Special Transportation Session Stuck in Legislative Gridlock

September 26, 2016 By Joel Fox 2 Comments

road_blockMuch like much of the state’s traffic, the legislative special session on transportation/infrastructure is stuck in gridlock. Democratic legislators have a plan to provide $7.5 billion a year in new tax revenue. The governor’s plan also includes tax increases. Republicans want to use current tax revenue more efficiently, cap and trade funds for roads or direct some of the road related monies like truck weight fees directly into road improvements. Neither side budges.

Could this gridlock be altered by the results of November’s elections?

If the Democrats secure the two-thirds majority that would allow them to raise taxes without Republican support, then its game over, right? The Democrats will pass a tax increase and the governor will sign it.

Not necessarily.

While many Democrats are happy to blame the Republicans for the gridlock over the special session because the GOP won’t okay taxes, the scolding Democrats conveniently overlook a good portion of their own caucus, which is wary of raising gasoline taxes on constituents.

Recall that the piece dropped from the controversial SB 350 last year had to do with cutting gasoline use, which in turn would have increased gas prices, something Democrats particularly representing poorer or inner valley areas of the state did not want to do. Raising gas taxes will also add to the cost of gasoline.

Given the demands of voters to relieve gridlock on roads, the advocacy of the business community to spark the economy with a better transportation system, and the support of labor forces to get good construction jobs, you would think a compromise would be attainable.

But environmentalists and public unions don’t want to give on CEQA reform or restructuring CalTrans as some Republicans have suggested, and Republican legislators are concerned about a backlash if they raise taxes.

In the meantime, there are discussions about the possibility of a ballot initiative backed by the business community modeled after the school-funding plan, Proposition 98, which would dedicate money to transportation infrastructure and the roads.

If nothing comes out of the special session soon, other forces could attempt to deal with this crucial issue.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

CA Legislature Debates How to Fund Road Repair

October 19, 2015 By Joel Fox 7 Comments

LA-Freeway-Xchange-110-105There is consensus that California’s road and highways must be fixed. There is no consensus how the fix should be paid for. The Special Session legislative meeting Friday was called a first step in finding agreement to the funding problem. The Democrats see tax increases as part of the mix; Republicans want to prioritize the use of existing dollars for the roads. The tricky part of compromise is the push for any taxes in the context of so many other tax increases that could be presented to voters.

Governor Jerry Brown has proposed a yearly funding package for the roads of $3.6 billion. The package includes a 6-cent gasoline tax increase, an 11-cent diesel tax increase, both tied to inflation, a $65 car fee and cap-and-trade funds. His proposal is little more than half what legislative Democrats and a coalition of business, labor and construction groups have called for.

Republican proposals also include cap-and-trade money. In this case, the money would be used directly for the roads. The governor’s plan would funnel cap-and-trade dollars to bus lanes and rail. The Republicans also would trim CalTrans staff, direct weight fees and other transportation monies exclusively for the roads and employee other methods without raising taxes.

Not only have the Republicans expressed opposition to tax increases but there is no certainty that all Democratic legislators would support a tax increase.

The informal group of Moderate Democrats who banned together to stop the provision in climate change bill SB 350 to cut petroleum use in half over 15 years objected that their constituents would pay a higher cost for commuting. Cap-and-trade that now covers gasoline refining and has raised the cost of gasoline about 10-cents a gallon. Additional taxes on gasoline would adversely affect many of their constituents, the moderate Democrats believe.

The governor wants the funding package to move through the legislature quickly for strategic reasons.

For one thing, the plunging cost of gasoline may undermine the argument that the gas tax increase will hurt low-income drivers. Even a tax increase on gas would leave the cost of a gallon of gasoline well below recent price levels.

If debate lingers until next year, it becomes an issue for candidates running for office in an election year. Remember, a car fee increase was a major reason for a governor’s recall just a decade ago.

If a package of gasoline taxes and car fees should end up on the ballot it would probably get a cold stare from the voters. Likely there will be a number of tax increases on the November ballot. An extension of Proposition 30, a cigarette tax, perhaps a property tax, maybe others could be on that ballot. A roads funding package will not look so good in the context of all these tax increase proposals.

The roads and highways are the veins and arteries that pump life into our economic system. They must be cared for to prevent the economic system from getting a form of man-made sclerosis. The governor and legislators during the Special Session are walking a tightrope to balance the need to improve the roads and highways with voters being turned-off by a slew of tax proposals.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Citizens Exhausted By Renewable Hypocrisy

October 13, 2015 By Jon Coupal 7 Comments

Exhaust is what was emanating from the idling three ton SUV bearing state license plates sitting at the curb outside the Griffith Observatory. The parked vehicle’s engine continued to run for over an hour, according to news reports.

Inside the observatory, overlooking downtown Los Angeles, a ceremonial signing of major legislation was taking place. Amidst self-congratulation by members of the political class in attendance, Gov. Brown added his signature to legislation mandating that half of California’s energy come from renewable sources within 15 years.

car exhaust1The bill by Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, originally contained language requiring a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030. This draconian feature contained no specific formula for reducing gasoline use, leaving it up to the unelected California Air Resources Board to implement restrictions that could have included massive fees, gas rationing or driving restrictions. Moderate Democrats and Republicans united in opposition to adding to the burden on working families already paying the highest gas prices in the nation, and de Leon was compelled to remove the restrictions on petroleum use.

Brown has blamed lobbying by the oil companies – not the thousands of angry constituents who called their representatives — for the Legislature’s failure to cut back gasoline use and he has promised to implement the restrictions using CARB, whose 12 members are appointed by the governor.  (Just approved legislation will allow the Legislature to approve two members.) This approach of going around lawmakers, who represent the people of California, is reminiscent of President Obama’s using executive orders to circumvent Congress in order to make changes to the Affordable Care Act and to halt enforcement of immigration laws.

Even without the de Leon legislation, the state has the nation’s highest air quality standards and, due to legislation passed in 2006, a third of electricity is required to be provided by renewables by 2020.

The problem remains that California has a weak economy and stringent restrictions on energy production will add to the cost paid by average citizens. Many see this legislation as overly severe and agree with State Senator Jim Nielson who has stated that energy, food and all things that require abundant affordable energy to produce and transport will become more expensive, hurting California families least able to afford it.

Meanwhile, back to the SUV sucking up taxpayer financed gasoline: After chatting with reporters for nearly an hour after the signing ceremony, Senator de Leon entered the vehicle and was driven away. It was a hot day and, no doubt, the senator enjoyed entering an air conditioned interior as he was about to be chauffeured to his next appointment.

Although we didn’t get a close look, it would not surprise us if there were a bumper sticker on the back the senator’s ride that read, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Originally published by the HJTA.org

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

Tax Increases Die, Assisted Suicide Lives

October 9, 2015 By John Seiler 3 Comments

CA-legislatureDuring California’s 2015 legislative session, which recently ended, a small cadre of Republicans demonstrated once again the value of preventing Democrats from holding two-thirds of the seats in each house. GOP lawmakers held the line against tax hikes pushed by the majority Democrats and Governor Jerry Brown. The call for tax increases, which require two-thirds of the legislature to pass, came despite a $10 billion windfall in unexpected tax revenues.

In the session’s manic final days, Republicans also joined with moderate Democrats to cut out the worst part of Senate Bill 350, which would have mandated a 50 percent cut in gasoline consumption in the state by 2030. The bill was the work of senate president pro tem Kevin de León, the Los Angeles Democrat who spent $50,000 last year on an inauguration partyfor himself. If it had passed, SB 350 would have guaranteed sharply higher gas prices, with many of de León’s low-income constituents hardest hit.

Naturally, the governor blamed impersonal corporate forces for the defeat. “Oil has won a skirmish,” Brown said. “But they lost a bigger battle, because I am more determined than ever to make our regulatory regime work for the people of California.” Yet it’s unlikely moderate legislators will change their positions during an election year. By 2017, Brown will be a lame duck with two years left in his final term.

On September 14, Brown also warned that failure to take drastic measures against fossil-fuel consumption would have geopolitical consequences. “What we’ve [seen] in Europe now with mass migrations, that will happen in California, as … Central America and Mexico, as they warm, people are going to get on the move.” Considering that California makes up just 2 percent of the world’s economy, cutting gasoline use in half — if such a thing were even possible — wouldn’t produce so much as a ripple in the global climate. And that’s assuming Brown is correct about the climate’s imminent apocalypse.

Unfortunately, other elements of SB 350 remain mostly intact. It mandates that 50 percent of electricity must come from renewable sources by 2030, up from the current 33 percent standard by 2020 that Brown signed into law four years ago. The bill also requires “a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers” by 2030, as determined by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission.

Another de León bill, SB 185, is a sop to anti-carbon-energy fanatics like hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer, who is heavily invested in the renewable-energy sector. The bill would prohibit the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the nation’s two largest public-employee pension funds, “from making new or additional investments of public employee retirement funds in thermal coal companies.” Fifteen years ago, state treasurer Phil Angelides, a Democrat and failed gubernatorial candidate, pushed the pension funds to divest their holdings in tobacco companies. As Steven Malanga noted, “Depressed at the time, those shares soon began to rise; a 2008 CalSTRS report estimated that the funds missed $1 billion in profits because of the divestiture.” Whatever may happen with coal stocks isn’t as important as the additional restrictions SB 185 would place on state pension-fund managers’ freedom to judge which investment strategies are best for maximizing equity. Ultimately, any losses that CalPERS and CalSTRS sustain must be borne by the taxpayers.

California legislators’ penchant for “boutique legislation” was on display with Santa Monica Democrat Richard Bloom’s Assembly Bill 888. The bill would ban “the sale of personal care products that contain plastic microbeads” in 2020 because the beads can be swallowed by fish and fauna. Bloom’s legislation is part of a global “Beat the Microbead” movement. Microbeads largely are used in cosmetics. If Brown signs the bill into law, don’t be surprised if a grey market in contraband cosmetics springs up in Hollywood.

One of the last bills that the legislature considered was among the worst. ABX2-15, sponsored by Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, would allow physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. A nearly identical bill was withdrawn over the summer when its sponsors couldn’t persuade enough Democrats to vote for it, despite crucial support from some powerful members of the state’s medical industry. Eggman, a Stockton Democrat, revived the bill during a special session devoted to Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, and Brown signed it Monday. Whatever one thinks of legalizing physician-assisted suicide—and critics insist it is likely to be widely abused—it’s no small irony that lawmakers would pass such a bill as part of their effort to shore up a bloated entitlement.

Originally published by City Journal Online

John Seiler is editorial manager for the Orange County Register.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

50% Petroleum Cut Dropped From SB350

September 11, 2015 By Joel Fox 7 Comments

Gas-Pump-blue-generic+flippedAfter the governor and legislative leaders announced pulling the 50-percent petroleum cut mandate from Senate Bill 350, the controversial climate change bill, fallout whirled about the capitol from finger pointing to relative silence from a main supporter to a defiant stand from the state’s chief executive.

As argued here previously, the economic consequences of passing the measure in tact would certainly affect lower income and middle class Californians. It was an argument that moved some Democrats who stood up for their constituents against pressure brought by legislative leaders and even movie stars.

Still, Senator Kevin de León yesterday was dismissing the argument that electric costs would increase when a Univision reporter asked him on camera about costs. De León’s answer was to suggest the information was a mistake put out by oil companies. However, a study issued by the Manhattan Institute reports that California’s green energy policies have driven up energy costs.

Meanwhile, one of the most noticeable proponents of SB350, billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, was mostly invisible after the measure was amended. Steyer, who stood with Sen. de Leon when the bill was introduced seven months ago, simply put out a short release praising the pieces of the measure that remained in SB 350 and said more work must be done.

On this site yesterday, Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education associated with the state Chamber of Commerce urged legislators to wait and see if what has already been passed to confront climate change works before rushing ahead with new plans that could put the economy at risk.

But perhaps the most significant message delivered in the aftermath of the intense battle over this one bill came from a frustrated Governor Jerry Brown. He told a press conference that; “I am more determined than ever to make our regulatory regime work for the people of California.” He added, “We don’t have a declaration in statue but we have absolutely the same authority. We’re going forward.”

This Admiral Farragut declaration (“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”) hints at bypassing the people’s representatives and making changes through executive regulatory action, this time through the authority of the California Air Resources Board.

CARB’s authority to implement the provisions of SB 350 with no legislative oversight was a major sticking point in discussions about the legislation. The governor declared he would not diminish CARB’s power. From his statement, it appears he intends to use it.

Yet, a full-blown public debate over an important issue affecting all Californians should not be disregarded because it did not come out the way proponents wished. Any major change on climate legislation should be accomplished only after the people’s representatives or the people themselves vote.

Originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Check Under the Hood Before Letting California Pass New Fuel Rules

September 2, 2015 By Susan Shelley 5 Comments

Gas-Pump-blue-generic+flippedDuring World War II, Americans endured rationing of food and gasoline. The federal government issued ration books and enforced tight limits on purchases.

When the war ended, nothing better symbolized the triumph of freedom than the return of gleaming new cars to the showrooms. “Just step on the gas and go,” enthused the announcer in an ad for the “futuramic” 1948 Oldsmobile.

Today, some California lawmakers want to hit the brakes. Senate Bill 350 — no relation to the 350 engine — would force a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum for California vehicles by 2030.

You’d think elected officials proposing such a drastic measure would have a clear idea of how they plan to achieve it and a very good reason why it’s necessary.

You’d be wrong.

Their plan is to turn the whole project over to the California Air Resources Board, an unaccountable panel of appointees that write and enforce the state’s regulations on climate change and air pollution. Would CARB impose gas rationing to meet the 50 percent reduction target?

An aide to Gov. Jerry Brown recently laughed that off as “ridiculous,” but SB350’s author, Sen. Kevin de León, said Tuesday he’s working on amendments, which could include a ban on gas rationing. He also said he plans to increase oversight of CARB, though he didn’t say how.

CARB chair Mary Nichols may have the clout to resist any changes. Over the years she has personally donated more than $75,000 to state legislative campaigns and to the governor.

CARB enforces the 2006 law known as AB32, which forced utilities to buy a greater percentage of expensive renewable energy and imposed a cap-and-trade system to penalize greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, California now has some of the highest electricity rates and fuel prices in the nation. SB350 and its companion, SB32, would mandate even higher, costlier targets for greenhouse gas reduction, renewable fuel use and energy efficiency in addition to the 50 percent petroleum cutback.

To enforce the limits, CARB could use data from your car’s onboard computer, downloaded at smog checks, to collect a road-usage tax or a fine for excessive “vehicle miles traveled.” Maybe new regulations will simply make gasoline more expensive until people stop driving, or stop eating.

It remains a stubborn fact that limiting greenhouse gas emissions in California will have absolutely no effect on the climate, now or in the future.

SB350’s proponents say California must lead the world, at your expense. But no other state has followed our lead to establish the type of cap-and-trade system that has left Californians paying higher prices for everything that’s produced or transported in the state. Nobody wants our higher cost of living, or our poverty rate of nearly 25 percent.

Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, said he doesn’t discount concerns about climate change but worries that the carbon reduction mandates in SB350 will be met “by impoverishing entire regions of California and bankrupting entire industries.” Since California accounts for only about 1 percent of the carbon emissions of the planet, Hadley said, “We could return our standard of living to the Stone Age and we would not move the needle on carbon emissions.”

Those Flintstone cars are going to look pretty silly in the showrooms, and they’re really going to slow down the carpool lane.

There’s no rational reason for Californians to pay ever higher prices for energy in order to achieve absolutely nothing. We should not tie a tourniquet around our own necks. SB350 and SB32 should be killed before they kill us.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , ,