vehicle fees – CalWatchdog.com

Brown offers infrastructure compromise plan

James Poulos — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:41:48 +0000

Shifting gears from a public hands-off approach, Brown gave California lawmakers his own take on how to reach an agreement over new infrastructure spending.

Brown’s proposal would impose $65 fees on drivers each year “and higher gas taxes to fund a $3.6 billion makeover for the state’s roads, bridges and highways,” as the San Francisco Business Times noted. “It plans to raise taxes on gas by 6 cents per gallon and 11 cents per gallon for diesel,” for an increase of some $1 billion in revenues:

“The increases will be based on the Consumer Price Index and will take $100 million out of the Department of Transportation’s budget. It also will look for $500 million from cap-and-trade revenue. […] Brown is hoping that will add up to $3.6 billion, with $1.6 billion slated for state highway improvements and $200 million doled out for improved trade corridors.”

The effort typified Brown’s approach to governance in his final term in office, working to strike a careful but forceful balance between restive Democrats to his left and enterprising Republicans to his right, eager for any opportunity to flex some political muscle. In a statement, spokesman Gareth Lacy underscored Brown’s hopes for another success threading the needle. “The administration’s proposal was put forth after engaging with Democrats, Republicans and lots of people who are concerned about adequate funding for our crumbling roads and highways,” he said, the Associated Press related. “It includes sensible reforms and sufficient revenue to improve our roads, bridges, public transit and trade corridors – all vital to boosting quality-of-life and economic competitiveness.”

Party politics

Seizing the opportunity to make a stand on principle, Sacramento Republicans immediately cast doubt on the plan’s future. “Brown gave the plan to Republicans on Thursday, but despite incorporating some of their proposals, the plan appeared unlikely to peel off Republican votes that would be required to boost taxes,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The minority party has vowed to reject tax increases given California’s brimming budget, and party leaders in the Senate and the Assembly released statements on Thursday saying Brown’s call for increased taxes and a road user fee made his plan unsupportable.”

To Brown’s left, an adequate degree of support also seemed to be wanting. “While transportation, business and transit advocacy groups responded enthusiastically to the proposal, the Democratic governor did not appear to have secured the votes needed for a two-thirds majority in each house of the state Legislature, even from Democrats,” AP noted.

Yet Brown’s camp likely expected an initial wave of resistance among the contending parties in the Legislature. Both have a stake in sticking to their guns, and both have some room to negotiate going forward. Republicans, especially, faced sweeteners in the form of $500 million drawn each year from California’s cap-and-trade revenues, plus $100 million from so-called “efficiencies” to be found in Caltrans — “which Republicans have criticized as bloated and overstaffed,” according to the Bee.

Increasing urgency

But the degree of urgency surrounding a deal was set only to ratchet upward. Brown had patiently remained above the fray until this month. As late as August 19, Brown stubbornly — if wryly — refused to reveal any details about how, if at all, he intended to present the parties with a proposal. “I’m not going to put all my cards on the table,” he told a gaggle of reporters. “As a brooding omnipresence, I stand above the fray here.”

His decision to intervene now reflected a growing sense among political observers that, without some kind of nudge, lawmakers would be unable to arrive at a solution to California’s mounting infrastructure challenges. “Caltrans has deferred $59 billion worth of highway and bridge repairs. Cities and counties face an even bigger bill, needing $78 billion to return local streets to good condition. And the cost of fixing the roadways increases each year as pavement deteriorates and simple repairs turn into more expensive reconstruction projects,” the Los Angeles Times editorial board warned, opining in favor of Brown’s proposal.

Vehicle-fee extension would funnel taxes of less affluent to the rich

CalWatchdog Staff — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:15:53 +0000

July 8, 2013

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.