In California, the Costs to Business Keep Rising

By October 2, 2008Energy

Too many Californians beggar their neighbors and call it social justice.

From the California Manufacturers and Technology Association:

PRESS RELEASE: Manufacturers Oppose Propositions 2 and 10

Sacramento, CA — The California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA) Board of Directors has voted to oppose  — Proposition 2, the farm animal confinement initiative and Proposition 10, the alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy initiative.  The CMTA Board acted in June to oppose Proposition 7, the renewable energy generation initiative and support Proposition 11, the redistricting initiative.

California manufacturers employ 1.5 million workers in the state.  These companies depend upon policies that prioritize State funds properly and reduce business costs comparatively to the rest of the nation.  Propositions 2 and 10 work against those principles and burden our large and small employers in a way that affects all working families and consumers.  CMTA President, Jack M. Stewart made the following official comments on the two propositions:

Prop 2 (Standards for Confining Farm Animals)
“Existing federal and state farm animal confinement standards have provided safe, sound and humane housing systems for our egg-laying hens.  This initiative would require free-range production that would drive up business and consumer costs and force egg-production out of California.  These types of regulations should be addressed by experts who understand the safety of our animals and not by the ballot box and 30-second campaign commercials.”

Prop 10 (Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy)
“Proposition 10 provides a $5 billion bond for a pre-determined alternative fuel — natural gas.  Both the market and developing rules from the California Air Resources Board should dictate which alternative fuels get us to our greenhouse gas and other environmental goals quickest and in the most cost-effective manner.   If the State is not careful and diligent about the source and direction of alternative fuel funds, Californians could easily be paying the highest cost for the least efficient fuels and technologies, while other states more patiently and thoroughly allow the market and developing research to decide which technologies and fuels are the least expensive and most efficient.”


Leave a Reply