In total, Brown killed seven niche tax cuts totaling around $300 million in revenue, arguing the tax cuts should be done as part of the annual budget discussions, not individually without taking into account the broader implications.  

“As I said last year, tax breaks are the same as new spending — they both cost the general fund money,” Brown wrote in his veto message. “As such, they must be considered during budget deliberations so that all spending proposals are weighed against each other at the same time.”

“This is even more important when the state’s budget remains precariously balanced,” Brown added. Brown has repeatedly cautioned against new spending programs, believing that an economic downturn in near, which many say the state is not well-prepared for.

Response

The governor’s fiscal caution was not well-received among many of the sponsors of the vetoed bills.

Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, who sponsored the controversial bill to eliminate sales tax on feminine hygiene products, like tampons and sanitary napkins, quickly rebuffed Brown’s decision, calling it a “clear message to all women in California.”

“He told us periods are a luxury for women,” the Bell Gardens Democrat said in a statement. “Let me be clear; biologically periods are not luxuries and they are definitely not something women should be ashamed of. We have a long way to go in our journey for equity in California.”

Garcia is poised to become chair of the increasingly Democratic Legislative Women’s Caucus in 2017 and will likely resurrect this issue, but with much more political power at her disposal.

Another powerful female legislator, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, was equally disappointed over the veto of one of her bills, which would have killed sales tax on diapers.

The San Diego Democrat has enjoyed a recent string of legislative successes, including a bill expanding overtime pay for farmworkers signed into law on Monday, and was more accepting than Garcia.

Because the streak can only last so long… #ab717 our diaper tax relief vetoed. Still #shithappens https://t.co/mQGIdwXNm4

— Lorena Gonzalez (@LorenaSGonzalez) September 13, 2016

Other bills

The total list of bills vetoed on Tuesday are:

• AB717 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Sales and use taxes: exemption: diapers. A veto message can be found here.
• AB724 by Assemblymember Bill Dodd (D-Napa) – Sales and use taxes: exemption: museum displays: Jimmy Doolittle Air and Space Museum Education Foundation. A veto message can be found here.
• AB1561 by Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) – Sales and use taxes: exemption: sanitary napkins: tampons: menstrual sponges and menstrual cups. A veto message can be found here.
• AB2127 by Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) – Taxation: motor vehicle fuel: use fuel: alcohol fuels. A veto message can be found here.
• AB2728 by Assemblymember Toni G. Atkins (D-San Diego) – Insurance: community development investments. A veto message can be found here.
• SB898 by Senator Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove) – Sales and use taxes: exemption: animal blood. A veto message can be found here.
• SB907 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Personal income taxes: gross income exclusion: mortgage debt forgiveness. A veto message can be found here. 

Proponents have argued it’s a matter of gender fairness, as these products — including tampons, sanitary napkins and menstrual cups and sponges — are a basic necessity for women.

The bill’s sponsors, Assemblywomen Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, and Ling Ling Chang, R-Brea, have also argued hypocrisy in the past, as certain non-essentials products, like candy, are already exempt from sales tax. 

“Fundamentally this is about gender equity and leveling the field,” Garcia said in a statement. “Every month, for 40 years of our lives, we are taxed for being born women. … Every month we are told our periods are a luxury, while also being told they are something to be ashamed of and we must hide.”

The Board of Equalization, which voted to support the measure earlier this year, projects the tax revenue lost if the bill were to pass to be around $20 million annually, hardly noticeable in the state’s $171 billion budget — or in women’s pockets as the savings come to less than $0.01 per woman per day.

Several other states have adopted similar measures, as have Canada and the United Kingdom. 

Photo credit: 401kcalculator.org

The state’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate unanimously voted to support a bipartisan bill cutting sales tax on menstrual hygiene products — like tampons and sanitary napkins — giving the effort a big boost.

The bill’s primary author, Assemblywoman Christina Garcia, has railed against taxing menstrual hygiene products as discriminatory, especially to low-income women. The Bell Gardens Democrat says removing the “tampon tax” would benefit underprivileged women who may not be able to consistently afford the products.

Detractors argue against carving out special exemptions, proposing instead to redirect the tax revenue to fund assistance programs to help those in need. But a Garcia spokeswoman on Tuesday told CalWatchdog a similar attempt to redirect “tampon tax” revenue to women’s charities backfired against a British conservative lawmaker and said this was just the first step in making these products more affordable.

“Our tax code needs to reflect the fact that we don’t live in a time where we should be taxing women for being born women,” said spokeswoman Elena Lee. “Changing where the money goes from the tax does not change the fact that the tax on tampons and pads is outdated.”

Conservatives Like Tax Cuts

The Board of Equalization, which supports the measure 4-0, projects the lost revenue if the bill passes to be around $20 million annually (less than $0.01 per woman per day). According to the bill’s coauthor, Asm. Ling Ling Chang, any tax cut is a victory for fiscal conservatives.

The Brea Republican, who is currently running for a state Senate, agrees with the bill on principle too, citing a loophole allowing a sales-tax exemption on candy as an example of an unfair tax code.

“Candy, frankly, is a choice,” Chang told CalWatchdog. “This is not a choice. This is a public health issue.”

Is There Really a Tax on Tampons?

Catherine Rampell, a Washington Post columnist, on Monday wrote the term “tampon tax” is “misleading,” as there’s not specific tax on menstrual hygiene products. Rampell argued against the carve out, adding she’s “skeptical of the idea that government is obligated to address every difference in every demographic group’s consumption bundle.”

“Maybe it seems unfair that in so many states Twizzlers don’t get taxed while tampons do,” Rampell wrote. “But the solution isn’t to dole out yet more tax breaks but to end the ones we have and direct more public funds to people who actually need assistance.”

The bill has a bipartisan group of 20 coauthors, including Speaker-elect Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. That, plus Tuesday’s vote and favorable politics give the bill great momentum.

“Opposing the taxation of these items is a way to be both pro-feminist and anti-tax,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “And since the amount of forgone revenue is extremely small, the issue is a political winner, period.”