Possible revenue solutions for the state budget
| By Robert Cruickshank, Courage Campaign - Mar 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am PDT |
| Also listed in: Courage Campaign Staff |
In the aftermath of last week's delivery of layoff notices to 26,000 teachers and news that the budget is already $8 billion in the hole it makes sense to continue to look at serious revenue solutions to close a 30-year shortfall. Unless, of course, you are a Republican:
It seems highly unlikely that Republicans will support new taxes without a major public movement to demand that they do so. And if Californians understand that new revenues are the only way to protect schools and health care services from even more crippling cuts then they might be willing to make those demands.
As reported by the SF Chronicle several Democratic legislators have proposed various measures to raise revenues, most of which are very sensible:
California remains one of the few oil-producing states that does not tax companies for taking that oil out of the ground, and Torrico's bill would change that. Ducheny and Price are on the right track with their tax-the-rich proposals, probably the best way to quickly raise a significant amount of money to help close the budget gap. Tom Ammiano's marijuana proposal is interesting and deserves serious consideration.
Of particular importance is Noreen Evans's bill to give local governments more of their own tax power. Republicans, who generally loathe democracy when it comes to government finances, do not want to give Los Angeles and San Francisco the power to raise their own taxes in such a broad way, even though many cities (like New York) possess that power and even though it could help ease the state's own financial burdens by letting localities make up some of the difference. This is a bill that definitely ought to pass.
I also think Democrats would be wise to get behind efforts to tax the wealthy. That dovetails nicely with President Obama's own federal tax proposals, and is probably one of the revenue answers that Californians can rally behind at this time. Doing so would help expose Republican obstruction for what it is - a naked defense of wealth and power. And if Democrats are to be serious about building a long-term movement to break anti-tax politics in this state, higher taxes on the rich are a necessary starting point.
Darrell Steinberg, after the brutal February budget battle, doesn't seem inclined to make that fight:
I think he ought to be more supportive of exploring the wealth taxes, but he is clearly indicating support for the kind of ideas Noreen Evans is talking about - giving local governments the power to help fix their own problems. If a local school district wants to impose an income tax to support schools, why not let them do so?
That's a question we ought to force Republicans to answer publicly and often.
Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines of Clovis (Fresno County), one of three Assembly Republicans who voted for taxes in the latest budget package, said taxes to close additional budget shortfalls can't be on the table.
Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murietta (Riverside County), who became the Senate minority leader last month after a coup during the marathon budget session, said passing any more taxes or fees "would add insult to injury to California taxpayers."
It seems highly unlikely that Republicans will support new taxes without a major public movement to demand that they do so. And if Californians understand that new revenues are the only way to protect schools and health care services from even more crippling cuts then they might be willing to make those demands.
As reported by the SF Chronicle several Democratic legislators have proposed various measures to raise revenues, most of which are very sensible:
AB87 (Davis)/SB531 (DeSaulnier): Fees for shoppers who use plastic bags.
AB89 (Torlakson)/SB600 (Padilla): Increases the cigarette tax.
AB390 (Ammiano): $50-an-ounce tax on marijuana, which would be legalized for recreational use.
AB462 (Price): 1 percent income tax for individuals who earn more than $1 million a year, to fund public schools and universities.
AB656 (Torrico): Oil severance tax to help fund the state's community colleges and universities.
AB1019 (Beall)/SB558 (DeSaulnier): Tax or fee on alcohol.
AB1082 (Torrico): Sales tax on pornography.
AB1342 (Evans): Cities and counties would be allowed to raise income taxes and vehicle license fees.
SB96 (Ducheny): Increases the income tax rate on the state's wealthiest residents while lowering the rate for some middle-class taxpayers.
California remains one of the few oil-producing states that does not tax companies for taking that oil out of the ground, and Torrico's bill would change that. Ducheny and Price are on the right track with their tax-the-rich proposals, probably the best way to quickly raise a significant amount of money to help close the budget gap. Tom Ammiano's marijuana proposal is interesting and deserves serious consideration.
Of particular importance is Noreen Evans's bill to give local governments more of their own tax power. Republicans, who generally loathe democracy when it comes to government finances, do not want to give Los Angeles and San Francisco the power to raise their own taxes in such a broad way, even though many cities (like New York) possess that power and even though it could help ease the state's own financial burdens by letting localities make up some of the difference. This is a bill that definitely ought to pass.
I also think Democrats would be wise to get behind efforts to tax the wealthy. That dovetails nicely with President Obama's own federal tax proposals, and is probably one of the revenue answers that Californians can rally behind at this time. Doing so would help expose Republican obstruction for what it is - a naked defense of wealth and power. And if Democrats are to be serious about building a long-term movement to break anti-tax politics in this state, higher taxes on the rich are a necessary starting point.
Darrell Steinberg, after the brutal February budget battle, doesn't seem inclined to make that fight:
"Frankly, our focus ought to shift to tax reform," he said. "That means seriously addressing the volatility in our tax system. That means realigning the relationship between state government, local government and school districts. Whoever is providing the service ought to be able to raise revenue."
Last month's passage of the $12.5 billion tax package as part of the budget "was an exception to the rule because of the magnitude of the problem," Steinberg said.
I think he ought to be more supportive of exploring the wealth taxes, but he is clearly indicating support for the kind of ideas Noreen Evans is talking about - giving local governments the power to help fix their own problems. If a local school district wants to impose an income tax to support schools, why not let them do so?
That's a question we ought to force Republicans to answer publicly and often.
Comments are closed for this post.