Schwarzenegger is using the same old game playing/name calling (regarding the statement from his office in Brentwood...hey Arnold, get your be-hind to your office in Sacramento and stop the media appearances).

Get real Arnold! And the same does apply to the Republicans and Democrats. The game playing is ridiculous.

If I had my way...I would fire ALL of them for failure to perform their job description.

amen to the call for legislators to "make compromises". I know democrats who balk at any social spending cuts whatsoever and republicans who dig in their heels against any new taxes no matter what. this emergency would seem to warrant budging a bit from the entrenched positionis that have created such gridlock in Sacramento. Is there a "silent majority" of moderate voters who can somehow be energized to demand less extremem positions from both parties? Are legislators held hostige by thier repsective parties' most extreme voices, i.e. unions on the left and the no-new-tax element on the right? Maybe the Governor should think of a way to call out the militant moderates----I suppose we too could learn how to paint placards and blow whistles in the ears of innocent bystanders.

The battle for California must not fall into the hands of a small group of right wing fanatics. The hole our Govenator dug was intentional and predictible. Just factor in the loss of revenue from vehicle registration fees that were loss and it adds up to the amount we are in debt. Our state is being used as a testing ground for the destruction of all social safety nets and programs. Republicans have hated California for what we represent: progressive, forward thinking and fair in our approach to governing. A simple repeal of the lock on business property taxes would go a long way toward closing the budget gap. Taxing oil taken from the commons would be another. 70% of the oil produced is from California and the oil giants had a $95 billion profit. Why not tax them like Alaska does? A few other states do as well. And while we are at it, lets change the constitution back to where is was before Prop 13 and let a simple majority be able to pass a budget instead of 2/3s. I think we are the only state in the union with our hands tied in this manner. We are a joke to the rest of the nation. Think about it: a small, radical, right wing faction can hold hostage our state until it goes backrupt and then say, 'we told you so!'.

I am sick to death of our legislators constantly backing & proposing unnecessary legislation drafted by special interests with no regard to the realities of the needs of Californians. They do this with their hands out for funds to finance their next political campaigns. I commend the Governor for saying that enough is enough to especially our Democratic legislators.
a waning Democrat

I'm a faculty member in the CSU campus. Right now, the administration of the CSU system is pressuring us to vote to take furloughs but will not promise to save a single class if we agree to a pay cut of two instructional days per month. This is in addition to the layoffs of faculty we've already seen along with increases in class size--sometimes by as much as 40%--and the concessions we already made not to take the raises we were due last year which is already a 10% cut in pay from what our contract mandates. We're being asked to work longer hours (since most faculty work is done outside the classroom, unlike a 9 to 5 job) with less pay and no guarantee that our students will have access to the classes they need, and no guarantee that furloughs will mean fewer layoffs. We'll gladly share the sacrifice, but not at the expense of short term solutions that create longer term problems. Leaving California's young adults unprepared for the jobs that we'll need to create to get an economic recovery going is penny wise and pound foolish.

I do not understand how our governor can continue to say that he's opposed to raising taxes in any way in a climate like this. Yes, we need to make budget cuts, but budget cuts alone won't be able to solve the problem. And let's be honest. The three days of furlough he's imposed on most state employees is a tax on those who work for the state. He complains about the Democrats disguising fees as taxes and opposes that, but at the same time he's more than happy to tax one group of people through furloughs.

We're bearing our fair share already. It's time for all Californians to step up and bear the burden evenly. We need to combine budget cuts with taxes that do not disproportionately affect some groups like state workers and the poor, as sales tax increases do if we're going to get through this. And then we need to reform the budget process so that we don't go through this even in good economic times.

Once again, Californians, like Americans in general, want everything but don't want to pay for it. Cuts only go so far. We need to pay higher taxes to pay for services. Too bad our elected officials are such cowards.

Larry.. Not a PENNY more in taxes.. Not even half a penny....

All these years the legislatures balanced the budget on the backs of the common people to please thevested interests and I think it should be THEM now who should give in.. NOT us, the general common people.

All right Arnie. I for one support the Governor. It is about time someone within state government stuck up for the majority of Califorina taxpayers against the special interests state employees and their unions. These state employees are like spoiled children with the wonderful pension plans and salaries that many, many of us in the private sector do not enjoy. These people are elitest who always claim to suffer. Come on state employees take some of the paint like most of us in the private sector are enduring. I support the Governor's stance that the state employees salaire and pension plans need to be renegotiatd to the reality of times.

...speaking of cutting wages and workers, how about that scary Prison Guards Union.

Mr Mantle, why don't you speak with an affected civil servant? State employees are being doubly penalized -- we pay the same increased taxes and our salaries are reduced.

The Republican ideologues are like petulant children stamping their feet and saying "No New Taxes." They are being short-sighted and selfish. The cost of everything else has increased; why wouldn't the cost of government provided services increase as well?

The general public has no idea what the government services they want cost.
he services are wanted, but nobody wants to pay. This reminds me of the saying: "Everybody wants to go to heaven; nobody wants to die."

Several times now I've heard it said that the shortfall brings the budget down to 1999 levels, with population growth and inflation accounted for.

Was California about to fall into the sea in 1999? What would be so impossible about dusting off that budget and returning to it?

Yeah, I know -- not easy, unions, expectations, etc, etc. But there is not only a model for how to make this budget work, this ACTUALLY WORKED.

What's it gonna take?

Let's see, the governor works for us and he had a lucrative career in the movies, clearly much more lucrative for all involved than his current position. Let's put him to work doing what he does best, have him star in a series of feature films with all revenues being directed to pay down the state's debts. He was partially the cause of this fiscal nightmare, his glaring arrogance forced a special election which cost us how many billion dollars? The least he could do is become our indentured servant until his debt to the good citizens of California is paid in full.

Repeal Prop 13 already, ugh. This whole crisis is proved that it doesn't work, and it'd be great if we could get around to addressing this elephant in the room instead of ignoring it constantly.

I am a state employee who approves the construction plans for new hospitals.

We too are facing 15% furlough cuts. Our business is UP in California, not down like so many in the private sector who are forced to make cut-backs.

My organization is not funded from the State General Fund, but from our own fees that we charge our clients. Furloughing us means fewer hospital construction jobs in the private sector!

Would your guest please explain how blanket Furloughs is a fair or smart solution in the long term.

state workers need revision of their golden parachutes like the rest of the country has endured. back in the 80's my company converted to the 401k (defined benefits changed to self directed contributions). 10 years later ibm was one of the last to do a like change. the way govt employees can bank sick days and overtime to inflate their "highest year earnings" as a determinant of their defined benefits is robbery of the taxpayer. look, first we have "future retirement is changed from DB to DC" for current employees. the next level we have "current and past earnings have been changed to DC". and the final level is "already retired and people who thought they were safe from revision (auto workers, airline workers etc), have had earned benefits cut in half or almost eliminated due to bankruptcy of the company". state workers need to get a clue, and be put in the boat like everyone else. no abuse of the system and change to defined contribution NOT BENEFIT. Schwartzenegger has it right on this one - pensions need to be addressed. we can keep forcing taxpayers to absorb rising costs for those who were handed golden parachutes by the state, city and local governments.

What is the url for the website that gives information on the old vehicle turn in program?

This show is fantastic. Where else would I be able to ask a question directly to the Secy. of Transportation? Thaks Larry...keep up the great work!

With more and more people on the roads, each one who is filling up at a gas station in California and paying gas taxes, not to mention paying their doubled State license taxes....where is all the money going? We all seem to know, few want to talk about it, and even fewer want to change it - It's going to special interest groups who lobby Sacramento to get their $$ plans enforced. Hey Californians - It's time to make some noise and let our Governator know we will not tollerate lobbies in Sacremento any more. Do what's right for the people of California, and what's right for our country. Greed and lies must be taken out of our government - it's teaching our children the wrong messages.

Jim (and others): the website is - http://www.dot.gov/new/index.htm

If a mandatory GPS system ever comes into play, that's when the line gets crossed and I will seriously seek a job out of state. I love CA, but that goes too far.

A per mile tax is the ULTIMATE non-starter. I can't imagine how out of touch the advisory board would have to be to recommend it. To think that people would welcome a government GPS in their cars just insane!

I would support an additional gas tax instead of this mileage charge. I think it's a better way to get more money for transportation, and incentive change towards alternative vehicles.

Thanks

Eric
West LA

I would be strongly opposed to this tax. It would discourage tourism and definately affect the amount of people who drive to our Nations great parks. If they would like a new tax for revenue I suggest taxing the size of our engines,as other countries do. Which would encourage greener car technologies and decrease polution.

It is not fair to charge people who have to drive to work if there is not a viable alternate transportation available to them. We have voted many times to sell bonds and raise taxes for the construction of various public transit projects. California is a third world country when it comes to transportation.

The idea of paying tax per mile instead of per gallon is absolutely outrageous. It's just another plan to get low spenders to subsidize high spenders: another redistribution of the wealth - to the rich.

The wear-and-tear on roads is proportional to how heavy your car is, not just how far you go, so a gas tax is far more fair to road users.

Think of the cost of adding GPS to all cars.
Think of the disincentive to drive smaller, fuel efficient cars.
Think of the gov't tracking where you drive! It's incredible that the government has come up with an issue on which I might actually agree with Michelle Bachmann on the threat of Big Brother.

Why did DOE cut funding for hydrogen fuel cell car programs?

The future is here. The cars are ready. Look at GM's Chevy Equonox Fuel Cell Electric Car. I have driven it under a test program called Project Driveway putting the hands of the general public.

Restore the funding. We need a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

I would much rather pay an additional gas tax to the proposition of being tracked by the government. But, better yet, California should raise taxes on the rich to raise money for infrastructure and other projects the state has. Those people have more than enough money, combined, to help stabilize the the state's economy.

Ken
Hollywood

I believe we should tax by miles driven and weight of vihicale. Payable at time of registration.

Gasoline taxes are an efficient way to encourage use of more fuel-efficient vehicles. If revenues decline because less gasoline is used, raise the per-gallon taxes to keep revenues up. This will accelerate movement to higher fuel efficiency.

A per-mile system does nothing to encourage fuel-efficiency. What happened to the Holy Grail of reducung our dependency on "Foreign Oil?"

This is a regressive tax. period. My husband drives 200 miles per day to commute to work. He is lucky to have a job in the current economic environment. It is not viable for us to move. Our Property taxes would increase immensely as well as other expenses. Orange county. If we could afford to buy a house near his office and move whenever his job changed then I wouldn't mind but we are not renters who move with his work. This proposal along with the proposal of a gas tax favor the wealthy who live in the city, own their own business or can relocate whenever their job changes.

Mileage taxes are the same as toll road/lane fees, and a GPS system would be another step on the slippery slope to Big Brother. Everyone benefits from our freeway system - goods are trucked, etc - so everyone should pay something for their maintenance and security. Similarly, everyone benefits from our school systems, so everyone pays something. I say, increase the gas tax and, somehow, get our government reps to actually do their jobs.

Why do we want to add complexity to a simple system -- paying as you drive? 1. What would be the cost of installing and maintaining the devices? What would be the costs of monitoring, billing, etc? Who pays for that? 2. This would be a windfall for whatever private contractor that would do it. 3.The GPS system could be hacked? What an absurd idea. Technology will not save us.

I had to respond when I heard the last caller. I live in the Inland Empire and commute each day to the South Bay, logging over 100 miles per day. The main reason I do this is because I cannot afford to live in LA County. If our goverment truly wants to improve the environment and encourage people to drive less, California needs a better public transportation system and a real effort needs to be put into developing more affordable housing options. I would much rather have a 20-mile or shorter commute to work each day, it just isn't a realistic option at this point. I don't want to be punished because of that.

HEY EVERYBODY LETS GET HORSES. IT IS CHEAPER TO USE THEM. NO MORE TAXES. ENOUGH ALREADY. THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WILL NEVER BE EFFICENT. THEY WAITED TO LATE TO START TRYING TO FIX IT

@ Mauricio hydrogen fuel cells are a boondoggle promoted by oil and car companies to keep us dependent on their products. It's forever "10 years off" and always will be.

The problem with fuel cells is that you have to make the hydrogen somehow, and for all the promises of "it just emits water" is just hiding the part where the hydrogen has to be manufactured in the first place, which takes incredible amounts of energy that mostly comes from coal, nuclear, etc. We need more electric cars now, we have the technology to do it, and as such I hope the forthcoming plug-in hybrid cars that can run off of electricity (much more efficiently than hydrogen) and gasoline spur development of more full electrics.

Beyond that, we need better public transit in CA. I have a ridiculous commute from Buena Park to Culver City every day and it's absolutely insane due to the lack of routes (I take two trains and two buses) and the limited times the Metrolink runs. I couldn't do it at all if I didn't have someone who could "rescue" me when I don't make it to the metrolink in time because one of two buses or the Green Line is delayed. I only put up with this because I'm a public transit affictionado, I don't expect normal people to put up with this kind of service!

Larry.. yes, this SEEMS like a fair way to tax per mileage... BUT then will the government give us back the credit from the general fund that they collected from our regular taxes...

Hi! I never really considered how our road transit is financed and maintained.
That being said, the era of uber subsidies is over! It is high time we overhauled our infrastructure.

If the mileage tax is to be implemented, we really need to invest in Public transit if this new tax mileage is going to be a valid idea because alot of people will not be able to afford it. In los angeles I bet you to say that is more that 70% of the population!

Carbon Footprint
YES
how much gas is use per mile + carbon output= cost per mile

Then I hope that we can have a real Rail base system that is faster and less expensive that the car

This issue is not just about revenue but also about reducing air pollution and global warming emissions. The transportation sector is responsible for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Requiring higher fuel efficiency can actually encourage people to drive more because it reduces the operating cost of that vehicle. This increase in vehicle miles traveled counters the increase in fuel efficiency, effectively negating any reduction in emissions. In order to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to 1. Increase fuel efficiency 2. reduce the carbon content of the fuels we use and 3. decrease the total vehicle miles travelled. Therefore, I support a measure to pay for miles traveled, especially since the gas tax does not even come close to actually covering the cost of infrastructure development.

Pay per mile will kill the new next tech

EV why buy them if I can't recoup my investment

Unless I can sell carbon credits

The state is out of money. The fed is out of money. Let's spend a bunch of money putting GPS in everyone's cars. How long will it take for this program to pay for its self before it starts actually making tax revenue.

I believe we should have a state and federal tax on gas paid at the pump. This is the way to curb global climate change and build public infrastructure.

LA should build light rail along the 101, 405, 10, and 605 freeways, and just watch how public use of public transportation changes! Most people do not work "downtown" but in the South Bay, the industrial zones, and we need that investment.

The idea of a milage tax is insane. I just heard arguments that we should all sell our homes, move close to our place of work to cut travel etc. etc. That is a a 1950's idea. I live in a two worker family, and we work 20 miles apart. I bet most people are in a similar situation. Who thought of this?

Ron

I can't believe I am hearing this proposal. I completely agree with your previous caller that this is an issue of class. Regardless of whether or not you want to own a home, it is more expensive and lower quality of living to live in a city. As an employer myself, I would not like to have my pool of eligible candidates for employment dwindle because they cannot afford to commute to work.

I am happy to pay higher gas taxes, because it is a pay-per-use kind of tax that everyone would be subject to, but a per mile tax will penalize people that are already compromising by spending so much time on the road. Believe me, we don't want to do it.

As an aside, I would happily take the Metro to work, if it wouldn't triple my commute time! Let's change public transportation before we entertain such ridiculous proposals.

I'm very sorry to hear that California is looking at this tracking system, which is what it is, supposedly to add revenue. I also find it interesting that this is being wholeheartedly supported by the committee as California is issuing IOUs instead of payment. If California makes installing a GPS mandatory, my husband and I, and our three children, will leave this state and find a place where Big Brother is less interested in our business.

Taxing mileage is grossly unfair. I live in NoHo and after many months of searching, got a job in Woodland Hills. Moving closer to my job would have meant breaking my lease, which I couldn't do without a big financial penalty. But let's suppose I did move there. Truth is, after nearly 7 months on the job, the business closed. I got another job, this time in NoHo. If I'd moved to Woodland Hills, I'd be back in the same boat. Also, what kind of impact is this going to have on people who volunteer, visiting homes and nursing facilities, etc. They're being penalized for their good work.
This thing hasn't been well thought out - typical kneejerk government response.

There is one question that no one has seemed to ask yet and that is who exactly would profit from the massive production and installation of these GPS systems? Of course the reality is that everyone benefits from well planned infrastructure either directly or indirectly. It's absurd to not only penalize those with fuel efficient cars, but to add the administration of installation on everyone.

I drive a lot of miles for work and I do my fair share of snowly deteriorating the roadways and such and poluting even on my most fuel efficient vehicle which is an small kawasaki motorcycle which I get 50+ mpg on. My other vehicles are a geo metro and a toyota tercel.

Fuel efficient or not, gps units or not, havin listened to the show and read the comments I have to say I'm not sure how to think about the people who are whining about being treated unfairly just because they have a hybrid vehicle.

Hybrids (most notably the prius) typically get WORSE fuel milage on the freeway than large V8 engines powering those absurd SUVs. Downwards of 16mpg. They weren't designed for the freeway, they were designed to be fuel efficient for in-city driving. Having driven a prius when it was new a couple of years ago on a 400 mile trip (5 freeway... its flat!), I never got the average fuel milage above 19mpg, at between 65 and 70mph with 2 people in the car. In contrast, we did the same trip in an XL7 (full size suv) with 3 people in the vehicle and packed full of travel gear and averaged about 25mpg doing 80+ and the computer was continuing to update the readings the further we drove. Smart cars are better than most hybrids but still fall short of being very efficient. They average less than 30mpg because they have a very big engine and an automatic (semi-auto) transmission. My point is, hyrbid or not, it sounds like we'll all get treated equally and have to pay the piper if it truely is MILAGE based.

Now on the gps unit? I do think that is a little bit overkill. Too close to big brother watching us in my opinion. I would accept a wheel sensor or some other distance measurement device that does not rely on locational tracking, but simply tracking distance.

Whichever the case may be, how will the monitoring for people who drive out of state or less traveled freeways or someone who only drives a vehicle in-town be handled? Who is going to be there to audit what data is valid and invalid? It sounds to me like a fix with more problems/complications and costs than the fix will make up for!

Thanks for a wonderful discussion.

Regards,
David

If anyone thinks adding any form of gasoline tax will solve problems, consider this:
The sales tax on gasoline which is on top of the cost plus state tax plus federal tax was enacted for only 6 months to pay for bike trails. That was in 1972! Where has all of that money gone?

Larry, Larry, Larry!!!

There are 6.5 billion of us now. Probably 9 billion by 2050. Most of us starving or sickened by an overcrowded planet.

If we had seriously considered and started working on our problems, say back in '63 when Barry Commoner, a scientist and one of the first to actively use the word environment, pointed out that " In 800 years the mass of human flesh on Earth will be expanding outward from the surface at the speed of ligh at the current rate of population growth." we might have had a chance. Of course his comment was reductio ad absurdum but you get the point.

Another bright fellow ( I didn't get the name said recently on KPFK's Aware show) after much talk re: the state of the environment and population that the current population of the planet is about 6.5 billion and looks like it may grow to as much as 9 billion in 50 years. When asked what he believed the sustainable carrying capacty of Earth might be he said, very quietly, a half a billion.

Have you ever met a politician, economist or business person who doesn't use the term "growth" as a good and necessary thing?

Can you understand that the term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron in our world?

I've got an electric scooter for local transport. Yes, one of those things soon to be powered by "CLEAN COAL". Seemed like a good idea at the time. Think about it.

Well, to paraphrase and in the spirit of "Bob and Ray" : Eat the Children (a soon to be incorporated for profit foundation)

Your earnest effort to comprehend the day to day issues of the environment, finance and the human condition are admirable but a century too late.

To the extent that humanity is aware of these issues they are still trying to "get rich by selling short".

Life Cycles of organisms - all organisms will strive to expand their numbers ad infinitum limited only by their environment.

Those of us who use the roads, should pay for the roads, period. But why is it that the government's answer to any problem is more complication. A perfectly good revenue raising system already exists, the fuel tax. I go to the pump, I pay for my fuel, I'm done. I've also paid my taxes, no complication, no paperwork. I don't have to pay for a GPS (one way or another we WILL be paying for it), install a GPS, maintain a GPS and pay a second time. If we aren't covering the cost, then raise the tax. As cars get more efficient and/or people start using more mass transit the fuel tax should go up to compensate, that is only fair.

I am also a licensed private pilot and the government is trying to do the same thing to pay for the aviation infrastructure by inventing a new complicated system, when again, a perfectly good revenue raising method already exists, a tax added to every gallon of aviation fuel. All of the pilot's organizations are in agreement, raise the tax if you need to, but don't make things needlessly more complicated.

Of course the money that we are paying in gas taxes now should be going straight to the transportation system, which they are not.

One last question to ask, who will be the biggest benefactor to this proposed GPS system? The company holding the contract for the GPS system with the government. Think about it.

So, are we trying to get people out of their cars or into their cars?? Whilst the Secretary was talking about the High Speed train project he was commenting on how much was going to be poured into building new roads...
There is a farcial contradiction of interests at work in this country, whilst the Europeans and Asians are working towards public transport and the reduction of the role of the car in America we are completely enslaved to the motorcar/oil as we pour billions into the industry and wherever we can try and persuade people to ditch their old car and get a NEW ONE....The government in its desperate bid to please everyone is going to build something for everyone...can no-one see the stupidity of this? The Secretary this morning completely contradicted himself. Not to mention a Governor (who has the largest carbon footprint of any politician on the planet by the way..) who acts like he is running a third world country.
One last thing..a high speed link between Victorville and Las Vegas(?) Really usefull. Lets get people with lots of disposable income to the casinos even quicker, its nothing to do with transporting the working public from city to city for work, commerce or other more serious needs. Can you see the French on launching their new high speed train making their first line from Cannes to Monte Carlo..the guillotine would have been wheeled out at the mere suggestion..Get a grip everyone...

Space Kimchi,

Toyota, Daimler, GM, and Hyundai have all said that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be arriving at dealerships by 2015. And as I'm sure you know, Honda has already started leasing the FCX Clarity to a few customers in Southern California.

Oil companies are not for hydrogen. If they were, there would be a lot more than 60 hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. And only a few of these were financed by oil companies. On the other hand, there are 170,000 gasoline stations.

Plug-in battery vehicles will not meet the needs of mainstream customers. Plug-in battery advocates focus on the efficiency argument to distract attention away from all of the problems with plug-in battery vehicles. And there is no shortage of wind and solar power in the U.S. It can be used to make hydrogen.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the only technology that can be scaled up globally and meet customer needs for driving range, fueling time, cost when mass produced, extreme weather performance, and trunk and passenger space.

How many people are going to buy a very small car with no trunk that only gets 100 miles of range in optimal conditions?

Public transportation should be utilized to the fullest extent. But it is simply not practical for most of the U.S.

Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog