By Dave Roberts

Assembly Democrats, many of whom see themselves as champions of the downtrodden, instead became reverse Robin Hoods recently, robbing from the poor and middle class to give to the rich. Nearly every Democrat along with two Republicans approved AB 8 on June 27, which extends until 2024 a variety of vehicle fees that were due to expire next year.

Some of those fees, which are the same whether they are imposed on a $500 clunker or a $387,000 Lamborghini, subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles -– the kind of cars that tend to be purchased by the wealthy. The typical recipient of the state’s clean vehicle rebate earns more than $150,000 per year, according to the legislative analysis for AB 8.

Purchasers of Nissan Leafs receive a $7,500 federal tax credit and a $2,500 rebate from California taxpayers. More than 6,700 rebates had been dispensed as of Dec. 31, 2012. Nearly 450 rebates were also handed out to buyers of the Tesla Model S, which costs $70,000 for the base model and can exceed $100,000 with upgrades. As an added bonus, electric vehicle owners don’t have to pay the smog abatement fee that funds their rebate.

Subsidizing infrastructure for $200k cars

In addition, AB 8 authorizes spending $220 million from vehicle registration fees to fund the development of up to 100 hydrogen fueling stations. You’ll need to shell out nearly $200,000 to buy a hydrogen-powered car.

Sticking poor and middle class Californians with the tab in order to give hundreds of millions of dollars to benefit rich Californians was one of the concerns raised by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, before the floor vote:

“This bill is going to cost taxpayers $2.3 billion over the next eight years. What are we doing creating a hydrogen highway that a handful of Californians are going to use, but we’re taxing every single driver? Every single Californian that is on their way to work right now is going to have to pay for something they may never use, may never be able to afford to use it. And we don’t have enough money in California to subsidize hydrogen vehicles for everybody. Maybe I shouldn’t give you any ideas.

“This is a terrible idea. It is a regressive tax. It is a tax that is going to hit the hardest working, most vulnerable, lowest income people where it hurts the most. The cost of fuel is continually going up. And every time we pile more taxes on those who drive an automobile, we are taxing progress. We are taxing the people who say, ‘Hey, I’m not just going to sit around and collect a check. I want to go to work.’ And we are creating an obstacle to them bettering themselves by their own efforts.”

Several Democrats defended the extension of the vehicle fees, arguing that the money is necessary to reduce air pollution.

“Californians suffer from the worst air pollution in the nation with over 90 percent of residents living in counties with unhealthy air,” said the bill’s author, Henry Perea, D-Fresno. “While great progress has been made in improving air quality, California has two of the most polluted regions in the nation: the South Coast air basin and the San Joaquin Valley. AB 8 seeks to expand California’s clean air and clean vehicle incentive programs in order to meet clean air, public health, climate and economic development goals.”

“Let’s not burden our constituents again and again and again”

Don Wagner, R-Irvine, acknowledged “that there are some good things to like in this bill.” But he argued that the cost is too high.

“What we are doing here is raising $250-$275 million each year on your constituents,” said Wagner. “And there’s no good reason for that. You can’t keep going back to the tax well over and over and over again. At some point we’re going to have the cleanest air in the world because we will have driven everybody out of the state. This is not the way to go. Let’s not burden our constituents again and again and again.”

A Senate version of the bill, SB 11, has been referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. SB 1455, which was nearly identical to AB 8, passed the Assembly last year but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate.

By John Hrabe

The Assembly Republican Caucus, though small in number, has retained limited power in Sacramento by maintaining a united caucus on one issue: taxes.

Not anymore. A multi-billion-dollar tax extension quickly working its way through the California Legislature has Republican legislators embracing every side of the issue: yes, no and maybe so.

Even as Republican ranks have sunk to super-minority status, Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway of Tulare has been unable to maintain unity even on her party’s signature issue.

Assembly Bill 8, co-authored by Assembly Members Henry Perea, D-Fresno, and Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would extend the sunset date on more than $2 billion in taxes and fees. The additional revenue would fund alternative fuel and vehicle programs. Last week, the bill cleared the Assembly Transportation Committee on a 10-3 vote, with Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, in support and abstentions from Assemblymen Eric Linder, R-Corona, and Jim Patterson, R-Fresno.

“If Republicans can’t agree with the grassroots movement on tax hikes, what do they stand for at all?” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, asked CalWatchdog.com. “With several Republicans supporting AB 8, a multi-billion-dollar tax increase, the Republican brand may have been tarnished.”

Tax extensions

The bill would extend until January 1, 2024:

* An $8 increase in the smog abatement fee;

* A $0.75 fee increase on tire sales;

* A $3 additional fee on the annual vehicle registration fee;

* A $2 surcharge for local air districts on vehicle registrations;

* A $5 increase of the fee for special identification plates for construction equipment, farm trailers, cotton trailers, logging vehicles and cemetery equipment;

* A $10 and $20 increase for vessel registration.

The total bill to taxpayers, as calculated by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: $2.3 billion.

Linder, who along with Achadjian signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which promises a signer’s vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes, said that there are valid arguments on both sides of the multi-billion tax increase.

“Both sides made valid arguments and raised important questions that remain unanswered,” said Linder. “This issue is too important to be rushed through and it is good that the process is still ongoing. The Legislature still has more work to do.”

A bill analysis by the Assembly Transportation Committee, which Linder oversees as vice-chairman, makes clear that the bill is considered a tax increase under Proposition 26 and is subject to a two-thirds vote.  “Because this bill extends the additional fees on vehicle and boat registrations and a portion of the tire fee, and because these fees are deemed taxes under Proposition 26, this bill requires a two-thirds vote,” the policy committee analysis states.

Why GOP tax support?

So why are some Republicans supporting or abstaining on a multi-billion-dollar tax increase?

The additional revenue would be spent on programs for the construction of hydrogen fueling stations and the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which provides taxpayer-funded grants for businesses to buy new eco-friendly engines and equipment. It also postpones new regulations by the Air Resources Board, a move which is praised by businesses and criticized by environmental groups like the Sierra Cub.

“Any time there is the talk of taxes and regulations and fees, it always gives me heartache,” Achadjian said during the committee hearing. “Coming from a county that’s rich with agriculture, fishing industry, truckers going in and out, they have all benefited from these taxes. This is one time that I can attest that hard-earned monies in taxes have served its purpose.”

Achadjian, who has received campaign contributions from the California Trucking Association, made a point to recognize how the tax extension would help truckers. He said, “With the new regulations that are going to hit the trucking industry… those are the folks who employ people, those are the folks who keep the economy going, so in honor of their efforts, I am going to support the bill.”

If the Sierra Club and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sound like the political odd couple, they’re matched by members of the Transportation Committee. Joining Republican Assemblymen Dan Logue of Lake Wildwood and Mike Morrell of Rancho Cucamonga in opposing the bill was Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. He believes the legislation transfers costs from corporations to taxpayers.

“Although this bill does extend some incentives for clean air programs, it can have some adverse effects that go beyond that,” Ammiano told CalWatchdog.com. “In rolling back ARB’s legitimate regulations, it weakens that important state agency. In addition, it transfers costs of some of these programs from corporations to the taxpayers.”

Coupal lamented the end of a unified Republican opposition to tax increases. “Although HJTA is a non-partisan organization with a third of its members Democrats, it has traditionally been Republicans in the Legislature that have provided the bulwark against tax increases.  No more,” he said.

The Assembly Natural Resources will consider AB 8 on April 29. The bill is supported by a long list of industry groups, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Association of Global Automakers, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Trucking Association, California Manufacturers & Technology Association and Western States Petroleum Association as well as by environmental organizations, such as the California Air Resources Board and Environmental Defense Fund.