Happy Motoring

[Lord Jim]

(Dale, this is another one of those where I strongly advise that you take your blood pressure medicine before you read it...I wish I'd had some....)

From the front page of today's SF Chron:

California lawmakers rack up gasoline tabs

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

While Gov. Jerry Brown struggles to erase $25 billion in red ink from the state budget by slashing everything from cell phones to staff, California lawmakers routinely rack up thousands of dollars in bills annually with a political perk unique in the country - no-limit, state-issued gasoline credit cards.

Last year, California taxpayers footed the bill for those legislative gas credit cards - $208,862 for the 80-member Assembly and $86,762 for the 40-member state Senate, according to documents requested by The Chronicle through the state's open records laws.

Legislators can fill up their cars - often taxpayer-funded vehicles - or have them maintained by swiping the card at the gas station; they then send the bills to the Assembly or Senate rules committees, which pay them.

The state-issued plastic is supposed to be used for legislative purposes only - although there is no limit specified for daily or annual spending on the card, said Jon Waldie of the Assembly Rules Committee. Waldie added, however, that "we're checking every charge that comes in" to ensure the cards are used for public, and not private, business.[ ]

Watchdog groups admit the amount of taxpayer money involved in the gas charges is not even a drop in the bucket of California's enormous deficit. But at a time when the governor is grasping for every crumb to cut, "this is a symbol," said Jamie Court, who heads Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog.
Facing constituents

"If you're making cuts for the blind, the elderly and the schoolkids, then you shouldn't have unlimited credit cards for gas," he said. "And if you don't rip up your credit card, how do you look constituents in the eye when you close their parks and take away their health care?"

Republicans said the taxpayer-issued plastic held by the Legislature, which is dominated by Democrats in both houses, also undermines Brown's argument for five-year extensions of increased rates in sales, income and some corporate taxes.

"How can Jerry Brown expect voters to hand over more of their tax money to an established elite, who seem more interested in self-enrichment than in sharing the sacrifice themselves?" [damn good question] said GOP strategist Hector Barajas. "People out there are surviving, they're not living. And these guys seem to be living large."

In response to The Chronicle's records request, the rules committees for the Assembly and Senate released total annual charges by each lawmaker for gas and vehicle maintenance; the records did not provide a detailed accounting of individual items purchased or the locations of the purchases, presumably for security purposes.

Data from the National Conference of State Legislatures show that California is alone among states in offering its entire Legislature the privilege. Most other states, according to the NCSL, either reserve such a perk for leadership or - as is common in private industry - simply reimburse for mileage.

Waldie notes that many states do not have the land mass of California, the nation's most populous state, where some legislative districts encompass huge stretches of rural territory that are not covered by regular air service.
A long drive

That may explain why the biggest user of the taxpayer-funded gas card is Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber (Tehama County), who is also vice chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee.

Nielsen - one of four Republicans who made the top five in gas-card spending in the Assembly - racked up $9,928.97 on his card last year in addition to nearly $500 on car maintenance, state records show.

With his taxpayer-funded 2009 Ford - a $39,950 Edge all-wheel-drive, which has a combined mileage of about 22 mpg, that would pay for nearly 3,000 gallons of gas, enough for more than 200 round trips from Sacramento to his home district.

Among officeholders in the Senate, Democratic state Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco had the largest bill; he charged $4,959.75 last year, plus $354.91 for maintenance.

Both Nielsen's and Yee's staffers say their bosses limit their travel almost entirely to their car and are frequently on the ground in their districts.

"It certainly doesn't surprise us that he uses more fuel," said David Read, chief of staff to Nielsen. He said the assemblyman represents the second largest geographical district in the state - one stretching from northern Yolo County to the Oregon line.

"He's up and down the district two and three times a week," said Read. "Just getting from Sacramento to the far reaches of the district is a 6-hour car trip ... and we don't have any Southwest flights to our district."

Likewise, Adam Keigwin, spokesman for Yee, said the Democrat commutes daily from the state Capitol to his district - a decision that he said enables him to hold daily and evening meetings to better serve his constituents.

Top gas card spenders in 2010

Assembly

Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber (Tehama County), $10,410.68

Isadore Hall, D-Compton (Los Angeles County), $6,739.81

Dan Logue, R-Linda (Yuba County), $6,441.70

Van Tran*, R-Costa Mesa (Orange County), $5,773.79

Brian Nestande, R-Palm Desert (Riverside County), $5,681.14

Senate

Dean Florez*, D-Shafter (Kern County), $7,070.00

Dave Cogdill*, R-Modesto (Stanislaus County), $5,941.26

Leland Yee, D-San Francisco $5,314.66

Dennis Hollingsworth*, R-Murrieta (Riverside County), $4,628.21

Sam Aanestad*, R-Penn Valley (Nevada County), $4,530.59.

*Denotes former member of Legislature.

Source: Senate and Assembly rules committees

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1C5B7TSDL

What really fries my bacon about this....is the fact that it's only now coming to light....

The Dems and the Republicans are at each other's throats about damn near everything in Sacramento, but on this one, they found true bipartisanship.....

Not one state legislator or senator....not even the most tight fisted fiscal conservatives....not one....ever came forward before this to expose this outrage.....

These leeches already get travel expenses for going back and forth to Sacramento and while the legislature is in session.....in what universe does this policy make any sense?

The taxpayers of California are footing all the gas (and apparently repair expenses as well) for these cheese wads, and since the cards are good for any car, presumably their spouses, adult children, maybe even some of their neighbors, parents, and brother-in-laws....

Why don't we just give them cards to buy unlimited free groceries while we're at it? And unlimited free clothes? Or furniture? Or household appliances? It would make just as much sense....

No wonder these no good bastards think nothing of ladeling tax upon tax and the most restrictive fuel requirements in the country that have resulted in the price of gas for Californians being consistently among the very highest in the nation....

None of the dirty SOBs pays for it....

[oldr_n_wsr]

I wonder if NY state has a similar problem?

[Lord Jim]

Well oldr according to the article, California, ever the trend setter, is unique regarding this particular form of generosity.....

[oldr_n_wsr]

And NY seems to follow Ca pretty closely.

I may have to alert Mr Cuomo.

[Scooter]

I think this is much ado about nothing, except perhaps symbolically.

Some method needs to be used to compensate legislators for the cost of using their vehicles to travel back and forth to Sacramento and around their districts. And given the number of meetings, ribbon cuttings, etc. that they are obliged to show up for most nights of the week, a few thousand in gasoline doesn't sound in any way unreasonable. It is almost certainly far easier to ensure accountability, and far cheaper, to reimburse them for gasoline receipts than it would be to reimburse them on the basis of mileage, which would typically include allowances for vehicle depreciation, insurance, etc. as well as the cost of gasoline. I can recall that when I was auditing the expenses of Ontario legislators many years ago, the amounts they were charging for mileage were far in excess of what are being touted as outrageous amounts being charged for gasoline by some legislators in California.

If this is unique among states, it is probably because other states are reimbursing based on mileage i.e. are paying their legislators more for their travel than California.

This is drop in the bucket stuff, and is being peddled to engender outrage among the masses at the expense of looking at where the real dollars are being spent.

[Lord Jim]

I agree that in the grand scheme of things it isn't a whole lot of money Scooter, but I emphatically disagree that this is somehow the most cost effective way to pay legitimate expenses. (not to mention the fact that the reason there's no depreciation involved is because the state is picking up the tab for all car repairs.) This is a system that cries out for abuse. The quaint notion that these clowns are using this exclusively for legitimate non private purposes gives me a real case of the Frank Gorshen giggles....

enough for more than 200 round trips from Sacramento to his home district.

Please....

[Scooter]

The only other realistic alternative is to reimburse them on the basis of mileage, which is going to be far more likely to result in abuse than having to produce gasoline receipts, as well as being far more expensive on a mile-for-mile basis than paying for gasoline and repairs.

Just as a basis for comparison, in one of the years I audited legislative expenses here, I calculated that it would have been cheaper to supply every MPP with a compact car every four years, and pay for the related gasoline, maintenance and insurance, than to pay them based on mileage. I will bet the farm that the experience in other jurisdictions that reimburse based on mileage is comparable.

So choose your poison.

As for the specific example you quoted, the guy comes from a geographically large district, and zigzagging all over it, in addition to travelling back and forth to Sacramento, could easily amount to 200 round trips.

[rubato]

The amount of money is tiny and probably justified.


xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Total xxxxxx persons xxx $/yr/person
House… xxxxx $206,862.00 xxx 80 xxx $2,585.78
Senate.. xxxxx $86,762.00 xxx 40 xxx $2,169.05
Combined xxx $293,624.00 xxx 120 xxx $2,446.87


That's about what I would spend on gas/yr just commuting if I didn't carpool.


Getting angry about trivia is a great way of avoiding the real issues.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Line 'em all against a wall and shoot em.

(symbolically, of course)

[Crackpot]

So paintball then?

[Econoline]

So what would be a reasonable mileage reimbursement rate, and how would you make sure that no non-business miles were reimbursed, and--probably most important--how much would that additional enforcement cost?

If I'm reading that article you posted correctly, that one legislator drove over 60,000 (66,000?) miles, and if I'm reading you correctly your real complaint is that there's currently no way to enforce--or even to determine--the number of those miles that are business-related. Let's say, arbitrarily, that half of the driving was for personal use, and ignore the question of additional auditing expenses to determine and enforce that. The 2010 IRS standard mileage rate (for income tax purposes) is 50¢ a mile, so at that rate he'd be reimbursed over $15,000 for 30,000 business miles (a whopping $30,000 for 60,000 business miles if that's the legitimate figure, which I agree it probably isn't)--versus around $10,500 in gas and repairs that he's getting now.

It sure looks to me like Scooter's conjecture--that this system might actually be saving California money, compared to other states--could well be true.

[oldr_n_wsr]

GPS monitoring. If you are not on a source to destination route on your "official duties" then those miles come off.

And home to office or visa versa is NOT official duties. As a matter of fact, they should pay back into the system for those miles.

[Scooter]

And someone is going to sit there comparing mileage logs to a GPS on a trip by trip basis in order to ensure that the address corresponds to an "official" duty (vs. the grocery store next door where the guy does his shopping)?

This is a worthwhile use of resources for the $2k which is the average annual amount that is currently charged by each legislator?

[oldr_n_wsr]

You would think the software would already be available for that kind of thing. The "pick your public official" enters his trip plan and anything not on that plan is flagged. Can't tell me this doesn't exist, private companies use it all the time.

Trucker enters his plan, GPS confirms it when he's done, anything outside of it (of course there are exceptions for accidents, road closures, etc) is not paid for, or he gets to pay for that milage/usage of the car.

[dgs49]

Parenthetically, Pennsylvania has California beat by a mile when it comes to unvouchered "expenses" being reimbursed by the taxpayers. Our Part-timers get $170/day, flat fee without receipts or anything else when they are in Harrisburg on any state business. Plus state cars and mileage/expense reimbursement, of course. And a princely retirement program...but I digress.

Even so, it might be instructive to consider even the minimal standards and safeguards that the IRS places on businesses who wish to claim mileage expenses as tax deductions. While I'm not conversant with current practices, I suspect there would have to be some record of either miles or verification that the expenses are related to business-related travel.

In any sane world, this would be classified for what it is: theft.

[Scooter]

You would think the software would already be available for that kind of thing. The "pick your public official" enters his trip plan and anything not on that plan is flagged. Can't tell me this doesn't exist, private companies use it all the time.

Trucker enters his plan, GPS confirms it when he's done, anything outside of it (of course there are exceptions for accidents, road closures, etc) is not paid for, or he gets to pay for that milage/usage of the car.

The primary difference is that these private companies already have a listing of "authorized trips" to use as a basis for comparison in the form of customer orders which they need to have for invoicing purposes. It's fine to say that someone is going to examine every legislator's GPS to see whether their travel is legitimate, but what are they going to be using as a basis for comparison? What independent authority is going to know whether that legislator really had legitimate business at the Rotary Club where he/she claims to have gone to give a speech? Is someone going to be paid to be going through the travel logs of 200 legislators to investigate the legitimacy of every 5 mile trip? Keeping in mind, of course, that the average legislator is now charging $200 per month in gasoline, which, to refer back to the trucking example you raised, is probably less than a trucker uses for a single haul.

There is such a thing as being penny wise and pound foolish, and trying to invent elaborate methods of enforcement to substitute for one in which legislators are already providing independently issued receipts, and which will almost certainly mean that legislators will be claiming greater reimbursements than they currently do (because mileage-based reimbursement costs more than just paying for gas), certainly fits in that category.

[rubato]

So what would be a reasonable mileage reimbursement rate, and how would you make sure that no non-business miles were reimbursed, and--probably most important--how much would that additional enforcement cost?

...

It sure looks to me like Scooter's conjecture--that this system might actually be saving California money, compared to other states--could well be true.

It is my position as well. $2500/yr on gas in a state where 1 county is larger than many states is too small to waste time on.

Pure trivia. Take away most of the cell phones, and cut the prison guard salaries and pensions, but this saves money.

yrs,
rubato