Budget negotiations began to get serious last week, as Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate unveiled their respective budget plans – both with major tax increases aimed primarily at business operators. Republican leaders voiced strong opposition to both plans, indicating that major changes will be required in order to garner the required two-thirds support.
Cal-Tax President Teresa Casazza said tax increases would damage California's ability to bounce back from the recession. "California families are struggling with job losses that have hit nearly every line of work, and billions of dollars in new taxes will only make things worse," Ms. Casazza said. "Rather than stifling economic activity with higher taxes, the state should promote the economic growth that we need to generate more jobs and ultimately more revenue for the state's important safety net programs."
Neither of the proposals includes budget reform or pension reform, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said earlier this month that he will not sign a budget that does not include both.
Capitol Weekly newspaper reported May 27: "All sides admit that these plans represent an early bargaining posture, and that most of these proposals will be significantly changed at best, and possibly disregarded altogether. The trick is trying to figure out which pieces of the budget proposals may wind up as part of the final budget deal."
The Governor's
Proposal
The governor's budget proposal, released May 14, addresses what the Department of Finance calls a $19.1 billion budget deficit for 2010-11 and the remainder of 2009-10. This deficit estimate is based on a projected 14 percent increase in general fund spending from 2009-10 to 2010-11. The governor's plan calls for no new taxes (except for a fire insurance "surcharge") and proposes eliminating the state's welfare program (called CalWORKs). The plan includes $12.4 billion in expenditure reductions, $3.4 billion in anticipated federal funds, $1.3 billion in "alternative funding" and $2.1 billion in fund shifts and other revenues.
Assembly Democratic
Leadership's Budget Proposal
Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Assembly Budget
Committee Chair Bob Blumenfield held a press
conference May 25 to unveil what they called the "California Jobs
Budget." The speaker said: "California has to produce a budget that promotes job creation and makes
economic sense. We shouldn't make budget decisions that cut jobs and short
change our overall recovery and long term growth. The 'California Jobs Budget'
will protect and create 465,000 jobs in the private sector and local
communities while also protecting funding for schools, public safety, and a
basic safety net."
The
Assembly Democratic budget, which has not yet been put into bill form, rejects
$3 billion in education spending cuts proposed by the governor, and maintains
the state's welfare program.
Key
provisions of the package:
·
Tax Increases on Employers. The budget would
delay the implementation of business incentives – an elective single sales
factor, net operating loss carrybacks and carryforwards and tax credit utilization provisions – that
were approved with bipartisan support in past budget compromises. The
Democratic leaders said delaying these business incentives, which they
described as "corporate tax loopholes," would generate $2.1 billion
in revenue.
·
A 10 Percent Energy Tax. The Democratic leaders described their 10
percent tax on oil production as "closing the oil severance
loophole," because California does not have the type of oil severance
taxes used by other oil-producing states (although California does tax oil
production heavily, through taxes not imposed by other states). They said the
tax would generate approximately $900 million in 2010-11. Speaker Pérez and Assemblyman Blumenfield
alternated between calling the exaction a "tax" and a
"fee," and said they believe it could be passed with a majority vote
of the Legislature. (Cal-Tax: This is clearly a tax, and the state
constitution requires a two-thirds legislative vote.)
·
Major Borrowing. The plan calls for borrowing $8.7 billion
from the California Beverage Recycling Fund and $500 million from the
Disability Insurance Fund. The money would be used to create a $10 billion "Jobs and Economic
Stability Fund" that would provide money to job-training programs at
California community colleges and also would fund "California's clean and
green industries and other targeted jobs investments."
The fund includes $1.1 billion
that a press release said would be "a potential funding source for
numerous Democratic and Republican jobs bills making their way in the
Legislature"; $900 million to repay local governments for past mandates; $3.8
billion as "repayment to local school districts"; $1.9 billion to
maintain childcare programs for working parents; and $100 million to "local
communities impacted by the new Oil Severance Fee."
The proposal calls for the borrowing to be financed by Wall Street and
repaid by the first 20 years of the energy tax on oil production. (Cal-Tax: Even if we assume that such a
deal would garner any takers on Wall Street, it is a bad idea from the
taxpayers' standpoint. The state should not commit 20 years' worth of any
future tax revenue to pay off a single year's spending.)
Assembly
Republican Leader Martin Garrick released a statement criticizing the plan. He
said: "Assembly Democrats have devised a complicated scheme of one-time
borrowing to pay for ongoing health and welfare programs, paid for by raising
taxes on job creators and working Californians. The only jobs that the
Democrats seem to care about saving are for government workers, and they're
willing to do it by raising taxes on everyone else. Californians were hit with
$12.5 billion in new taxes just last year, and already pay the highest sales
and gas taxes, and the second highest income taxes in the nation. New taxes on
oil or any other segment of the economy will further delay our state's recovery
and are off the table. California needs to bring back jobs and businesses, and
grow our way out of this recession."
A spokesman
for the governor dismissed the Democratic plan and called it "legal
gymnastics," Capitol Weekly
reported. Spokesman Aaron McLear added: "We have
no interest in thinly veiled schemes for majority-vote tax increases. We have
raised taxes by $12 billion. Voters had the option of extending those tax
increases and they rejected those plans by a 2-1 margin."
Senate Democratic Leadership's
Budget Proposal
Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 voted May 24 to adopt several tax increases and tax enforcement proposals, although none were in legislative bill form. Instead, the committee voted on outlines described in the subcommittee's agenda. "We're not approving specific language today," said Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny, who chairs the three-member subcommittee (the other two members are Senators Bob Dutton and Alex Padilla).
The absence of actual bill language made it impossible for the public to read the proposals, or for experts in tax policy to thoroughly analyze the legislation to look for potential drafting errors or other problems that would lead to unintended consequences.
Compounding the problem was that the outlines in the subcommittee's agenda contained at least one major error. During the discussion of a proposal to extend the 2009 personal income tax increases, a Franchise Tax Board representative said the agenda's $2.9 billion revenue increase estimate for 2011-12 was off by $1 billion. Senator Ducheny agreed that the estimate should have been $1.9 billion for that fiscal year.
Key provisions of the Senate Democratic plan:
· Tax Increases on Employers. Business taxes would be increased by suspending last year's business incentives for two years. Specifically, NOL carrybacks and carryforwards would not be allowed for the next two years ($1.5 billion); there would be a two-year delay in the ability of corporations with affiliated members to fully utilize tax credits ($315 million); and the single sales factor would be made mandatory ($235 million).
·
Personal
Income Tax Increase. The 0.25 percent income tax increase enacted in 2009
as a temporary tax would be extended for two years, costing taxpayers an
estimated $1 billion in the next fiscal year.
·
Dependent
Tax Credit Reduction. The reduced dependent care credit, described as a
temporary change when it was enacted last year, would be extended for two
years. The reduction from $309 to $99 would cost taxpayers an estimated $430
million in the next fiscal year.
·
Alcohol
Tax Increase. Excise taxes on alcohol would be increased substantially (the
subcommittee's outline does not state specific rates, but says the current
rates would be increased to reflect inflation since 1991). This would cost
taxpayers an estimated $210 million annually.
·
Car Tax
Increase. Last year's increase in the car tax (officially known as the
Vehicle License Fee), which was described as temporary, would be extended for
two years, but at an even higher rate. The rate of the annual tax, currently
1.15 percent of a vehicle's value, would increase to 1.45 percent, costing
taxpayers an additional $1.2 billion in the next fiscal year.
·
Tax
Enforcement Changes. The subcommittee also approved plans for the state to
get more aggressive in collecting taxes.
For the State Board of Equalization, the plans would:
o
Fund 42.5 new limited-term employees for an
agricultural inspection station in Needles (not to look for agricultural goods
that might have pests, but to search for items being brought into California
that might be subject to use tax);
o
Extend the income tax form line for voluntary
reporting of use tax obligations, along with a "look-up table" for
use tax;
o
Expand sales tax nexus to out-of-state retailers
who have no physical presence in California (the agenda says this would mirror AB 2078 prior to
April 27 amendments that removed Cal-Tax's opposition). Cal-Tax Vice President
and General Counsel Michele Pielsticker testified that the state should improve
its efforts to educate the public about the use tax before getting more
aggressive, adding, "You can't expect people to drive 55 if you don't have
a speed limit sign."
o
Fund 10 positions at the BOE for administering
the recently approved fuel tax "swap."
o
Allow the BOE to hire a new employee to impose a
"cost recovery fee" for efforts to obtain payment of taxes through
involuntary collection methods (liens and wage garnishments).
During the BOE's May 26 hearing, BOE Chair Betty Yee expressed concern that the board might not have time to implement these proposals.
For the Franchise Tax Board, the plans would:
o
Implement the Financial Institutions Record
Match (FIRM) system to require financial institutions that do business in
California to provide information about their customers to the FTB on a
quarterly basis;
o
Provide authority to the FTB to determine
"transactions of interest" for California income tax purposes;
o
Allow the FTB to suspend the professional
licenses of delinquent taxpayers.
During the discussion of the tax enforcement proposals,
Senator Dutton mentioned Hyatt v. FTB,
the case in which a Nevada jury ordered the FTB to pay inventor Gil Hyatt $388
million in damages for breaching his confidentiality and engaging in other
wrongdoing during a residency audit. Senator Dutton said the case, which the
FTB has appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, shows that the state could incur
significant liability if the tax agencies overreach their authority.
Senator Dutton, who is slated to become the Senate Republican leader later this year, also criticized the extension of tax increases that were described to taxpayers last year as being temporary. "Now you're telling them, 'Well, sorry, we didn't mean it,'" he said.
In other budget-related news:
Teachers' Retirement System Expected to Ask for Hundreds of Millions More. The Sacramento Bee reported May 27: "The state's teacher pension fund is about to reduce its official forecast of investment returns by half a percentage point, a move that could cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. CalSTRS' staff, which has been wrestling with the issue for months, said Wednesday that the forecast of annual returns should be cut to 7.5 percent. The board of the California State Teachers' Retirement System will vote on the recommendation next week. … The California Public Employees' Retirement System is also likely to lower its forecast, which is 7.75 percent, but won't make a decision until February."
Cal-TaxReports, June 1, 2010
© 2010 California Taxpayers'
Association.
All Rights Reserved.