Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Should Extra State Sales Tax Be Permanent?

In 1991, a temporary half-cent addition to the state sales tax was enacted to bolster government revenues. Originally scheduled to expire June 30 of this year, it was extended to the end of 1993 by the Legislature to offset nearly $2.6 billion in property tax revenues that were shifted away from local governments to help balance the state’s budget.

Proposition 172 on the Nov. 2 ballot will allow voters to make the extra half-cent tax permanent, with the funds earmarked for police, fire, sheriff’s and other law enforcement agencies. Opponents argue that it does not prevent local governments from making further cuts in fire and police budgets.

Should voters make permanent the extra half-cent state sales tax enacted in 1991?

Tom McClintock, former Republican state assemblyman from Thousand Oaks:”It’s $175 of taxes on an average family with no guarantee that it goes to law enforcement. (The Legislature doesn’t) have the votes for a general tax increase, so they’re using law enforcement as a shill. Local governments are put between a rock and a hard place. In the last two years, the Legislature and the governor have taken close to $4 billion in property taxes and appropriated them for state use.”

Allan Zaremberg, senior vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce:

“This is not a tax increase, but an extension of a tax already in place. (If Proposition 172 is defeated), it would create a difficult budget situation for both local and state government. Public safety will take the bulk of the cuts if this isn’t passed. We think this would be devastating and not good news for the business sector.”

Don Forrest, secretary of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, which represents about 3,000 city Fire Department members:

“We’re not supporting it. There’s no money for us. The money that’s supposed to go to us is actually earmarked for the (city’s) general fund. It’s a bogus deal. It’s a sham for the department. . . . It’ll be used as Mayor Riordan sees fit.”

Sally Reed, chief administrative officer of Los Angeles County:

“In terms of the needs of local government, it’s critical that it passes. It’s really just about continuing the level of services we have now. (If Proposition 172 is defeated), it will place our jail system at risk. It will place our law and justice system at risk.”

Dell Weber, president of the California Teachers Assn.:

“Proposition 172 extends the existing one-half cent sales tax and dedicates all revenues from that tax to local police and fire protection. Without Proposition 172, local government agencies will have no way to maintain public safety services except by trying to take money away from other public services, including education.”

Ron Roach, spokesman for the California Taxpayers Assn.:

“We support it. (It will mean) a better climate for business and the people of California. If 172 doesn’t pass, there will be a lot of turbulence at the local level. It may just be devastating. Businesses are not going to come to California unless there’s a safe environment for them to operate in.”

John Peschong, communications director, California Republican Party:

“It raises the average family’s taxes $175 to replace local funds taken by state politicians to bankroll excessive spending. We want it to be defeated so the tax will expire. It’s just another tax that they’re putting on the people of California.”