Governor signs $52.4 billion gas tax into law

Somewhere I thought that part of our gas tax already went to paying for our roadways.

Maybe instead of adding more taxes we should take the money from the "train to nowhere" and apply it to our infrastructure repair.

Our state's tax structure certainly adds to the reason why lots of people and companies are leaving the state.

"I thought"

"the reason why lots of people and companies are leaving the state"

At least the poster admits he doesn't look for facts; the fable about businesses leaving the state gets brought up every couple of years.

Doesn't pass the 'smell' test or actual fact check - look around the area... companies are LEAVING?!? Oh Lawdy, wouldn't our traffic be better if they did?

Thank you, Governor Brown. I would have preferred (less regressive) better revenue sources, but at least you acted on a huge problem.

The language requiring that money must be spent on roads/bridges disappeared from the final draft of the gas tax bill. So now Jerry doesn't have to ignore the law as he does with cap and trade. He can just take whatever he wants for his high speed railroad fantasy.

Talk about regressive...

The poor and middle class will pay nearly all of this tax.

Well done, Sacramento! See how well a one-party state works?

"See how well a one-party state works?"

And the minority plan was chock full of progressive revenue ideas?

(see: Kansas)
(also: the US House & Senate legislative effectiveness while controlled by same)

btw: What WAS the CA GOP plan?

recent former Bay Area resident here.. Love reading the back and forth, both sides so convinced they are right and not willing to listen to the other. And yes, it is more taxes in an already very high tax state, and yes Gov Moonbeam did manage to get that pesky "you can only spend the tax $ on what the intention was" removed and yes, there was no coherent GOP program (but honestly with DEM super majority it does seem a little fruitless.." Just so so good as entertainment! Thank you all!

I have no problem paying a few more cents at the pump and on my renewal if the roads are improved. Im not predisposed to thinking this will turn out to be a disaster.

We all elected these officials overwhelmingly because we thought they were competent.

I don't suddenly believe they are all going to defraud us.

"I have no problem paying a few more cents at the pump and on my renewal if the roads are improved."

Except NOW there's no guarantee that they will have to. They will just continue to divert funds to other pet projects and not fix the roads. Why else remove the language that the money raised by the tax must be used for roads? Just watch.

The clock is ticking on the referendum timeline. See:Web Link

Excerpt:
Article II, Section 9, of the California Constitution provides for the referendum process in California. Electors have the power to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes, with the exception of urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual, current state expenses.

Referenda can qualify for the statewide ballot up to 31 days before an election (unlike initiatives which must qualify 131 days before).

Since July 2011, referendum measures only appear on general election ballots.

A proponent has only 90 days from the date of the enactment of a bill (or in the case of a redistricting map, the date a final map is certified to the Secretary of State) to request and receive a circulating title and summary from the Attorney General (Elections Code § 9006(a) allows 10 days for the preparation of the circulating title and summary), print petitions, gather the required number of valid signatures, and file the petitions with the county elections officials.

The petitions must be signed by registered voters in an amount equal to 5% of the votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the gubernatorial election. The total number of signatures required as of November 4, 2014, is 365,880.

Once petitions are filed, county elections officials have 8 working days to determine a raw count of the signatures submitted and report their findings to the Secretary of State.

Once the statewide total reaches at least 100% of the required amount of signatures (365,880), the Secretary of State directs the counties to begin a random sample verification of signatures. Counties have 30 working days to complete a random sample of 3% or 500 signatures, whichever is greater, and report their results to the Secretary of State.

If the statewide random sample total projects more than 110% of the required amount of signatures (402,468), the referendum would qualify for the ballot. If the statewide total is less than 95% of the required amount of signatures (347,586), the referendum would fail to qualify for the ballot.

If the statewide total falls between 95% and 110%, counties would be required to perform a full check of signatures and report their results to the Secretary of State within 30 working days. Once the statewide full count total reached 100% of the required amount of signatures, the referendum would qualify for the ballot.

Once on the ballot, the law is repealed if voters cast more NO votes than YES votes on the referendum in question.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is on this one. See:Web Link


Let Jon Coupal know that you would support a referendum to overturn this law. jon@hjta.org