Proposition 91 exemplifies wasteful bureaucracy. It is the
tail end of a legislative saga that began with former Gov. Gray Davis’
administration.
Motorists at the pump pay 7.5 percent in federal and state
taxes tagged specifically for transportation funds. Those monies previously
went to the state’s general fund, but voters passed Proposition 42 in 2002 to
specifically beef up what they considered to be the state’s faltering transit
infrastructure. A caveat dictated that the measure be suspended, and money
reallocated to the general fund for more flexible use in the event of a fiscal
emergency. Then, in 2006, voters again put their foot down for transportation
improvements by approving Proposition 1A, which mandates that any monies
borrowed from the state’s transportation fund be repaid with interest within
three years. It was a gainful addition to the state’s tax-on-gas laws, allowing
the state the chance to fix its broken freeways and transportation systems
within a short time period if politicians overborrowed.
So now comes Proposition 91, which seeks to choke out any
flexibilities drawn from related legislation. The measure was initiated by
industry groups fighting lawmakers that raided transportation funds to help
balance the state’s sickly budget — before Proposition 1A was passed. Now,
those transportation groups have turned on the measure they started, realizing
that 1A’s provision requiring quick payback with interest meets their needs.
Without its founders’ backing, Proposition 91 has no
official support, save Southern California Transit Advocates, a small
transportation body. With the very organizers of Proposition 91 now speaking
out against it, approving the measure would make budget moves even more rigid.
If the state were to haphazardly borrow from the transportation fund, a mere
three-year wait with added interest will rightfully reinforce the state’s
languishing transit funds.
