Buried in Arnold’s budget ideas spreadsheet as “Idea #10,” Arnold shows that for a “post-partisan” like him, no idea is really sacrosanct. He clearly wasn’t wedded to the no new revenue idea before May 19, but he claims to be a born-again revenue hater. What is “Idea # 10”? Well, it’s a fee on home insurance policies:<\/p>\n
Fund CAL FIRE\/CAL EMA with Emergency Response Initiative Fee.<\/b>
\n
Average cost per insurance policy holder would be $48 per year. BY would backfill a portion of CAL FIRE’s base budget. In out years, backfill E Fund costs and disaster assistance costs.<\/i>
\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAll in all, this is a fairly reasonable idea. CalFIRE desperately needs more resources as we head toward a future with increasing fire danger. Even with these additional revenues, Arnold is still proposing to let CalFire’s equipment get another year’s worth of rust as they are gutting equipment replacement for this budget year. <\/p>\n
This is a great idea, yet completely ideologically discordant and intellectually dishonest. Only a few weeks ago, he said everything was on the table…except new revenues. Heck, even the Democratic legislative leaders<\/a> have said there will not be any revenues. And I’m sure if you asked the Governor right now, he’d say no new revenue measures. So, what’s different here? Why is it ok to put a $48 fee here?<\/p>\n
At any rate, the Legislative Analyst<\/a> LAO thinks that this fee will actually be considered a tax anyway, and thus be subject to the limitations of Proposition 98 requiring some of the money to go to K-14 education. Leg Analyst Mac Taylor suggests a more targeted fee for property owners that live in areas with high fire risk.<\/p>\n
But the real question that this raises is not whether this is a good idea, which it probably is. The real question is if we can add revenue for CalFIRE, why can’t we add revenue for transit by adding a gas fee? Why can’t we add revenue for CalWORKS (and the 3 times of federal dollars pulled down) by adding a sales tax on services?<\/p>\n
When Finance Director Mike Genest suggests that only poor people get services from the state<\/a>, perhaps he should consider CalFire, the one service that he and his boss think should get additional revenue. Certainly CalFire supports all Californians, but all those pricey homes built in fire-prone canyons require much of the assistance from CalFire. Why this fee? Why just for this purpose, as worthy as it might be?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Buried in Arnold’s budget ideas spreadsheet as “Idea #10,” Arnold shows that for a “post-partisan” like him, no idea is really sacrosanct. He clearly wasn’t wedded to the no new revenue idea before May 19, but he claims to be a born-again revenue hater. What is “Idea # 10”? Well, it’s a fee on home insurance policies:<\/p>\n
Fund CAL FIRE\/CAL EMA with Emergency Response Initiative Fee.<\/b>
\n
Average cost per insurance policy holder would be $48 per year. BY would backfill a portion of CAL FIRE’s base budget. In out years, backfill E Fund costs and disaster assistance costs.<\/i>
\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAll in all, this is a fairly reasonable idea. CalFIRE desperately needs more resources as we head toward a future with increasing fire danger. Even with these additional revenues, Arnold is still proposing to let CalFire’s equipment get another year’s worth of rust as they are gutting equipment replacement for this budget year. <\/p>\n
This is a great idea, yet completely ideologically discordant and intellectually dishonest. Only a few weeks ago, he said everything was on the table…except new revenues. Heck, even the Democratic legislative leaders<\/a> have said there will not be any revenues. And I’m sure if you asked the Governor right now, he’d say no new revenue measures. So, what’s different here? Why is it ok to put a $48 fee here?<\/p>\n