Gov. Brown Wants $52 Billion Tax Increase to Fix Transportation

Gov. Brown Wants $52 Billion Tax Increase to Fix Transportation

http://media.breitbart.com/media/201...ty-640x480.jpg

31 Mar 2017

Gov. Jerry Brown wants the Democrat-controlled state legislature to hike unpopular registration fees and fuel excise taxes by $5.2 billion a year to fix transportation over the next decade — after years of diverting $1.5 billion in transportation infrastructure taxes to subsidize California’s General Fund bond payments.

Despite Californians paying the highest sales and income taxes and the second highest gas taxes in the nation, Gov. Brown wants to raise the excise tax on distributors of fuel by 67 percent — from $.18 per gallon to $.30 per gallon — and the annual vehicle registration fees by $25 for the next decade, according to SFGate. The equivalent cost per gallon of the combined taxes would jump to over $.88.

Commercial vehicles would be hit harder, with the excise taxes on diesel spiking from 20 cents to 36 cents a gallon, and diesel sales tax jumping from 1.75 percent to 5.75 percent. Beginning in 2020, even hybrid and electric cars would be socked with $100 a year fee.

California’s transportation infrastructure consists of 50,000 lane miles of highways; 9 toll bridges; 12,000 other bridges,;11 million square feet of Department of Transportation offices; maintenance shops; 170 Department of Motor Vehicles offices; and 102 California Highway Patrol offices; according to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Collection of gas and excise taxes and registration fees used to pay for all transportation spending. But after the flood of cash from voters approving the $20 billion Proposition 1B transportation bond in 2006 and the $10 billion Proposition 1A high–speed rail bond in 2008, the legislature started diverting about 18 percent of transportation revenues each year to fund un-related state general obligation bond interest and principal payments.

The National Transportation Group, which tracks national and local transportation spending, estimates that California’s abysmal infrastructure spending now costs state drivers an extra $56.3 billion a year in congestion, safety, and vehicle operating costs.

Brown claims the new spending bill will only costs each Californian in the state about $10 a month, but that works out to about $500 a month for a family of four. Under state law, to pass such regressive and very unpopular taxes, Brown will need every vote from the state’s two-thirds Democrat majorities in both legislative branches.

To cajole liberals into voting for spending $30 billion on roads and $4 billion for bridge repair, Brown is offering $7.5 billion for public transportation, $1 billion walking and bicycle paths, $2.5 billion to reduce major city road congestion, and $275 million for intercity-transit expansions, according to SFGate.

Democrats still remember that Gov. Gray Davis was recalled for tripling vehicle registration fees in 2003, opening the door for Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger to become governor. The Terminator’s first action as governor was to rescind the registration fee increase.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/...ransportation/

3/29/17

California would increase fuel taxes under $52 billion road repair plan

Quote:

---

Despite Californians paying the highest sales and income taxes and the second highest gas taxes in the nation, Gov. Brown wants to raise the excise tax on distributors of fuel by 67 percent — from $.18 per gallon to $.30 per gallon — and the annual vehicle registration fees by $25 for the next decade,according to SFGate. The equivalent cost per gallon of the combined taxes would jump to over $.88.

---

Wow, Californians must really like their taxes. If not, why do they keep handing control of their state over to boobs like this? Guess this is more evidence that points to the excessive costs of sustaining a large illegal immigrant population.

Of course all ALIPAC members from California are exempt from my comment because I sure none of them voted for or support Gov. Brown. ;)

The roads, highways and bridges must be fixed.

We can use CA. tax money to do that

or like other states we could put out our hands for federal taxpayer money.

We would prefer to pay for the repairs ourselves

but we'll use federal taxpayer money if you insist. :cool:

Isn't one of the main reasons we pay taxes is for infrastructure? On and on it goes....will never be enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The roads, highways and bridges must be fixed.

We can use CA. tax money to do that

or like other states we could put out our hands for federal taxpayer money.

We would prefer to pay for the repairs ourselves

but we'll use federal taxpayer money if you insist. :cool:

---

How is this for a novel idea ........ just roll up the illegal alien red carpet and place a "please keep out" sign on the front door?

To me it sounds like the good citizens of California are already overburdened with more than their fair share where taxes are concerned. Any argument to support the tax increase is wasted on me while the state continuously acts to subsidize the support of millions of illegal aliens.

City street repairs are paid for by the cities.
County road and bridge repairs are paid for by the counties.
State roads, highways and bridges are paid by the states.
Federal highways and bridges are paid for by the federal government.
Sometimes cities can get some funds from the county or state.
Sometimes the county can get some funds from the state or feds.
Often the states can get funds from the feds.
Cities, counties, states and the federal government all get their money from the taxpayers.
Cities, counties and states can NOT deport illegal aliens.
Only the federal government can deport people.
Looks like the feds need to get busy and help all of the states, counties and cities with this problem that the feds created when they didn't control the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

Isn't one of the main reasons we pay taxes is for infrastructure? On and on it goes....will never be enough.

---

How Are Federal Taxes Spent?

Updated for Tax Year 2016

---

OVERVIEW

All citizens must pay taxes. How are these federal taxes being spent?

---

All citizens must pay taxes, and by doing so, contribute their fair share to the health of the government and national economy.

The federal taxes you pay are used by the government to invest in technology and education, and to provide goods and services for the benefit of the American people.

The three biggest categories of expenditures are:

• Major health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid
• Social security
• Defense and security

Interest on the national debt and various safety net programs such as low-income assistance comprise a sizable chunk of national expenditures, while other categories such as transportation and infrastructure spending round out the government budget.


Defense and security

Defense and security typically constitutes a significant portion of government expenditures, although the amounts change annually along with the rest of the budget.

Defense and security spending is considered a discretionary portion of the federal budget. Spending in this category includes Department of Defense and Homeland Security Agency expenses.

For the fiscal 2014 budget, defense spending equaled $620.6 billion, or approximately 18 percent of the federal budget.


Social Security

Payments for the Social Security system constituted about 23 percent of the federal budget in the 2014 fiscal year, with expenditures of about $857.3 billion. The Social Security system provides retirement and survivors' benefits along with disability payments and is categorized as a mandatory portion of the federal budget.


Major health programs

The major health programs in the federal budget are Medicare, Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

About two-thirds of the federal health program budget goes to Medicare, as Medicaid and the CHIP require matching payments from individual states. For the 2014 budget year, about 25 percent of the federal budget goes towards these health programs.


Safety net programs

Safety net programs typically constitute about 14 percent of the federal budget. This category includes all aid programs for low- and mid-income families that are not a part of Social Security or the major health programs.

Examples include:

• Unemployment insurance
• Food stamps
• Low-income housing assistance
• Programs for abused and neglected children

Interest on the national debt

Interest on the national debt will total about $223 billion according to the 2014 federal budget, or about 6 percent of total expenditures.


Other expenditures

Approximately 20 percent of the federal budget goes into other categories of spending. The largest of these sub-categories, at about 7 percent of the budget, is spending on benefits for federal retirees and veterans.

Remaining expenses include scientific and medical research, transportation and infrastructure spending, education, non-security international spending and all other categories.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tool.../INF14246.html

Q: What about illegal immigrants? Could the state fix its deficit problem by cutting benefits to illegal residents?

No. State officials have estimated that services which go to California's illegal population add between $4 billion and $6 billion to state spending. The lion's share of that money goes to provide public education to children who are here illegally.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states must provide public school education to all children, regardless of citizenship, and the state has no option but to abide by that decision.

The second-largest cost is for imprisoning convicts who are illegal immigrants. The budget-balancer includes an option for trying to save money by shifting those prisoners to federal custody, although past attempts to do that have failed.

The third-largest cost is for medical care in emergency rooms, a portion of which is paid by the state. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of citizenship. The state also provides welfare benefits to some U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. In 2009, state officials estimated that denying those benefits would save about $640 million, but state lawyers said the move would probably be illegal because the U.S.-born children are U.S. citizens.
---------------------------------------

Overview of the California state budget

Where the money goes now
Roll over chart for details of current budget

General fund budget, fiscal year 2010-11

Taxes and fees are projected to put about $82 billion into California's general fund for the fiscal year starting July 1. But at current rates, the state would spend about $22 billion more than that. The gap between revenue and spending plus the gap in the current fiscal year's budget and reserve funds adds up to the total deficit, now estimated at about $28 billion.

Closing the gap is made harder by several mandates. For example, voter-passed Proposition 98 requires that roughly 40% of all revenue go to elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. The requirement can be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature; otherwise that money is off limits to cutting. The state Constitution requires that interest on state debts, about $4 billion each year, be paid before anything else.

Where the money comes from now

Roll over chart for more detail on the fiscal year 2010-11

The federal government pays up to 80% of the cost of some health and welfare programs, but in return sets minimum levels of state payments. If the state cuts below those minimums, it loses federal money. Other federal laws require the state to spend money on everything from prisons to universities. All told, well over half of state spending is restricted in some fashion. Other big-ticket items don't have an immediate impact on the deficit. Most money for pensions for state retirees, for example, does not come out of the general fund.

The Times' choices for cutting spending, raising taxes or borrowing more money are based on proposals presented by Republicans and Democrats, the governor, members of the Legislature and outside groups. The amounts by which each would reduce the deficit come from the state Department of Finance and the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst. Some have considerable political support, others almost none.
-- David Lauter and Evan Halper


Questions and answers:

Why have the options for cutting K-12 funding changed?
The original version of the Budget Balancer offered readers the option of cutting spending by $1,000 per pupil from the current level and incorrectly said that would reduce the deficit by $3.7 billion. The correct figure is $5.9 billion. On Jan. 20, the Budget Balancer was updated with options for deeper cuts in school spending which allow the budget to be balanced entirely with spending cuts. Many other large areas of state spending, including some health and welfare programs, cannot be cut more deeply because of conflicts with federal laws.

Q: What about pensions? Why are pension reductions not included among the choices for reducing the deficit?
California has a serious long-term problem with its pension system, but in the short-run -- balancing the budget this year and next -- pensions have only a small impact. Moreover, most of the changes that the Legislature can make to the pension system would have virtually no short-term effect. The state can change rules for future retirees, but has little legal ability to reduce pension benefits that already have been granted to current retirees.

Q: What about illegal immigrants? Could the state fix its deficit problem by cutting benefits to illegal residents?
No. State officials have estimated that services which go to California's illegal population add between $4 billion and $6 billion to state spending. The lion's share of that money goes to provide public education to children who are here illegally. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states must provide public school education to all children, regardless of citizenship, and the state has no option but to abide by that decision. The second-largest cost is for imprisoning convicts who are illegal immigrants. The budget-balancer includes an option for trying to save money by shifting those prisoners to federal custody, although past attempts to do that have failed. The third-largest cost is for medical care in emergency rooms, a portion of which is paid by the state. Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of citizenship. The state also provides welfare benefits to some U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. In 2009, state officials estimated that denying those benefits would save about $640 million, but state lawyers said the move would probably be illegal because the U.S.-born children are U.S. citizens.

Q: How has state spending changed in recent years?
State spending grew steadily until 2007 but has been cut significantly since then. For the 2007-08 fiscal year, general fund spending was $103 billion. In the current fiscal year, spending is budgeted at $86.5 billion although it probably will be closer to $90 billion, based on current projections.

Q: Are California's taxes the highest in the nation?
No. California's top income-tax rate, which applies to income over $1 million, is among the nation's highest, but few people pay that rate. Other levies, particularly property taxes, are significantly lower in California than in some other states. Overall, the state ranks 15th in the total level of taxes per $100 of personal income.

Q: How do welfare benefits in California compare with those in other states?
The answer varies widely depending on the specific benefit. For some benefits, California's payouts are among the lowest in the nation. For others, the state is more generous.

Q: What about all those boards and commissions that people cite as examples of government waste?
California government has hundreds of boards, commissions and agencies. Over the years, eliminating some or all of them has figured in a host of plans for making state government more efficient.

Whether all these groups are a waste of money or not is debated - each has its defenders. What isn't debated is that even if they are taken altogether, the boards, panels and agencies don't amount to much in budget terms. In 2004, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review called for eliminating 117 government bodies. The state's bipartisan Legislative Analyst's office, in its review of the plan, said that eliminating those agencies would have only a small impact on state spending.

Q: Could California balance its budget with something more radical?
All kinds of ideas have been floated from the political left and the right - legalizing marijuana and taxing it, contracting with private companies to run the prisons, turning all highways into toll roads, eliminating all medical care for the poor. Most of those proposals share certain common problems - some conflict with federal laws, some would take years to implement. A radical overhaul of California government might accomplish many things, but balancing this year's state budget is probably not one of them.

Q: Is the size of the projected deficit likely to change?
Yes. Deficit projections can be affected by several factors: The governor and Legislature can make changes in state programs that could increase or cut next year’s deficit. The budget has some built in assumptions about the amount of money the state government will receive from Washington. If federal aid comes in above or below that assumed amount, that will alter the deficit projection. And most importantly, the deficit fluctuates with changes in the economy. California government depends heavily on income tax receipts from upper-income residents, and those tend to be volatile. State officials will release an official update on the deficit in May, but even before then, any of those factors could shift the projections by several billion dollars although not by enough to avoid either deep spending cuts or revenue increases.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-c...htmlstory.html

Your defense of Gov. Brown and his tax initiative is admirable, but I'm not buying it. Regardless of what California state government organizations want to say, illegal immigration is a huge financial drain to the state and negatively impacts every California tax paying citizen.