Yay! We get to hear from Bill and Hillary again!
The Los Angeles Police Department shows there is some sanity in California.
And, speaking of California, they think they may have a solution when it comes to dealing with their budget deficits.
News
Here is some news:
- Bill and Hillary Clinton have dropped their opposition and agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
- Every federal immigration officer on the ground in Minneapolis will now have a body camera following two recent fatal shootings of anti-ICE agitators.
- Christopher Nolan is doing a movie about “The Odyssey,” Homer’s epic poem, and he has cast Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy — the face that launched a thousand ships, the most beautiful woman in the Greek world.
Uh, Yeah!
According to the New York Post:
Federal agents who defy California’s new mask ban won’t face enforcement from the LAPD, the police chief said.
“It wasn’t well thought out,” Chief Jim McDonnell said in a press conference Friday.
“The reality of one armed agency approaching another armed agency to create conflict over something that would be a misdemeanor at best or an infraction, it doesn’t make any sense,” McDonnell added.
The law, known as the “No Secret Police Act,” mandates visible identification and permits violations to be cited as misdemeanors. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law, it took effect January 1st. The Trump administration has challenged the statute, arguing it interferes with federal operations.
The Department of Justice is challenging the “No Secret Police Act” saying it’s unconstitutional, and creates risks for agents, including harassment.
Exceptions to the law include masks permitted for undercover operations, medical reasons, or specific protective gear, such as tactical helmets.
You’ve Got to be Kidding?!
According to the New York Post:
California drivers and Republican legislators are furious over a Democrat-led proposal that could see motorists taxed for each mile they drive.
With the state staring down a budget deficit in the billions and more Californians switching to electric vehicles, Democratic lawmakers are searching for new ways to shore up declining gas tax revenue.
Californians pay the second-highest gas price in the nation behind only Hawaii. In January, the average price was $4.23 per gallon, according to the American Automobile Association.
On Thursday, state legislators advanced Democrat Lori Wilson’s bill, AB 1421, which would direct the California Transportation Commission and the state Transportation Agency to continue studying options for a mileage-based tax, rather than implementing one.
Opponents of the proposal were out in force Saturday, with activists gathering at Cal Expo in Sacramento to collect signatures opposing a raft of new Democratic tax measures, including a potential mileage charge.
Under concepts outlined in the study, the tax could range from two to nine cents per mile. With California drivers logging roughly 11,400 miles a year on average, a mileage charge could cost motorists between $228 and $1,026 annually.
Beyond the price tag, critics warn that tracking drivers’ mileage could be both logistically complex and deeply invasive.
In its current form, the bill would commission a report examining equity concerns for low-income drivers who often travel longer distances in less fuel-efficient vehicles, analyze the potential impact of a weight-per-mile fee on commercial and electric vehicles, and outline regional and statewide options for implementing a road usage charge.
California has a $73 billion deficit according to the Hoover Institute.
(a) State funding for transportation comes mainly from six different fuel taxes and vehicle fees dedicated to specific purposes. These sources generated about $14,000,000,000 in the 2023–24 fiscal year.
(b) The gasoline excise tax is by far the largest of these charges. The tax is 57.9 cents per gallon and generated about $7,800,000,000 in fiscal year 2023–24.
(c) California relies on gasoline and diesel tax revenue to build and maintain its highways, public transit, and other transportation infrastructure, which is a problem in a state aggressively pushing a transition to electric vehicles (EVs).
(d) Since the passage of Senate Bill 1 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), gas taxes have begun to lag, in large part due to Californians adopting lower emission vehicles. The state’s climate goals, including the switch to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and reductions in statewide per capita vehicle miles traveled for light-duty vehicles, are projected to reduce fuel tax revenues in the coming years.
(e) California’s gas revenues have steadily increased over the last decade as lawmakers hike tax rates, but that curve is projected to turn downwards as more drivers switch to EVs.
(f) Californians have purchased more than a million EVs in the last four years, according to the California Energy Commission. Those numbers will continue to increase as a result of the state’s mandate for all new car sales to be ZEVs by 2035.
(g) The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects revenues will decline by as much as $2,000,000,000 annually by 2030 and up to $4,000,000,000 annually by 2035. A study by the Mineta Transportation Institute estimated a reduction in revenues of between $4,800,000,000 and $12,100,000,000 by 2040.
(h) The California Transportation Commission projects that the state will collect $31,300,000,000 less in fuel excise tax revenue due to increased fuel efficiency and the proliferation of ZEVs over the next decade.
(i) Collectively, various states and the federal government have undertaken research and exploration of possible revenue mechanisms to supplement or replace the fuel excise tax.
(j) In 2014, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1077 (Chapter 835, Statutes of 2014) which created the Road Usage Charge Technical Advisory Committee (RUC TAC). The RUC TAC was charged with the development and evaluation of an authorized pilot program to assess the potential for a mileage-based financing mechanism for California’s roads and highways as an alternative to the fuel excise tax system.
(k) In 2017, California completed the SB 1077 pilot program, which enrolled more than 5,000 vehicles that reported more than 37,000,000 miles over a nine-month period. Importantly, the collection of revenue was simulated in the pilot program through mock invoices and payments.
(l) The final pilot program report found further testing of the revenue collection processes should be the next step to undertake in order for California to evaluate revenue flows and identify challenges, efficiencies, and synergies for possible road user charge implementation.
(m) Presently, the state is analyzing the financial impacts of a road user charge on supercommuters, as well as additional engagement with rural communities and tribal nations to better inform constituencies on a road charge concept.
(n) The benefit of a road use charge is that it could be structured to provide gas tax relief to low-income drivers.
(o) Implementing a road use charge in a way that appeals to both low- and moderate-income households and urban and rural communities across the state’s diverse geography will require significant education, negotiation, and compromise.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/31/us-news/california-drivers-are-a-step-closer-to-paying-per-mile-tax/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=capost&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#Echobox=1769911977
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1421/id/3137105