Transportation: No on 42

The Legislature has decreed that for the next five years the revenue collected from the state sales tax on gasoline--more than $1 billion a year--be earmarked for highways and public transportation projects. This was probably a good idea. The state’s transportation system needs the money. There’s a huge backlog of projects, and congestion keeps getting worse.

The problem is that California voters are now being asked to lock this provision into the state Constitution by passing Proposition 42 on the March 5 primary ballot. In general, this sort of permanent earmarking is poor policy and lazy lawmaking. It ties the hands of decision-makers when the money may be needed for something else. We urge Californians to vote no on Proposition 42.

Beginning in 1938, the motor vehicle fuel tax on gasoline and diesel--now 18 cents per gallon--was dedicated for highway construction. That is consistent with the federal tax, a fee for the use of the roads. The ordinary sales tax on gasoline was added in 1971, and not confined to use on highways.

Most of the money from the sales tax on gasoline the past 30 years went into general state spending. But the Legislature two years ago earmarked the sales tax for specific transportation projects from 2003 until mid-2008. Now, the Legislature has agreed to Proposition 42, which would put the spending formula into the Constitution and decree that from 2008 on the sales tax money go to highway and transit projects, an estimated $1.4 billion a year by 2008.

No one can forecast the state’s general needs that far into the future. And there are other ways to pay for transportation construction, such as through bond issues.

One irony is that an escape clause in Proposition 42 allows the governor and Legislature to suspend this earmarking of funds in a fiscal emergency. This can be done by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature with the signature of the governor. In fact, that’s just what it now takes to allocate all state spending, including the passage of the annual budget.

California needs a long-range transportation program with a means of financing it. But cementing this provision in the Constitution now would not advance that goal any further than present state law does. Voters should reject Proposition 42.