Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators are pitching a transportation-tax proposal they depict as the only means to fix California’s crumbling roads, freeways and bridges. One would be hard pressed to find any policy maker in California who doesn’t bemoan the state of the state’s infrastructure, but the question always revolves around how to pay for it, and Republicans complain there are other ways to fix the current mess.

The Democratic plan, which received its first committee approval on a party-line vote Monday, would raise $52.4 billion over 10 years through a variety of tax proposals. It would hike gasoline taxes by 12 cents a gallon and diesel taxes by 20 cents a gallon, plus it would increase the vehicle-license fee from $25 to $175 a year, depending on the value of the vehicle. The average fee boost would be $48 a year. Furthermore, the plan would impose a $100 a year fee on electric vehicles because their drivers don’t pay gas taxes.

“This is mostly about fixing what we already have,” the governor said at a Capitol press conference last week. “If for some reason people try to fight this, and God help us if they were successful, they won’t defeat this, they’ll just delay it and make the expenses go up.” But Republicans focused on the economic impact of the plan on middle-class Californians. They also complain that the state’s cap-and-trade system, designed to battle climate change, will soon drive fuel prices up even further.

“For many households, the total tax hike will easily surpass $300 each year,” said Sens. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, and Jim Nielsen, R-Tehama, in a statement on Monday. “When combined with the 20 cent diesel excise tax hike and the 4 percent increase on the sales tax on diesel, it is clear that this tax proposal will negatively impact the California economy.”

The crux of the GOP argument: California doesn’t spend its current gas-tax revenue effectively, and it should reform its spending habits before calling on Californians to pay more at the pump – and when they register their cars and trucks. In fact, Republican legislators have proposed a bill that would raise the money without raising taxes. Assembly Bill 496, by Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, would re-prioritize billions of dollars in general-fund spending toward transportation projects without requiring any type of tax increase.

For instance, the bill would divert $3 billion in sales tax revenue that comes from the sale of vehicles toward infrastructure-maintenance projects, and would move funds collected from truck-weight fees toward transportation-bond payments. The measure has the support of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which recently expressed “frustration” the governor and Legislature have proposed tax increases without first considering other solutions.

The group noted that polls show strong support for returning the $68 billion high-speed rail project to a vote, which would allow some of these funds to be used for bread-and-butter infrastructure projects. “AB496 answers a question that too few in the legislature even bother to ask: how should legislators prioritize a record $120 billion general fund budget? California has seen a $36 billion general fund increase over the last six years, with not one dime of this new revenue spent on transportation projects,” wrote the group’s legislative director, David Wolfe, in a March 27 letter of support to Assemblyman Fong.

The tax-hike proposal doesn’t need to go to the voters for approval, but does need a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the Legislature because it involves a tax increase. Democrats have supermajorities in both houses, but the governor still needs to woo some moderate Democrats who might be on the fence about such a large increase.

Gov. Brown compared the matter to a leaky roof. There’s no doubt that problems will keep expanding if a homeowner neglects such a problem – and the state’s infrastructure backlog is estimated at $130 billion.

A group of business officials and labor unions applauded the effort: “We are fully committed to supporting the road repair plan and intend to get it and the companion constitutional protection through the Legislature by April 6,” said Michael Quigley, of the California Alliance for Jobs, in a statement. “We need new revenue coupled with accountability provisions to begin to make a dent in the multi-billion dollar backlog of needed repairs to state highways and local roads.”

But critics point to a 2014 analysis of the California Department of Transportation to bolster their view that the state misspends so much of its current transportation revenue. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office “recommends that the Legislature reduce the budget and staffing levels of the program starting with the 2014-15 budget, improve its staffing projects and data quality, and provide the California Transportation Commission with specific oversight and project approval functions that have limited external oversight.”

The analyst pointed to overstaffing by about 3,500 full-time jobs at Caltrans, which amounts to an unnecessary cost of around $500 million a year. Critics also complain about the above-mentioned rail project and the state’s inordinately high administrative costs on transportation projects. These, they say, are examples of misspending. Why should the state’s taxpayers spend more money when there’s little effort to reform current spending?

Wolfe’s letter points to another Republican complaint: The state’s general-fund budget continues to grow each year and has soared to record levels. Yet new transportation projects are, essentially, held hostage to the budget process. Democratic leaders spend money on other priorities, then complain there’s not enough money to deal with the transportation backlog – unless, of course, they are able to raise gas, diesel and registration fees.

Indeed, the governor last year called a transportation special session to come up with new infrastructure revenues, but he has thus far been unable to secure the additional dollars. The tax-hike plan is more likely than ever given increased Democratic numbers in the Capitol. The debate is the same as usual – new taxes vs. reforming how the state spends its current dollars – but the outcome may be different this time around.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

A new government-run retirement program: On Thursday, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill 1234, which gives legislative approval to the state’s continuing efforts to create a new government-run retirement program for private-sector employees. Once it is up and running, private employers (with five or more employees) will be required to offer this program, whereby 3 percent of each employees’ earnings will be deducted and invested by a state-selected investment group – possibly, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

Employees can opt out. The details are not yet certain, but the goal is to invest the money in a low-risk investment tied to the Treasury bond. Supporters say the law protects taxpayers from incurring more than minimal costs, but critics insist the program could grow and change in ensuing years – and that there’s no way of creating a massive new government program without imposing risks on the state budget.

The idea, which is being pitched in other states too, grew out of union activism. Several years ago, when publicity over unfunded public-pension liabilities began creating pressure for pension reform, union allies wanted to come up with a “positive” rebuttal to all those news stories about six-figure pensions and pension-spiking gimmicks. This idea is designed help private workers.

Putting limits on ‘policing for profit’: One of the most controversial policing strategies in recent years has been “civil asset forfeiture.” Born out of the nation’s drug war in the 1980s, forfeiture was designed to help police agencies crack down on drug kingpins by allowing departments to grab the cash, cars and properties gained through their illegal activities. But like many government programs, asset forfeiture morphed into something its creators never envisioned.

Two of the men who helped create the program in the U.S. Department of Justice, John Yoder and Brad Cates, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2014 pointing to the corruption engendered by this process: “Law enforcement agents and prosecutors began using seized cash and property to fund their operations, supplanting general tax revenue, and this led to the most extreme abuses: law enforcement efforts based upon what cash and property they could seize to fund themselves, rather than on an even-handed effort to enforce the law.”

Basically, police agencies came to depend on the revenue and they distorted their law-enforcement priorities based on the chance to grab more cash. There’s no due process here, given that police agencies file suit against the property itself, alleging it was involved in a drug crime. No conviction is necessary. California had previously passed reforms that mostly required a conviction, but police agencies got around that by partnering with the feds (and operating under looser federal standards) and then splitting the seized property.

Senate Bill 443 was killed last year after lobbying efforts by police chiefs and other law-enforcement agencies. But a fairly recent amendment – allowing cops to still take large amounts of cash without a conviction, but limiting smaller amounts of cash and property takings – eliminated most opposition from law enforcement. The new law is meaningful, and one of the more substantive compromises to take place in Sacramento this year.

Giving the terminally ill the right to try: One of the more significant “freedom” battles this year was over the so-called “right to try” – i.e., the ability of terminally ill patients to try experimental drug treatments that have yet to gain final approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Similar measures have been approved by 31 other states.

The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based free-market think tank, has been championing these measures across the country. As Goldwater explains: “The FDA … often stands between the patients and the treatments that may alleviate their symptoms or provide a cure. To access these treatments, patients must either go through a lengthy FDA exemption process or wait for the treatments to receive FDA approval, which can take a decade or more and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The California law, Assembly Bill 1668, passed overwhelmingly. According to the official bill analysis, it authorizes drug manufacturers to make investigational treatment available “to a patient with a serious or immediately life-threatening disease, when that patient has considered all other treatment options currently approved by the FDA, has been unable to participate in a relevant clinical trial, and for whom the investigational drug has been recommended by the patient’s primary physician and a consulting physician.”

Allowing felons to vote: One of the more controversial new laws, Assembly Bill 2466 by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, allows felons who are serving their sentence in county jails to vote. The measure was opposed by law-enforcement groups, but Weber argued it would stop discrimination in voting and make it less likely that prisoners would commit new offenses.

“Civic participation can be a critical component of re-entry and has been linked to reduced recidivism,” Weber said, according to a Los Angeles Times report. “For me, this bill is not about second chances, but about maintaining the integrity of elections,” said Sen. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, in a statement. “Close elections, especially at the local level, could now turn on a handful of ballots cast by people in jail. This new law is bad for democracy and will further erode trust in government.”

Putting self-driving cars on the road: Autonomous vehicle technology has been advancing rapidly, and California is, not surprisingly, ground zero for the development of this important new technology. Gov. Brown signed a bill Thursday “that for the first time allows testing on public roads of self-driving vehicles with no steering wheels, brake pedals or accelerators,” according to a San Jose Mercury News article. “A human driver as backup is not required, but the vehicles will be limited to speeds of less than 35 mph.”

Assembly Bill 1592 itself is rather modest. It provides two spots for such testing – in a San Ramon business park and at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. And Friday, the California Department of Motor Vehicles released new regulations that are far friendlier toward self-driving cars than the DMV’s previous regulations. So while the new law itself isn’t particularly significant, the state’s new legislative and regulatory approach certainly is. If that approach continues, we’ll be seeing rapid expansion of autonomous vehicles here.

Greenlighting granny flats: The governor’s signing of Senate Bill 1069 shows increasing bipartisan understanding of the state’s skyrocketing home prices. The bill would relax standards for creating ADUs (accessory dwelling units), better known as granny flats.

“Eliminating barriers to ADU construction is a common-sense, cost-effective approach that will permit homeowners to share empty rooms in their homes and property, add incomes to meet family budgets, and make good use of the property in the Bay Area and across California while easing the housing crisis,” according to the bill analysis’ summary of the author’s arguments. The bill embraces a regulatory approach that could be tried with other types of housing.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Fentanyl, an anesthetic said to cause a euphoric high 50 to 100 times more powerful than heroin, caused around 30 overdoses in the Sacramento area alone in a seven-day period in March, about a third of which were fatal. In 2015, it killed 30 people in Orange County, and in 2014 it killed 62 people in Los Angeles County.

While the measure drew Democratic support in the Senate, one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, said concerns related to overcrowded prisons were too much. 

“It’s disappointing that the Assembly Appropriations Committee did not forward the bill to the entire Assembly for a vote,” Bates in a statement. “Unfortunately, (Gov. Jerry Brown’s) focus on decreasing the state’s prison population has made it difficult to pass any legislation that would address weaknesses in current criminal law.”

Voters approved a sentencing reform measure, Proposition 47, in 2014 and will consider another, supported by Brown, in November.

Bates’ bill would have targeted dealers of large quantities, adding sentence enhancements per weight, with a number of offenders thought to be relatively small. 

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Hernández, a West Covina Democrat, is currently under a temporary restraining order from his wife, with whom he is getting divorced.

At divorce proceedings on Wednesday, Susan Rubio, a Baldwin Park City Councilwoman, alleged that Hernández assaulted her more than 20 times during a three year period, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“Given the serious and growing list of accusations, Assemblyman Hernández’s continued presence in the state Assembly brings dishonor to the entire California state Legislature,” Sen. Patricia Bates of Laguna Niguel said in a joint statement with Rep. Mimi Walters of Irvine and Harmeet K. Dhillon, the vice chair of the California Republican Party.

Other calls for action

Last month, the top Democrats in the Legislative Women’s Caucus, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Asm. Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, called on Hernández to step down from his committee responsibilities, including his leadership post atop the Labor and Employment Committee, and to take a leave of absence until the legal matter with his wife is worked out.

Hernández has not been charged with a crime and he previously denied the allegations to media outlets and in court filings. His office did not respond to requests for comment.

This might hurt his run for Congress

According to the Times, Hernández’s attorney said in court that Rubio came forward with the allegations to hurt his political career. Hernández is termed-out of the Assembly and is running for Congress against incumbent Grace Napolitano, D-Norwalk.

“As a member of the California Congressional delegation, I urge Assemblyman Hernández to step down from his position and withdraw his name as a candidate for California’s 32nd Congressional District in light of the current accusations of serial abuse,” Walters said in the statement.    

Newest allegations

In court, Rubio gave detailed accounts of eight alleged incidents: One was of Hernández choking her with a belt, another was of Hernández dropping her to the ground and beating her with a broom and another was of Hernández threatening her with a knife after accusing her of having an affair, according to the Times.

“Domestic violence is a very serious issue in our society, not a ‘private matter’ to be brushed under the rug by a man holding public office,” Dhillon said.

Tepid response

The three women’s statement called on Democrats to “echo the demand” that Hernández step down. 

Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, previously told CalWatchdog that he would take further action against Hernández “if the allegations are more fully validated.” And on Thursday, a spokesman said there was no update. 

History

It’s not the first time Hernández has been accused of wrongdoing. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed due to insufficient evidence. 

That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. 

In 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other had passed away. 

Photo Credit: Patch.com

A Senate panel unanimously advanced a bill on Tuesday that would significantly increase the penalties for possession of large quantities of the powerful opioid Fentanyl, a drug that has led to a wave of overdoses in Sacramento recently.

Fentanyl, which is reported to cause a euphoric high 50 to 100 times more powerful than heroin, caused 29 overdoses in the Sacramento area in a seven-day period last month, nine of which were fatal, according to the Sacramento Bee. The drug killed 30 people in Orange County in 2015 and 62 people in Los Angeles County in 2014.

The bill, if approved, would add Fentanyl to a list of dangerous drugs allowing stiffer sentences based on weight in an effort to target kingpins and cartels. The bill’s narrow focus on major suppliers is what drew the support of Democrats, who were skeptical of traditional “tough on crime” policies that target low-level offenders and addicts and flood prisons.

Sen. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, said the bill would “cut the head off the drug cartels and stop it at it’s source.” Bates, a former Los Angeles County social worker and Sen. Bob Huff of San Dimas are both sponsoring the bill.

Distribution of Fentanyl is already illegal, but this bill would add penalties per weight. For example, an amount in excess of one kilogram would add three years to a sentence, four kilograms or more would add five years and 10 kilograms or more would add 10 years.

Further action

While the bill focuses on top dealers, legislators called for further action. Sen. Loni Hancock, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the Senate Public Safety Committee, said it was necessary to reach out to young people and other potential users about the effects of Fentanyl. Bates agreed that further action was needed, that “allocating resources to the rehabilitation and certainly treatment,” is “extremely important.”

“But we really have to stop the import of these very dangerous drugs,” Bates told CalWatchdog of the pending bill. “It is a public health crisis.”

Sen. Jeff Stone, R-Riverside County, who ran his own pharmacy prior to his time in the Legislature, called the drug “the nuclear bomb of street drugs.” Doing what seemed to be on-the-spot calculations, Stone said one kilogram was enough for 4 million lethal doses.