Four months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, Republican legislative leaders are attempting to give him some major victories. Two of the most contentious issues now awaiting votes would have particularly heavy impacts on California.
One pending measure would cancel, or at least try to cancel, California’s long-standing waiver of federal clean air rules that allows the state to impose tighter restrictions on emissions. More specifically, legislation that passed the House of Representatives — with support from several dozen Democrats — is pending in the Senate and would undermine California’s decree that no new gasoline-powered cars could be sold in the state after 2035.
Another issue is whether a $10,000 cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes on federal tax returns, passed in 2017 during Trump’s first stint as president, will remain in force, be repealed or be altered.
It has the effect of raising federal levies on taxpayers in states with high income tax rates, such as California, and is seen by leaders of those states as punitive. When the cap was enacted, California tax authorities estimated that it would cost Californians another $12 billion a year.
When the House voted a few weeks ago to cancel California’s Clean Air Act waiver — and those of other states that have followed its lead — Gov. Gavin Newsom cried foul, contending that the action illegally invoked the Congressional Review Act.
“Trump Republicans are hellbent on making California smoggy again,” Newsom said in a statement. “Clean air didn’t used to be political. In fact, we can thank Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon for our decades-old authority to clean our air.
“The only thing that’s changed is that big polluters and the right-wing propaganda machine have succeeded in buying off the Republican Party — and now the House is using a tactic that the Senate’s own parliamentarian has said is lawless.”
During his first presidency, Trump tried to cancel California’s waiver but failed. The nation’s automakers, although displeased by the 2035 decree, didn’t back Trump’s move.
That was then and this is now. Sales of zero emission vehicles, which were booming a few years ago, have flattened. California had contended that 35% of new vehicle sales in California would be zero emission cars by 2025, but purchases seem to be stuck at about 25%. Major automakers, such as General Motors, now contend that the 2035 mandate is unrealistic.
On Tuesday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune declared that the chamber would soon vote on the waiver, indicating that he has the votes, and it could garner support from some Democrats, as it did in the House. Its passage probably would touch off a legal battle.
The aforementioned deductibility of state and local taxes, dubbed SALT by the issue’s political warriors, is less settled.
“The SALT deduction has become an outsize stumbling block for Republicans trying to pass a $3.8 trillion tax proposal that would extend President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and roll back subsidies for clean energy, among other things,” the New York Times reported last week.
“A group of Republican House members, mostly from New York, New Jersey and California, have vowed to vote no on the package unless the cap, which helped pay for the 2017 cuts and expires this year, is raised or abolished. And even among the holdouts, there is dissension — something that drew attention … during a Republican caucus meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson.”
The issue cuts across party lines, pitting legislators from the most affected states against mostly red states that are largely unaffected. While Trump apparently wants to keep the $10,000 cap, the possibility of raising it, perhaps to $30,000, is kicking around. The issue remains deadlocked.
Dan Walters has been a journalist for more than 60 years, spending all but a few of those years working for California newspapers. He began his professional career in 1960, at age 16, at the Humboldt Times. CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics. He can be reached at dan@calmatters.org.
(5) comments
Thanks for another great column, Mr. Walters. It should also be noted that the One Big, Beautiful Bill will eliminate or phase out climate change and energy credits which steal from the poor and give to the “green” industrial complex while also establishing a $250 registration fee for EVs (at last report) so they pay their fair share for road repairs. And of course, outside of Congress, the Energy Department is scrapping burdensome regulations and Chevron is beginning a key oil project in the Gulf of America. Closer to home, I hear they’re starting up offshore oil operations off the coast of Santa Barbara.
When will gas powered vehicles be forced to start paying their fair share towards road repairs?
According to the Tax Foundation they never have. According to PIRG.org it's paid by National Debt.
But Republicans have never been above increasing the Nation Debt and mortgaging the country's future if a few billionaires can avoid paying their fair share.
If the same billionaires had paid their fair share since the 1980s (and Ronald Reagan), there would not be a National Deficit at all.
eGerd – TBot here. Are you auditioning to be a guest on CNN or MSNBC? You appear, more and more, to throw everything and the kitchen sink at a wall, regardless of facts, hoping something will stick. Unfortunately, not only does it not stick but it reduces the effectiveness of your POV. What do you think gas taxes pay for? High speed rail? Medicare for non-citizens? Subsidizing affordable housing? Nope, road repairs. Perhaps more effort at research or an upgrade to your al-gerd-rithm because you both appear to be hallucinating a bit too much. And please stop buying into Democrat playbook narratives. Who do you think pays the majority of state and federal income taxes? The top 20% pay over half of all income taxes. Billionaires, maybe about 25%. Based on traditional math, that is much more than their fair share. Full disclosure, I’m not a billionaire. Have a great Memorial Day holiday!
Hey, Terence... I cannot believe our supermajority, single-party legislature has missed a chance at an obvious cash grab. Why not amend the state's vehicle code to require annual registration for bicycles? That way, folks like ol' Gerdie can pay their fair share. Just a thought...
Ray is making a good point and is proving that gas tax hasn't pay for infrastructure for a long time. Basically never. A lot of the vehicle registration fees are needed for that. Those were supposed to go to DMV services, CHP, safety infrastructure and emergency services, public transit, etc.
But that wasn't enough either, that's why Regional Measure 3 was used to increase bridge tolls to pay for more car infrastructure (and a little for public transit).
But that wasn't enough either, that's why we now have increased sales tax through Measure A+W to pay for all that. That sales tax that should have gone to emergency responders was redirected to car projects.
But that wasn't enough either, that's why bicycle funding that is part of Measure A+W often goes to something called "traffic calming" installing car-infrastructure that is also bad for bicycles (speed humps, traffic circles, bulb-outs).
And public transit funding from RM3 or Measure A+W finds its way to car infrastructure like "grade separation".
Btw. Bicycle Registration is still in Redwood City's municipal code. But ask the fire chief and he will tell you they haven't carried the forms for years. It's not worth their time and effort.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.