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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

. . . illegal immigration is a huge financial drain to the state and negatively impacts every California tax paying citizen.

---

YES.
And the federal government let them come here
and the federal government needs to take all of them out.

The states weren't the ones who left the border open and let them in

and the states aren't allowed to deport them.

This is all on the federal government.

Trump is going to end illegal immigration in the United States once and for all, but he's also going to ask state and local law enforcement to help with that big project. He'll get help from many, perhaps not all. San Diego is going to help him as I'm sure many other California communities will decide to do.

San Diego-area mayors stand together to oppose making California a sanctuary state

Cigarette Prices Will Jump $2 in California on April 1

POSTED 6:01 PM, MARCH 30, 2017, BY KARMA DICKERSON, UPDATED AT 04:53PM, MARCH 30, 2017

SACRAMENTO -- Smokers and the businesses that serve them are gearing up for a major tax hike.

Starting Saturday, the price of cigarettes increases by $2 a pack.

The price of all other tobacco products is going up as well.

Land Park’s Cigarettes and Tobacco store has only been open a few months. Inside they are still stocking their shelves, but most of the new merchandise is glassware for marijuana use. It’s part of their plan to focus less on tobacco and more on marijuana since with the imminent tax increase they are already seeing people buying less tobacco.

For example, one shopper who only wanted to be identified as “Nancy” told FOX40 she plans to stop smoking after Saturday, and she’s not necessarily happy about it. Though she has been wanting to quit, as of April 1, she feels she’ll be forced to do so.

“There’s simply no way I could afford to continue smoking it would cut into groceries, and that’s not acceptable,” said Nancy.

Effective April 1, the cigarette tax in California more than triples from $.87 cents to $2.87 meaning every posted cigarette price will go up by at least two dollars. It’s an unwelcome April Fool’s joke of sorts to customers who hadn’t heard the news yet.

While some smokers who spoke to FOX40 were preparing to cut back, others were stocking up on cartons for the short term and planning to figure out the rest later.

Staff at Cigarettes and Tobacco said they have had an increase in customers buying cartons of cigarettes.

Cigarette smokers aren’t the only ones affected. April 1, e-cigarette products containing nicotine will start to be taxed in the same way as other nicotine products like cigars and chewing tobacco, at a rate of 27.3 percent of wholesale costs.

Then, July 1, the price of all non-cigarette nicotine products from vaping juice to loose tobacco to cigarillos will increase to be in line with that of the cigarette tax.

“I agree with it mainly for teenagers, 18- to 21-year-olds, athletes, it discourages them from smoking, so I agree with it,” said Kristin Dauphine

Although she says she has no plans to quit smoking, Dauphine doesn’t oppose the tax, and she’s not the only one.

Collin Winget said he voted for Prop 56, the November ballot initiative that brought the tax about.

“It results in higher health care costs and higher costs to our community, I’m fine with paying a tax on it,” he said.

California has one of the lowest cigarette taxes it the country, more than 80 cents below the national average of $1.63. With the implementation of this tax, California will have the ninth highest statewide tax rate in the country. New York is first at $4.35.

http://fox40.com/2017/03/30/cigarett...ia-on-april-1/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

YES.
And the federal government let them come here
and the federal government needs to take all of them out.

The states weren't the ones who left the border open and let them in

and the states aren't allowed to deport them.

This is all on the federal government.

---

Regardless of how hard you try, attempting to completely abdicate California of all guilt in regards to the illegal immigrant problem in the state just isn't going work. California's resistance to federal immigration law, along with the states policies and laws that aid, shield, and encourage illegals has a lot to do with creating the state's illegal immigrant problem. To deny this is absolutely ludicrous.

If the federal government had controlled the border, as they are supposed to, no state would have to deal with any illegal aliens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

If the federal government had controlled the border, as they are supposed to, no state would have to deal with any illegal aliens.

---

True, but that still doesn't excuse what's going on in California.

The United States has 5,000 ICE Agents and 10,000 Border Patrol Agents for a total of 15,000 people to secure our borders and ports. States and local law enforcement have 800,000 sworn, trained and equipped police officers.

Now you tell me who should and should not be involved with securing our borders and ports? 15,000 federal agents or 815,000 federal, state and local law enforcement officers?

Who is costing more? Who eats more donuts? Who has the lower per officer arrest rate? Who arrests 1.5 million non violent drug offenders but refuses to arrest illegal aliens?

Yeah, those guys need to be ready and willing to help our country secure our borders and ports by all reasonable means and directly aid in the arrest and deportation of all illegal aliens in the United States on the earliest possible date.

For some California sheriffs, it's not politics stopping them from fully helping ICE: It's the legal risk

California’s economy is booming

Yet, the federal gov't plans to put all the $$$ burden on the states for medicaid, ryan wants to eliminate medicare funding for seniors and force the states to pay the costs, give seniors vouchers for healthcare needs. As it is states & cities already have the most $$$ burden of sanctuary cities, and every city/state pays for illegals' costs yet the federal gov't leaves the border open, has allowed residency and jobs, anchor babies galore when it is the federal gov't job to secure our borders and deport every GD illegal here.

Road repair tax is a responsible plan to get California moving again: Guest commentary

http://image.dailynews.com/storyimag...h=400&maxw=667Trucks like these on Interstate 5 in the Tejon Pass between Los Angeles and northern California depend on functional highways to drive the state’s economy. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

By Allan Zaremberg
POSTED: 03/31/17, 5:22 PM PDT | UPDATED: 2 HRS AGO
0 COMMENTS


California’s roads, highways and transit systems are the backbone of our state’s $2.4 trillion economy. Every day, millions of Californians take to the streets to get to work or get their children to school. Billions of dollars’ worth of products move across our state every single day.

But after years of underinvestment, California’s transportation infrastructure is facing a crisis. All around our state, roads are falling apart. California drivers spend too many hours on traffic-choked and deteriorating roads, while businesses face increased costs and falling productivity from congested highways.

This week, the California Chamber of Commerce joined Gov. Jerry Brown, legislative leaders and a broad coalition of business, labor, local government and community leaders to support a new transportation plan that will raise the revenue needed to fix our roads and get California moving again. The plan comes with tough accountability measures and constitutional protections to ensure the money is only spent on the roads, highways and transit systems that are in such dire need of investment.

Recognizing the deterioration in our transportation system is something we all agree on. It is clear that our state highways and local roadways are in dire need of capital infusion.

Revenues dedicated to roads have lost purchasing power since they were last increased 23 years ago.

Over time, the bill for our road repairs has added up. The average California driver pays an additional $760 every year in additional fuel and maintenance costs from overcrowded or deteriorating roads.

For nearly a century, user fees like the gas tax have been the basic source of funding for road improvements and upkeep.

This has been a wise approach since the responsibility to pay falls on those who use our transportation system. It also insulates transportation spending from reliance on the volatile and intensely competitive state general fund.

Indeed, for nearly 80 years the state Constitution has shielded gas taxes from being spent on other general programs. Long term infrastructure projects need a reliable, consistent long term funding source.

Asking Californians to pay more is not something the Chamber of Commerce does lightly, or frequently. But in this case, it is the most prudent course of action. The plan would ask the average motorist to pay less than $10 per month.

The basic principle that those who use the roads should help maintain them is one that was embraced by Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian. President Reagan pushed for a hike in the federal gas tax and Gov. Deukmejian took similar action on the state level in 1990.

Investing in transportation improvements will save taxpayers money in the long run. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 spent on road improvements, there is an average benefit of $5.20 in the form of reduced vehicle maintenance costs, fewer traffic delays, lower fuel consumption and improved safety. It costs eight times more to replace a failed road than it does to maintain a road.

There is a difference between frivolous spending and smart investments. Fixing our roads and transportation systems is an investment in our future that will help our economy grow, and improve the quality of life for California residents and businesses.

This is a responsible investment. The public and our economy will be the beneficiaries of a comprehensive funding solution.
Allan Zaremberg is president of the California Chamber of Commerce.

Investing in transportation improvements will save taxpayers money in the long run. The Federal Highway Admin-istration estimates that for every $1 spent on road improvements, there is an average benefit of $5.20 in the form of reduced vehicle maintenance costs, fewer traffic delays, lower fuel consumption and improved safety. It costs eight times more to replace a failed road than it does to maintain a road.

http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/201...est-commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

California’s economy is booming

---

If you're going to link a story header, at least enter the entire header.

Quote:

---

California’s economy is booming. That could change if US-China relations sour.

---

It's a shame when China is responsible for the success or failure of any state economy in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

YES.
And the federal government let them come here
and the federal government needs to take all of them out.

The states weren't the ones who left the border open and let them in

and the states aren't allowed to deport them.

This is all on the federal government.

---

Not so. California shares a lot of the blame.

Excerpt:

Quote:

---

"Despite overwhelming evidence that illegal immigration represents an unsustainable fiscal burden to the state, the California Legislature and local governments across the state continue to provide new benefits, new services, and new privileges to illegal aliens, even as the state neglects the needs and concerns of other Californians. The costs will continue to grow so long as the state continues to reward illegal immigration and impedes immigration enforcement. California taxpayers will continue to be the losers in this unhappy scenario," concluded Stein.

---

http://www.fairus.org/news/illegal-i...ear-finds-fair

Poll: Most Californians oppose Gov. Brown's gas tax plan

Sandy Coronilla 2:05 PM, Mar 30, 2017

http://media.10news.com/photo/2015/0....0_640_480.jpg

Copyright Getty Images
JUSTIN SULLIVAN

SHOW CAPTION

(KGTV)--The results of a new SurveyUSA poll of 500 Californians indicate most people do not support Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to increase a tax on gasoline to pay for road repairs and transportation improvements.

The new state road repair and transportation investment package is being considered by the California legislature. If passed, the bill would spend $52 billion over 10 years and take steps to guarantee the money is only spent on transportation. Some of that money would be raised through a gas tax and car fee.

Here are the results of the survey:

1. In general, how would you rate the condition of roads and highways in California?

• 8% Excellent
• 26% Good
• 38% Fair
• 27% Poor
• 1% Not sure

2. A new California road repair and transportation investment package is being considered by the legislature. If passed, the bill would spend $52 billion dollars over ten years, and take steps to guarantee the money is only spent on transportation.

Some of the money would be raised by a 12 cent per gallon increase in the tax on gasoline. Do you support or oppose this part of the plan?

• 37% Support
• 44% Oppose
• 19% Not sure

3. Some of the money would be raised by a 20 cent per gallon increase in the tax on diesel fuel. Do you support or oppose this part of the plan?

• 36% Support
• 46% Oppose
• 18% Not sure

4. Some of the money would be raised by a $100 fee on electric and hybrid vehicles, which use less fuel. Do you support or oppose this part of the plan?

• 42% Support
• 43% Oppose
• 14% Not sure

5. The proposal also calls for a "transportation improvement fee," similar to the vehicle registration fee owners currently pay the DMV annually. The fee would range from $25-$175 a year based on a vehicle's value. Do you support or oppose this fee?

• 26% Support
• 59% Oppose
• 14% Not sure

6. State Republicans are calling the plan the largest gas tax increase in state history, adding $5 billion to Caltrans' budget of $10.5 billion. Do you think the additional funds are needed or should Caltrans make better use of gas tax revenue it currently gets?

• 23% Additional funds needed
• 61% Make better use of revenue
• 16% Not sure

KABC-TV Los Angeles, KFSN-TV Fresno, KGTV-TV San Diego, KPIX-TV San Francisco and San Diego Union-Tribune sponsored this survey.

Sandy Coronilla is a KGTV digital producer. Follow her @10NewsSandy

http://www.10news.com/news/poll-most...s-gas-tax-plan

China just bought Blackstone's shares of SeaWorld - they will open parks in china to continue the capturing and imprisonment of orca whales. Such as the pic below, a whale in a kitty pool. They become ill from chemicals added to their confined water space, antibiotics for deteriorating skin issues, mouth problems, forced breeding artificially, driven nuts with the whole routine, then candida from all the antibiotics of which the last deaths were the cause. china's kind of industry - cruelty to animals.

From Blackstone To ‘Blackfish,’ A SeaWorld Saga Concludes

By Pitch Book on in Business

When it comes to their portfolio companies, private equity firms much prefer making profits to making headlines—particularly when those headlines involve allegations of animal torture, and particularly when they move from the business section into the larger cultural zeitgeist.
http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/...1490725722.jpg
Blackstone / SeaWorld

But that was precisely the situation in which Blackstone found itself upon the 2013 release of the documentary “Blackfish,” which shined a light on the abusive treatment of orca whales at SeaWorld and led to a wholesale transformation in the way the theme park goes about its business.

There’s a reason Blackstone is Blackstone, though. For the buyout giant, there’s no reason profits and headlines can’t go hand in hand. The firm has agreed to completely exit its stake in SeaWorld Entertainment (NYSE: SEAS), striking a deal to sell its 21% interest to China’s Zhonghong Zhuoye for $23 per share, or about $449 million—reportedly representing a 2.7x return on Blackstone’s initial equity investment.

That investment occurred in 2009, when Blackstone acquired the company then known as Busch Entertainment for as much as $2.7 billion. In 2011 and 2012, Blackstone extracted a combined $610 million in dividends from the business. After first considering a sale to Apollo Global Management or Six Flags (NYSE: SIX), SeaWorld went public in 2013 at a valuation of about $2.5 billion, and Blackstone sold a reported $1.7 billion of the company’s stock in the coming years.

Yet the price of that stock has dipped from nearly $40 shortly after its IPO to as low as $12.15 last fall, largely a response to “Blackfish” and the changes it wrought. In the wake of the film and the ensuing backlash, SeaWorld decided to phase out its use of orcas as entertainment and cease keeping the creatures in captivity, a significant change in strategy.

Nonetheless, Blackstone found a buyer willing to pay a premium of about 33% to SeaWorld’s share price before news of the deal—in the process valuing the company at about $2.1 billion, not that far off the cash price Blackstone paid eight years ago.

SeaWorld will continue to face new challenges as it tries to transform into a more conservation-minded organization, but Blackstone’s only remaining role in the whole affair is to pass out the proceeds to its LPs.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/03/blackstone-blackfish-seaworld-saga-concludes/

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.

---

Jerry Brown funnels the money to pay for medical, education and welfare for illegal immigrants.

The tax money never goes to road infrastructure, all the roads are a mess!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

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.

---

The illegal aliens vote in the millions and they are the ones that keep voting for tax increases
because they know they are not the ones paying the tax.

They need the citizens to pay more taxes so they can get freebies.