Tax Hike for Quake Repairs

* In response to “Let’s Do Our Part, Don’t Shirk,” editorial, Feb. 10:

While I agree that we should do our part, we have been led down this path once before. After the Loma Prieta quake a tax hike was approved for a limited period to help cover costs. As expected, at the end of the term this tax was extended without hesitation. If we impose a new tax to cover costs resulting from the latest quake, you can bet that the same thing will happen.

Although our sales tax is extremely high already, we should just accept the fact that such a fund will be required on a recurring basis and put a permanent tax in place. Rather than being in a reactive mode, scrambling to raise funds, the money would be there waiting in the event of a declared disaster. It should not be accessible for any other purpose at any time by anyone. A permanent disaster relief fund seems to be long overdue.

WAYNE WIDNER

Palos Verdes

* The Times’ editorial support of an increase in our already excessive sales and gasoline taxes is nothing more than consumer rape. This plan to pay for quake damage, rather than by a bond issue (editorial, Feb. 12), is misplaced. Consumer taxes are the most regressive and oppressive of taxes. They fall hardest on low- and middle-income taxpayers. They hit business hard by depriving prospective buyers of available funds for purchasing. They are not temporary since, once imposed as an “emergency proposition,” they are rarely removed.

DAVID O’BRIEN

Lakewood

* I feel that I and thousands of other Californians are already doing our part by paying property taxes that are three, four and more times higher than the taxes of those who bought their homes before Proposition 13 was passed. Because of this, the idea of an increase in the gas tax or sales tax is absolutely repugnant to me, but I’m willing to accept either one as a temporary measure in order to help restore the normalcy of life that was so disrupted by the Jan. 17 earthquake.

This is a good time to rethink the entire concept of Proposition 13. Changes are needed, not only to make property taxes more equitable, but perhaps more important, to bring about a more reliable source of revenue for the state so it can better handle future natural disasters as well as the present growing disaster of insufficient funding of our schools, libraries, police and fire departments, etc.

VIOLET RYDER

Ventura

* I have worked closely with Federal Emergency Management Agency Director James Lee Witt, members of the Clinton Cabinet and other federal officials in the month following the earthquake. They have shown great interest in assisting the recovery of Los Angeles, and all Californians appreciate their efforts.

However, earthquakes are, fundamentally, local and state events. The most immediate and important decisions in response to an earthquake are made by local governments in cooperation with the state and, when necessary, the federal government. To suggest, as The Times does (“Washington First, Now Sacramento,” editorial, Feb. 15), that Gov. Pete Wilson is acting after the Clinton Administration has acted is to portray the situation exactly backward.

The state’s response has been immediate and substantial, and it anticipated federal involvement. On Jan. 17, within hours, Wilson flew to Southern California to personally take charge of the state response. Local officials in Los Angeles and Ventura counties immediately activated the state’s mutual aid system providing essential firefighting, law enforcement and emergency assistance.

Within days, Wilson took more than a dozen major actions to expedite the delivery of emergency supplies to the region. He waived rules and regulations that enabled the Los Angeles freeway system to be rebuilt in a matter of months instead of years. He quickly ordered temporary schoolrooms to the region and put together a group of high-level housing officials to ensure that people have the opportunity to rebuild their homes.

As the emergency phase of the response passed, it was necessary to address the cost of the recovery and the program necessary to pay for it. Unlike others, Wilson sought the best estimate of the cost before choosing a strategy to meet it. His Administration estimated the total cost to be between $13 billion and $20 billion. The governor determined that the state would directly pay approximately $1.9 billion.

Contrary to the suggestions that the state pursue additional taxes in a manner similar to that following the Loma Prieta earthquake, Wilson put forward a plan to shoulder these costs through a combination of means--primarily general obligation bonds--rather than by raising taxes.

A quick comparison of the economic situations in 1989 and in 1994 makes a very strong case for this approach. In 1989, the California sales tax was 6%; it is now 7.25% statewide. The gasoline tax was 18 cents per gallon; it is now 36.4 cents per gallon. The weighted average interest rate on general obligation bonds was 6.84%; it is now 5.23%. The amount of taxable Social Security over the threshold was 50% in 1989; it is now 85%. And the unemployment rate was 5.1%; it is now 9.4%.

Californians must not be taxed out of the recovery that is beginning. The current economic climate and the fiscal constraints on the state budget make additional taxes to fund the recovery an undesirable alternative. Bonds should be the primary long-term financing tool used to rebuild Los Angeles.

RICHARD ANDREWS, Director

Office of Emergency Services, Sacramento