Proposition 87, a tax that would be added to each oil barrel that is extracted in California, has created much confusion among many undecided voters.

The proposition language itself is not clear as to where the money is going, who is in charge of that money, or guarantee that California will become less dependent on foreign oil and be more dependent on alternative fuels.

Proponents and opponents of the measure did not return repeated phone calls from The Current.  

According to the voters guide produced by the Secretary of State, Proposition 87 was created because of other states, such as Alaska and Texas, imposing a "surcharge" on all oil produced in those states with the idea that the money being collected would fund programs designed to reduce California's consumption and

dependence on foreign oil. The severance tax would be tacked on to each barrel produced in California beginning January 2007. The structure created resembles a tier and the amount taxed on each barrel would be based on the gross value of the barrel on the market. If the gross value of a barrel were between $10 to $25 per barrel it would be taxed at 1.5 percent; if it were between $25.01 to $40 it would be 3 percent, if it were between $40.01 to $60 it would be 4.5 percent and anything over $60.01 would be taxed at 6 percent.

The proposition language has not made it clear if when this rate is applied it would be taxed that the full gross rate or at a marginal rate. For example, the gross value of a barrel of oil was $70 thus creates a tax of $4.20 per barrel produced at that rate. If it was taxed on a marginal rate scale, then the first $10 would not count towards getting taxed thus have the net cost to tax the barrel at $60 per barrel creating only $2.17 in tax.

Proposition 87 is only slated to collect a total of $4 billion to use towards researching and producing alternative energy for Californians to consume. Once the state has collected this amount, the tax would no longer be in effect. The voters would be responsible, once this tax expires, to reinstate the tax or let it expire.

This proposition also says this tax cannot be passed on to consumers. Many people say they are skeptical this would not occur.

"I don't believe the government would be able to control that," said Julie Sweeney, an ARC Communications major.

Misty Saber, a Psychology major, has another view about the government ability to enforce that portion of the proposition.

"I think that they can, but, will they? No," said Saber.