(Jan. 8, 2010)

As had been widely rumored for weeks, the 2010-11 State Budget proposal released today by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger includes an elaborate scheme designed to circumvent recent court rulings that outlawed ongoing diversions of state funding dedicated to public transit.

In a lawsuit originally filed by the California Transit Association over funding raids perpetrated in the 2007-08 budget agreement, the Third District Court of Appeals ruled last June that diversions from the Public Transportation Account (PTA) to fill non-transit holes in the General Fund violated a series of statutory and constitutional amendments enacted by voters via four statewide initiatives dating back to 1990. Administration officials appealed that ruling to the State Supreme Court, which subsequently rejected the appeal, allowing the appellate court ruling to stand.

Rather than comply with the courts, Schwarzenegger’s plan would eliminate the sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels and replace a portion of that revenue source with an increase in the excise tax on fuels, none of which would be allocated to transit. Instead of diverting money from the PTA, the proposal would remove the funding stream that is supposed to flow into the PTA in the first place, effectively eliminating state funding for transit.

The scheme supposedly maintains transportation funding at the same levels as the current year’s budget, which zeroed out funding for public transit operations. Administration officials also claim the plan provides relief for California families through a net reduction of taxes paid at the gas pump.

“Once again, the Governor offers shell games instead of solutions, and transit riders in California again suffer the consequences,” lamented Joshua Shaw, the transit association’s Executive Director. “The Governor wants to disguise this as some sort of tax relief for families. What about the thousands of families who depend on public transit to get to work or to go out and buy food to put on their tables, the kids who need transit to get to school, or the elderly and disabled persons who rely on transit to access medical services? I guess they don’t count.”

“We knew that the court’s ruling provided us with some reprieve, but we also knew it wasn’t beneath this Administration to seek some way to ignore the ruling,” he added. “Apparently, when you have the power to get laws changed, you don’t have any obligation to follow the ones already on the books.”

Click here to read the full press release.