Changing vote on Prop 87 to YES

After chewing on Norkizzle's last argument in the comments, I think it's a good one. I've decided to vote YES on Proposition 87. That said, I would also love to see a tax on FOREIGN oil that I could back as well.

Proposition 87 (Alternative Energy): NO

• Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers
  Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California's oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training?

$4 billion program, but not focused where I assumed it would be. Instead of reducing dependence on foreign oil, this actually adds massive taxes on California oil producers. It's not important to me that they don't pay taxes in California but they do in Alaska and Texas - this would be a step toward pushing their business away from California, instead of away from foreign oil producers (and bringing more revenue from within our country's borders).

At some point it will be time to focus on the oil cartel within our borders, but I don't think it should be a top priority for this election cycle with so many other priorities. This was the one Proposition that I thought I knew how I would vote without even doing any reading, but that turned out not to be the case.

Proposition 84 (resources/conservation): YES

• Proposition 84 Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements
  Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests?

Lots of good measurable efforts, good endorsements - I'm okay with the $5 billion bond for this one (even though they have the "no new taxes" falsity).

Proposition 1E (Disaster and Flood Bond): NO

• Proposition 1E Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention
  Should the state sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to finance disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels?

Over $4 billion of bond debt ("without raising taxes!"). I need to research how true the need for and effectiveness of each of these are (vulnerablility of flood control structures, delta levees, etc.), but my initial vote is No. I'd also like to find out the geographical distribution this would be likely to have, and how much local projects could realistically be funded locally and how much the state government (and our state taxes) should help out with.