CAR TAX UNFAIRLY BURDENS STATE'S MOTORISTS.

Byline: George Runner Local View

TRANSPORTATION is an indispensable part of our lives in California. In fact, pundits are fond of drawing attention to our state's car culture. Unfortunately, that term only conjures up images of crowded L.A. freeways and smog-filled valleys. Those of us in the Antelope Valley are just as dependent on our cars as people in Los Angeles. The reality is that most of us are extremely dependent upon our cars as part of our livelihood.

Californians have grown increasingly concerned in recent years as the cost of operating our motor vehicles has gone up dramatically. For the past two decades, the state Legislature has been adding little taxes and regulations on our cars and trucks a bit at a time. Now the cost of driving a car goes far beyond the cost of buying a vehicle and gasoline. According to the California Motor Car Dealers' Association, in the 1990s alone more than $1.3 billion in new taxes have been imposed on the state's motorists.

Since 1935, taxpayers have been paying a personal property tax on cars, levied at the time of registration. This tax used to pay for the state's transportation needs but has since become a primary source of revenue for our local governments. In 1991 the car tax was increased substantially, adding about $60 to the vehicle licensing fee of the average car. Now the average tax per vehicle is about $185.

It's easy to see why operating a motor vehicle has become so costly. For a family struggling to make ends meet, each new expense is a painful pinch. On the other hand, any relief in this steady assault on our essential personal transportation is welcome. Now that the state of California is in the midst of an economic surplus of revenue, this relief is both possible and reasonable.

Assembly Republicans have been pushing a complete repeal of the car tax once and for all. Under this proposed law, more than one-third of the cars - the ones with the lowest value, owned by the poorest Californians - would be exempt from the car tax the first year. Their owners would pay nothing more than a flat $30 registration fee from then on. Once our proposal is fully implemented, the car tax will be abolished and every owner in the state will pay only the $30 fee.

In addition, Gov. Pete Wilson has proposed rolling back 75 percent of the car tax over the next three years, with a 50 percent reduction accomplished in the first year alone. In his recently released revision of his 1998-99 budget proposal, Wilson indicates that state revenues are running $1 billion over the revenues projected as recently as January. Why shouldn't our residents receive some of their hard-earned money back, instead of the government consuming more and more for questionable welfare programs?

Will anyone be hurt by this tax cut? Not the way it is proposed. To begin with, the state of California is looking at a surplus of more than $4 billion this year. Part of that money would go a long way toward offsetting lost car tax revenues. At present, most of the money collected from the car tax goes to local government. Both the Assembly Republican proposal and the governor's proposal call for a backfill to local governments from sales tax revenues to offset the abolished tax.

In addition, Assemblyman Tom McClintock has introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 45, which would protect these local government funds. As a former mayor and councilman, I understand the need to protect local government revenue streams from the greed of the state during future bad economic times. That is why local government officials must fight for constitutional protection of replacement revenues and their current property tax revenues as well.

However, what local governments should not do is stand between residents and a tax cut when the state clearly can afford to give them one - and ought to.

That's not to say there won't be whining and hand-wringing from career bureaucrats over abolishing the car tax. It happens every time a new tax cut is proposed. We abolished the personal property tax in 1935, and our state not only survived but also prospered on an unprecedented scale in the years that followed. In 1978 we slashed our state's outrageous property taxes. Despite the predictions of doom and gloom, the decade that followed was one of the most prosperous our state has ever experienced.

We can and must abolish the car tax now.

We use our cars to get to and from work, to drive our children to school, and in many areas we can't even buy food or medicine without a working car or truck. As was the case 100 years ago, personal transportation is essential. Local government officials are appropriately concerned about their future revenues, and we have addressed that concern. However, having recognized that, if the Legislature won't abolish the car tax, we'd certainly be justified in remembering that in the next election.