Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- The Black-White Fallacy of Public Option
- Targeting Obesity Remains A Priority in Tough Budget Times
- Thousands Speak Out Against CA’s Costly and Broken Death Penalty
- Cuts Would Jeopardize Well-Being of Many Disabled Citizens
- Fully Fund Our Schools
- Same Governor, Different Goals
- Assemblymember Evans Sets the Record Straight
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
Tax ‘Expenditures’ Should Be Part of the California Budget Debate

By Jenny Oropeza
California State Senator
Leadership means solving problems. Business executives must keep business growing for the benefit of their shareholders, government leaders must make difficult public service funding decisions with a fixed amount of revenue, and single parents must balance food, clothing, and housing needs within the limits of their paychecks. Leaders of all kinds cannot afford to ignore reality; instead, they must make hard decisions with the information at hand.
This year, California’s budget crisis requires leadership. A weakening economy once supported by increasing real estate prices and burgeoning corporate profits has resulted in a shortfall now pegged at $16 billion. Simultaneously, increased costs, automatic funding formulas and voter-approved initiatives drive state spending higher. Any way you look at the problem, we are in for a year of hard choices.
For all crises, leadership is about striking balances, not taking the easy way out. Gov. Schwarzenegger chose to make 10-percent, across-the-board cuts for almost all public services provided by the state, including health care, prisons, and public education.
The governor’s plan treats every public investment the same, instead of prioritizing spending based on the effectiveness of the investment of California taxpayers’ dollars. Beyond a few small fee increases, the governor has not proposed new or higher taxes to help balance revenues – echoing the party line issued by legislative Republicans. Since 1967, Governors Reagan, Deukmejian and Wilson have raised taxes when California faced a significant fiscal problem.
Even Liz Hill, California’s respected, non-partisan Legislative Analyst, came out against blanket cuts, urging lawmakers to reject them on the grounds it was short sighted. She also urged leaders to modify or eliminate some tax expenditures.
The Legislature has already cut services to balance the budget this year. The budget spending debate ignores a crucial issue: tax expenditures. These are various tax measures meant to serve as personal or business incentives. These add up to about $50 billion per year, according to the state Department of Finance. None of this revenue is included in a line item in the budget. Many critics call tax expenditures loopholes, while others argue that tax expenditures are important investments that help the public at large, not only one industry. Should not these tax expenditures also be given extra scrutiny in a time of hard budget choices?
The state provides tax credits to businesses constructing child care centers or providing child care instead of directing cash payments for the same reason. Is this the most efficient way to accomplish our mission?
Tax expenditures are paid for when a taxpayer receives a tax benefit for taking a specific action. In turn, the marginal loss shifts the burden of paying for public services to all other taxpayers. The question is whether the tax expenditure is the best or appropriate tool for accomplishing the goal. The question arises: Are there other policies that would better accomplish these goals?
It can be argued that one persons’ loophole is another’s good investment. Arguably, expenditures such as the California’s Research and Development tax credit that helps spur investment and innovation is a good investment. Others, such as the sales tax exemption for poultry litter and the enhanced oil recovery credit, are merely incentives for a bygone era of California’s economy.
Remarkably, beyond a few out-of-date reports, the state has not measured the effectiveness of tax expenditures.
That’s why the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee, which I chair, will be reviewing these tax expenditures at our hearing beginning at 1:30 p.m. tomorrow, February 27, in Room 3191 of the State Capitol in Sacramento. My bipartisan committee is bringing together economists, academics, business leaders and labor representatives to review these tax expenditures and consider alternatives. Which tax expenditures help grow the economy and create jobs? Which ones are sweetheart tax breaks? Can any be changed to get more for our money? How does the state measure the effectiveness of tax expenditures? How should tax expenditures be evaluated? Is there a better way to reach policy goals than through tax expenditures?
Through this hearing we hope to identify tax expenditures that may be outdated, inefficient or just plain bad ideas. Yes, we hope to suggest improvements where merited. This diligent review will help us resolve the difficult choices required to bridge the budget gap. Leadership demands no less.
For more, including links to the studies cited above, visit Oropeza’s Web site at the address below.
Elected to the Assembly in 2000 and the Senate in 2006, Jenny Oropeza is one of the highest-ranking Latinos in the Legislature and chairs the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. For more information visit www.senate.ca.gov/oropeza
Comments
Thank you for looking at this issue. There are several "tax expenditures" that have lost sight of a purpose or are poorly targeted. Reforming or eliminating them is tough because some taxpayers will end up paying more taxes. But, on the other hand, when these taxpayers get an unwarranted tax break, other taxpayers are paying for it.
A few examples of problematic tax expenditures include the senior exemption which is based on age rather than income. Also, why allow a mortgage interest deduction on a second home and why on up to $1.1 million of debt? While the federal government also allows this generous deduction, CA doesn't have to be so generous.
There are many more. I've got some background information on this topic including a list of problem expenditures and an op ed from the SF Chronicle at
http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/nellen_a/TaxReform/Report7b_21stCenturyTaxation_PITPolicy.htm
Posted by: Annette Nellen at April 11, 2008 09:14 PM
Post a comment
Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 