wikimedia

In an under-reported angle, the various proposals to fill the State’s revenue gap had a valence for transit.  Unlike other tax increases, a reduction in sales tax exemptions also impacts agencies like Metro and Sound Transit that rely on sales tax.

In the end, the legislature extended sales tax to candy, gum, and bottled water, raising $64m annually for Olympia.  According to Metro spokesperson Rochelle Ogershok, that will result in about $3.3m for Metro.  Every little bit helps, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the $48m hole coming in 2012-2013, on top of 150,000 more hours of “low-impact” reductions through 2011.

Although CT will get some more money too, it would take about $2m to merely restart operations on Sundays and holidays, before purchasing any service hours for those days.

My sources tell me that there wasn’t much of a push by agency lobbyists to steer legislators in a more exemption-oriented direction.  Given that Mary Margaret Haugen was clearly, in retrospect, going to block any explicit help for transit, that would appear to have been a mistake.

12 Replies to “State Budget Provides a Little Help”

  1. What do we expect from a government that finds itself in a several billion dollar hole – to dig faster and deeper?
    Since 2003 the state has increased gas taxes from 23 cents to 37 cents a gallon, while the budget has risen 50% funding roads, bridges, ferries, and some rail and transit. Mvet mostly dried up as funding source and federal support is shrinking, resulting in less money per capita to maintain what we have, much less trying to build more.
    Transit has been raising its share of the sales tax, generally from 3/10 to 9/10 a cent (maximum authorized by law) over the last 10 years, and ST has added another layer of local sales taxes, that effectively double transit revenue in the local area.
    Focusing efforts on delivering efficient transportation solutions, that meet the needs of a majority of citizens should be the centerpiece of every table discussion. Simply proposing to increase taxes for ‘this or that’ project fails to address the bigger picture, which are comprehensive transportation spending stratagies. Solutions that move people and goods from A to B, efficiently, and with as little footprint on the environment as possible, both physically and financially.
    The state enacted “Least Cost Planning” over a decade ago, and has promptly found ways to avoid doing any of it. The electric energy sector pioneered this concept, finding that reducing consumption was cheaper to implement than just building more power plants and transmission lines.
    I would offer my support to Sen. Haugan for doing the best she can to keep the machine running, rather than blame her for all our problems. Last time I checked, the constitution prevented her from printing money or just deciding what to do without taking votes.

        2. I know of that one; I was wondering if there was another. “Since 2003” suggests two after the Nickel package. If 2003 and 2005 is all there is, that would be two gas tax hikes since 1991.

          And as HorsesAss.org points out, even with those, our gas tax is lower than it has been historically, because of the failure to keep it up to date.

        3. Well, yeah if you’re a software engineer you’d start counting at zero; tax increase in 1991, tax increase in 2003, tax increase in 2005. That’s 0, 1, 2 tax increases since ’91.

  2. As car manufacturers continue to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles, and with electric cars coming soon, gas tax alone will be adding up to less and less.

    1. They should tie the gas tax rate not just to inflation but also to fuel economy. More fuel-efficient cars cause the same congestion & road damage that guzzlers do, but they pay even less into the system. By tying the gas tax to the average MPG, you effectively create a VMT tax, which is what we really need to discourage driving.

  3. More fuel-efficient cars cause the same congestion & road damage that guzzlers do, but they pay even less into the system.

    Not really. In general the smaller and lighter the car the better the fuel economy. Even if there’s two virtually identical vehicles I think it’s a good idea to keep the incentive to by the more fuel efficient car. And, if the average fuel economy increase by 20% that’s 20% fewer trips by big heavy gasoline tanker trucks on our highways. And the individuals make less trips just to go buy gas. Alternate fuels is a bit of a different story but right now we need the incentive to build out the ifrastructure for say CNG refueling stations.

    1. I’m not saying gas taxes should be based on per-vehicle MPG, which would indeed be a disincentive to buy the more efficient car. I’m saying that as the national fleet efficiency increases, the fuel tax should increase both to maintain gov’t coffers and to decrease driving. A 30 mpg car will still be a better buy than a 20 mpg car, all other things being the same.

      It seems like there must be some very complicated interplay between fuel economy, fuel cost, and miles driven (and thus road wear, congestion, etc). I’ll drive less if fuel is more expensive, but if I get better economy, I can drive farther for the same price. So if fuel economy & my spending power increase faster than the cost of fuel, I can drive more for the same amount of or even less money (or percentage of income). Thus simply increasing fuel efficiency, without imposing other costs to discourage the number of miles driven, won’t necessarily reduce road wear, congestion, pollution, or accidents.

      There are plenty of ways to encourage the adoption of fuel-efficient cars. Subsidize their manufacture & purchase. Cash for clunkers. Emissions testing. But a lot of that money just goes to keeping people in cars. If instead you increase the fuel tax, you not only encourage people to buy & drive more efficient cars and to drive less, but you also get money that you can use to pay for [alternative] transportation projects.

Comments are closed.