A new tax for California motorists

After Hawaii, California has the nation’s highest-priced gasoline. The reasons can be debated, but at 71 cents per gallon, our highest-in-the-nation gasoline tax is a major contributing factor.

Gasoline taxes fund highways and transportation projects. They are a fact of life in a state as automobile-dependent as California. Nevertheless, our overall high tax rates are frequently cited as major reasons businesses fail or leave California.

A new way to squeeze revenue out of California motorists has just surfaced in Sacramento. Senate Bill 1077 would set up a pilot program to study taxing California drivers using a Mileage Based Fee (MBF). Never mind that the gas tax already taxes mileage; the farther we drive, the more gas we buy and the more gas taxes we pay.

The MBF proposal is being pushed as a replacement for the gasoline tax. It seems too many people are buying energy efficient vehicles, resulting in reduced gasoline consumption and lower gas tax revenues.

Do we really want bloated government bureaucracies to start taxing travel? What about people who live in rural or suburban areas who must drive long distances just to work or go to a doctor? What new intrusive bureaucracy would monitor our travel? Do we really want to start down this road?

The Legislature’s impulse for ever increasing taxation must be reined in. Ingenious new ways to tax intangibles like travel must be resisted. California’s long-suffering motorists deserve relief, not new forms of torture.

By Calif. State Assemblymember Marie Waldron (R-75th District)

16 Responses to "A new tax for California motorists"

  1. Ray (the real one)   May 16, 2014 at 8:41 am

    Time to unplug my speedometer….

  2. Ray (The Fake One)   May 16, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    I love how the government must find new ways to take money from the poor. I am almost sure this is why as technology advanced, our cars did not change to a different fuel other than gas for almost 100 years. Government wanted to keep obtaining money from gas taxes instead of helping fund those who created cleaner forms of fuel for vehicles.

  3. Ray (the real one)   May 16, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    Well "the fake one", many have tried to create synthetic fuels, the Germans (Nazis) and Japanese (nips) just to name a few. Brazil runs exclusively on fuels made from sugar cane but here, fuels, taxes means power perks and influence. If you knew you were being double taxed by our state and county, you would be outraged but let’s face it, the tree huggers had their way for too long. This country has not built any new refinaries in over 45 years, we overtax our refinaries by producing fuel for others, mainly Mexico so our refinaries break or shut down, we pay. Our coward in chief could be useful with his executive orders, not granting amnesty to law breakers but by action, price cap, keystone approval and allow new refinaries along with research to create new fuels.

  4. Ray (the real one)   May 16, 2014 at 4:10 pm

    folks….. look at our hero, Obozo giving tax breaks to people who buy fuel efficient cars hybrids and electrics but the only people who can dish out the $$$ for these cars are the rich does little for Delron living in the projects driving his 80`s Buick Electra 225.

    Talk about giving money to the rich, don`t hear the DNC talking about that. Solar, wind cost more to produce especially solar which takes up state sized lands to power tiny cities.

    We as a nation are natural gas rich, the conversions for standard vehicles only costs a few grand, well within the range of Dalron in the projects. Municipal vehicles and busses, transportation already use it. The technology is long tested (since the 1970`s).

    But……… the tree huggers, El Bozo and the DNC are againt ANYTHING that makes us energy independent and require less of them

  5. Ray (the real one)   May 16, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Here is a good example of you being gouged by government:

    Buy a gallon of gasoline for $1.00, the fed taxes you .34 cents, your now at $1.34. The state taxes you now at $1.34 cents a gallon not the original $1.00, so your paying an additional .35 centa added to your original gallon, than taxed, now your double taxed.
    Now the county charges you sales tax on that gallon, not from the original $1.00 a gallon but now for a $169 at 8.75% , triple tax…..

    Let`s not even talk about the 9/10`s issue.

    Now these bozo`s in Sacramento, usually tax and spenders from northern areas want you to pay more for fuels or pay for roads you already purchased, you angry yet?

  6. grunt   May 16, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Maybe I should stop working and go on welfare – then the miles i drive to work I could save for vacations! most of my driving of one vehicle is to and from work – so i am to be taxed for working (more than i am now?) Ray has an idea- wonder how many will do that?

  7. Bill L   May 16, 2014 at 5:56 pm


    You are not a real conservative. Your work on AB1912 is a joke.

    Stop writing op-eds here calling for taxes, calling for the growth of government, calling for us to praise president Obama and celebrate his Nobel peace prize.

    Please explain ab1912 if you want to be reelected.

  8. grunt   May 17, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    @bill L; did I miss something here? She (Marie) seems to be OPPOSED to the bill and increased taxes. I have not heard of her before – does she have a pro-tax voting history?

  9. Bill L   May 18, 2014 at 10:24 am

    Yes she appears to oppose this bill. Marie Waldron has a record of voting to increase taxes or to continue with the status quo of high rates.

    I would also refer you to the language of AB1912 which she voted in favor of.

    SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

    (a) The election of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of President of the United States was a historic step in the effort towards equality in the United States.

    (b) Before the Civil Rights Movement, intimidation and physical violence prevented millions of African Americans from voting and alienated them from the electoral process.

    (c) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a civil rights victory that inspired more ethnic minorities to register to vote and pursue elected office.

    (d) Barack Obama attended Harvard Law School where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.

    (e) After law school, Barack Obama worked to fulfill the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by encouraging people to register to vote.

    (f) Barack Obama was first elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and to the United States Senate in 2004.

    (g) Senator Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States and first African American President on November 4, 2008, and was sworn in on January 20, 2009.

    (h) In honor of this milestone in civil rights his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    (i) President Obama was reelected on November 6, 2012, and was sworn in for his second term on January 20, 2013.

    This is to be taught to our elementary school students in California

  10. Juan   May 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    The State of California is a one party government. So, whatever the Democrats want they get. It’s time to restore California to a two party system of government.

  11. Cynic   May 18, 2014 at 2:05 pm

    They won’t be using your speedometer to assess taxes, it would be a GPS unit, similar to those offered by some insurance companies now in return for lower insurance costs. The downside…the government will not only be listening to all your calls and reading your email, but they’ll always know where you are and where you’ve been. Yup, just what we need.

  12. Ray (the real one)   May 18, 2014 at 5:16 pm


    Remove the fuse.

  13. @Bill L   May 19, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    While I personally oppose the ongoing indoctrination of school kids and think parents should very carefully monitor what their children are being told in school, I don’t see AB1912 as being so bad as to cause me to ignore Assembly member Waldron’s concern about SB1077. I don’t know if in fact she did vote for AB1912, but if she did, so what Bill L? Doesn’t SB1077 sounds like a very bad idea to you? What is it specifically about AB1912 that has got your panties in a wad?

  14. grunt   May 19, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    Cynic — If you are correct, I can imagine the sudden increase in monies to the state :"Mr. X, we see that your car was parked at Ms M’s house Tuesday night – for a small contribution we will not tell Mrs X. (I hope I am only imagining this – not foretelling).

  15. Cynic   May 19, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    Just do a little googling and you I’ll see that there are about 18 states considering or running pilot programs for a miles traveled tax. Some even increase the price for vehicles considered harder on the roads, like trucks.

    Most depend on a GPS or mileage meter monitored by a private company, to mitigate privacy concerns. But…we’ve recently seen how effective privacy features are where the NSA is concerned.

    I don’t think the government is really out to spy on every citizen, but the opportunity for abuse is just far too easy and it’s only a matter of time before these abuses take place. Pandora has already opened the box.

  16. Bill L   May 20, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    What specifically do I have against AB1912?

    Well if you read the text, I have a problem with sections A-I.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.