Prop. 111 Victory Eases Calif. Anti-Tax Stance : Voting: Experts say approval shows public is willing to pay to solve specific problems. But don’t write the tax revolt’s obituary, one cautions.

California voters, often trend-setters for the nation, have sent a new message with their decision to double state gasoline taxes--they now are willing to raise certain taxes to remedy a critical problem.

But as the results of Tuesday’s primary election began to sink in Wednesday, government officials and political scientists around the country quickly stepped forward to insist that passage of Proposition 111 did not signal the end of the voter revolt ushered in by Californians 12 years ago with the passage of Proposition 13.

Most experts agreed that the California vote aimed at easing traffic congestion and improving badly deteriorating roads indicates a new willingness to increase taxes on a statewide scale for strictly limited purposes.

In their view, despite Proposition 111’s approval with 52% of the vote, a general tax increase would still have about as much chance of passing in California as a Los Angeles motorist would have of finding an unclogged freeway at rush hour.

“Proposition 111 was approved because we identified specific needs and we painstakingly put together a consensus proposal to address those needs,” Gov. George Deukmejian said at a press conference Wednesday. “There is no evidence in these results whatsoever to indicate the public now would be supportive of a general tax increase.”

Even with their strong desire for highway improvements, Transportation Director Robert K. Best said, voters made it clear to him as he traveled the state in the weeks before the election that they were having trouble deciding which was worse--traffic congestion or higher taxes.

“I didn’t run into very many people who said this was to be an easy vote for them. . . . There was a lot of very reluctant voting that went on out there,” he said.

In Washington on Wednesday, the results of California’s gas-tax vote helped ease the fears of federal budget negotiators that calls for higher taxes might generate a harsh political backlash. “Washington breathed a collective sigh of relief that the proposal (to increase gas taxes) was not defeated,” said Thomas Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution.

But there also was agreement that the American public’s distrust of tax increases has not waned. Political analyst Kevin Phillips, for example, argued that those who advocate boosting energy taxes to help narrow the federal budget deficit can take little comfort from the California vote.

“I wouldn’t use this to write the obituary of the tax revolt,” Phillips said. “There’s nothing in this vote to suggest you can use gasoline taxes as a broad money raiser for the federal government.”

The willingness of California voters to accept a 9-cent-per-gallon increase in state gasoline taxes, suggested House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), could even have the effect of limiting Washington’s ability to dip into the same well.

“I don’t think California voters would be particularly happy to have a federal gas tax increase on top of that one,” Foley said.

But the House Democratic leader, a long-time advocate of earmarking gasoline taxes to boost transportation spending, could not help seeing the other side of the issue as well.

Arguing that the California vote does not automatically exclude the federal government from the same area, Foley added: “The United States has the lowest energy taxes of any industrial nation in the world--dramatically lower than those in Europe. If the U.S. taxed gas at European levels, we could balance the budget.”

Others saw Tuesday’s vote as offering some encouragement to sister states and to the federal government for raising taxes for specific purposes.

They said it confirmed a trend that has quietly been developing in California since the mid-1980s with the approval by many counties of half-cent sales tax increases for local transportation programs and a decision by state voters to hike the cigarette tax to pay for an anti-tobacco campaign and to help finance health programs.

Additionally, California voters in recent years have approved billions of dollars in bond issues to finance major spending projects.

“Polls have shown voter support for earmarked taxes for a long time,” said Mann of the Brookings Institution. “Politicians have known that, but this vote could encourage politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to pursue this line of revenue by packaging tax increases directly to desired services.”

But he predicted that most politicians will still proceed with extreme caution, knowing that Proposition 111 did not pass in California without “enormous effort” and “overwhelming backing by a bipartisan group.”

Indeed, several political analysts said the election could easily have swung the other way if the political dynamics had been slightly different, if more Republicans had come to the polls or more Democrats had stayed away. While the measure had support among Republican business people, it had less support among grass-roots party members.

“I would not read into this some radical shift in Californians’ thinking about taxes,” said City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky. “I think the vote Tuesday was a weighed voted, weighed towards Democrats and weighed towards urban Californians who are inclined to be frustrated by traffic jams.”

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at Claremont Graduate School, said Democrats who turned out to oppose Propositions 118 and 119 helped ensure victory for the gas tax increase. She said backers of the measure were further aided by the fact that there were no “grabbers” on the ballot for Republicans.

“This is not an overwhelming mandate,” Jeffe said. “The message the voters have sent government is ‘Give us a specific program, give us a finite amount of money, convince us you’re going to spent it wisely and then maybe we’ll write you a limited check.’ What I read is that it’s somewhat like a parent trusting a child with an increased allowance.”

The fact that voters in recent years have approved tax increases only to pay for specific programs is evidence, said Arthur Bauer, executive director of Californians for Better Transportation, that the distrust that spawned the voter revolt is very much alive. In two successive years in the late 1970s, voters approved Proposition 13, which cut property tax rates, and Proposition 4, which established a government spending limit.

He said that since the taxpayer revolt, no tax increases have been approved that give state politicians carte blanche to spend the new money as they see fit.

Ellis reported from Sacramento and Redburn from Washington. Also contributing was Times staff writer William J. Eaton in Washington.

Who Voted for Proposition 111

Here is the unofficial county-by-county vote on Proposition 111, which raises the gas tax and modifies the state spending limit.

Shaded counties voted in favor of the proposition.

Source: Secretary of State

TURNOUT EXAMINED--A relatively high Democratic turnout for the governor’s race influenced the fate of state propositions, the Times Poll found. A3

NEW DIRECTION--Nominations of John Garamendi and Wes Bannister for insurance commissioner indicate a turn in search for lower premiums. A3

POWER SHIFT--Democrats chose an almost solid slate of northerners for statewide office, overturning Southern California politicians’ traditional dominance. A3

TRANSIT ON TRACK--Voter approval of Propositions 108, 111 and 116 guarantees the revival of California’s moribund transportation business. A25

1ST DISTRICT--Rivals in the runoff for Supervisor Pete Schabarum’s seat will be in federal court today hoping their victories won’t be thrown out. B1

ELECTION TABLES A26-A29