Pasquale Talarico

A $400 Gas Rebate May Be Ahead

March 18, 2022 By Phil Willon and John Myers 2 Comments

Lawmakers’ proposal comes amid pressure to help Californians facing high prices.

SACRAMENTO — A group of Democratic state lawmakers on Wednesday called for sending a $400 rebate to every California taxpayer to help soften the blow of the recent surge in gasoline prices.

The proposal comes as pressure mounts to help Californians struggling with prices at the pump as well as increases in the costs of food, rent and other essentials. Republican lawmakers have been pushing to temporarily suspend the state’s highest-in-the-nation gas tax — 51 cents per gallon — but that appears unlikely because of opposition from Democratic legislative leadership.

“This proposed $400 rebate would cover the current 51 cents-per-gallon gas tax for one full year, 52 trips to the pump for most vehicles,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego).

“Notably, we believe a rebate is a better approach than suspending the gas tax — which would severely impact funding for important transportation projects and offers no guarantee that oil companies would pass on the savings to consumers,” said the letter, obtained by The Times on Wednesday.

The governor has been working with the Legislature to craft a tax relief package after promising in his State of the State address last week to put money “back in the pockets” of Californians who have been stung financially by the sharp rise in gas prices.

Newsom administration officials have said several ideas are under consideration, although suspending or reducing the state gas tax does not seem likely. Rendon and Atkins released a joint statement last week dousing the idea, saying it would not provide substantial assistance and could reduce funding for crucial road and bridge repairs statewide. Instead, they favored general tax relief to help Californians struggling with rising costs — not only for gas but for food, rent and other life essentials.

The proposal announced Wednesday came from a group of 10 Democrats — Assemblymembers Cottie Petrie-Norris of Laguna Beach, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry of Winters, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of Orinda, Jesse Gabriel of Encino, Adam Gray of Merced, Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks, Evan Low of Campbell, Blanca Rubio of Baldwin Park, Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton and Carlos Villapudua of Stockton — and one independent, Assemblymember Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley.

Several of the lawmakers are generally viewed as business-aligned moderates in the Assembly Democratic caucus. They have scheduled a Thursday news conference to provide more details.

Republican leaders quickly threw their support behind the measure, though they still vowed to push for suspending the gas tax.

“This bill should be fast-tracked to the Governor’s desk and targeted to working Californians who actually feel the pain at the pump,” Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City said in a statement Wednesday evening.

The proposal, the lawmakers said in their letter to Newsom, should be considered as part of the state budget negotiations that will begin in late spring. Early estimates of the size of California’s tax surplus have varied and won’t become more clear until after taxpayers file their returns by next month. Even so, most estimates have been far larger than the projected $9-billion cost of the Democratic effort.

Click here to read the full article at LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Gas tax, Rebate

GOP fails to limit governor’s powers

March 17, 2022 By Phil Willon 6 Comments

A Republican effort to end the COVID state of emergency is rejected.

SACRAMENTO — An effort by Republican state lawmakers to end Gov. Gavin Newsom’s COVID-19 state of emergency was blocked in the Democratic-controlled Legislature on Tuesday.

For more than a year, GOP lawmakers have accused the governor of abusing his executive powers to respond to the crisis and asked legislators to vote to end the emergency in a state Senate committee hearing Tuesday, arguing the declaration was no longer necessary and constituted government overreach.

The Newsom administration has said that the more than 2-year-old state of emergency must stay in place to continue the state’s pandemic response.

The Democratic governor has used that broad authority to waive statutes and laws to facilitate testing and vaccination programs, and to ensure that California had enough capacity in hospitals to handle caseload surges.

State Sen. Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) said that it’s the Legislature’s responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to change the laws and statutes necessary to address the pandemic and that lawmakers have had more than two years to do so. She urged her colleagues not to abdicate that responsibility and noted that more than half the states in the country have ended their states of emergency and are still able to respond to the pandemic.

“We ended school years and we shuttered businesses and we implemented lockdowns and we enforced remote work and we implemented all sorts of policies and testing,” Melendez said in favor of her resolution. “We have grown over the last few years. We are equipped to deal with this, and this constant state of emergency is no longer necessary.”

Melendez’s resolution failed in the Senate’s governmental operations committee by a 4-8 vote, split along party lines with a number of Democrats not voting. The measure is eligible to come up for reconsideration at a later date.

During the debate, state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) said that “it’s important that [the declaration] be ended at some point,” but that he was concerned that doing so now would hinder the state’s aggressive efforts to provide free COVID-19 testing and therapeutics.

Senate Governmental Organization Committee Chairman Bill Dodd (D-Napa) praised Newsom’s response to the pandemic, saying the executive actions he’s taken have allowed California to fare better than many other states to combat the spread of the virus and reduce hospitalizations.

“Nobody had a playbook on this thing. I think the governor got it right. I think he continues to get it right,” Dodd said before the vote. “The existing state of emergency proclaimed by the governor is absolutely important to ensure that the state can quickly and efficiently continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and be prepared for possible future variants and surges.”

Since he declared a state of emergency on March 4, 2020, Newsom has issued 70 executive orders involving the COVID-19 pandemic that addressed a range of issues, including price gouging, allowing mobile vaccination clinics, halting evictions and postponing the deadline for filing tax returns in 2020. Most of those have either been rescinded or have expired.

In February, the governor terminated 19 provisions in executive orders, which included requirements that all state-owned properties be made available for emergency. An additional 18 provisions will expire at the end of March, including those that protect COVID-19 relief funds from garnishment and allow for virtual corporate and public meetings, according to Newsom’s office. Additional executive orders that limit liability for data breaches on telemedicine platforms and allow video assessments for those with COVID-19 symptoms who receive in-home supportive care are set to be rescinded June 30.

Under the 1970 California Emergency Services Act, the governor has broad authority to respond during a state of emergency such as a pandemic. The governor can make, amend and rescind state regulations and suspend state statutes, and has the power to redirect state funds to help in an emergency — even funds appropriated by the Legislature for an entirely different purpose. The governor also has the authority to commandeer private property, including hospitals, medical labs, hotels and motels.

Click here to read the full article at the LA Times

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: covid, emergency powers, Gavin Newsom

California Democrats Refuse to Pass Gas Tax Relief

March 16, 2022 By Katy Grimes 3 Comments

AB 1638 would have saved Californians 51 cents a gallon for about 6 months

Democrats in the California Legislature refused to pass AB 1638 by Assemblyman Kevin Kiley (R-Granite Bay) which would have suspended the state’s gas tax to provide immediate relief Californians. If passed, it would have saved Californians 51 cents a gallon for about 6 months.

AAA reports the national average for a gallon of gas is $4.316, and California’s average is $5.750. gas in Mono County costs $6.501 per gallon, and Napa County is $5.947.

“Today the Republican and Independent Members of the Assembly voted to save Californians 51 cents per gallon by suspending the gas tax,” Kiley said following the vote. “In addition, 18 members abstained from the vote. Unfortunately, the Supermajority rounded up enough votes to deny struggling Californians this modest measure of relief.”

When asked on Monday about the Republican idea to temporarily halt the whole gas tax, Erin Mellon, Newsom’s communications director wrote, “the Republican’s proposal can be manipulated to help line the pockets of petro-dictators and oil companies who are benefiting from the spike in oil prices across the world. The governor has proposed a tax rebate to provide billions in direct relief to Californians who are suffering from rising gas prices across the country, a direct result of [Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s] war,” ABC7 reported.

“We have a $65 billion surplus here in California, so we can backfill that money,” said Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher.

Kiley added, “Our state’s political leadership has never been so out of touch.”

California drivers are still faciing the switch to the summer blend gas, a higher-grade fuel which can add up to 15 cents per gallon to the cost of a fill-up, and lowers your gas mileage. Most Californians already know that for every tank of gas, $10 of the total cost is state-imposed gas taxes, thanks to Senate Bill 1, signed into law by then Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, which increased the gas tax by 12 cents per gallon, and increased automobile registration fees by more than $175, the Globe reported.

Click here to read the full article at the California Globe

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Democrats, gas taxes, Kevin Kiley, Legislature

Masks Still Required For LAUSD Students. Until When? It’s Hard To Say

March 16, 2022 By Linh Tat 1 Comment

Some parents plan to protest outside teachers union’s office Tuesday. Meanwhile, UTLA is polling members on district’s proposal to lift masking mandate and end COVID-19 testing in April, according to email.

Across Los Angeles County, students in a number of school districts now have the option of ditching their masks while inside the classroom.

But not so for Los Angeles Unified students.

Late Friday, L.A. Unified announced it would continue to require masking inside school buildings until further notice, hours before the state and county lifted their school masking mandates, thus leaving it up to districts to determine their own masking rules.

Parents who for months have demanded an end to school masking mandates on Monday, March 14, continued to voice frustration that masking is not yet optional in the nation’s second-largest school district and are planning to protest outside the United Teachers Los Angeles office in downtown L.A. on Tuesday morning.

The district has an agreement with UTLA that requires the parties to negotiate before L.A. Unified can lift its masking mandate.

The two sides met Friday, during which the district proposed changes to its health-and-safety protocols, but the union did not present a counterproposal, according to a memo that UTLA sent its members afterwards.

The district and UTLA are scheduled to meet again Wednesday to resume negotiations, according to the union.

In a subsequent email to its members over the weekend, UTLA stated that the district had proposed making indoor masking optional and ending mandatory weekly COVID-19 testing for students and staff at secondary schools on April 1 and for those at elementary schools on April 29.

The district also proposed conducting baseline testing after spring break, which is scheduled to take place the week of April 11, according to the union.

UTLA has begun surveying its members to see how they feel about the proposed changes, with polling to end Monday night, according to the email.

“The district is not lifting the indoor masking requirement at this point because we don’t have a bargaining agreement,” the email stated.

That the district even has to negotiate with the teachers union has some parents up in arms.

Angelita Rovero, whose two children attend Portola Charter Middle School in Tarzana, said UTLA is overreaching and should not have the right to negotiate students’ health. Rovero opted out of paying dues to the union when she taught in LAUSD, she said.

“The union represents the teachers. They should not be representing the students,” she said. “I’ve never been on board with the union having so much control. … I’m dumbfounded that the LAUSD (school) board is owned by UTLA.”

Meanwhile, a parent at West Hollywood Elementary said she would have no problem with continued masking if that would make teachers more comfortable coming to work.

“I’m fine with whatever makes our teachers feel safe and comfortable teaching our children. They’re the bosses in the classroom,” said parent Kory Keith-Aronovitch. Her daughter, a kindergartner, had no trouble adjusting to wearing a mask all day when the school year started, she said.

“Kids are adaptable and nonpolitical,” she said.

To be clear, though the state and county have lifted their school masking mandates, health officials from both levels of government continue to stress that wearing masks in educational settings remains “highly recommended.”

As for the district’s intention when it comes to its masking policy, Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, who joined the district a month ago, signaled in a Twitter post on Saturday that he’s in favor of lifting the mandate.

“I strongly support amending Los Angeles Unified’s previously negotiated agreements to align with current health guidance” from the state and county, Carvalho tweeted.

Click here to read the full article at the Los Angeles Daily News

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Los Angeles, masks

The Fed Has Failed In Its Inflation Mandate

March 15, 2022 By Jack Salmon 5 Comments

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation clocked in at 7.9 percent for February, marking the highest level of inflation since January 1982. At this rate, consumer prices will double roughly every nine years.

The increase in prices includes many everyday consumer staples. The price of gas in February was up 38 percent since last year; utilities were up 24 percent, and steak and bacon were up 17 percent. Many clothing items were also up by double-digit percentages.

If we can learn anything from this, it is that the Federal Reserve has failed abysmally in its efforts to maintain low and stable prices.

Since 1977, the Federal Reserve has abided two distinct goals, known as its dual mandate. The first is to maintain a low and stable price level. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) considers a 2 percent annual change in the inflation rate of Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) — the Fed’s preferred inflation measure — to be consistent with its goal.

From 1990 to 2019, the rate of inflation for PCE averaged 2 percent and rarely exceeded 3 percent.

Then came 2020.

At an economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., in August 2020, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell announced a fundamental shift in the Fed’s dual mandate — away from a 2 percent target and toward a goal of average-inflation targeting. This change amounts to running inflation above target for some time to make up for the below-target inflation of prior years.

The justification for these changes was largely based on the concern that below-target inflation would lower interest rates, diminishing the Fed’s ability to boost employment — the Fed’s second mandate — during economic downturns.

In addition, the Fed and its regional banks have been increasingly advocating progressive goals such as a focus on race, ethnicity, and gender when determining employment objectives.

A forthcoming research article from the Independent Institute finds that Federal Reserve economists are increasingly driven by political activism and affiliation; they also demonstrate a growing preoccupation with politically charged topics such as climate change, discrimination, and economic inequality. These goals add more pressure on the Fed to maintain accommodative monetary policy, even as inflation spirals out of control.

Perhaps this provides another explanation for why the federal-funds interest rate is still at zero and the Fed is still engaged in quantitative easing after eleven consecutive months of the annualized CPI running above 4 percent.

When outlining its average inflation target in 2020, the Fed kept the details of its new inflation goals very vague — perhaps purposefully so. Jerome Powell noted that his aim was to “achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.” The problem here is that no one truly knows how much and for how long the Fed plans to run inflation “moderately” above that mark.

No one actually believes that the Fed planned to run PCE inflation at 4 to 6 percent for a year or longer, yet that is exactly where we are heading. Even if we look at PCE inflation averaged over two years, to avoid base effects, average inflation is running at close to 4 percent and has been above the Fed’s 2 percent target since April last year.

When economists were polled in December 2021 on their inflation expectations, most believed that peak inflation had already passed and would return to the 2 percent trend by the end of 2022. Yet many of these same economists have been falsely forecasting peak inflation for almost a year. Somehow peak inflation keeps being pushed back.

A variety of mostly supply-side excuses have been offered to explain away what many saw as “transitory” inflation. These included high lumber prices, base effects, demand for used cars, drought in Taiwan, and broad supply-chain restraints. Yet even Fed chairman Powell retired use of the term “transitory” after realizing that inflation trends were proving to be persistent and at levels well above expectations.

There is a missing piece to this puzzle — namely, demand-side factors. Yet after 14 years of accommodative monetary policy and unprecedented increases in government spending, we rarely hear Fed officials talking about them.

Click here to read the full article at the National Review

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Federal Reserve, taxes, The Fed

Working Californians Hit Hard By Gasoline Prices

March 15, 2022 By Jon Coupal 3 Comments

A recent column in this space was headlined “Inflation, the cruelest tax.” Well, if inflation is the cruelest tax, then inflation’s impact on gasoline, combined with the nation’s highest tax, can only be characterized as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In addition to inflation and taxes, other government policies related to petroleum are counterproductive. These include regulatory burdens and open hostility to the entire petroleum industry currently on display in both Washington and Sacramento. All this adds up to a lot of unnecessary pain being inflicted on the middle class and working poor.

But now, progressive politicians are looking at poll numbers with alarm as they discover that most Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track, due in large part to feckless and incompetent leadership. Rather than fix the problems, however, the reaction of both the Biden and Newsom administrations has been to deflect blame.

A couple of months ago, the Biden administration blamed rising fuel costs on supply chain issues. Then, returning to an old excuse resurrected when the need arises, the blame shifts to the “greedy oil companies.”

But even the most artful political spin is unlikely to change the public’s understanding of who is at fault. Republicans are replaying the video clip on a constant loop where Biden stated unequivocally, “No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.” Moreover, the attempt to blame the war in Ukraine is especially easy to expose as unfounded. Gas prices were already at record levels before the hostilities began.

In California, Gov. Newsom is attempting to blunt the political backlash by promising some sort of rebate to taxpayers out of the state’s massive surplus. But any notion that he would do so out of the goodness of his heart would be in error. Taxpayer advocates in 1979 sponsored the Gann Spending Limit which voters overwhelming approved. It is the Gann Limit, not Newsom’s benevolence, that might afford some relief for California drivers filling up their tanks.

If skepticism among voters when it comes to energy policy is high nationally, it is even more so in California due to the long history of misspending and gas tax proceeds. For example, in 1990, voters were told that California’s roads, freeways and bridges were crumbling and that spending on transportation was so seriously inadequate that a gas tax increase was desperately needed to save California from ruin. Fast forward to 2017 with the infamous passage of Senate Bill 1, a massive tax increase of another 12 cents per gallon on gasoline, an additional 20 cents per gallon on diesel fuel and a sharp increase in the cost of vehicle registration.

Voter anger at high gas prices might be less intense if they believed they were getting good value in the form of well-maintained roads and highways. But California consistently ranks in the bottom ten of all states in highway maintenance despite having the highest gas tax.

Our political leaders claim that the pain we’re feeling is because addressing climate change is our highest priority. But many of the restrictions they impose are counterproductive to environmental well-being. For example, rather than encourage drilling in North America, we are increasingly reliant on oil shipped from overseas, including from despotic regimes. But oil tankers run on massive diesel engines and foul our ports. How does that help address climate change?

Click here to read the full article at the OC Register

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California, Gas prices, gas taxes

The Housing Crisis Is Pushing Both Bay Area Landlords And Tenants To The Financial Brink

March 14, 2022 By Lauren Hepler 1 Comment

In a quiet corner of Oakland, Pat McHenry Sullivan agonizes over taking out a life insurance loan to pay off rent debt for her and her husband, who lives with dementia.

A few miles north in Berkeley, Susan Marchionna is in the reverse predicament: She’s debating selling her house of four decades after a drawn-out dispute with a tenant who she says in state filings has not paid rent since the fall.

As a renter and a landlord, McHenry Sullivan and Marchionna are on opposite ends of California’s two-year effort to prevent a pandemic eviction crisis. But both are still waiting for answers to months-old applications for $5.2 billion in statewide rent relief — two of thousands of Bay Area residents unsure where to turn as local eviction battles intensify and a March 31 deadline looms for a final layer of emergency state rental programs.

“I’ve been sitting here since early December with everything in limbo,” said McHenry Sullivan, 79. “It’s heartbreaking, and it’s exhausting.”

The tension playing out in living rooms, city halls and county eviction courts follows an unprecedented expansion of America’s housing safety net. First there were broad local, state and federal eviction bans, most of which expired in California last fall. Then came the multibillion-dollar statewide rent relief effort, designed to accept applications and shield those still waiting for approval from eviction through March 2022.

With that deadline fast approaching and politicians so far unresponsive to tenant advocates’ calls for another extension, renters and small landlords report widespread confusion and fear about falling through the cracks. Only a fraction of relief funds has been paid out, fueling concerns that indebted renters will be pushed out of the region or end up homeless.

The situation is even more complicated in McHenry Sullivan and Marchionna’s home county of Alameda, where stronger local eviction bans haven’t prevented messy eviction disputes.

Now, as landlord and tenant groups battle over the future of renter protections, both sides warn that housing could get harder to find as property owners — fed up with California’s piecemeal approach to rent relief and evictions — take rentals off the market or raise income requirements in a bid to insulate themselves from future tenant disputes.

One thing’s increasingly clear: Even in a swath of the East Bay with some of the nation’s strongest protections for renters, there’s no escaping the turmoil redrawing the map of where people can afford to live.

A renter’s exit plan

Until the fall, McHenry Sullivan thought she would be able to keep paying $1,426 a month for the Glenview two-bedroom that she and her husband, John, 82, have rented since 2006. But then the author and speaker’s extended unemployment benefits ended, and the pandemic didn’t. Medical equipment, taxi fare to doctor’s appointments and the countless hours McHenry Sullivan spends caring for her husband and their home, limiting her ability to pursue outside work, all added financial pressure.

September 2021 was the last month the couple paid rent on time. To cover the rent for October, the final payment they’ve made, McHenry Sullivan said she was forced to dip into a life insurance policy, leaving less money for her or her husband if widowed.

McHenry Sullivan has a master’s degree and is comfortable enough with computers to have run her own business for years, but she was stymied by Oakland’s rent relief website, which she said repeatedly malfunctioned when she tried to apply in the fall. She called politicians and ventured to San Francisco for help from one of the few housing clinics offering in-person assistance, then was told to apply for a state program instead. In December, after months of fruitless calls to check her application status, she was told to reapply to the city program.

She’s still waiting for answers.

“Nobody ever responded,” McHenry Sullivan said. “Nobody.”

Tenant advocates say the odyssey through California’s maze of state and local rent relief programs isn’t uncommon for Bay Area renters looking for help. Cities and counties including Oakland, Marin and Sonoma opted to run their own rent relief programs instead of routing all residents to the bigger state program Housing Is Key. Several local programs have already stopped accepting new applications or run out of money, though more federal funding may become available in the coming months.

Click here to read the full article at the SF Chronicle

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, rent, san francisco

Gas Price Relief Will Be Difficult

March 14, 2022 By Phil Wilson 4 Comments

SACRAMENTO — Just how Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to make good on his promise this week to put money “back in the pockets” of Californians stung by the sharp rise in gas prices remains murky, but suspending or lowering the state’s highest-in-the-nation gas tax appears less and less likely.

The hesitation to tinker with California’s steep gasoline excise tax of 51 cents per gallon — even during an election year in which voters are feeling the pinch at the pump as prices continue to skyrocket amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — demonstrates just how politically sensitive the issue remains in a state known for its ribbons of freeways and worship of the automobile.

Though Newsom in his January budget proposal called for canceling an increase in California’s gas tax scheduled for July, his administration is also considering alternatives that could provide direct payments to residents.

The governor’s senior communications advisor, Anthony York, said Thursday that the administration is concerned that a cut in the state gas tax might not get passed along to drivers at the pump. The governor wants to ensure that any relief goes to Californians and is “not pocketed by the oil companies,” York said.

After Newsom vowed in his State of the State speech Tuesday to work with legislative leaders to provide Californians financial relief “to address rising gas costs,” senior advisor Dee Dee Myers also told reporters the rebates were likely to be sent to residents with vehicles and could cost the state billions of dollars. Administration officials have since backtracked on that, saying it was one of several options being explored by the governor.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) already signaled their opposition to lowering the gas tax, even temporarily, saying it would not provide substantial assistance and could reduce funding for critical road and bridge repairs statewide. They favor general tax relief to help Californians struggling with rising costs, not only for gas but food, rent and other life essentials.

Republicans are using the high gas prices to their political advantage.

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher of Yuba City has joined with other GOP lawmakers in calling for suspending all state gas taxes for six months, saying the state can afford to backfill funds for critical transportation projects with a portion of a massive state budget surplus that the Newsom administration estimates to be more than $45 billion.

“You’re telling me we can’t give this relief to consumers. One of the biggest things that they’re facing right now is the high cost of living, including gas, utility bills that are getting higher, rents, the cost of housing,” Gallagher said after hearing Newsom’s speech in Sacramento on Tuesday. “Something’s wrong. We’re not doing the things that we need to do to ensure that people’s costs are lowered.”

Gallagher said it would provide instant relief to Californians, particularly lower-income residents who are more likely to have long commutes to work.

In 2017, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, which then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law, levying the state’s first gas tax increase in 23 years to fix California’s roads and bridges in disrepair — 12 cents per gallon. Under the law, the tax increases each year on July 1 based on the growth in the California Consumer Price Index.

Last July, the tax increased from 50.5 cents per gallon to 51.1 cents per gallon. This upcoming July, it is scheduled to increase to 53.9 cents per gallon, according to the state Department of Finance. California’s total state taxes and other charges on gasoline are the highest in the country, according to the Tax Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank based in Washington.

The state expects SB 1 to generate more than $5 billion annually during the first decade of its implementation. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s fuel taxes were expected to raise $8.8 billion in the 2021-22 fiscal year.

Still, state officials say that will fall far short of the amount needed to address all the shortcomings in the transportation system, which would total $117 billion over the next 10 years and includes $20 billion to address the impacts of rising sea levels.

Matt Rocco, a spokesman for the California Department of Transportation, said that with the gas tax still in place, the agency estimates it will have the $28.8 billion needed for the projects prioritized by the governor and Legislature in 2017, when the increase became law: pavement, bridges, drainage systems or culverts, and traffic congestion management systems.

Most of the state gas tax revenue supports state highway maintenance, rehabilitation and improvements, and nearly one-third goes directly to cities and counties.

The 2017 gas tax increase passed after a fierce debate in the Legislature, squeaking by in both the Assembly and Senate with the minimum votes required in both houses. Political turbulence followed closely.

In 2018, Republicans launched a successful recall effort against Orange County Democratic state Sen. Josh Newman, fueled by his vote in favor of the gas tax. Newman reclaimed his seat in 2020.

That same year, California voters rejected a statewide ballot measure, Proposition 6, to repeal the gas tax increase. The measure faced a barrage of opposition from trade unions, contractors, Democratic leaders and the California Chamber of Commerce, which said it “makes our bridges and roads less safe and jeopardizes public safety.”

“For decades, the gas tax was a toxic political football,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). “We need to just leave the gas tax alone and focus on other forms of tax rebates or other supports for working families. We have the tools to do that.”

California Transportation Commission member Michele Martinez, who served for 12 years on the Santa Ana City Council, said the state’s gas tax system is worthy of review, especially as the popularity of electric vehicles grows. Electric car owners don’t pay gas taxes but still drive on the same roads and bridges maintained by those who must pay the taxes, she said.

Click here to read the full article at the LA Times

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: California Politics, Gas, taxes

Newsom, Unions Eye $50k Bonuses For Juvenile Prison Workers

March 12, 2022 By Byrhonda Lyons Leave a Comment

As the state prepares to close its youth prisons, workers for the Division of Juvenile Justice could receive up to $50,000 bonuses to stay on the job until then, CalMatters has learned.

If approved, the bonus appears to be among the largest offered by the state to retain a group of employees.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration and at least six unions are negotiating the pay bumps, hoping the large incentives will keep the youth facilities staffed until their June 30, 2023, closures.

Since Newsom announced closure plans, employees have started leaving the division for new jobs, fueling a worker shortage.

Under a draft plan obtained by CalMatters, direct care employees — youth prison guards, plumbers, teachers and chaplains — are among the hundreds of Division of Juvenile Justice employees who’d receive up to $50,000 in additional pay. Non-direct care employees, who mostly work for headquarters in Sacramento — deputy directors, executive assistants and nursing consultants, for instance — could receive up to $25,000.

Past retention bonuses for state prison workers have typically hovered between $2,400 and $5,000, according to documents on the California Department of Human Resources’ website.

“Negotiations are still active on this topic, we do not comment on active labor negotiations,” wrote CalHR spokesperson Camille Travis in an email response to CalMatters. “Once the negotiations are completed, the agreements will be posted to the CalHR website.”

According to the State Controller’s Office, 775 people worked at youth facilities as of Jan. 31, 2022. If all of them qualify for the full lump sum, it could cost California more than $38 million. By law, if the agreement is more than $1 million in net costs, the Legislature would have to approve it.

All of the unions representing youth corrections employees in the bonus negotiations donated to stop Newsom from being recalled in last year’s election. The largest contributor was the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which gave $1.75 million, according to the Secretary of State’s website.

The governor’s office did not respond Wednesday to a request for comment, with a spokesperson citing ongoing negotiations.

This is the second time in two years the state has proposed bonuses for juvenile justice employees. Last year, the state offered a limited group of employees $5,000 annually, which totaled $12,500 if employees stuck around. The new proposal would sweeten the deal, extending the bonuses to more Division of Juvenile Justice workers and quadrupling the maximum amount.

The taxable bonuses would be prorated, according to the draft agreement.

The Division of Juvenile Justice employees would be eligible for all or part of the proposed bonuses, said agency spokesperson Mike Sicilia in an email to CalMatters.

Click here to read the full article at CalMatters

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, Gavin Newsom, unions