WEBVTT - Beasley on Transportation Ballot (Audio)

0:00:02.560 --> 0:00:06.040
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Taking Stock with Bim Box and Kathleen

0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:10.320
<v Speaker 1>Hayes on Bloomberg Radio. Well, if you happen to live

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:14.520
<v Speaker 1>in Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Seattle, you're gonna find

0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:19.120
<v Speaker 1>something in addition to presidential choices in November, you're going

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:23.720
<v Speaker 1>to find ballot initiatives that we're going to design to

0:00:24.200 --> 0:00:28.920
<v Speaker 1>increase infrastructure spending. Here to tell us more, Stephanie Beasley,

0:00:29.040 --> 0:00:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Capitol Hill transportation reporter from Bloomberg b n A. Stephanie,

0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:35.919
<v Speaker 1>thank you very much for being with us tell us

0:00:35.960 --> 0:00:39.279
<v Speaker 1>about how ballot initiatives seem to be at least one

0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:43.760
<v Speaker 1>of the big drivers for infrastructure spending. Sure, and thanks

0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:47.320
<v Speaker 1>for having me. UM. So some lobby groups industry lobby

0:00:47.360 --> 0:00:51.120
<v Speaker 1>groups of transportation industry have been following UM. What they

0:00:51.120 --> 0:00:55.120
<v Speaker 1>say is an unusually high number ballot measures that would

0:00:55.200 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>raise revenue for transportation projects throughout the country. UM. A

0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:03.120
<v Speaker 1>lot of the by increasing taxes, majority sales taxes, but

0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:07.280
<v Speaker 1>also fuel taxes and different states and counties. UM. And

0:01:07.319 --> 0:01:09.480
<v Speaker 1>what they say is happening is that, you know, state

0:01:09.520 --> 0:01:12.280
<v Speaker 1>and local governments are trying to sort of fill in

0:01:12.440 --> 0:01:16.560
<v Speaker 1>where they feel like Congress UM hasn't done enough by

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 1>providing more federal funding for infrastructure projects, and specifically, you know,

0:01:21.640 --> 0:01:25.759
<v Speaker 1>the American Public Transportation Association has said that they are

0:01:25.800 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 1>seeing a lot of sort of desire to increase revenue

0:01:29.959 --> 0:01:35.960
<v Speaker 1>for public transit projects. Stephanie, as you report on this

0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:39.600
<v Speaker 1>this this topic, does it strike you that, uh, one

0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:42.760
<v Speaker 1>of the reasons that this these measures tend to pass

0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 1>is that if I am raising a small tax on

0:01:46.920 --> 0:01:50.200
<v Speaker 1>myself and or my neighbors, um, and the money I

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:53.080
<v Speaker 1>know then is going to go to build something where

0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 1>I live. That it's a it's something that is a

0:01:55.880 --> 0:01:58.480
<v Speaker 1>step that is is easier to fund sometimes maybe than

0:01:58.480 --> 0:02:01.440
<v Speaker 1>getting these things passed in Congress, right, I think there

0:02:01.560 --> 0:02:06.160
<v Speaker 1>is some reluctance in Congress to raise taxes. You know,

0:02:06.200 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>there have been proposals for years to raise the federal

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.480
<v Speaker 1>gas tax, and there's sort of an idea that maybe

0:02:12.520 --> 0:02:16.080
<v Speaker 1>this isn't something that is going to be attractive to

0:02:16.440 --> 0:02:19.760
<v Speaker 1>voters generally, you know, the American public, and it could

0:02:19.760 --> 0:02:22.520
<v Speaker 1>be something that would work against lawmakers at the at

0:02:22.520 --> 0:02:25.440
<v Speaker 1>the federal level, but at the local level, which you're

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:27.680
<v Speaker 1>seeing here, as you said, is a lot of um

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.400
<v Speaker 1>sort of smaller tax increases. For example, in l A County,

0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:35.360
<v Speaker 1>you have like a point five percent UH sales tax

0:02:35.560 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>proposal that they're working with, which would raise about a

0:02:38.600 --> 0:02:40.920
<v Speaker 1>hundred billion dollars over the next forty years. So this

0:02:41.000 --> 0:02:43.960
<v Speaker 1>is something really long term they're looking at, and I

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>think probably something that they feel would be palatable to

0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 1>their voters. Now, as Deephanie, I understand that at least

0:02:50.800 --> 0:02:55.000
<v Speaker 1>in two states, well in California and in Washington, on

0:02:55.040 --> 0:02:57.920
<v Speaker 1>the ballots for Los Angeles and Seattle, they've also they've

0:02:58.080 --> 0:03:02.120
<v Speaker 1>they've had a lot of oppos to these UH to

0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:06.800
<v Speaker 1>these ballot initiatives. Is this because they are uncomfortable or

0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:09.880
<v Speaker 1>do not like the actual projects, or is it because

0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:11.880
<v Speaker 1>they are opposed to the way they're going to be

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:18.520
<v Speaker 1>paid for? UM. I think whenever you talk about raising taxes, UM,

0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:21.400
<v Speaker 1>that is not something that UM, you know, people who

0:03:21.480 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 1>are fiscally conservative I tend to tend to agree with.

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:27.640
<v Speaker 1>So I think, as I talked about at the federal level,

0:03:27.720 --> 0:03:30.720
<v Speaker 1>there's been that that issue, but also at the local level,

0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:32.560
<v Speaker 1>I think you have the same thing. There are people

0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>who are just opposed to the idea of raising taxes

0:03:35.840 --> 0:03:37.880
<v Speaker 1>And where do you see you know, maybe this is

0:03:37.960 --> 0:03:40.640
<v Speaker 1>still a small amount. Um. It still might not be

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:45.400
<v Speaker 1>something that, um, you know, people who are physically conservative

0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:47.600
<v Speaker 1>will get behind. Still, it still seems to me that

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:49.920
<v Speaker 1>if I know it's going to build a road in

0:03:50.040 --> 0:03:54.200
<v Speaker 1>my state or my county, that my fiscal conservatism maybe

0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:56.760
<v Speaker 1>is a little bit less in part because I know

0:03:56.800 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 1>the money will presumably get spent effectively. Regarding raising gas taxes,

0:04:03.120 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>I guess another question along these lines is is it

0:04:05.840 --> 0:04:08.240
<v Speaker 1>somewhat easier perhaps to get people to vote for a

0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:13.200
<v Speaker 1>small tax like ten cents per gallon when gas prices

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>have fallen so much compared to where they were just

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:18.120
<v Speaker 1>a couple of years ago. I think that's what the

0:04:18.200 --> 0:04:21.320
<v Speaker 1>hope is you have in Oregon. I think it's clack

0:04:21.640 --> 0:04:23.360
<v Speaker 1>clack of us. I'm going to try to say that, right,

0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:26.000
<v Speaker 1>that's pretty good. I'm from Washington State. That was a

0:04:26.000 --> 0:04:28.680
<v Speaker 1>pretty good pronunciation. Go for it, right. So they're considering

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 1>a pretty small increase over the next seven years. But

0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:35.039
<v Speaker 1>what is interesting is you don't see as many of

0:04:35.080 --> 0:04:38.359
<v Speaker 1>the gas tax hi tax hike proposals here as you

0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:42.400
<v Speaker 1>do the sales tax. Um. So what you're saying there

0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>was mention of Atlanta. They're also considering raising their sales

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>tax by about point five per cent um to help

0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:54.120
<v Speaker 1>expand their public transit system. UM. So, I think what

0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:56.560
<v Speaker 1>you are seeing is a lot of small amounts UM.

0:04:56.600 --> 0:04:58.479
<v Speaker 1>And I think what they're trying to do at the

0:04:58.640 --> 0:05:01.800
<v Speaker 1>state and local levels is to really explain to the

0:05:01.880 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 1>voters how those dollars will be applied. So you see

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:07.640
<v Speaker 1>very specific. You know, they'll say it's going to be

0:05:07.680 --> 0:05:10.720
<v Speaker 1>applied to these public transit projects or maybe like ten

0:05:10.839 --> 0:05:13.919
<v Speaker 1>highway projects that we're looking at, or we're gonna, you know,

0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:18.520
<v Speaker 1>sort of improve the bike and pedestrian walkways, that kind

0:05:18.560 --> 0:05:20.760
<v Speaker 1>of thing. So so, I think people are trying to

0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:24.080
<v Speaker 1>be very specific into explaining to voters how they're going

0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 1>to spend the money. And UM, it seems like the

0:05:27.080 --> 0:05:29.360
<v Speaker 1>groups are pretty optimistic. I think there's a more than

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>seventy chance um of these ballot measures passing, at least

0:05:33.800 --> 0:05:37.920
<v Speaker 1>according to UM groups like the American Public Transportation Association

0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:42.480
<v Speaker 1>and Transportation for America. Okay, it's Definitie Beasley fascinating conversation

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:47.039
<v Speaker 1>ballot measures in California, Washington State and others to get

0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:50.719
<v Speaker 1>the transportation system fixed up. I'm Kathleen Hayes along with

0:05:50.800 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 1>Pim Fox and this is Bloomberg.