered the military.

Edited by mtangelsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I vote no on all propositions.  I'm tired of the "think of the children" rally cries when waste like this continues to happen.  I remember when the good voters of CA agreed to raise personal income tax rates on the top earners (retroactively) while voting down another proposition that would raise rates across for all.  At the time they said a certain percentage would go towards education yet the details actually said the money would go to the general fund of which a lower percentage is required to be spent on education.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the odds of an honest person are inversely proportional with the level of power held, on average.  Power corrupts, in direct proportion to its own magnitude.  The last bit of which is unnecessary, I suppose.


That's why I support an absolute dictatorship.  Just as long as I'm the dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Prop 39 has actually put a one year or more halt on School Districts that were thinking of doing some energy efficiency improvements. In order to qualify for the money there had to be a base line audit showing how much energy was costing each school district now so that any improvements could have some accountability against this baseline number. So most school districts had to hire an energy consultant to do this baseline study. This is where the delay came in. The oversight board just met for the first time as there where no results to review as the school districts had 18 months to file their energy savings results. In any case the energy reduction targets were so low that just about any energy improvement would qualify. I had great hopes for this program as I wishfully thought the a data base of costs and bang for the buck would be developed that would show school districts which projects/systems had the fastest payback and the greatest long term benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw on Facebook that Feinsteins husband got a big piece of the high speed rail contract. I think it was reported by a conservative source so I'm sure it's false.


I think conservative sources are the only ones reporting anything about the high speed rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say that about every state government and even on down to the local level.  The question of how corrupt or how many people within it are corrupt (lie, have taken bribes/kick backs, use their position to further their own well being, etc.) is the only debatable thing.  

It is a matter of degree, as you said, but some places are more corrupt than others. CA, being a one-party state, with a large population who tend to accept corruption, might be worse than other states. Usually, corrupt people don't prioritize virtue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things that liberals want just because. That is, you can cite statistics, costs, common sense, people hurt, and it won't make a difference:


1. Preschool. 

2. Condoms and values-free sex education. 

3. Universal health care. 

4. Less military. 

5. Non-judgment or endorsement of sexual proclivities. 

6. Being nice to cute animals. 

7. Taxes, except for cool things like movies. 

8. Publicly funded art they agree with.

9. Rail and anything else where people go to a central, public, planned thing. 

10. Gun control. 


These are 



Link to comment
Share on other sites







“Large-scale public preschool programs can have substantial impacts on children’s early learning….Quality preschool education is a profitable investment… Quality preschool education can benefit middle-class children as well as disadvantaged children… Long-term benefits occur despite convergence of test scores.”




Sex Ed



Instead, the decline in teen pregnancy in recent years can be linked to improvements in teens’ contraceptive use. Comparing reports from two periods of NSFG data (mid-2006 to mid-2008 and mid-2008 to mid-2010), Guttmacher researchers found moderate increases in teens’ use of any contraceptive method, highly effective methods and dual methods (i.e., condoms and hormonal methods simultaneously).9 Specifically, the use of hormonal contraceptives at last sex among sexually active women aged 15–19 increased from 37% in 2006–2008 to 47% in 2008–2010; dual method use increased from 16% to 23% over the period, and the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (i.e., the IUD and implant) increased from 1.4% to 4.4%....


....The recent trends in sexual experience and contraceptive use are clear enough, but understanding what is driving these behaviors is more of a challenge. Advocates often credit education programs for the positive trends. The quality and quantity of evaluation research have improved dramatically over the last decade, and there is now clear evidence that comprehensive sex education programs can change the behaviors that put young people at risk of pregnancy.10 Such programs have been shown to delay sexual debut, reduce frequency of sex and number of partners, increase condom or contraceptive use, or reduce sexual risk-taking. By contrast, programs that exclusively promote abstinence outside of marriage have been proven ineffective at stopping or even delaying sex.11,12



google is your friend...plenty of stats out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...