Tag: taxes

Oregon’s new cigarette taxes will hurt, not help, low-income residents-cm

Oregon’s new cigarette taxes will hurt, not help, low-income residents

By Rachel Dawson

Oregon couldn’t let a new year commence without the rollout of a new tax increase.

Voters passed Measure 108 last year which increases cigarette and cigar taxes and establishes a new tax on vaping products beginning January 1, 2021.

The measure was approved by 65% of voters, likely because it was painted as an effort to reduce smoking and help low-income Oregonians by directing 90% of funds to the Oregon Health Plan. However, once in practice these new changes will have unintended consequences.

First, the taxes are regressive and will hurt low-income Oregonians. A recent study found that “low socioeconomic status is generally associated with a high prevalence of cigarette smoking.” Smoking prevalence was 41% among men with incomes below the poverty level versus 24% for those with incomes at or above it. It’s absurd that the state is taxing some of the very same people these medical services are supposed to help.

Second, only 10% of raised funds will go to tobacco-use prevention and cessation. It’s clear the purpose of these taxes is to fill a budget hole, not to help tobacco users quit their addiction. The state has created a perverse incentive for itself–the more people smoke, the more money the state brings in. Additionally, e-cigarettes and vaping products, both safer alternatives to cigarettes, will now be taxed. One study found that for every 10% increase in e-cigarette prices, sales dropped by 26%, leading to an increase in traditional cigarette use.

If officials are truly committed to protecting public health by reducing cigarette use, they should allocate a higher percentage of the taxes’ revenue to smoking cessation and prevention programs.

Rachel Dawson is a Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research center.

Click here for PDF version

Read Blog Detail
Press Release METRO GOVERNMENT’S INAPPROPRIATE USE OF TAX DOLLARS TO PROMOTE NEW PAYROLL TAX TO VOTERS-cm

Press Release: METRO GOVERNMENT’S INAPPROPRIATE USE OF TAX DOLLARS TO PROMOTE NEW PAYROLL TAX TO VOTERS

Cascade Policy Institute urges Metro Auditor and the Oregon Secretary of State to immediately investigate Metro’s likely abuse of power.

October 12, 2020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
Eric Fruits, Ph.D.
(503) 242-0900
eric@cascadepolicy.org

PORTLAND, Ore. – Last week, thousands of Oregon residents received a multi-color postcard from Metro urging them to vote on the regional government’s payroll tax, Measure 26-218 (Exhibit 1). The expensive mailing was sent far and wide, with even some Bend residents finding Metro’s postcard dropped in their mailboxes.

The postcards were designed and mailed using tax dollars, and Metro made no effort to disguise their support for the payroll tax. In large type, Metro’s mailer promotes the ballot title number, uses the “Get Moving 2020” slogan from campaign proponents, and has a multi-color map similar to the map shown in TV ads in favor of the tax.

Approximately 70% of the mailer’s text presents positive messages about the measure, including a listing of the projects Metro anticipates funding, describing input from the community and “leaders” in creating the measure, and identifying oversight provisions if the measure passes.

Less than one-quarter of the postcard’s text mentions the primary purpose of Measure 26-218—to impose a payroll tax on 70% of the region’s workers. The payroll tax is the only reason for the ballot measure. Metro already has the authority to fund transportation projects, but needs voter approval for a payroll tax.

Rather than encouraging recipients to “get both sides” of the arguments for and against Measure 26-218, the mailer directs recipients to Metro’s own webpage for more information (oregonmetro.gov/transportation). This link immediately redirects the visitor to another page titled “Proposed Measure 26-218: ‘Get Moving 2020’” (https://www.oregonmetro.gov/public-projects/get-moving-2020Exhibit 2).

Oregon’s election finance law limits the political activities of public employees while on the job during working hours. Restrictions also prohibit the solicitation of public employees for political activity.

ORS 260.432(2) provides, “No public employee shall . . . promote . . . the adoption of a measure . . . while on the job during working hours.”

ORS 260.432(1) provides, “No person shall attempt to, or actually, coerce, command or require a public employee to influence or give . . . service or other thing of value to promote . . .  the adoption of a measure  . . . .” 

Metro’s mailer does more than encourage individuals to return their ballots. The mailer does not encourage recipients to vote for federal, state, or local candidates. Recipients are not urged to vote for any other state or local measures. Instead, Metro exhorts recipients to vote on a single issue: Measure 26-218, “Get Moving 2020.”

Metro used public employees’ time and the public’s money to create and send the postcards. In addition to the money spent on postage, public employee time was likely used to draft and edit the language of the postcards and design the layout. The out-of-region addresses suggest Metro used public money to purchase a politically targeted mailing list from a third party.

Cascade Policy Institute demands that Metro immediately stop production on any additional promotional mail pieces and asks that Metro’s independently elected auditor and the Oregon Secretary of State to immediately investigate whether Metro’s mailers are an inappropriate or illegal use of tax dollars to encourage voter approval of Measure 26-218.

Under ORS 294.100, Metro Council President Lynn Peterson, as well as any other councilors or Metro staff, may be personally liable for reimbursing Metro taxpayers for the decision to create and mail the brochures [emphasis added]:

(1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any moneys in excess of the amounts provided by law, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law.

(2) Any public official who expends any public moneys in excess of the amounts or for any other or different purpose than authorized by law shall be civilly liable for the return of the money by suit of the district attorney of the district in which the offense is committed, or at the suit of any taxpayer of such district, if the expenditure constitutes malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty.

Eric Fruits, Vice President of Research at Cascade Policy Institute, concludes, “This taxpayer expenditure clearly crosses the line into using public dollars to advocate for the passage of this payroll tax measure. That is wrong and should stop. Metro’s auditor and the Oregon Secretary of State should immediately investigate this likely abuse of power.”

###

Contact Dr. Eric Fruits by email at eric@cascadepolicy.org for more information or to schedule an interview.

 About Cascade Policy Institute:

 Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free-market public policy research center. Cascade’s mission is to explore and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity. For more information, visit cascadepolicy.org.

###
Read Blog Detail
Light rail train northbound on raised track-cm

Metro’s Untimely, Nonsensical Light-Rail Project

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Last month, the Metro Council voted to send a regional payroll tax to the November ballot. The rationale for the new $250-million-a-year tax is primarily to help fund a 12-mile light rail extension from Portland to Bridgeport Village in Tigard. It will also pay for a smattering of minor transportation projects throughout the region, but those are just ornaments on the tree.

There are at least three problems with this proposal. The first is that we already pay two transit taxes: the TriMet payroll tax assessed on employers, and the statewide transit tax collected from employees’ paychecks that was adopted by the Legislature in 2017. Most people don’t benefit from either one, because they don’t use transit. Adding a third tax to pay for light rail to Tigard ­– called the Southwest Corridor project – makes no sense.

Second, light rail ridership peaked in 2012 and has been dropping ever since. Now, amid the coronavirus pandemic, it is down about 70% from last July, according to TriMet ridership numbers. With many worried about the inability to physically distance on public transit and the prospect that some may work from home permanently, more rail is the wrong project at the wrong time.

Third, if the Metro tax is approved, TriMet could bulldoze nearly 300 homes and up to 156 businesses for the right-of-way, according to its environmental impact statement. Roughly as many as 1,990 employees will be forced to leave the area, the analysis states.

This ghastly level of destruction recalls the heavy-handed actions of the government when it rammed I-5 through the Albina neighborhood in the 1960s, an act that reverberates today as the state aims to widen the highway in that same stretch. Portland City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, who resigned from the Oregon Department of Transportation’s steering committee for the I-5 project in June, emphasized this in her resignation letter: “In 1962, ODOT dug a trench through Oregon’s largest Black community, demolishing 300+ homes, disrupting and destabilizing the community, and polluting the environment.”

While the Southwest Corridor is not Albina and Commissioner Eudaly cannot undo history, she can help prevent a similar bulldozing of people’s homes. She is currently a member of the steering committee for the SW Corridor Project. If she really cares about protecting homes and businesses, she should resign from the SW Corridor Steering Committee and actively oppose more light rail construction. The other commissioners should join her.

But voters don’t need to wait for the Portland City Council to do the right thing. They will have the opportunity to reject Metro’s new tax in November, and they should.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free-market public policy research organization. This article originally appeared in The Oregonian on August 5, 2020.

Click here for PDF version:

20-29-Metro’s_Untimely_Nonsensical_Light-Rail_ProjectPDF

Read Blog Detail
Increasing tax rate images-cm

Portland Politicians Suffer From the Edifice Complex

By Eric Fruits, Ph.D.

On July 24th, the New York Times ran a 2,300-word piece describing the challenges owners of vacation homes have faced in converting their second homes into their primary residences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges included the inability to get a Starbucks vanilla latte or find a bagel shop.

Readers overwhelming responded: “Read the room, New York Times!”

With millions out of work and struggling to pay the bills, it’s hard to sympathize with a vacation homeowner struggling to find a place in her second home to put a pencil holder and paper tray she bought in Florence, Italy.

Closer to home, our elected leaders can’t read the room either. Sitting safely in their home offices, collecting steady paychecks, and venturing out for a photo op at a protest, they continue to push ever higher taxes on their struggling constituents.

Less than five months after sending two new income taxes to the voters, Metro is now charging full speed ahead on a payroll tax to pay for the unneeded Southwest Corridor light rail project from Portland to Bridgeport Village. The project anticipates tearing up Barbur Boulevard and adding congestion to dozens of intersections and highway ramps. Making way for light rail will require the destruction of at least 78 residential dwellings, and as many as 293. In addition, as many as 156 businesses will be forced out, displacing up to 1,990 employees.

The payroll tax will cost about $500 a year for the average household in the region. That’s $500 that can’t be spent on rent, utilities, groceries and other necessities.

Read the room, Metro. Is a light rail line to an upscale shopping mall more important than the houses that’ll be bulldozed, the business that’ll be shuttered, and paychecks that’ll be raided?

The City of Portland is no better. Because of years of mismanagement, the city’s parks bureau has spent itself into a deep hole. Last year, the city closed the Sellwood and Hillside community centers. This year, Mayor Ted Wheeler cancelled all summer parks programs. Even with the cuts, the city claims the parks program has a deficit of more than $6 million.

Earlier this month, the city council voted to send a $48 million-a-year property tax increase to the ballot to fund its mismanaged parks program. It’s not clear why the city needs $48 million to fill a $6 million gap. But, I’m just a dumb voter who doesn’t understand the ins and outs of government accounting.

Nevertheless, in a time when tenants can’t pay their rents and homeowners can’t make their mortgage payments, Mayor Wheeler and city council are promoting a tax increase that will cost the average Portlander $180 a year. Read the room, Portland.

Of course, Multnomah County has to get into the money grab game, too. In November, voters will decide on a $37 million property tax measure to increase library spending. That’s about $115 a year for the average household. Currently, all the county libraries are closed, except for picking up books put on hold. Maybe the libraries can wait until after this recession is over before reaching into our wallets. Read the room, Multnomah County.

Even though schools are closed and Portland Public Schools is still mumbling and fumbling over its plans for the fall, PPS is looking to send a $1.1 billion property tax measure to the ballot in November. A big chunk of that money is earmarked to pay for nearly $250 million in cost overruns from the last school bond measure.

With the pandemic causing a radical rethinking of how education is delivered to our children, perhaps now is not the right time to embark on a spending blowout to build more massive brick-and-mortar schools. Read the room, PPS.

For years – no, more like decades – Portland-area voters seemed to have demonstrated an endless tolerance for raising their own taxes. They also seem eager to elect politicians who promise more and more spending on massive and costly projects. This has been called the “Edifice Complex” – it’s fun and sexy to be at the ribbon cutting for a new MAX line, library or remodeled school. There are no photo ops for trimming a budget.

In 2020, Portland-area politicians have become so consumed by their Edifice Complex that they have failed to read the room. In the middle of a pandemic and recession, voters may teach the elected that feeding their families is more important than feeding the beast of local government.

Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is Vice President of Research at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free-market public policy research organization. This article was originally published in the July 2020 Oregon Transformation newsletter.

Click here for PDF version:

20-27-Portland_Politicians_Suffer_From_the_Edifice_ComplexPDF

Read Blog Detail
Sunrise-In-a-Green-Park-cm

Metro’s $700,000 Sentiment

By Helen Cook

On June 25th, Metro approved $700,000 in taxpayer money for what is best entitled a nice sentiment: Metro’s Nature in Neighborhoods program. The program hopes to improve water quality and wildlife habitats through grants to local organizations that promote racial and cultural equality.

But the program has a serious flaw: Success is not easily measured, despite the large amount of taxpayer dollars flowing into the grants.

Metro’s approved recipients for 2020 demonstrate the subjectivity of the program. Objectives include bringing “healing to the community and landscape through Traditional Indigenous healing practices” as well as building “youth of color’s relationship around the water and waterways.”

Perhaps an important question is whether our local government should be exploring these objectives with taxpayer dollars, especially during this time of economic instability. Ironically, Metro councilor Craig Dirkensen came close to this question when he asked whether Metro’s grant program was unique. The simple answer was “no.” Similar programs do exist, just not at taxpayers’ expense.

Metro should get out of the grant business and into the park-building business. The Nature in Neighborhoods program is yet another example of how Metro consumes taxpayer dollars without measurable benchmarks for success.

Helen Cook is a Program Assistant for External Affairs at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

7-8-20-Metro’s_-700,000_SentimentPDF

Read Blog Detail

May 8 Should Be Declared “Fix PERS Now Day”

By Eric Fruits, Ph.D.

The Oregon Education Association is organizing a statewide walk-out May 8 related to what it says is inadequate school funding. What they’re really demanding is a $2 billion tax increase.

Districts across the state, including Portland, Beaverton, North Clackamas, Gladstone, and Eugene have canceled classes for the day, forcing working parents to stay home or line up day care for the strike. The teachers surely have their chants and songs already scripted for their rallies. But, there’s one slogan the teachers won’t be shouting. That’s: “Fix PERS Now!”

District administrators appear to be in support of the Oregon Education Association’s unauthorized strike. West Linn-Wilsonville superintendent Kathy Ludwig said, “OEA’s purpose with this rally is to send the message to all Oregonians that public school funding has been insufficient for decades and needs to be addressed.” A written statement made to the Portland teachers’ union by superintendent Guadalupe Guerrero reads: “Our educators and students deserve better. It is long overdue that we prioritize schools in Oregon.”

The claim that Oregon hasn’t prioritized public education is simply wrong. Portland Public Schools voters have approved nearly $1.3 billion in construction bonds since 2012. In 2011 and 2014, voters approved and renewed a local option property tax increase for Portland schools. Another renewal of the $95 million tax is expected to be on the ballot this year.

In Oregon, total expenditures per student were $13,037 in 2016, the most recent year for which information is available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Oregon is exactly in the middle of the state rankings of per student total expenditures. Six states, including Oregon, Washington, and California, have per student spending that is within five percent of the national average. Total expenditures include salaries, employee benefits such as health insurance and PERS, supplies, and debt service, among other things.

According to the state’s Legislative Revenue Office, annual state and local education spending in Oregon has increased by about $1.7 billion over the past ten years. This amounts to $2,350 in increased spending per student and has greatly outpaced the rate of inflation.

Despite a booming economy with increased tax revenues and funding for schools, many districts claim they are facing a funding gap. Beaverton expects to cut more than 200 teachers. Portland plans to eliminate 45 classroom teaching positions and combine many fourth and fifth grade classrooms. These announcements raise the question: Why are districts cutting staff in the face of rising revenues?

PERS and other benefits are the biggest drivers of Oregon’s education finance problems. The cost of paying for public employee retirements has doubled over the past ten years. In 2009, school districts paid approximately 15 percent of payroll to fund PERS. The latest estimates indicate next year, districts will have to pay 30 percent of payroll. The increased cost of PERS alone in the next biennium would cause the average class size to increase by two to four students per classroom.

It gets worse. In reaction to earlier PERS crises, many school districts took on additional debt to reduce their PERS obligations. The interest payments on the bonds are taking money out of classrooms. Census data indicate Oregon schools pay almost $600 per student per year in interest payments alone, making it the fourth highest state in per student interest payments.

The OEA claims it’s seeking more spending to reduce class sizes and improve graduation rates. However, the Oregon Business Council calculates PERS will consume much of the $2 billion in tax increases under consideration by the legislature. Without meaningful PERS reforms, Oregonians will face decades of multi-billion-dollar tax increases every time the legislature meets.

The frustration of teachers is understandable. They are on the front lines of education. However, walking off the job is the wrong approach and sets a poor example for students. It punishes pupils, parents, and employers for our politicians’ failure to fix PERS. It also misses the mark strategically because the legislature doesn’t have any more money, and neither do put-upon taxpayers. Parents who are forced to stay home to watch their kids on May 8 should take them on a field trip to the OEA’s rallies with signs of their own, reading, “No New Taxes—Fix PERS Now!”

Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is Vice President of Research at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

19-09-May_8_Should_Be_Declared_“Fix_PERS_Now_Day”PDF

Read Blog Detail

Fake Leadership

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Governor Kate Brown’s proposed two-year general fund budget for 2019-21 requests $23.6 billion. That is an increase of 12.4% over the current level, which was the largest budget in Oregon history when it was adopted 18 months ago.

So far, few legislative leaders have questioned why the Governor needs so much money. At the Oregon Business Plan summit, held on December 3, most of the talk was about adopting new taxes and repealing the popular “kicker” law that rebates surplus funds to Oregon taxpayers. That’s not a good omen.

Most parents teach their children at a young age that they can’t always ask for more; sometimes you have to make do with what you have. That lesson has been lost on Oregon’s political leaders. No matter how much money we send to Salem, it’s never enough.

Before legislators vote to approve even one more tax, they should ask where the money will go, and why is it needed? And more importantly, if the current record-setting budget is not enough, what will change in the next two years to avoid another huge increase in 2020?

Any governor can demand more money; addressing the root causes of our problems takes real leadership. Gov. Brown has yet to figure that out.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

12-5-18-Fake_LeadershipPDF

Read Blog Detail

Metro’s Bond Measure 26-199 Raises Taxes on Homeowners, Requires No Accountability for Money Spent

By Miranda Bonifield

Metro claims Measure 26-199 is designed to address affordable housing, but the 652.8 million dollar bond measure raises taxes for homeowners without ensuring that it will accomplish its goals.

Metro claims these bonds would fund up to 3,900 low-income housing units. However, the measure doesn’t require a minimum number of units: Metro could build a few units, spend the rest of the money on “services,” and fulfill the requirements of Measure 26-199. The text of the measure even says these bonds may be used for things like grocery or retail space without limitation. In other words, there’s no guarantee the measure will make even a small improvement to housing affordability.

There is no deadline ensuring Metro provides these units in a timely fashion. There is no requirement for Metro to change its practices if auditors find Metro is failing to accomplish its goals. 26-199 asks you to trust Metro’s intentions without any accountability to encourage success. Meanwhile, urban growth boundaries and endless red tape keep Oregon’s housing supply from meeting the needs of our growing population.

Any major project needs firm deadlines and specific goals to have any hope of success, but Metro’s measure provides neither.

Miranda Bonifield is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

10-24-18-Metro’s_Bond_Measure 26-199_Raises_Taxes_on_Homeowners_Requires_No_Accountability_for_Money_SpentPDF

Read Blog Detail

Throwing Money at Homelessness Is a Failed Strategy

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler hopes to spend $31 million next year addressing homelessness. This is ten percent more than Portland is spending this year. According to the Mayor, the goal is to help place people in permanent housing.

Of course, ending homelessness has been a goal of Portland mayors for decades. They never solve the problem because they conceptualize the homeless as an amorphous blob. But every person who lacks housing has a unique set of circumstances, and that background has to be understood.

It’s much more complicated than simply building more housing. Some people don’t want to live in a traditional home. They may have a psychological need to be outside. Others don’t want the responsibilities that come with home ownership, such as maintaining a yard and paying taxes. Some people have drug addictions that prevent them from earning enough income to afford housing.

While specific facts change, certain principles don’t; and the most important one is that simply giving people free stuff doesn’t work. Everybody deserves a hand up; no one benefits from a handout.

Before spending another $31 million, the Mayor should tell us what will be different this time around. If he can’t answer the question, he shouldn’t get the money.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for the PDF version:

5-2-18-Throwing_Money_at_Homelessness_Is_a_Failed_StrategyPDF

Read Blog Detail

What’s Better for Low-Skilled Workers: Higher Minimum Wages or Lower Taxes?

By Kathryn Hickok

What’s better for welfare recipients and low-skilled workers: a higher minimum wage, or a larger Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)? David Neumark, director of the Economic Self-Sufficiency Policy Research Institute at the University of California, Irvine, explains in a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal why the EITC benefits low-income single parents more over time than does a higher minimum wage.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a tax benefit for low-to-moderate-income wage earners who have dependent children. By reducing the amount of taxes owed, the EITC lessens the impact of taxation on earned income when people enter the workforce, and therefore can provide a strong incentive to transition off public assistance.

“The minimum wage does, of course, provide an immediate boost to earnings of employed workers,” Neumark writes. “But evidence indicates that minimum wages reduce employment among young workers, costing them work experience that generates earnings growth in the long run. One of my recent studies shows that the shift to higher minimum wages since 2000 has contributed significantly to declines in employment among teens in school, which can reduce adult earnings later.”

“Because it promotes work,” he adds, “the EITC should do the opposite among those eligible for its most generous benefits—low-skilled single mothers….The evidence shows that exposure to a more generous EITC leads to markedly higher earnings in the long run among less-educated single mothers.”

Neumark recommends that if lawmakers want to pursue policies “that help turn government assistance…into economic self-sufficiency,” they should incentivize work. Rather than make it harder to enter the workforce, lawmakers should make it easier for working parents to keep more of the money they earn. They’ll not only take home more of their paychecks, but they’ll also increase the skills and experience that will raise their wages. That combination is a winning path out of poverty and government dependence for working parents and their children.

Kathryn Hickok is Executive Vice President at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for the PDF version:

4-18-18-What’s_Better_for_Low-Skilled_Workers

Read Blog Detail
Budget-planning--cm

Facing Reality – Suggestions to balance Oregon’s budget without raising taxes

Contributors: Jeff Kropf; Steve Buckstein, Eric Fruits, Ph.D.

Summary

Despite an eight percent increase in general fund revenues, Governor Kate Brown and some lawmakers say the State of Oregon is facing a $1.7 billion budget shortfall in the 2017-19 biennium to maintain current services, to pay for the state’s increased share of the cost of Medicaid expansion, and to fund education ballot measures approved by voters. In addition, Governor Brown has released a budget that increases general fund spending by seven percent over the 2015-17 legislatively approved budget. Her budget expands entitlements and raises taxes, fees, and charges by nearly $275 million for the general fund alone—yet does nothing to address the state’s worsening 1 public pension crisis. While the Oregon economy is improving, the recovery has been uneven, and income for the average Oregonian is still about eight 2 percent lower than the national average. At the same time, the state’s high and rising housing costs mean that Oregon’s cost of 3 living is 15 percent higher than the national average. In other words, the average Oregonian earns less, but pays more for basic items—like housing, food, and transportation—than the average American. Oregon legislators and other policy makers must face the reality that the state simply cannot afford costly new programs or costly expansions to existing programs. In reality, Oregon cannot afford to continue some of the existing programs that drain the state’s budget year after year. This report identifies several straightforward solutions to the state’s current budget crisis for savings of nearly $1.3 billion in the 2017-19 biennium. Each of these solutions are “doable.” In addition, for agencies not listed in this report, reductions equal to across-the-board reductions of about three percent from Governor Brown’s budget would eliminate the shortfall she identified. If implemented, none of the tax and fee increases outlined in the Governor’s budget would be necessary.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

 

Read Blog Detail