Proposition 6 is the sort of public vote on a tax increase that Jerry Brown promised when he ran for governor in 2010 but later reneged on.
Instead, the governor’s political opponents gathered signatures to place an initiative on the ballot that would overturn his gas and car tax increases. So, voters will have a say, after all, on the transportation funding plan.
But when they cast their ballots, they should side with Brown. They should uphold the increases by voting no on Prop. 6. Note that we said vote no. A yes vote would overturn the transportation plan; a no vote leaves it in place.
The plan, approved by the Legislature at Brown’s urging last year, will raise $5.1 billion annually by 2020 to help fix our deteriorating freeways and local streets and refurbish our commuter trains and buses.
PRO/CON: Should voters repeal Brown’s gas and car tax increases? Click here to read competing commentaries on Proposition 6
About two-thirds of the money goes to highways and roads, mostly for repairs and maintenance. The rest goes primarily to public transit operations and capital projects, and for improving congested transportation corridors.
It’s reasonable to put the financial burden on those who drive for they use our streets and highways. Just as important, they should be encouraged through pricing mechanisms to seek environmentally friendly options, such as more fuel-efficient or zero-emission vehicles and public transportation.
The transportation plan increases gas taxes by about 18 cents a gallon, roughly 5 percent of the current cost, and registration fees by $25 to $175 annually, depending on the value of the vehicle.
Opponents are right that Californians already paid, directly and indirectly, the nation’s highest surcharges for gas. When you total all state and federal taxes, fees and production-cost increases due to government mandates, they added about a dollar to the price of a gallon of gas. That was before Brown and the Legislature’s 18-cent increase.
Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
Get editorials, opinion columns, letters to the editor and more in your inbox weekday mornings. Sign up for the Bay Area Opinion newsletter.
But a significant chunk of that is because Californians pay more to ensure the gas we burn and the process for producing it is more environmentally friendly. It’s worth it. We need to clean our air and limit our carbon footprint.
The transportation package has flaws. For example, it lacks tough cost controls for road construction and maintenance or for transit agencies that receive state funding. But no legislative deal or ballot measure is perfect. Such is the reality of political compromise.
Which brings us to the other troubling part of Prop. 6. It would require a statewide vote for future tax or fee increases on vehicle fuel or registration — the sort of vote Brown promised when he vowed in 2010 that he would never raise taxes without voter approval.
It was a politically expedient move to bolster his tight-spender image. He did later go to the voters to raise income taxes on the wealthy to help balance the state budget.
But once he won re-election to his final term, he abandoned his pledge and promptly went to work on the transportation package, for which he narrowly won two-thirds approval of the Legislature.
Backers of Prop. 6, including Republicans statewide and nationally, want to raise that bar by requiring voter approval as Brown promised. Ironically, their use of the initiative system to put the issue on the ballot demonstrates that we already have sufficient checks on the Legislature and governor’s taxing authority.
To now lock in voter approval for fuel and car tax increases is excessive. The two-thirds approval of the Legislature and initiative threat are enough. At some point, we need to let our lawmakers do their jobs. And if we don’t like what they’re doing, we should replace them.
So, in sum, Prop. 6 misses the mark on two counts: It reverses badly needed funding for roads and transportation, and it imposes unnecessary restrictions on future fuel and car taxes. For either or both reasons, voters should say no.
