Vote down Prop. 87

WHO wouldn't like to hit Big Oil where it hurts - in the wallet? Proposition87, however, could end up costing the state and taxpayers for years to come.

While promising to bring in close to a half-billion dollars annually from taxes on oil drilling in California, none of those dollars will go in the treasury.

Not one penny will be used to pay down the state's debt, ensure education funding or provide more health insurance to working families.

Likely, California's property taxes and corporate income taxes could be reduced if oil producers decide to pump less of the black gold from California fields to avoid the extraction tax.

Also, Californians aren't likely to see any immediate benefits from the measure for many years. That's because proceeds from the tax would fuel a $4 billion program for alternative energy research and provide start-up capital for technology companies.

The idea isn't half-bad - after all, the state could benefit from increased research into wind, bio-fuels, nuclear, hydrogen and solar energy uses. But at a time when private industry is opening up wallets to invest (Richard Branson of Virgin Group announced Thursday that he'll put $3 billion into alternative energy) and Edison in Rosemead is building more wind turbines, we question the need to raise taxes.

Also, why do we need a separate agency - California Energy Alternatives Program Authority - exempted from government oversight to dole out the money from this measure? We don't.

Too often, these unregulated "ballot-box agencies" use much of their income to pay administrators and directors sky-high salaries. Worse, they become lucrative landing pads for termed-out legislators looking to reclaim a spot on the public payroll. Prop. 87 provides for 50 political appointees.

Voters should note that the same two California millionaires who backed 2004's Proposition 71 that set up the $4 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (stem-cell research) are bankrolling Prop. 87.

Motives of this monied pair - Hollywood producer Steve Bing and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla - may not be strictly altruistic. Khosla is reportedly entering an ethanol venture in India that would give him a 10 percent stake. Prop. 87 doesn't spell out where its funds can be invested. Another problem. But will its directors be disinterested parties or players? Follow the money is always good advice.

Taxing oil companies isn't the problem. Setting up an agency with no accountability and rife with possible conflicts of interest most definitely qualifies as problematic.

Voters ought to see through this latest ballot box sleight-of-hand. While no one can say for sure how much the state and its taxpayers may benefit, under Prop. 87, one thing is clear. Oil companies will deliver millions in tax payments, and the new bureaucracy will make it disappear. Prop. 87 is just too greasy. Voters have other legitimate ways of investing in alternative fuels - Prop. 87 is not one of them.