.
.
.
Most of those driving down Orangethorpe on their way to Fullerton’s CostCo will probably notice out of a corner of their eye a few orange and black signs reading, “Newman Raised Taxes!” They’ll probably also notice a heavily potholed ride along the way in that stretch, and probably never connect the signs they see to the bumps they feel.
The folks on the 91 Freeway won’t see these signs, and even if they could, they probably ought to keep their eyes on the bumper-to-bumper traffic around them. If they listen to NPR, they might hear a story some time, a vague reference to a recall amid a flurry of other news. If they listen to the local AM feeds, they’ve heard a lot more about this recall, and the horrific betrayal of a freshman State Senator, Josh Newman, and probably been exposed to the ‘dastardly plan to make any funds raised by gas taxes actually be spent on road and highway maintenance.’ How dare he! That’s not in sync with Fullerton residents! Oh wait…maybe it is.
See, Fullerton adopted a 2017-2018 budget allocating $25.8 million to ‘capital improvements’ – and about $6 million of that went to re-paving and repairing roads, including, one hopes, Orangethorpe. Against that, Fullerton is a city of some 140,000 people, in a state with 40 million, fighting for enough of the total CalTrans budget to keep everything smooth enough to drive on. The goal isn’t ‘beautiful roads’ – but simply ‘fair’ roads. Fair enough, anyway.
One wonders: if the ‘gas tax’ is ‘wrong,’ then should Fullerton residents pay increased property taxes, which accounted for $54m in revenue? Other taxes, which collectively, amount to $27 million? New licenses and permit fees (which account for $1.9 m? Are the wealthy, well-placed citizens of Fullerton volunteering to raise their property taxes even more to cover the costs of roads for other people to use? Or have they arranged a blockade of CalTrans to fight off the residents of larger cities, similarly jostling to get their roads fit to drive?
Until someone supporting the recall shows an alternative source of $3m (spent on roads, not on election workers seeking a recall) – one must assume they either don’t know, or don’t care. San Diego politicians and other outsiders bankrolling this measure may not give a damn about Fullerton’s roads, but the folks who live there have to. The city council voted last month to accept $3 million from the gas tax – shouldn’t they all be recalled too?
Adam Smith offered perhaps the most tenable solution to what to do about roads: those who use them most should pay the most for their use (whenever possible). Taking money from a ‘general fund’ will cause residents of one town to pay for benefits in another town, intruding into the free market. Now plopping tolls on every local road simply isn’t possible, and also, a fact that didn’t apply in Smith’s day and age when few folks wandered more than a mile from their homes, but we depend on these roads for our daily life: they are necessary, they must be financed adequately, but-for the roads, we cannot live as we do. A gas tax is probably the closest we can get to a Smith ideal while living an Orange County lifestyle.
So before voting on a recall of Josh Newman, I propose a modest recall of Adam Smith: he was obviously out of sync with Fullerton residents, and his principles never should have been endorsed as a basis for capitalism as we know it. I’ve yet to see any signs posted calling for an “Adam Smith ban” in Fullerton, but if such signs do pop up, I expect it will probably be near banks and commercial centers, as well as along bumpy roads like Orangethorpe.
“One wonders: if the ‘gas tax’ is ‘wrong,’ then should Fullerton residents pay increased property taxes, which accounted for $54m in revenue? Other taxes, which collectively, amount to $27 million? New licenses and permit fees (which account for $1.9 m? Are the wealthy, well-placed citizens of Fullerton volunteering to raise their property taxes even more to cover the costs of roads for other people to use? Or have they arranged a blockade of CalTrans to fight off the residents of larger cities, similarly jostling to get their roads fit to drive?”
What a miserable failure of blogging.
There are plenty of tax dollars available to fix roads. Here’s how it works:
1) Stop stealing existing gas taxes
2) Stop deferring infrastructure repairs to fund pet projects (i.e. HSR)
3) Fix the $#@&-#$@ roads
“(1) Stop stealing existing gas taxes.”
Expand on the amount at issue and why this is in any respect “stealing.”
“(2) Stop deferring infrastructure repairs to fund pet projects (i.e. HSR)”
Give us a sense of how much this admittedly theoretical problem ACTUALLY happens. Has there been a lot of spending, for example on HSR?
Look, your party made reasonable fiscal policy impossible with Prop 13 and the one that required 2/3 for fees. We can agree on government profligacy in some areas, but the fact is that when revenue is needed for something it will, as it stands, have to be funded in highly sub-optimal procedural means. “CUT WASTE” is easy to say; hard to do. If you don’t actually give a damn about whether roads get repaired or not, then it’s easy to be cavalier about how we’ll fund them. Josh couldn’t afford to be cavalier. He did get Prop 68 out there, at least, which I presume that you’ll be supporting — right? Or does that too not fit with your agenda?
1) No. Billions of dollars in gas taxes have been stolen over the last two decades. It doesn’t need explaining. Go look at the Rainbow Armadillo in Anaheim if you’d like to take in a large visual monument to that there.
2) Ibid.
3) This is not a revenue problem. This is a spending and self-control problem.
No state in this country taxes more tax revenue from its citizens.
Yet poverty is unacceptably high, education is unacceptably low, and the roads are unacceptably poor.
Throwing more money at the problem makes the first two conditions worse and does little to address the third.
“Stolen”? Yes, that term does need explaining.
We agree that ARTIC was a waste and those who perpetrated it should be held to account. (Kris Murray’s Supervisorial campaign will be the perfect occasion for THAT.) But the notion that we must throw out the baby to prevent the bath water from getting dirty is nuts.
You don’r want a supermajority (despite its being worthless to Dems most of the time) — we get it. But you see recalling one of, if not the, best members of our caucus in order to get it. “Not cool,” as you say. (Also unnecessary: Cardenas in SD-32 is about to deprive us with the supermajority without your help.) Meanwhile, the lack of a supermajority is going to lead back to the hostage-holding activity that we saw from Republicans for years — including years of almost interrupted GOP Governors between the Brown Administrations. (Gray Davis being the sole snuffed-out exception.)
Here’s what you’re REALLY accomplishing when replacing Josh with Ling-Ling: more Bob Huff-style dirty dealing of the sort you claim to decry, and the passage of a bond measure in November because that’s the only way to get around the Republican roadblock in the Legislature. And that WILL pass.
Worst of all worlds there. And you think it’s all simple.
Zenger: there are rational changes that can be made to Prop 13, such as split-roll (which returns it to its original purpose), that my party can’t get politicians like Sharon Quirk Silva to support because that rationality would sacrifice her to your part’s demogoguery, as happened when Young Kim beat her in 2014. Don’t evade responsibility like a squalling eight-year-old boy. The fix is to keep the best people in both parties present and able to negotiate. The recall does the exact opposite. It’s stoooopid.
“Here’s what you’re REALLY accomplishing when replacing Josh with Ling-Ling: . . .”
Say who is doing what now?
Sorry, how’s this?
“This will be the foreseeable effects of the action you have favored….”
“your party made reasonable fiscal policy impossible with Prop 13”
Inaccurate, as usual. Prop 13 was obviously passed by the voters of California.
The mechinations are at least entertaining.
Greg, Donovan, this isn’t complicated. This is just another tax.
It doesn’t fund anything new. It doesn’t solve any emerging issue. It doesn’t really make anything better.
It’s another tax that’s just going to be spent like so many others. Wastefully.
That’s not going to improve until the legislature starts making tough choices.
The only way this tax makes sense is if you accept that the reality of a Legislature that controls itself will never happen. Only in that specific condition does this prioritization problem magically transform into a revenue question.
In that case, which party should we see about that lunacy?
“The only way this tax makes sense is if you accept that the reality of a Legislature that controls itself will never happen.”
What a simple summation. And how true. The governing presumption is that more taxes, no matter how poorly previous taxes were spent, is the only solution.
But of course it IS true that the Legislature is incapable of controlling itself or managing government priorities.
Sort of like a heroin addict who decides it’s easier to keep swiping the family silverware than kicking the smack.
Well, a first effort, and it’s been some time. In terms of understanding things though, even if we “stop stealing existing gas taxes” we still face immense shortfalls: the cost of roads has increased along with the cost of prisons, etc. – but the budget for prisons exploded, while that for roads did not.
In terms of ‘pet projects,’ I’d gladly look at the HSR – but to my eye, many ‘pet projects’ are pets of folks proclaiming they are ‘infrastructure’ – sometimes they may lie, often they may not.
And in terms of ‘fixing the roads’ – well, that’s sort of the whole idea.
We still face significant shortfalls?
Really?
Truly?
Tell you what. Let’s do my thing first, THEN talk about raising taxes.
Ryan, Wallet Hub produces a handy chart each year, which places California #10 on the ‘most taxed’ states once property, income, and sales tax are taken into account. What’s the source of your belief that California taxes its citizens more than anyone?
That said, if your claim is that California’s tax structure begets poverty for many Californians, I’d tend to agree, and again, I can invoke Smith to challenge some of our current predilections:
(1) the ‘benefit principle’ – because the state protects real property far more effectively than it does personal property, taxes on possession of real property ought to be raised, while taxes on personal property (sales taxes) lowered. The benefit principle also suggests that California ought not to be subsidizing Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina with federal tax dollars.
(2) the ‘stability’ principle – we really ought to have a clearer view of what the taxes are, and will be. Prop 13 was not a ‘stabilizing’ principle, but a tax reduction principle applicable only to real property (to the extent that the tax value of property differs from the market value – which is often a massive differential)
I can go on and on referring to Adam Smith – because he does not say what conservatives think he says.
My wallet.
I’m sure there’s a huristic for every mood, but California takes in significantly more tax revenue than any other state.
You clearly have a few more non sequiturs to make. That hardly requires my attention.
Welcome to the blog.
Well if your wallet discloses what is happening everywhere in America, it must be a vast wallet indeed. As for me, I’ll look to broader evidence. My wallet shows me certain things, but not everything, least of all, relative tax loads borne by other wallets in other states.
California is the 4th, 5th, or 6th largest economy in the world: of course it takes in more tax revenue than any other state, as we’re so much bigger than any other.
Then get a new wallet.
Congratulations on your first concession. Sorry it took you a couple days to get there.
Maybe the rest of my comment will follow closely behind.
Unfortunately, the Gas Tax is a regressive sales tax that disproportionately affects the lower wage earners both in the direct cost of gas and the indirect rise in both food and even higher fuel prices (which generates even more gas tax revenue, yay!). Ironically, these are the very folk that “progressives” are always getting weepy over.
And then there’s the problem of the bloated and inefficient CalTrans bureaucracy and the local agencies and municipal engineering departments that each will skim their cuts right off the top for “administration” and “contract management.”
And then there’s the problem of the missing accountability for the parlous state of infrastructure affairs.
And then there’s the sad story of Jerry Brown and Curt Pringle’s boondoggle bullet train that is ever escalating in cost and that sure could use an extra $50,000,000 suddenly freed up for the public funds bacchanal.
The gas taxes were a mistake, a seemingly handy short-cut used by a ultra liberal state legislature that can’t do its job and doesn’t have any interest in running an efficient government.
Sorry, no sale.
I had not seen this subject debated here: it may have been and I missed it. My submission is intended to raise that debate, as I believe it to be important.
The gas tax is indeed a regressive tax. Progressives have a serious complaint against Brown & the Sacramento Democrats. But conservatives who claim to defend the ‘free market’ and assert capitalism as a principle of faith had best reconsider their line of attack: this tax is a very direct reflection of the fundamental tenets of capitalism, which sometimes hurt some folks more than others, but in general, work well for most of us – well enough to make a very great country indeed.
That said, were I to write it again, I’d take note that the “No Recall” signs on Orangethorpe now seem to outnumber the “Newman raised taxes” signs. I’d expect this to change, time and again, before June.
“this tax is a very direct reflection of the fundamental tenets of capitalism”
Nope. Strike two.
It’s a reflection of what you get with a Democratic Supermajority in Sacramento.
If the Democrats act as capitalism’s patron saint advised, then perhaps you have a problem with capitalism too.
Sadly, conservatives often invoke luminaries like Smith, and certain even more important thinkers, without considering what they actually said or wrote – happened quite recently in an Anaheim city council race. I do not say Newman was right to vote as he did, but only the choice fits with the doctrine of capitalism, as propounded by it’s most central proponent. Disdain him if you will.
Dude, you’re not listening.
See above and below, this weird Capitalism has got to go!
No charge for the rhyme.
“…this tax is a very direct reflection of the fundamental tenets of capitalism…”
A very weak attempt to fashion an argument by somehow pointing out the deficiencies of something utterly unrelated.
No, sir, the gas tax is a direct reflection of an out-of-control Legislature that would rather tax poor people than exercise any sort of restraint.
Weak? Gosh, I suppose I’ll need to quote and add footnotes to make it crystal clear next time.
No, you will need to address the issue at hand (the propriety of the regressive gas tax) instead of dragging in something utterly unrelated (your asserted qualities of capitalism).
Sorry. Footnotes would be of no use.
Not my assertion; Adam Smith’s. Of course, a lot of conservatives do have a problem with what he actually wrote, and a preference for what they believe he meant.
Just look up logical fallacies and see where your essay went astray.
Let’s face it your real intent was to oppose the recall, not the gas taxes. Which is funny because as recall opponents are so fund of saying, The recall will do nothing to get rid of the gas tax.
(See what I did there?)
Which logical fallacy do you believe I have committed?
It is intriguing that both you and Ryan adopted a red herring fallacy to avoid my argument, rather than engage with it. The claim, “We can’t raise taxes while theft is occurring!” – is illuminating:
(1) Newman is not accused of the theft which you believe ought to block the gas tax – and indeed, Newman took action to try to avert the possibility of theft, and
(2) the claim of theft itself is unproven, simply assumed, and in any event, even if it were proven that theft had occurred in the past, it would have little relation to the problem going forward (how to pay to fix our roads)
But I will concede: my purpose here is less to defend the gas tax than to challenge one common line of attack upon those who proposed it – the claim they are not ‘good capitalists’ acting in accordance with capitalist principles. That is a claim conservatives frequently raise, which they ought not to – and could not if anyone read the books they claim to believe in, but not when they prove inconvenient. Again, Smith is hardly the only luminary to be idolized and ignored by so-called conservatives.
“Which logical fallacy do you believe I have committed?”
Nope. Figure it out yourself.
“It is intriguing that both you and Ryan adopted a red herring fallacy . . . ”
Nope. Neither one of us did any such thing.
“Waste” is the red herring you’ve offered. Even if were it true that waste existed and accounts for why roads are in a state of disrepair, that is a separate problem from (1) how shall we pay to fix our roads now, (2) who should we blame for their state of disrepair, and (3) should we recall a man who is innocent of the previous wrongdoing and sacrifice him in view of the complicity of others.
As for me, since it seems you cannot identify a logical fallacy in my reasoning, you actually agree with it, and offer instead red herrings to avoid acknowledging that agreement. Interesting.
“‘Waste’ is the red herring you’ve offered”
It is not.
PUBLIC NOTICE
One free beer to the first person who names the fallacy used here:
“As for me, since it seems you cannot identify a logical fallacy in my reasoning, you actually agree with it . . .”
Latin not required, but it is accepted.
LOL, first you try to get me to do your work to name fallacies on your behalf, then you offer bribes to get someone else to do so? Hmmm…
In terms of the blog post, weak or no, it’s just a meditation on Smith in today’s context. I’d suggest you read him again, his actual words, including ‘Moral Sentiments’ and ‘Wealth of Nations,’ and then get back to me. You’ll profit far more than that than you will soliciting (pleading?) for reinforcements to provide logic you are struggling to locate on your own. 😉
But as for this – “As for me, since it seems you cannot identify a logical fallacy in my reasoning, you actually agree with it . . .” – that is simply an invalid argument, not a logical fallacy. The conclusion need not follow from the premise: acknowledged. It is possible you do have actual reasons to disagree, rather than red herrings to avoid engagement with an argument; in which case, you prefer to raise red herrings rather than disclose your reasons.
And that is fascinating as well.
Argumentum Winshipiam
Oh goodie, I just got my first mailer from the California Republican Party on the recall!
“Senator Josh Newman took nearly $1 million from special interests that profited from the gas tax.”
That’s the worst they can dig up on Newman? Somehow, when the California Teachers Association donated $250k to Newman’s ‘no on recall’ campaign, they’re PROFITING from the gas tax? Seriously? After months (years?) of work, the worst dirt they can dig up on Newman is he took some money from unions?
No, amigo, they will benefit from the 2/3 ultra liberal super majority that can pursue whatever numb-skull agenda the public employee unions crave.
And that’s the REAL point of the recall. But you knew that, right?
All the more reason to recall Adam Smith (in the more ordinary sense of the word).
What part of “that profited from the gas tax” do you not understand, Zenger? The assertion is flat-out false. Do you give a damn about that?
I don’t give a damn about your sad hackery, that’s for sure.
You have a funny way of showing your lack of caring, buddy.
Enjoying your baptism of fire, Donovan? 😉
Ryan and Zenger often have great insights to contribute about identifying and opposing government waste. Other times, they are just hacks. I sometimes play the part of hack as well, but when I do, I usually admit it.
The weird part is that here they are objectively working to elect Ling Ling Chang, whom they purport to despise. If she ultimately displaced Josh, they will claim not to have wanted it to happen — but the time to stop it is now, while one can.
Alright fellow hack. Consider this insight:
I offered absolutely no opinion on Josh Newman or the recall.
Explain how an opinion on the gas tax necessarily works to elect anyone, please.
Ought to be interesting.
Exactly, Ryan. All we get is the over-excited squalling of an eight year-old who’s spent enough time outside playing.
Neither you nor I have mentioned Newman in this post because we have directed our animus to an ill-considered tax levied by a group of people who have no self-control. For that we are “hacks.”
OK, the above (well, technically below) comment I made to Ryan is directed at you too, then, Zenger, except for dialing back the respect and affection a ways. We’re facing a recall election here — I believe you’re familiar with them as well. Are you going to take a stand on the merits, and if so what will it be? Is that a fair question (or two), or a distraction from your caterwauling on your soapbox?
Take a stand and own it. I know you can do it.
You really ought to stop projecting your politician hackery on others you disagree with. The worst part of it is you’re as bad as Chimelewski.
Oh, look — it knows a psychological term! And misuses it!
A thorough critique of your hackery will have to wait. Mostly, that’s because I don’t like kicking a man when he’s down. If you csn’t discern the difference between me and Chumley, it’s because you aren’t trying. But I expect that you can — but simply wanted to get in a Zenger Zinger. Hope you enjoyed it.
David: If the gas tax were offered alongside a cut to property, sales, or income taxes, then you’d have no problem with it then, David?
Both you and Ryan have concluded “CalTrans wastes money; therefore the tax is wrong!” Whether CalTrans wastes money or not is beside the point: the issue and question asked is how should we pay for our roads? Do you reject Adam Smith, and believe road work should come from general revenues? On what basis then? Surely not a capitalist one.
Aside from the claim of waste (again, beside the point – a red herring) – your only other addition was the observation this is a regressive tax, a point I concede. But if you’re really concerned about regressive taxes, you’re deriving your principles from some source other than Adam Smith that is concerned with regressive/progressive tax structures: there are many such thinkers and principles, several of which have a more Marxist inclination – so that could be the principle you endorse here, or there could be a simple political expedience, with no principles at all at work.
And if the last is the case, again, I’ll propose recalling Adam Smith. A very good starting point for anyone claiming to be a libertarian.
I’m out.
Talk to Ron.
Gas Tax Bad.
You have a track record here, Ryan, of which I am cognizant.
If you want to recant opposition to the recall, please do. But we’re talking about a recall election here — I believe that you’re familiar with them — and so general ramblings on the propriety of a gas tax, if NOT pertinent to the election at hand, are distractions from the issue at hand and really don’t belong here (although as you’ll rightly guess I’ll let you get away with whatever.)
But please don’t be coy and claim to just be having a nice theoretical discussion here about taxation generally. From what I take to be your position (and it certainly seems to be Zenger’s), Newman committed a sin and might well sin again — and sin must be punished, and the implication of your harping on the alleged sin in front of perhaps undecided voters is that they should punish him.
Please live up to the respect I have for you and at least OWN that. But if that’s NOT your position, that’s great — but then we can damn well talk about it starting on June 6, not here and now.
Greg,
I find the Democrat’s response to the recall effort abhorrent. Beyond that, I’ve not offered a public comment on how I’ll vote on the yes/no question.
If you’re asking me to weigh in, be careful what you wish for.
You’re not excluded from the discussion.
I am enjoying this baptism, but am curious into what faith I’ve been baptized.
Any discussion of the gas tax today is tricky: Newman probably prefers not to focus upon it, and as he prefers to focus on ‘special interests’ driving the recall effort, his opponents continue egregiously misrepresenting his own conduct. It’s a pity, since determining how California pays for its roads is an important principle – one worth discussing, but one that cannot be directly touched upon without also considering how Ling Ling Chang or others benefit, or lose. Seems to me “what’s right for California” ought to be more important than “what party benefits from this?”
That said, I’m sure that off the public record, you’ll have some very serious reservations about the regressive aspects of the gas tax – and would gladly continue that conversation. I respect other views, presented honestly. I anticipate dishonestly presented evasions, and out of practice swatting them down. Hence a need to participate in a public forum like this.
No faith. We just like holding people underwater for a while.
Here’s a quote, “The American Trucking Association is calling for a gas tax increase of 20 cents a gallon. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants an even bigger increase, 25 cents a gallon over five years. The reason? The federal tax of 18.4 cents a gallon on unleaded hasn’t been raised in 25 years so it doesn’t buy as much steel, concrete and asphalt as it used to.” source- OMG it’s NPR- and they have such troubling facts. Of course, our homegrown Trump party “intellectuals” will probably find a phallusy in all this. Welcome to the Dunderdrome, Donovan!
*We were just in LA yesterday. $4.99 a gallon for 91 Octane. The Trumpster wants the cost of a barrel of oil to go to $120 dollars ….to save the Russian Economy. Just double
from what the Obama Administration had as a high for their entire eight years. The Slime is growing at a precipitous rate…..and we have no doubt that $10 dollars a gallon for gasoline is in our immediate future. November cannot come soon enough. The gas tax was designed for a gallon of high test to be $2.99 a gallon. Blame who you want, but the State is rubbing its hands as the gas prices spike!
Ron & Anna: If the cost of West Texas crude goes up to $120/barrel, that MAY benefit the Russian economy, eventually, but will benefit (mostly American) owners and traders with oil leases, long-term services contracts, commodities futures, and a vast number of oil-linked junk bonds far more directly. We need only look to barons in the North Dakota – Texas belt (and a handful in a few other places) (and their financiers in Chicago/Wall Street).
“Blame who you want, but the State is rubbing its hands as the gas prices spike!”
Not the State – but perhaps the folks behind some states – many of whom bet fortunes in 2009 that “oil prices will go back up!” – who stand to lose fortunes unless somehow those prices can be forced up. A gas tax doesn’t help them to get there, and may actually hurt them (depending upon how elastic oil supply/demand proves to be).
But little of that has anything directly to do with my question: how should we pay for our roads?
That people can simultaneously be opposed to the gas tax and in favor of bombing Iran would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
No, the people who oppose the gas tax and favor bombing Iran are perfectly logical. The gas tax puts $0 in their wallets – bombing Iran could put millions (and in a few cases, billions).
They don’t benefit much from the price at the pump when you fill up, but the price at the pump when they extract from the ground (or the tar sands, or whatever). If gas taxes rise, they expect demand to drop a bit – people will take fewer trips, buy more efficient cars, carpool more. All of that means the gas tax doesn’t help them, and may ulitmately hurt them (a little).
But if anyone bombs Iran (and not merely Iranians alleged to be in Syria) – that could easily raise prices enough to make it worthwhile to close out some gambles launched years ago, and either avoid losses, or profit. For a few, those profits would be enormous.
I meant the average voters. You’re of course right about the plutocrats.
LOL, true that. I don’t think average conservative voters have put much thought into who benefits and how: Fox & Friends have a steady stream of targets to be angry at, and the feed of semi-truthy statements seldom turns toward the plutocrats most responsible for making their plights worse…
Given the 9 BILLION in surplus Sacramento announced today, I think that’s the “survellence tape” of Josh stealing the church money.
Vote YES!
Then just rebate every tax filer $100 or whatever, if one doesn’t want to do something legit with it like directing it to establishing proper homelessness services. Josh couldn’t have known ahead of time that there would be a surplus — and that surplus is temporary anyway.