Ballot Question 2 - Where will gas tax $ go?

I want to learn about this one before I vote....At face value it seems like a good thing that gas tax $'s go to transportation infrastructure...and supposedly that's what voting 'YES' would do...but, a couple questions come to mind:

1) Does a YES vote dedicating the $'s to transportation infrastructure include mass-transit infrastructure (ie. NJT)? Or, does a YES vote mean all the money goes to car-driving infrastructure?

2) If I vote NO where could/does the money go?

I haven't seen the question yet, but I have my own suspicions. If passed, it will probably mean that the amount of the tax raise will be dedicated to transportation, but the previous tax amount would be considered fair game for any or all schemes to divert it for any use (as has been the practice already). I hope my suspicion is wrong.

Is the question posted somewhere? Never mind. I found it.

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-information-archive-2016.html

The "interpretive statement" for voting NO didn't make much sense to me. It doesn't explain where the additional revenue will or could go if the amendment doesn't pass.

fabulouswalls said:

Is the question posted somewhere? Never mind. I found it.

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-information-archive-2016.html

I have a problem with any proposal that dedicates a specific income stream to any one use, regardless of the importance of funding that use, simply because conditions and priorities change over time. Right now, we need to focus on funding our roads and our mass transit system. Both are in poor shape and both need extensive repairs as well continued maintenance. I'm not sure where our priorities would be in the future or if these funds would produce the revenue needed to meet our transportation needs now or in the future.

I don't know the reliability of depending solely on petroleum product sales to fund transportation infrastructure. We may need more capital than petroleum product sales can provide. As petroleum product prices rise, we will likely see less petroleum product use which will result in less money being raised through this mechanism. Add to that the increasing emphasis on alternative fuels to gasoline and diesel, expanded use of electric powered vehicles, expanded use of mass transit, and it may be that funds raised in the future would be insufficient to meet future transportation needs. By establishing a dedicated source now, we could be making it that much harder to obtain money from the general fund going forward if funds collected through an increased "gas tax" were insufficient to meet transportation infrastructure needs.

I'm confused about it too. I also don't trust the system to use the money appropriately.

yahooyahoo said:

The "interpretive statement" for voting NO didn't make much sense to me. It doesn't explain where the additional revenue will or could go if the amendment doesn't pass.

fabulouswalls said:

Is the question posted somewhere? Never mind. I found it.

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-information-archive-2016.html

The responses below are simply my reading of the ballot question (and quick reads of relevant sections of the new law and state Constitution). I claim no authority.

agbarganza said:

I want to learn about this one before I vote....At face value it seems like a good thing that gas tax $'s go to transportation infrastructure...and supposedly that's what voting 'YES' would do...but, a couple questions come to mind:

1) Does a YES vote dedicating the $'s to transportation infrastructure include mass-transit infrastructure (ie. NJT)? Or, does a YES vote mean all the money goes to car-driving infrastructure?

2) If I vote NO where could/does the money go?

1. The revenue would go to the Transportation Trust Fund, which covers NJ Transit as well as the DOT.

2. The new law increasing the tax calls for dedicating the additional revenue to the TTF. A "no" vote would not change that. What it would do is leave a door open for the state to pass legislation in the future that would redirect revenue away from the TTF. (A "yes" vote would make that unconstitutional.)

mrmaplewood said:

I haven't seen the question yet, but I have my own suspicions. If passed, it will probably mean that the amount of the tax raise will be dedicated to transportation, but the previous tax amount would be considered fair game for any or all schemes to divert it for any use (as has been the practice already). I hope my suspicion is wrong.

I believe the previous tax, 10.5 cents per gallon, is already constitutionally dedicated to the TTF. (ETA: And would remain so regardless of Question 2's outcome.)

yahooyahoo said:

The "interpretive statement" for voting NO didn't make much sense to me. It doesn't explain where the additional revenue will or could go if the amendment doesn't pass.

fabulouswalls said:

Is the question posted somewhere? Never mind. I found it.

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-information-archive-2016.html

That page design, with the boxes, is confusing, but I think the YES and NO on the left are there just to show the two vote options and are not tied specifically to the box on the right. That is, the interpretive statement isn't just for voting "no"; I think it's a general statement that applies either way.

FWIW, the Koch brothers would like us to vote Yes on Ballot question 2. This from the Echoes-Sentinel:

"Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a nationwide conservative organization funded by the Koch brothers, and their New Jersey chapter released a statement sharing their opposition to using gas tax revenues for projects other than roads and bridges, saying other projects like light rail expansion would be a failure."

peridot said:

FWIW, the Koch brothers would like us to vote Yes on Ballot question 2. This from the Echoes-Sentinel:

"Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a nationwide conservative organization funded by the Koch brothers, and their New Jersey chapter released a statement sharing their opposition to using gas tax revenues for projects other than roads and bridges, saying other projects like light rail expansion would be a failure."

If anything in Question 2 would prevent using some of the revenue to expand light rail, I'm not seeing it.

I read about this and found that currently the 10.5 cents for gasoline is dedicated to the Transportation Trust Fund, but that only 10.5 cents of the 13.5 cents collected on diesel goes to the fund. This amendment would push it all into the fund, and prevent politicians from diverting it in the future. I think it is a shame that we need to restrict the options we have with revenue, but I also see that we just can't trust them to keep their hands out of the piggy bank during a financial crisis. I'll probably vote yes.

Why? Can't money come from other sources as well as a dedicated source?

joan_crystal said:

By establishing a dedicated source now, we could be making it that much harder to obtain money from the general fund going forward if funds collected through an increased "gas tax" were insufficient to meet transportation infrastructure needs.

fabulouswalls said:

Why? Can't money come from other sources as well as a dedicated source?

joan_crystal said:

By establishing a dedicated source now, we could be making it that much harder to obtain money from the general fund going forward if funds collected through an increased "gas tax" were insufficient to meet transportation infrastructure needs.

It certainly doesn't preclude additional sources of funding; but, with all the other underfunded needs competing for State funding such as schools and pensions to name just two of the more frequently discussed, with a dedicated funding source for the transportation trust fund in place, I don't see other revenue streams being added to the mix, at least not under the present set of conditions.

I agree. As needs change the law can/should be amended.

I read the ballot question and it's "Interpretive Statement" and I wonder who could have written such ambiguous and enigmatic words. I have seen such verbiage in previous ballot questions which do not fully explain or give the full impact of the cost of your vote.

It's like being asked to vote for a pig in a poke. What is the catch they are not fully explaining?

I concur with DaveSchmidt's analysis and will be voting Yes.

According to the TTFA web site, "The New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, created by Legislation, is an independent agency of state government whose sole purpose is to finance the annual capital program of the New Jersey Department of Transportation and NJ TRANSIT."

I would think that the Koch brothers would want you to vote "no," so that the funds could be diverted/targeted in such a way to ensure that we have to burn more fossil fuel to get places.

DaveSchmidt said:

peridot said:

FWIW, the Koch brothers would like us to vote Yes on Ballot question 2. This from the Echoes-Sentinel:

"Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a nationwide conservative organization funded by the Koch brothers, and their New Jersey chapter released a statement sharing their opposition to using gas tax revenues for projects other than roads and bridges, saying other projects like light rail expansion would be a failure."

If anything in Question 2 would prevent using some of the revenue to expand light rail, I'm not seeing it.

I'm really undecided on this. On the one hand, I'm generally opposed measures like balanced budget amendments, tax caps, etc that undermine the legislators responsibility and ability to make decisions on revenue and spending. OTOH, that may be too naive of a view, placing an ideal (representative government) over concrete needs (spending on infrastructure).

I'm leaning toward no, if for no other reason than that my general rule of thumb on ballot questions is to default to no until I can be convinced otherwise. The "normal" way the system is supposed to work is that we elect representatives precisely to make these decisions, so it should require a strong argument that this is an extraordinary circumstance in order to support extraordinary measures.

Normally I would agree with this, but sadly, rules that handcuff the government of NJ and give them less latitude seem to be a good thing at this point.

Either option seems it would be riddled with corruption, and the money would never really ever find its way to fixing the trains or the roads. NJ transit is just an abomination and desperately needs to be dealt with...

Enacting a constitutional provision dedicating a tax to a specific use is a HORRIBLE IDEA. The funds may be needed for other uses at a time of need. And who will determine what transportation projects will be funded and where in the state? Vote no on this question.

The political leaders of this state have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted. If the tax is for transportation, then that's where it should go. I'm voting yes. Christie shut down the tunnel project and diverted the funds to transportation projects in NJ. Now we have no tunnel and a bankrupt transportation fund.

Voting yes will allow unelected appointed bureaucrats to borrow (i.e. issue debt) based on projected estimates for pet projects without input from the legislature. Based on history the TTF committee will over estimate revenue borrow to much and in about five to eight years time we'll be where we are now. Keep in mind this is an amendment that dedicates the revenue to the Transportation Trust Fund which does not mean it will be dedicated to fixing existing infrastructure. I would prefer more legislative input into how the money is spent so I'm voting No.

yahooyahoo said:

The political leaders of this state have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted. If the tax is for transportation, then that's where it should go. I'm voting yes. Christie shut down the tunnel project and diverted the funds to transportation projects in NJ. Now we have no tunnel and a bankrupt transportation fund.

Isn't that because New Jerseyans elected Christie, though? I'm not convinced government should be structured in such a way as to protect voters from the consequences of their votes.

If the problem is "political leaders" then I'm not sure the answer is earmarking tricks. It's that we get what we vote for.

I was doing a little investigating into this today. I found this stuff.

Spadea of 101.5 is advocating #votenoontwo

http://nj1015.com/spadea-on-nj-ballot-question-votenoontwo/

However, read the legal analysis of matter by 101.5's staff:

http://nj1015.com/could-this-be-the-nj-gas-tax-version-of-brexit-ballot-question-fuels-opposition/

I'm always suspect when Guadagno advocates for anything, but she is going against Christie:

http://www.njtvonline.org/programs/njtv-news/lt-gov-guadagno-speaks-out-against-ballot-question_clip/

This is a pretty good overview:

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/10/31/backers-of-public-question-2-say-it-s-only-way-to-make-sure-gas-tax-goes-to-ttf/

These want you to vote yes:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/10/vote_yes_on_question_2_gas_tax_revenue_lockbox_edi.html

http://blog.tstc.org/2016/10/27/new-jersey-vote-yes-question-2/

Don't know if it was mentioned above, but the funding for the 911 upgrade program was also raided.

Rescue 911 Upgrade: How NJ Used 11B of your Money but Never Delivered

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/10/rescue_911_how_nj_used_11b_of_your_money_on_everyt.html

So how do you vote to defend against raiding?

breal said:

So how do you vote to defend against raiding?

Unless the amendment has some secret writing in invisible ink, it forces every cent form the gas tax to go to "transportation." The reason there's a call to vote it down is that opens the door for all manner of highway and transit improvements. It's of course the transit, specifically light rail, that's got Spadea apoplectic, because the hike shouldn't have happened (we don't have $2 billion/year in needs per him) because the voters didn't want it. Where even half that amount would be found in the general fund isn't even worth asking.

Others have noted the frequency with which supposedly dedicated funds have been diverted to plug holes in the budget. Unsurprisingly Christie has been the champion in along line of such chicanery, with his raiding of $1 billion in critically needed clean energy funds topping the list. Since our leaders have amply demonstrated they lack the courage or responsibility to be honest with us and use our money as intended, the naughty schoolkids need a lock on the gas tax cookie jar to keep it from disappearing and leading again to where are now.

How the TTF maxed out..

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/04/03/christie-s-borrowing-binge-makes-transportation-trust-fund-run-dry/

How Christie destroyed once reliable NJ Transit..

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/nyregion/new-jersey-transit-crisis.html?_r=0

I just generally think it's a very poor idea to put stuff like this in a constitution. This should be handled by legislation.

There's also this, which says vote no, but I don't know enough to judge it. He sounds awfully authoritative.

http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-guest-writers/hate-the-23-cent-gas-tax-hike-fight-it-1.1682828

dk50b said:

breal said:

So how do you vote to defend against raiding?

Unless the amendment has some secret writing in invisible ink, it forces every cent form the gas tax to go to "transportation." The reason there's a call to vote it down is that opens the door for all manner of highway and transit improvements. It's of course the transit, specifically light rail, that's got Spadea apoplectic, because the hike shouldn't have happened (we don't have $2 billion/year in needs per him) because the voters didn't want it. Where even half that amount would be found in the general fund isn't even worth asking.

Others have noted the frequency with which supposedly dedicated funds have been diverted to plug holes in the budget. Unsurprisingly Christie has been the champion in along line of such chicanery, with his raiding of $1 billion in critically needed clean energy funds topping the list. Since our leaders have amply demonstrated they lack the courage or responsibility to be honest with us and use our money as intended, the naughty schoolkids need a lock on the gas tax cookie jar to keep it from disappearing and leading again to where are now.

How the TTF maxed out..

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/04/03/christie-s-borrowing-binge-makes-transportation-trust-fund-run-dry/

How Christie destroyed once reliable NJ Transit..

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/nyregion/new-jersey-transit-crisis.html?_r=0

Thanks, dk50b. I will be voting yes, of course.

The amendment dedicates the revenue to the Transportation Trust Fund which does not mean it will be dedicated to fixing infrastructure and allows unrestricted borrowing. I would rather the spending and potential debt issuance go through a more accountable legislative process. So, of course, I'll be voting no.