Jerry Brown has lost his mind

|
(8)

He's all for "realignment" -- giving counties more responsibility for public services. He's all for environmental initiatives that decrease the state's reliance on fossil fuels. But when a measure comes along that does both -- at no harm to anyone in Sacramento, and has the support of just about everyone in San Francisco from the Chamber of Commerce to the Labor Council -- he vetoes it.

Brown just announced that he won't sign Sen. Mark Leno's SB 223, which would have allowed San Francisco to bring in as much as $75 million a year in new revenue by raising license fees on cars.

Let's look at this for a moment. New revenue to handle increased state mandates -- without Brown having to raise anyone's taxes. Local control (San Franciscans would have to vote to tax themselves on car use.) A rejection of his Republican predecessor's unliateral decimation of the state budget. And someting that discourages car use in the process.

A winner on every account. A perfect piece of Jerry Brown legislation that fits in precisely with everything he's been talking about as governor.

And yet, he vetoes the bil, issuing a ridculous statement calling Leno's bill "piecemeal" and asking for "a broader revenue solution to the state's fiscal crisis" -- something he knows the Republicans won't allow and thus will not happen any time soon.

I dunno. Looks to me like Jerry's gone off the deep end.

Comments

No more taxes on the poor in a severe recession to subsidize the highest paid public employees on planet earth. You just might come to your complete senses yet.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 1:52 pm
Posted by Sambo on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 2:25 pm

The VLF is not regressive, it is progressive. It totally excludes people who don't own cars (a group made up mostly of low-income people) and it has a progressive structure based on the value of the automobile. It also discourages over-reliance on automobiles, which has a disproportionate impact on the poor, who suffer the most from bad air quality and will be most impacted by global warming.

Posted by steven on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

Why don't you try that spin on a struggling middle-class family that needs a car to look for a job. Sorry if that's not "green" enough for you. You people are pretty horrible.

Oh, I forgot. The $ is desperately needed to support the 26,000 City employees who average 134k in annual wages and benefits. Thankfully Jerry is not as far removed from reality as you are...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

This is one of the few areas that I find myself in complete agreement with the SFBG. The VLF fee is an excellent area in which to increase taxes and it would be even better to do so in such a way to encourage smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles (or no vehicles). A gas or fuel tax wouldn't hurt either.

Yes, it is regressive in some ways but we need to encourage everyone, including the poor, to live closer to work and to use less oil based products. And if we put some of the resultant revenues into better and more reliable public transportation, so much the better.

Posted by Guest666 on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

I'm liking Brown more and more, I was worried he would pick up where he left off in 92.

Tim equates various special interests with "everyone." That was entertaining.

Steven's rationalizations are also an exercise in abstract guesswork as policy. The progressive view that we should all be coerced incrementally into behaving like good little obeying peasants, while bitching and moaning when it's done to his agenda.

For progressives cars in the city are a quality of life issue, car owners need to be harassed into submission. While other quality of life issues need to be toughed out because you live in a city so you need to deal with it.

I'm a believer in global warming, but how the poor in SF will be most impacted by global warming is of interest.

Making up the world as you go along doesn't substitute for policy.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

SF govt would have used the money to pay pensions, pay raises, and payments to "friends of Ed". The money never would have been used to improve services to taxpayers.

10 points for Jerry.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

I saw this coming a mile away... like when he was mayor of Oakland, cozying up to developers and cops.

I heard him speaking about the court orders on prison healthcare, derisively saying that they were about making sure that "criminals could live as long as possible so they could be the healthiest criminals they can be."

This is the (not so new) Jerry Brown. The man lost his heart long ago. I guess he's lost his mind too now.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:31 pm