Posted on 01/23/2006 10:51:36 AM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's waterworks plan, which could send millions of flood-control dollars to San Joaquin County, hinges in part on a $3 charge that would appear on a homeowner's water bill every month.
Schwarzenegger calls this charge a fee. Others say it's a tax.
While this debate might mean little to a Stockton homeowner faced with forking over $36 a year, it is so politically charged that few at the Capitol will discuss it openly.
The flood-control legislation begins with a declaration that "the imposition of a capacity charge would not constitute the imposition of a tax, ... because the amount and nature of the capacity charge has a fair and reasonable relationship to the needs of this state and its residents."
But lawmakers and legislative staffers alike say that declaration is meaningless.
No one in the Legislature really knows for certain if Schwarzenegger's fee is really a tax - and privately, they say they don't really want to know, either.
Why? Because once it's determined whether the charge is a fee or a tax, it sets in motion a chain of political and possibly legal events that could sidetrack debate over other serious policy questions surrounding the waterworks plan.
Most of the Republicans in the Legislature--including every San Joaquin-area lawmaker except Sen. Dave Cox, who represents the Mother Lode--have vowed never to raise taxes. And because it includes borrowing, the governor's proposal requires "aye" votes from six Assembly Republicans and two GOP senators to pass.
Modesto Assemblyman Dave Cogdill says getting those votes is not out of the question, despite the pledge. But he and his GOP colleagues say they will need ironclad assurances they will get at least a dam out of the deal before they'll risk their political lives by voting "aye." A new reservoir called for in the proposal would help make that vote easier, they say.
"There is nothing in this legislation that gave me the warm-and-fuzzies that any water storage is actually going to be there," said Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, R-Stockton. "I need some concrete assurances."
Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Modesto, added: "The focus needs to be on actual investment into assets: raising dams, fixing levees."
Republicans remember 2001, when several of their own broke ranks and voted for a Gray Davis budget. Labeled turncoats by the party faithful, four either retired or went down in primary races the next year.
Schwarzenegger gave a cryptic answer when asked about the $3-a-month charge earlier this month.
"You know, a lot of times, you know, fees are fees and taxes are taxes," Schwarzenegger said. "And that's why they're called fees. And that's why they're called taxes."
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger's Finance Department, likens the $3-a-month charge to a connection fee levied by other utilities.
"There's a direct nexus or relationship between the payers of the fee and the beneficiaries," Palmer said, adding that the state Department of Water Resources did the initial research.
"We don't have any reason to second-guess their analysis," Palmer said.
Cogdill and many of his GOP colleagues are buying it.
"To me it's a tax, call it what you want," Cogdill said. "And it may be very worthwhile for users to pay it. But I haven't reached that comfort level yet."
John Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said he has no doubt the charge is a tax, not a fee.
"There is no effort to proportion the amount of the levy to any benefits conferred to fee payers," Coupal wrote in a recent online column. "The 'fee' is not voluntary, imposed only when taxpayers choose to engage in an activity triggering a fee: If you own property, you get hit."
While homeowners and businesses in San Joaquin County and the rest of the Central Valley certainly would get something for their money, Coupal and other critics wonder what benefit those east of the Sierra might see. No major water project is planned for that region.
And all homeowners connected to a water system would pay the same $3 a month, whether they live in trailers or mansions. Likewise, mom-and-pop businesses and Wal-Mart Superstores would each pay $10 a month.
Aghazarian says Schwarzenegger's initial proposal has so many problems that any debate over whether the charge is a fee or a tax is premature.
In addition to a dam - Sites Reservoir in Colusa County appears to be the front-runner in GOP minds - Aghazarian, Cogdill and others want to see changes to the state's prevailing wage structure and a streamlined environmental review process for levee projects.
Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi, R-Lodi, sponsored a bill Thursday to do that.
"These are real concerns that we have on a long list of concerns," Cogdill said. "I just don't see us getting there."
Debate is expected to begin on the waterworks plan later this month.
Details of the legislation - SB1166 and AB1839 - can be found at www.leginfo.ca.gov.
"the imposition of a capacity charge would not constitute the imposition of a tax, ... because the amount and nature of the capacity charge has a fair and reasonable relationship to the needs of this state and its residents."
Does that mean they're admitting that actual taxes don't serve the needs of the state and its residents?
But lawmakers and legislative staffers alike say that declaration is meaningless.
No one in the Legislature really knows for certain if Schwarzenegger's fee is really a tax - and privately, they say they don't really want to know, either.
I can't wait until Mexico re-conquers California, so we never have to hear this garbage again.
To clarify, let me get this straight: This "fee" is called as such by legislation, which -by supposition- was passed by a "legislature."
Arnold, the Governor, in executing this legislation, obeyed its wording and referred to the $3 charge as a "fee," not as a "tax," even though the reality of the situation implies it is the latter.
Ok, up to this part, I think I get it. But then, California goes native on me:
"lawmakers and legislative staffers alike say that declaration is meaningless."
Oh? Is that so? Then why was this "meaningless" phrase inserted into the "legislation," which was passed by the "legislature," pray tell?
And then, the article so eloquently states, "No one in the Legislature really knows for certain if Schwarzenegger's fee is really a tax - and privately, they say they don't really want to know, either."
If it's a "tax," created by the "legislature," but called a "fee" by the same, how is it that this becomes "Schwarzenegger's fee?"
California belongs in Mexico, the Eternal Home of Communists. Would the last American out please close the border behind them?
I'm going to be quite irreverant (?) here and pose this possibility:
Would it have been LESS EXPENSIVE TO CA to keep Gray Davis for his second/last term in office, to allow his "car tax" thing to stand, and NOT have Schwarzenegger's additional fees, taxes and whatnots?
Just wondering. I'm trying to figure out at this point just what all this special electing has been for and about, when perhaps another "normal" Gubernatorial election might of been more fiscally responsible and downright practical.
Can't undo the past. But can we at least do better in the future? Starting, say, now? What, exactly, does Schwarzenegger actually MEAN when he said he was going to "clean house"?
It's starting to seem as if he mighta' meant, you know, "clean house" as in, "put all the money in the bag, ma'am, before I head out the door." THAT kinda' "clean house" thing.
Anytime you pay the government it is a tax.
Garbage fee = garbage tax
hunting license = hunting tax
building permit fee = building tax
and so on
maybe they could call it a 'special user charge' .. a SUC fee. :-)
Not with the current party leadership.
Assume this is the same Hank and the same source?
O.K. Never hurts to ~ask~, to dream a little, might get a lucky break.
~;-]
This is true.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it Santayana; 1908. Allow Republican voters to decide for themselves whether a "Better than Angelides" re-election campaign is good enough for them. Schnur; 2006
My apologies for the very sloppy posting job!
Stockton Record
http://www.stocktonrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060123/NEWS01/601230314/1001
(I asked the mods to add the link and source).
Righteous analysis of yours. The article is indeed about liberal democrat CA speak. And spin.
Thank you kindly!
(Doing my best Keanu: "Those bogus Democrats in the Assembly, they thought they were all boss and stuff. Like, little did they know they were just a bunch of most non-triumphant posers." Or something like that. You're gonna force me to break out my well-used copy of Bill and Ted's again, aren't ya? :) )
An initiative petition a few years ago (at least one by McClintock) tried to set definitions for "tax" and "fee," but it failed to gather enough signatures. The reason was the the legislature could raise fees with 50% but required 2/3 to raise taxes, so lately the legislature simply instituted all sorts of "fees."
The failed petition would have limited fees to money that directly paid for a related program (such as a camping fee that pays for things such as maintenance of the campsite), and categorized everything else as taxes.
If the state government raises "fees" much more, perhaps someone will bring back another version of the petition to define taxes/fees.
There's a good column by John Coupal published today on taxes and fees:
http://www.flashreport.org/special-reports0b.php?faID=2006012401372080
(snip)
However, ever since 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13, the distinction between “fees” and “taxes” has had a significant legal consequence. Certain vote requirements – either in the California Legislature for state taxes or public votes at the local level – are triggered by “taxes” and are rarely triggered by fees. The most important of these requirements at the state level is that a tax increase requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, meaning that Republicans can effectively block them. A “fee” increase, however, requires only a simple majority vote meaning that the majority party can impose such revenue increases and fiscal conservatives must rely on a gubernatorial veto.
But now the debate has transcended both the academic and legal arenas and is squarely in the California political arena. Governor Schwarzenegger has repeatedly stated that he will not raise taxes. However, his ambitious spending plan also contains a number of proposed “fee” increases. If these “fees” are viewed as merely taxes in disguise, then the Governor’s shaky credibility with the taxpayer community will take another hit. Fiscally conservative Republicans, already distressed about the huge amount of debt and spending the Governor is seeking, will abandon him in droves if he raises taxes.
So, is the Governor proposing tax increases?
(snip)
That this so-called “fee” is nothing more than a tax is beyond debate. ...
It IS a RARE occurrence too! I've lived in the same neighborhood for almost 18 years and the drain down by the corner has gotten clogged TWO or THREE times the WHOLE TIME I've been there! Not too mention, it drained without any help from maintenance crews!
I think the WHOLE thing's a FARCE! Now they basically collect $70 or so a year from EVERY household in Sacto. County to keep the drains clear!
RIGHT... I'll just BET that's where all that money's going!
But doncha feel better that you aren't taxed? ;-)
(I agree--it's out of control)
Not that it matters anymore, but I was strongly against the recall. Couldn't convince anyone here on FR that it was a bad idea, though. Almost everyone thought it was going to be a big turnaround for the state. I think it's been a disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.