http://www.theolympian.com/2012/01/10/1943220/gregoire-offers-new-36b-transportation.html

Gov. Chris Gregoire is beginning her state-of-the-state speech to a full state House and Senate audience this morning. The full prepared text is here, and it restates her call for the Legislature to send voters a tax referendum that raises the sales tax by a half-penny per dollar purchase to pay for schools and health care programs.


But the big news item is the 10-year transportation plan valued at $3.5 billion that she says will create 5,500 jobs a year. She would accomplish it with fees, specifically a $1.50 per barrel fee on oil produced in Washington.
"In addition to small fee increases, I will ask the Legislature to pass a modest $1.50 fee on every barrel of oil produced in Washington. Our oil companies are getting all the profit and leaving us with the bill. We can do better," Gregoire says in the speech.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/01/10/19...l#storylink=cpy

The oil companies will increase their prices to compensate for the increased tax on oil, passing the cost onto us. they will maintain the same margins, and their profits won't be affected.

The next issue is does she mean oil "produced" or oil "refined" in Washington? The WA DNR says that last oil production in Washington ceased in 1962. (Only source I found, so I may be incorrect, but the US DOE doesn't list Washington as an oil producing state)

If it is "oil refined", Cherry Point alone will send $125 million per year to the state, or there about, and then there are the other refineries around the state.

More

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017199652_roadsmoney10m.html

$1.50 per barrel is less than three cents a gallon.

The roads need maintaining. We need new ones. Some projects need to be finished such as the west end of 520.

What specific funding source would you propose if the Gov's proposal is unacceptable?

The real discussion, and it is one that few want to engage in, is an honest discussion as to what government should do and how it will be paid for.

What bill are the oil companies leaving the state?


Our oil companies are getting all the profit and leaving us with the bill.

You missed my point entirely. I don't have an issue so much as far as paying for roads, and so on. I have an issue with her lack of logic, or her flat out mis-representing the situation.


"Our oil companies are getting all the profit and leaving us with the bill. We can do better," Gregoire says in the speech. Translation: They're getting rich so support me and together we'll screw them. (As she laughs to herself, "I bet they'll fall for that.") Am I reading that wrong?

Do you see anything illogical here in her statement above? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts think that this additional gas tax of 3.6 cents per gallon (a barrel is 42 US gallons) will impact the oil refiner's bottom line? The effective tax downstreamed to the consumer will go from about $0.375 cents a gallon to over $0.41. She is selling it completely differently, and is being rather disingenuous about it.

Who really is going to pay this bill? You and I will. Why not just say that?

She shouldn't have given the gas tax to the Tribes, so she's making up for it with another tax.

I think I'm gonna buy a couple teams of horses. .. ... at least I can eat em if I have to... .. .

Hang on to the tribal gas tax thing. AUTO with former Justice Talmadge lead goes before the State Supreme Court the 12th ( the Justices fast tracked it ) on the constitutional violations as to who / what / where gas tax can go.

On the same note the Fed courts agreed you can not tax the tribe at the pump so the most of the other states tax the gas at the refinery so tribal and non tribal both pay, just can not do it at the pump. Our sweet heart of a Governor was perfectly aware of this when she did the compacts.

I'm very aware of that, and had an informed conversation with a beneficiary of her actions yesterday.

The Tribes are allowed to use those funds for "vital government services" per the compact signed, which is different from the State Constitution which says gas taxes = roads only (simplified).

Small tribes with small gains from the tax revenue should be able to have no issue demostrating the application of $300,000 of gas taxes towards tribal services of $4 million or more. The issue will be for the large tribes with $10 million in tribal services, but $14-15 million in gas tax revenues.

Interesting subject.

Andy,

I used to kind of know Gregoire, before she was an elected official. She's not delusional; she's political. Of course being political includes being, or at least saying, disingenuous and duplicitous things. She is more than smart enough to know that a tax at the refinery level (yeah, WA doesn't produce oil, but there are five refineries that I can think of) will simply roll downhill to consumers. Oil barons didn't get rich and stay rich by absorbing any costs themselves.

I still want to see that 1/2 cent sales tax as a sunseted surcharge that expires unless specifically renewed by the Legislature. That is the only hope of it maybe, just maybe, going away as the economy improves.

Sg

Well, I for one am worried about all of the little ticking time bombs that she will be setting in her final year in office. I just wish she had the guts to actually say what she was doing. What repercussions does she face? None. Just be honest.

That is the issue as gas tax can not be used for tribal anything besides roads and that is what the court will rule on. Tribes would like it to be a Christmas tree to spend as they see fit but I doubt it will fly that way. Oh yeah they are taking up the hijacking of the model toxic act funds at the same time. If the Gov looses both watch the crap fly as her administration has been ah, innovative in interpretation of laws where designated funds are hanging out.

My guess is the next Gov has got a major pain in the [Bleeeeep!] coming as he has to unravel these things.

Bunch of TV video about tax dollars and the compacts. http://www.autowa.org/lawsuits.html

Nice job with econ 101 and semantics 201. Refining produces new products,and volume, in that you start out with 42 gallons of crude in a barrel, and end up with 45 gallons of petroleum products.

Commodities do not generally follow strict ecnonomic demand and supply curves, especially fuel and food. That is why they adjust inflation "after" fod and energy." People will cut back, but not eliminate its use all together.

There are two parts to fuel costs at the pump. #1 is the fluctuation in the commodity market (production costs are already factored in). #2 is the cost of related taxes and tarriffs.

There is no instance of collusion, as there is no price fixing. If you increase the cost of the gallon of fuel by 3.3-3.7 cents through taxation, which is easily measured and calculated, the companies WILL pass that on through to the consumer. That is reality. Adding a new fixed cost will get passed on to us. When the gas tax was added at the ditributor level it was passed on to us. Want to tell me how this will actually not be passed onto the consumer?

On Everybody Except The Tribes And some nitwit here posted, ". . . Oh, it's just another 3 cents per gallon" What a doofus, or did you forget the last fuel tax the Wicked Witch of Olydom imposed on us a couplke of years ago??? That fuel tax increase brought Washingttons on par with Hawaii. It's pretty bad when the Socialists South of the Columbia River are less than Washingtoons And here I thought those Shinney New TOLLS were supposed to redo the Seattle Libtard highways and byways.

I posted here not long ago how our refineries are now exporting gas to foreign countries keeping our gas prices artificially inflated. This is probably what your "she devil" is talking about. So now refineries ramp up to sell overseas when demand is high overseas, ensuring we do not see a glut and have magic break downs when demand drops. It'd be nice if we could pin a per barrel tax on only the overseas side. That or take over the refineries which would be smarter.

I would say more manipulation of gas prices is more correct than collusion and price fixing. My turn to use semantics. Looks like we agree on a number of items.

As of right now, I don't think we know exactly what her plan is on this, but I'm pretty sure that it will only mean one thing to us, an increase in gas prices.

More

Edit: Almost forgot. AUTO represents the INDEPENDANT gas dealers not the oil companies or their stores and is at the top their most disliked list.




To: All AUTO Members


Re: Press release sent statewide today to media contacts and to all members of the WA Legislature


For Immediate Release- January 10, 2012

As the public is asked to pay tolls and increased taxes, the Supreme Court considers highway tax “refunds” to tribes

On January 10, 2011 Governor Gregoire addressed the new session of the Legislature and suggested the public be asked to pay an increase in the sales tax. In addition to the recently imposed tolls on 520, she requested the Legislature to ask the public to pay an increase in gas taxes, tolls, and other fees to pay for other new highway and transportation projects.

This Thursday, January 12th at 1:30 in the Temple of Justice in Olympia, the Washington State Supreme Court will consider a constitutional challenge to Governor Christine Gregoire’s authority to give millions of dollars in state highway funds to numerous Washington tribes while simultaneously advocating for more highway revenue from Washington citizens.


The controversy originated from a long running dispute between the state and the tribes over collection of gas taxes at tribal operated stations. A ruling by a judge in 2006 prohibited the state from collecting gas taxes at the pumps on reservations. In response, the Legislature passed a bill the next session that moved the collection of the tax to wholesalers off the reservations. Since the US Supreme Court had just ruled that states could collect the tax off the reservation from any purchaser, regardless of tribal status, tribes no longer had any claim to exemption from the tax.


Facing pressure from the tribes and Governor Gregoire, legislators included a provision in the 2007 legislation that granted the Governor vaguely-worded authority to enter into “compacts” with the tribes to resolve any further disputes. Even though it was clear by the time the bill passed that the tribes were not exempt from gas taxes under any state law or federal treaty and the tribes were not actually paying the gas taxes, the Governor quickly used the authority in the bill to negotiate compacts in closed-door meetings with tribal representatives.

Since 2007, the Department of Licensing has given over $90 million in state gas tax proceeds as “refunds” to Tribes, who by and large do not pay the taxes in the first place.

The Governor agreed to pay the tribes approximately 28 cents per gallon on every gallon sold by tribal stations. The money is paid from the motor fuel fund that holds the gas taxes paid by the citizens of the state. The tribes promised to use the money on tribal transportation projects as required by the Washington Constitution, but the compacts made it clear once the check goes into the tribes’ bank accounts, no accountability, oversight or public transparency will be provided.

When the tribes voluntarily identified where some of the money ended up, projects included enhancements to a tribal commentary, boat launch, stream habitat and administration offices that clearly are not in the realm of transportation. Tribal members unofficially report getting a check each year or a special discount of up to 35¢ per gallon off the pump price at tribal stations for their personal share of the proceeds out of the gas tax fund.


AUTO, a nonprofit organization representing motor fuel marketers, filed a suit questioning whether the Governor exceeded her authority with respect to the compacts. First, the 18th Amendment to the state Constitution requires all gas tax proceeds to be used exclusively on public roads, yet the tribes have been using the money for other purposes. The suit further objected to the Governor paying out millions from the treasury without any appropriation by the legislative branch and while doing so, granting the tribes confidentiality that blocks the public from knowing who got the public funds or how such funds were used.

Attorney General Rob McKenna filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that court rules require AUTO to name the tribes as parties. However, if the suit does name the tribes, he argued it should still be dismissed because tribes have sovereign immunity from and may not be sued.

Under McKenna’s theory, Governor Gregoire has the power to deed the Capitol Building and the entire state treasury to a tribe and no citizen in the state would have the right to seek judicial review of the transfer of such public assets.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of whether checks and balances still apply to the Governor’s giveaway of state highway funds to tribes stands in sharp contrast to the recent imposition of tolls on Highway 520. The same applies today in Olympia as elected officials in Olympia begin asking the public to pay yet another statewide increases in motor fuel taxes, vehicle license tabs, and other fees needed in part to recover the payments being made to the tribal station operators.


“The Governor and elected officials in Olympia need to stop giving away over $30 million of our gas taxes each year before it starts asking motorists to pay expensive tolls and even more at the pump and license window.” -Tim Hamilton

The Supreme Court arguments will be available for viewing either on a live webcast or at a later time on TVW by going to: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwliveplayer&eventID=2012010008C


Contact:

Tim Hamilton
Executive Director
Automotive United Trades Organization (AUTO)
Office: 360.495.4941 Cell: 360.490.1077

AUTO is a non-profit trade association that represents small businesses that operate and supply convenience stores, carwashes, and truck stops in WA (http://www.autowa.org)

Who paid for her room in the governor's mansion?

Now she's going to propose the gay marriage bill. That should give a bit of a bump to Inslee's capaign.

Nothing changes.

Rossi was the devil?

Let's just keep voting for the same people who lead us to the cliff but stop short and ask us to jump.

The wife sold her some panties and such when she worked at Victoria's Secret, so I don't think she's that, 2MANY..

No issue with the gay marriage issue either way. I just think she's getting stuff done because there is no political repercussion for her. (aka ticking time bombs) My worry is about how much she'll screw us as she leaves.

Gay marriage isn't an issue for me. I think it's held many people back from voting for the best person because many people are single issue voters.

R's=nobody has an abortion. Gays go to hell.

D's=Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.


The D platform doesn't affect me negatively in any way. I was just pointing out that she's not running again and can propose whatever it is that she thinks will help the next nominee.

I'm just happy to see you go by Poodle Smolt! I thought it was funny at the time;)

I agree Dogfish, she is delusional. It's not the tax, but the state is facing a major revenue problem and clearly the state has to re-think it's priorities and design goverment around the revenue reality. To be talking about big road projects now is crazy. Fix the revenue issue first; which has to be a combination of re-thinking state services and finding a revenue system that is going to support it well into the future.

I don't know her personally, but have been involved with bills and conferences with the Governor. She is a sharp lady; but as Salmo mentioned she is first a politician and a politician and thinking right doesn't always go together.

I think what you meant to say was the demand curves for fuel and food are inelastic, meaning that even if their prices go way up, there is little change in demand. It's the same demand/supply curves, the demand curve is just very steep.

Contrary to what you might think, "semantics" can be very important in discussions about economics.

Fuel is typically left out of the price index because the inflation in oil is already reflected in the inflation of the goods that ARE used in the calculation. What their justification is for leaving food out of the cpi calculation, I can't tell you.

I don't disagree.

Alot of politicians claim that taxes on goods will be absorbed by the manufacturers--- make less profit. Gregoire has always worked in the public sector since college graduation, meaning her paychecks have always been paid with tax receipts.

Clueless, or telling the sheep what they want to hear?

We have the government that we have chosen. If we didn't like what they were doing, we would vote them out.

She is not delusional. She knows exactly how the fee will get pushed along to the consumer. This type of thing is done by almost all bureaucrats at one time or another. Since CG has been a bureaulifer, this practice of letting someone else deliver the bad news has become NOP, and completely natural.

I see this all the time where a gov't employee tells Joe Landowner that "All you need to do is have your consultant fill out these forms, and submit this report and this project will be a go." They leave it up to me to tell them that the forms and report cost $30k, and the process is about 3 years long. Even though they (gov't employee) know that the news they are giving is bad, they make it sound good so that they do not get the immediate backlash.

Like I said, NOP.

What I can't understand is that Portland can have Max that goes from town to town and into Portland, and we get light rail that is 50' in air for about 10 miles.. All for about the same cost. Seattle is so far behind transportation issuses. Or should I say Washington..

The most important question will likely be answered by Lt. Gov. Brad Owen: Is the charge a fee or a tax?
There’s a legal difference. Fees typically are supposed to benefit whoever is paying them, while taxes can have a more general purpose. State lawmakers can raise fees with majority votes, but under voter-imposed handcuffs, they need to find supermajorities for taxes or ask voters for their endorsement.
Democrats argue it’s a fee. Gregoire’s office said oil companies benefit from a transportation system that keeps drivers on the roads and ferries in the water, all using gas and oil. They also contribute to pollution, and some of the money would go to clean up stormwater.
“Our oil companies are getting all the profit and leaving us with the bill,” Gregoire said.
The oil industry said it’s a tax. There’s no tie between a barrel of oil and how much the state’s highway system is being used, they say, especially when about half of the oil they refine is headed out of state.
“We expect that there will be a coalition of folks that see this as in essence a hidden gas tax, and that we’ll continue to oppose it as such,” said Dave Fisher, a consultant for the Western States Petroleum Association.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/01/...l#storylink=cpy

From a E mail this morning.

Just went on with John Carlson on KOMO radio and trashed Gregoire and her proposal for a $1.50 per barrel oil tax on refiners to fund transportation projects. I explained how the tax may be collected from the oil cos but will be paid by the consumer at the pump. Explained how the taxes are line-itemed on delivery invoices to dealers and to claim the refiners would pay it is like claiming Walmart is the one who pays the sales tax rather than the consumer even though its passed down clearly on the cash register receipt. Also said that if a salesman tried this scam to sell a used car he'd be prosecuted for false advertising. Raised the issue of the payments to the tribes when asked where all the money was going.

John Carlson...bats about zero and should have been tarred, feathered and run out of town eight years ago. Amazing anyone listens to that idiot.

Its a tax. No really, it is a tax.

Got pics of the daughter? I shook her hand last year at a bill signing. She would qualify as a spinner, in her day.

lol

More & a link to watch the arguements if you wanted.

January 12, 2012

To: All AUTO Members

Re: AUTO v- Gregoire (tribal motor fuel tax compact suit)

At 1:30 this afternoon the state's highest court heard AUTO's appeal of a lower court's ruling dismissing our suit challenging the fuel tax compacts negotiated behind closed doors between Governor Gregoire and 14 Indian Tribes in WA state. The primary issue heard today was whether or not AUTO or any other citizen has the legal right to object to any deal of any kind that a Governor may cut with a tribe.

Representing AUTO was former Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge who led off the proceeding. Nearly immediately one could tell this issue had the court attention. The Justices fired question after question on the technicalities of the law at Talmadge who responded calmly and quickly to each question. Regardless of the outcome, it seemed obvious that this isn't going to be an easy decision for the court.

When it was the state's turn, the Assistant Attorney General was again swamped with questions. The Justices repeatedly stated their concern that the state's position was one wherein the Governor could start handing out gifts from the treasury to the tribes (which is exactly what AUTO believes happened) and no citizen could even object or have a legal remedy even if the Governor violated the state constitution. Several times, seemingly grasping for a way to explain the state's position, the AAG took a moment to compose his thoughts. It seemed to some observers that he appeared reluctant to admit that the state was actually making such a claim.

The most encouraging part of the hearing came when several justices commented on how disturbing it was to them that a Governor could not be held accountable for any illegal or unconstitutional action taken long as it was connected to a treaty tribe. Clearly, AUTO's key point had came across to the justices and Talmadge finished the hearing by sharing how he personally was also extremely alarmed by a rule of law where no citizen could object even if the Governor took "a bribe" to enter into illegal or unconstitutional compacts with a tribe.

A decision is expected to be published sometime this summer. Those that want to view the hour long hearing can do so by simply clicking on this link:

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012010008C

I was looking in the papers and on their websites to see if anyone had an article on the hearing. There wasn't; thanks for posting it.

Watched it. The part that disturbs me is that the State actually says that even in the case of a bribe from the Tribe received by the governor, or any other eggregous action on her part, to enter into a compact, that the citizens of the State effectively have no recourse against the compact because of the issue of sovereign immunity.

I have an idea. How about a constitutional amendment that the State not be allowed to bargain away income streams of the State, or income sources, in favor of the Tribes, without a simple majority of the voters approving the compact? Also, any compact with the state would be negotiated with a limited waiver of soveriegn immunity applied to each compact, AND, that each compact signed between the Tribes and the state have a mandatory review/renewal period of 10 years. In place of those wishes (which would never happen), any compact signed between the State and the Tribes would be subject to review by the Washington State Supreme Court prior to going into effect. I believe this last option is entirely possible and legally enforceable. It would provide a review of the end result prior to any possible harm to the residents of the State.

In every single contract that I enter into with a Tribe, we don't ever sign any paperwork until they have signed the limited waiver of soveriegn immunity. The State certainly has the ability to put this into place if I have the ability to put this in place.

For those who might think that I fall all over myself for Tribes and their rights, you are wrong.

Some more links

KOMO television out of Seattle did another "Problem Solver" that was again outstanding. If you want to see the approximately 3 minute video of the broadcast last night simply click on: http://www.komonews.com/news/problemsolv...b=video&c=y

Mike Lindblom of the Seattle Times attended the hearing and published: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017225993_fueltax13m.html

The Seattle P.I. posted a story from Vedder on its web site: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Supreme-Court-hears-challenge-over-gas-tax-2503376.php
I am also doing numerous spots on talk radio today.

Got the court's attention! And yes to what Dogfish wrote.

Sg