California

California Road-Tax Hike Is Really A Pension Tax

Who will pay for the roads? Taxpayers, every year.

|

Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators have caused a stir with their plan, which passed the legislature on Thursday, to increase taxes to pay for the state's unquestionably decrepit infrastructure of roads and bridges. Instead of thinking of this as a new transportation tax, however, Californians should see it as a pension tax, given the extra money plugs a hole caused by growing retirement payments to public employees.

Consider this sobering news from the CalMatters' Judy Lin in January: "New projections show the state's annual bill for retirement obligations is expected to reach $11 billion by the time Brown leaves office in January 2019—nearly double what it was eight years earlier." That's the state's "annual bill," i.e., the direct costs taken from the general-fund budget. That number doesn't even include those "unfunded" pension liabilities that according to some estimates top $1 trillion.

That's more than double the $5.2 billion a year the Brown administration hopes to raise from a plan that would boost gas taxes by 12 cents a gallon, raise the vehicle-license fee by $25 to $175 a year (depending on the value of the vehicle), impose a $100 annual fee on electric cars because they don't currently pay gas taxes and include a large hike on diesel fuel. Money is fungible, so if the state overspends on pensions, it has to make it up somewhere else.

The story refers to the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013, which was the governor's only attempt in his administration to rein in pension costs. Because that reform applies to new state hires, it won't produce noticeable savings for years, the article explains. As I've often noted, it also was unnecessarily modest and exceedingly cynical.

The governor's original plan included some serious reform ideas, including a proposed hybrid system that nudged public employees away from the debt-laden "defined-benefit" plans they now enjoy toward a mixed plan that included some elements of a 401/k program. But he didn't push for it. Instead, he caved in to his union allies.

Here's where cynicism comes in: The transparent goal was not to fix the broken pension system, but to woo voter support for Proposition 30, the laughably titled "Temporary Taxes to Fund Education" initiative. The measure raised sales and income taxes. The "temporary" moniker is laughable because Prop. 30 backers asked voters to extend the income-tax portion of the taxes by a dozen years in 2016, and they obliged. (It's a safe guess those taxes won't just expire in 2030—at least not without another union-backed attempt to extend them.)

At the time, the state budget crisis was in the news, as were soaring public-pension liabilities. Polling looked dismal for Brown's pet tax increase, which was the linchpin of his effort to bring the state out of its deficit. He had to convince voters that the state was serious about reforming itself. And, voilà, the PEPRA legislation was born. Voters obliged by OK'ing the tax hike, and then legislators and the governor quickly moved past the pension issue.

Fast forward five years and the state has another big problem. Its general-fund budgets have remained balanced. But Democrats and Republicans alike have been complaining about the estimated $130-billion backlog in infrastructure of all types, especially after the crumbling emergency spillway at Oroville Dam caused the evacuation of 188,000 people in the Sacramento Valley this year. And once again the governor turns to a tax-increase plan.

Polling shows the public dubious of the tax plan. Californians oppose the myriad tax-hike proposals, but overwhelmingly agree (61 percent) with Republicans that instead of raising taxes, the California Department of Transportation,Caltrans, should "make better use of revenue." Instead of seeking voter approval for a tax hike, the governor needed only convince a supermajority of legislators in a Legislature where Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses. Only one Republican backed the tax, and only one Democrat voted against it.

The joint Assembly and Senate GOP statement is on point: "Our state has become increasingly unaffordable for ordinary Californians. We can fix our roads and bridges by simply ensuring that the billions of dollars that drivers are already paying in transportation fees and taxes are actually used for transportation purposes, rather than being swept into the state's general fund."

The governor noted that, yes, roads cost money and compared it to ignoring a leaky roof on one's house—it gets worse if you ignore it. True, but Brown does the same dance each year. He introduces a budget that dramatically underfunds transportation, then holds it hostage to a tax hike. He continues to raise salaries for public employees, which also raises those pension contributions, but he won't deal with roads and bridges without a tax. And he won't deal with pension costs and other major problems that would free up money for roads.

And he won't reform the way Caltrans currently is spending its money. The Legislative Analyst's Office in 2014 noted that Caltrans is "overstaffed by about 3,500 full-time equivalents beginning in 2014-15 at a cost of more than $500 million." The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters put it more directly when he referred to union "featherbedding" at the agency.

Not much has been done in the ensuing years to fix that problem borne of outsized union influence, yet the governor is back crying poormouth and insisting the state's hard-pressed workers increase their monthly gas outlays.

Furthermore, California taxpayers receive a really poor bang for the buck when it comes to transportation thanks to the state's ill-performing bureaucracy and outdated union rules. "California spends over $400,000 per state-controlled mile of road. Texas, in contrast, spends less than half that—$177,000 per mile," according to Reason Foundation's Baruch Feigenbaum, writing in the Orange County Register last October.

It's not just unions that are at fault, of course. Gov. Brown remains fixated on building the $68-billion-plus High Speed Rail system that is supposed to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. If the governor had as much zeal for fixing freeways and levees as he has for a system that seems unnecessary (Southwest Airlines will get you from San Francisco to Los Angeles in around half the time of the best estimates of the proposed bullet train), the state might have more cash to deal with the problem.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association points out that general-fund spending has gone up $36 billion in the last six years and that additional money has not been used for transportation. There always are other spending plans, even though infrastructure—rather than new social spending—is supposed to be one of state government's top priorities.

Even the current proposal has some odd "infrastructure" line items. As the California Policy Center's Marc Joffe points out, the $52.4 billion plan (over 10 years) would spend $7.5 billion on public transportation and $1 billion on bicycle and pedestrian lanes. Those items have value, of course, but the tax hike is supposed to fund critical priorities.

The good news is the state finally is getting serious about addressing its long-neglected infrastructure backlog, but let's not forget the backlog wouldn't be nearly as large had our state's leaders dealt seriously with its growing pension problem—or at least tried to take on union interests that misspend scarce resources and drive up the cost of repairs. Think about that when you watch your own transportation costs mushroom.

This column was first published by the California Policy Center.

NEXT: Large-scale military intervention against Assad requires congressional authorization

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are a sucker if your live in Taxifornia. Sell your house now and move somewhere else.

    This state is not even trying to hide tax hikes that everyone knows will not be used for the stated purpose.

    A $100 annual fee for electric cars because they don’t use gas and thereby pay gas tax. Under the assumption that electric cars use roads too. Then they use all the tax revenue to keep the unions and government workers happy. State workers have to stay in Taxifornia to keep their jobs and pensions.

  2. Oh, well, it’s just California.

  3. California road-Tax hike is really a pension tax and a lot of people don’t happy with this type of tax. Infect, few of them don’t have any idea about it. So for such people this article is good to get sources which help to get complete information about almost all kinds of taxs. However, I’m looking is ultius legit but as a student of business study happy to have information about all type of taxs.

  4. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site http://www.cash-review.com

    1. Hey, that’s all California has to do! Make big bucks on laptops!

      1. Brilliant!

        But are Bucks9000 fungible?

      2. Brilliant! But are Bucks9000 fungible?

      3. Brilliant! But are Bucks9000 fungible?

        1. Seriously, squirrels?


  5. “…impose a $100 annual fee on electric cars because they don’t currently pay gas taxes and include a large hike on diesel fuel.”

    Ha, well at least the electronic car fee proves that it has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with the ‘environment’. I do find it odd that California would punch consumers in the face with a higher diesel tax, but then again Moonbeam probably has no idea whatsoever that this is what transport trucks and trains use for fuel and that this is how they get all of their consumer goods.

    California is, unfortunately, run by retarded children. It’s really sad, but I kind of look forward to their inevitable implosion. I’m curious to see what happens after. I suspect, but have no proof, that it will make the French revolution look tame.

    1. I would agree, but I know what will happen is a Greece scenario where the other states must carry California’s load because they are too big to fail. So my state will be punished for being fiscally responsible, having a surplus and all.

  6. Taxing electric cars is just a way to claw back some of the subsidies. Those free riders should pay for the roads they use too.

  7. #Calexit now, please.

  8. The state of CA has plenty of money from some of the highest taxes in the country. Unfortunately, it has all been promised to buy votes to keep the Ds in power.
    Thank you, moonbeam, you pile of shit.

    1. For your added enjoyment, you might have heard of the Oroville Dam spillway failure, which caused the evacuation of a couple of hundred people. And which repair isn’t even getting dollar estimates before the contracts are let.
      Someone (no one is volunteering names) has decided that the results of the investigation into the failure are some sort of state secret and will only be released if the local sheriff (!?) decides to:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAY-4-NeB18

      1. Correction”
        — a couple of hundred *THOUSAND* people —

  9. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after?I can say my life is changed completely for the better!?2..Check it out what i do?

    ___________________ http://www.paybuzz7.com

  10. This is also happening at the local level. Years ago I was elected to a special district board. The district used a private pension provider that was financially unstable. The current pension scheme was defined benefit. I moved to form a special committee that would look into various pension options and providers and report back at the next meeting, the other board members voted that down. In the end we moved to another pension provider, but the other board members raised the pension benefits substantially and it remained a defined benefit plan. Later that year the new pension provider notified us that we were underfunded for the current year by $600K (our annual budget was only around $6M) on top of our budgeted pension payments and the actuarial projections showed that under the new plan we would need an additional $600k in pension funding for the next few years. So next year the board proposed a special assessment that would bring in around $600K per year but of course did not present it as covering the pension funding gap but to improve the local parks and increase policing.

  11. I am sure the population is ecstatic about the addition of another tax. It must be such fun to live and pay taxes there.

  12. I am using it now & it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made ?350 and the 2nd week I doubled it & then it kinda snowballed to ?150 a day! just folllow the course.. they will help you out

    ================> http://MaxNet80.com

  13. Watch HD Movies Online For Free and Download the latest movies without Registration at Solarmovie.
    solar movies tv showsWatch HD Movies Online For Free and Download the latest movies without Registration at Solarmovie.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.