It ain't gonna happen. He was elected to cut spending, not raise taxes. We have already been hit for stem cell research and building schools for half of mexico.

"Come with me if you want to drive."

I think the catagory it was put in fits perfectly. Of course this is California we are talking about...

War is Peace! Hate is Love! Christ is a Communist! Orwell lives!

Thank GOD I don't live in that hiippy Hollywood state. What will they think of next.

And a REPUBLICAN that raises taxes is NO REPUBLICAN AT ALL.

What actually makes Arnold a Republican anyway? His wife is a traitor after all.

The problem I'd have with this is that typically the gas tax usually is to fund road work. The amount of damage done to a road goes up disproportionately with a vehicle's weight. With the 'big rigs' doing exponentially more damage than a car. The damage is also in disproportionate with the gas consumed.

Basically tax payers are subsidizing the trucking industry, imho. It's why the rail industry can't compete. This format for tax would only make that worse.

I know that trucks probably aren't on the same tax formula, but that probably varies from state to state.

It had to happen - the owners of more fuel efficient cars are buying less gasoline - the great State of California loses that tax money - they want to find a 'fairer' method.
Of course, this will hurt people who can't afford to live close to their workplaces because of the outrageous price of homes there. This will tax the poor and middle class more than the wealthier folks.

The trucks should pay more - much more.

As for rail - they don't have enough infrastructure to increase the number of trains on the track, at least here in the Midwest.

This is just too big brotherish for me, and I cringe that a republican even suggested it.

I bet there is a lot of fat California could trim from its budget, before resorting to big brotherlike taxes.

And of course those GPS monitors on your car could never be used for any other reason. I guess this is another place where the GOP and libertarians part ways.

Last time I lived in the Bear State, the only car I could afford was worth much less than a GPS device. Poor folks shouldn't drive, anyhow; they have nowhere important to go.

Should something like this ever be enacted in a state I live in, I would have the most defective sensor EVER!

Rather than require the installation of GPS equipment, wouldn't it be simpler to just have an odometer reading made during inspection and add the tax to the registration fee?

Well, the government once again stands in the way of progress to make sure they get their cut... The Hydrogen fuel tax will kill the Hydrogen fuel cell technology. This milage tax will kill the hybrids.

The only way to get people to buy these less practical, ultra fuel efficient cars is to make them cheaper to operate. I.e., a tax relief package for those who buy ultra efficient cars would speed up the efficiency industry.

But even worse is the effect it has on the other end of the efficiency spectrum. Large trucks, like the one I have, would actually become cheaper to operate with the new tax structure. This means the incentives benefits large non-fuel efficient vehicles.

As an owner of an unusually large truck, I would love to see my fuel tax burden be nearly cut in half in comparison.

Schwerv

Is there still any tea left in the harbor to throw overboard? I've got my American Indian costume back from the cleaners, and am ready to go to the party!!

I warned about ARNOLD. He is not really a Republican in my view. I am truly getting sick of the govt forcing behavior (ie:not smoking) And it never seems to be about the things that plague us the most. Crime, abuse, abortion, or pornography.
AND it is never about INCENTIVES to do the right thing (or what they view as the right thing) but about punishments such as this.

Geeze.

Heh, just remember, driving is a priviledge, not a right. Just because you bought a vehicle doesn't mean you can drive it without getting permission from the goverment first, usually in the form of a license for yourself and one for the vehicle.

What has been proposed in CA is simply another method of taxation, somewhat obtrusivly in this case with a GPS unit in every vehicle, but still a tax.

It would be far easier to as do as Phil said, "wouldn't it be simpler to just have an odometer reading made during inspection and add the tax to the registration fee?" and be right up front with a yearly fee to drive on state property.

Then again, this *is* CA we're discussing.

They don't have yearly inspections in California (though they do have an every-other-year emissions inspection), and instituting them is probably politically impossible. Not that one would actually want to, but that's another issue.

This is so nuts as to be off the scale. It will not happen anytime soon. Just how much are the GPS receivers and the system that could keep track of every car in California supposed to cost? The cost of implementing this will make it impossible to put in place any time soon, thank goodness.

Nice try at moonbattedness though, AHNOLD!

Kevin,
I live out here and have NOT heard the Governator say anything close to this. Maybe "someone" in has Administration said it, but I doubt it is Arnold's idea. The Press is pissed at the Governator for going to the Public this week to get signatures to pass some Laws since the Dems in the State Legislature refuse to do the will of the people. I cannot find an actual quote of Arnie saying this. Can You?

He drives a Hummer and is proud of it!!! He also will track where we drive and certain places during certain times will cost more, of course with all of the teacher and nurse bashing he has done of late I have a hard time keeping track of all his movements.

I'm with BurbankErnie on this one. I live in the Sacramento area, and I have yet to hear the Governator say anything close to this. As a matter of fact I first heard a similar thing happening Oregon and that was last year (the only article I can currently find on it is from the Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001972174_mileagetax05m.html).

This seems to be a case of politics as usual in CA, where an upopular (and bad) idea is presented as coming from the person it will do the most politcal harm too.

Kevin,
I think this post should come down or at least put an "Update" on it. There appears to be no quote from the Governor, and the only story that mentions where the Idea came from is this article.

The money quote:

"The idea from the California Performance Review is just that at this point: an idea. It would have to go through extensive debate to come to fruition."

Obviously, therre has been no debate because it doesn't stand a chance. The Press and State Democrats will SAY ANYTHING to upset CA Republicans as this post has done. The comments here are not called for. Arnold may not tow the strict Republican line, but compared to Davis he is a great improvement, and has improved chances for Republicans in this State.

This is so nuts as to be off the scale. It will not happen anytime soon.

Don't be too sure -- nutty things are more likely to happen in California than sane things.

Republican, oh, fellow Republicans, consider the politics involved in the State of CA, at least among the most glaring where a Republican governor (anyone, not limited to Schwarzenegger, but ANY Republican in the State)...

CA taxpayers have been charged with increasingly raised taxes inorder to pay for the retirement and other benefits for the large public workers unions in the state and the state is so embroiled in this pro-Democratic Party mentality (tax everyone so public workers and their unions can retire with better benefits than anyone else, after enjoying great benefits while they're working, all, again, at taxpayer cost).

The major (and pro Democrat) unions are CALPERS and the teachers' union, powered by L.A. Board of Education...again, all at taxpayer costs.

Schwarzenegger has campaigned upon and continues to try (along with CA GOP) to decrease this mix of taxpayers funding public worker union members more elaborate benefits (and they really are elaborate benefits, along with higher salaries than anywhere else in the nation, all at taxpayer costs), and so just look at who is going to be the most retaliatory to and about Schwarzenegger and the GOP in CA.

And that's after the GOP has started to get work done in the state, something that the entrenched Democrats in CA are not, at all, easily accepting of...

I don't know whose plan, specifically, this "tax the mileage" is, but I do see that there's so much force in the state of CA to protect and ensure high property taxes, high everything taxes that makes the state very unaffordable for nearly everyone as to quality of life issues (what you buy here for the dollars is far less in quality than what you can buy for less dollars elsewhere, and that includes property and education and quality of life in general), and that a Republican plan to lower taxes or at least stop raising them puts at risk the very engine that Democrats rely on in and from CA, and that is that the public unions will continue to enjoy increasing benefits and that the taxpayers will always fund them.

READ THESE PRESS RELEASES from the CA GOP...

(1.) Pension Reform: One Billion in Savings or Another “Union Victory”

Contact: Karen Hanretty @ 916.448.9496

March 1, 2005

Reforming public employee pensions could pay off big in California. In a state with yearly budget deficits where voters don’t want tax increases and Democrats – who control the state legislature – don’t want spending cuts, a reasonable person might jump at the chance to realize as much as a billion dollars in savings.

“Analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst and by [CalPERS] show that once all the current employees are retired and every worker is participating in the new plan, savings to taxpayers would be hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and possibly more than $1 billion annually.” (Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, Mar. 1, 2005)

But this is California where reason rarely prevails without a fight. This year’s fight will be between those who want to reform California’s runaway public pension system and those who want to protect organized labor unions.

“State labor leaders say what happens here has national implications because if Schwarzenegger gets his way, his changes – including overhauling California’s public employee pension system – will spread to other states.” (Sacramento Bee, Feb. 27, 2005)

Reforming public pensions could severely restrict the ability of labor unions to influence policy decisions at CalPERS that directly benefit them. For example, in 2004 at the behest of the California State Employee Association, CalPERS adopted a policy not to invest in companies that “outsource” union jobs to the private sector.

“Under CalPERS policy, a company financed through CalPERS private equity investment would be considered an outsourcer if in the last three years it or its affiliates converted or replaced existing public jobs in schools, public authorities or prisons with institutions staffed by private sector employees, including units such as mailrooms, and food, waste collection, health care, and security guard services.” (Business Wire, December 13, 2004)

The decision wasn’t based on any fiduciary guidelines. The decision was not about providing the best return for the best investment, as is CalPERS’ constitutional mandate. The decision was about protecting union membership, which is in decline.

“Against the backdrop of glittering Las Vegas, the country’s top labor leaders gather…to grapple with something far more gritty: lost of membership.

“Beginning with a reform proposal from the head of the Service Employees International Union in November, labor leaders have been locked in an unusually heated and soul-searching debate over how to reverse their decades-long decline – a discussion that could lead to the most significant changes in the AFL-CIO since it was founded 50 years ago.” (Sacramento Bee, Feb. 28, 2005)

The AFL-CIO has not hesitated over the years to use its clout with CalPERS board members (the majority of which have direct ties to organized labor) to push for policies that directly affect union membership. State Treasurer Phil Angelides has proved a willing tool of the AFL-CIO in using CalPERS to benefit organized labor.

“Another Angelides initiative is a program to screen developing countries for such criteria as a free press, an independent judiciary, and an active labor movement. Art Pulaski, executive secretary and treasurer of the California Labor Federation…says his organization helped Angelides develop the screens and lobbied the CalPERS board to support them. Pulaski insists that the goal is to improve returns.

“After the board passed a preliminary version of the screening program in November 2000, Pulaski’s group called the vote a ‘historic union victory at CalPERS.’” (Business Week, June 24, 2002, emphasis added)

As California heads toward a special election this Fall, Democrats need to decide if they are going to fight for more “union victories” or if they are going to take historic steps to reform public employee pensions, which taxpayers are subsidizing by billions of dollars.

“As a fiscal matter, this proposal amounts to an investment that pays big dividends for the taxpayers down the road. And that’s exactly the kind of reform that will be needed to get the state’s revenues and spending back into balance over the long term.” (Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, Mar. 1, 2005)

Hopefully, the decision to support or oppose pension reform wasn’t made for Democrats by labor leaders in Las Vegas.

# # #

(2.)
March 1, 2005

Daniel Weintraub: Pension changes would create long-term savings

Sacramento Bee
Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to create a new pension system for public employees in California will be bitterly fought this fall if it lands on a special election ballot with the rest of his policy agenda.

Supporters will cite the need to change a system that now requires private-sector workers to pay taxes that subsidize increasingly generous public pensions. Today's government employees retire with payouts of 60 percent to 100 percent of their highest annual salaries, plus yearly cost-of-living increases.

To read the full text of this article visit: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/12491078p-13346878c.html

Ballot plans get a boost
A business group backs pension shift, teacher tenure issues.
By Andy Furillo – Sacramento Bee Capitol Bureau
Tuesday, March 1, 2005

A business-backed campaign committee closely tied to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced its support Monday for two initiatives backed in concept by the Republican administration.

One of the measures advocated by the Citizens to Save California, which would dump the state's defined-benefit pension system for public employees and replace it with a defined contribution mechanism, was cleared Monday by the secretary of state's office to begin the signature-gathering process.

The other initiative would require public school teachers to remain on the job for five years instead of two before they could qualify for tenure. It does not, however, contain a provision to shift teachers to a merit pay system - one of four key reform proposals Schwarzenegger has demanded from the Legislature.

To read the full text of this article visit: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/12491098p-13346891c.html

Pension time bomb
Failure to face realities haunts LAUSD

Los Angeles Daily News Editorial

Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - At first glance, it seems like the sort of bureaucratic mess that only the Los Angeles Unified School District could inflict on itself:

After years of making unaffordable promises to public-employee unions, the LAUSD finds itself facing a future pension mess, with a liability from anywhere between $5 billion and $11 billion. To prepare for the shortfall, says the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, the district should start socking away $500 million -- or 8 percent of its straitened budget -- a year.

But while this is the sort of predicament we've come to expect from the LAUSD, the district is hardly alone in facing such a grim future.

To read the full text of this article visit: http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20951~2737304,00.html#

And that's a lot of the reason why Schwarzenegger managed to gain the Governor's Office...because most voters are very sick and tired of the ever increasing already high taxes in the state and overall living conditions, brought about by, mostly, union demands and a huge immigrant population.

A conservative to "normal" Republican group of legislators couldn't gain majority in the state as it is now, so, what they offer up as electable to most is a "liberal" Republican...Schwarzenegger to a great degree.

But he'll never move farther with his wife's politics being what they are and that's a huge handicap for any polical future in national politics, to my view. Because, like it or not, it seems the image is cast by now and that is that his wife sets the household tone and Schwarzenegger just isn't believable as a conservative, but he is a good businessman and seems dedicated to the GOP. Unfortunately, there's the Kennedy influence there and from my lone voter perspective, I just can't believe that much of any plan he'd devote himself to would be devoid of the Kennedy influence. He could surprise everyone, who knows, but so far he hasn't made that clear that he's able to lead without his wife's politics and family running the process in the background (or not).

The stem cell research public funding was an outrageous affront to me, also. Which Schwarzenegger endorsed and which I voted against, to no avail thanks to Hollywood nonsense about the issue of stem cell research as it is now understood to be, to my knowledge.

Excellent post -S-. If anyone were to dig into the LAUSD you would be horrified at the salaries of the Administrators, DOZENS of them over $100K. Reform and overhaul are long overdue in this State, and I am looking forward to the next couple of years and what the CA GOP can accomplish. Maybe the CA GOP can give us a REAL Candidate next year for Congress......

McGeehee, don't be so sure of that. One of the, if not the main reason Davis was kicked out was because he tried to raise the vehicle reg. tax back to the old rate of 2% a year. Like this proposal, it hit *everyone* in the pocket book.

The price of gas here is already the highest in the country b/c of taxes. The infrastructure sucks and will continue to suck b/c any tax revenue is consistently raided by peter to pay paul. Now, they want to increase it???

On top of that, it would require the price, and the installation costs, of a tracking device or the price of and the lost of time of having someone check the odometer yearly. And don't forget we have the costs of smog tests to fork over, too.

It's not going to happen. If there was ever an issue to bring people together, this is it.

A year ago, I found online where the government workers union in LA had donated 25k to some environmental group - wild river somethingor theother. We dont' have rivers in LA. Just a big flood channel. I looked it up and Robert Kennedy is head of the organization. It seemed like such an obvious fraudelant use of union dues.

Julie,
The LAUSD is so corrupt it is beyond reproach. A complete overhaul is needed. Looks like Arnold is goint to attempt it. The Radio is full of ads blasting the Media and Democrats for lying about a cut in Education spending, an outright lie. Education spending is INCREASING over $2 BILLION. Time to support Arnold on his budget and his petition drive... the Sac Bee has been giving him fair coverage thank goodness. Take it to the people, Governator!

They always lie about education. Education is a bottomless pit in this state and will continue to be so b/c of illegal immigration.

Burbank Ernie has it right.

I too, live in So. Cal, and once served on a school board. The deceit in the public education culture is unbelievable. Those 100K salaries aren't so unusual in districts other than LAUSD either.

This mileage tax with gps is a bait & switch. No one, not even the "wacko's" that propose it believe it will happen. It is just a way to create a big scare so that people will be more likely to accept some other tax increase that is "more reasonable".

Here's a suggestion to the legislature: SPEND LESS.

Some of us are completely unsurprised that something this stupid would come out of Herr Gropenfuhrer's people. We knew he was this much of a bonehead when he was campaigning for replacement.

Did any of you supposedly "moderate" Republicans have a clue? No. Even Kevin, who is one of the hosts here, characterized Arnold as a "centrist" like Pete Wilson. Nobody want to hear it from people like me when we said that Arnold is a mutant who can't be trusted to run the government of a state that would be the seventh largest economy in the world if it were independent.

Julie writes: Here's a suggestion to the legislature: SPEND LESS.

Which would be a useful suggestion if the legislature actually had enough discretionary control over total spending (much less total revenue) by itself to balance the budget. It doesn't, and therein lies a kernel of the real problem.

Have you looked at the California Constitution lately? Have you given much thought to how it got the way it is?