CA: Governor OKs borrowing plan

After saying for weeks there would be no option for putting a big bond measure on the spring ballot, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly gave the green light Friday to a plan to borrow $10.7 billion without voter approval.

Last summer, the Legislature authorized the bond sale as part of the budget agreement signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. But taxpayer groups, as well as many Republican lawmakers, criticized the deal, saying borrowing of that magnitude should be approved by voters.

Frankly, the real political hat trick would be to break the budget down into small components and put every tiny component onto the statewide ballot. Let the voters approve what they consider vital, and let them say no to the rest.

This is why I vote no on all bonds. We never get a choice to fund welfare or not, it's always schools, police, and fire.

As for Arnold, lets wait to see what he puts on the ballot before deeming him a traitor.

Arnold can't put anything on the ballot. Only the voters or the legislature can do that.
Schwarzenegger's attempt to revive Davis' illegal $10.7 billion bond is illegal precisely because it bypasses the voters.

"Schwarzenegger's attempt to revive Davis' illegal $10.7 billion bond is illegal precisely because it bypasses the voters."

Yes, at least, so says the Sac Bee.

But lets wait to see if those bonds appear on the March ballot in spite of what the Sac Bee says.

Arnold could end up being right here, and the Sac Bee could just be blowing smoke up our collective arses.

Liberal rags have been known to sow dissent, even if it means outright lying, among Conservatives, after all.

marsh2 said: "Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature must keep the promise to backfill revenues that the State has diverted from the Counties and cities. "

Hmmm...

There are 58 counties in Kalifornia last time I looked. And a fair number of larger cities.

I am sure that the flow of money from state to counties is justified in the case of schools by a concern that "no child be left behind". We might as well keep up the pretense of local control.

How, though, do we justify having money flow from the state to counties and others for police services? Or for any other function which is administered by the individual counties? How much money would be saved by requiring every county to combine with a neighboring county to increase efficiency? Businesses are faced with this reality all the time.

The VLF is personal property tax and is a County revenue stream. Years ago when the State had budget surplus, it passed that through to car owners by funding a discount in their vehicle tax. They did this by discounting the tax and backfilling the counties and cities for the lost revenue.

When the budget no longer produced surplus revenue, the VLF was supposed to return to full undiscounted amount. (Eliminating the need to backfill the County.) What Gov. Schwarzenegger did was continue the discount without the backfill - thus shifting the burden to the Counties and Cities for his largess. The loss of backfill will cost the Counties about 25% of their revenue stream and the cities about 17%.

There is a similar issue with Williamson Act funds. The legislature passed this open space law giving a discount to property owners who would sign a 10 year contract to keep their land in farms and open space. The State backfills the Counties for the loss in property tax reveue. What keeps coming up in these hard times is that the State wants to discontinue the backfill. That leaves the Counties holding the bag with a 10 year contract for reduced taxes and no backfill. That stream is about 17% of our local property tax revenue.

With increased workers comp., liability and other insurance and the cost of the union negotiated PERS benefits, we already cut 12% from the budget in June. We cut another 2 million in September because of lost revenue from a 3 month lag in VLF backfill payments from the State and elimintaion of rural crime funding. We were not allowed to cut manadated costs that had already been shifted to the Counties for programs like adminsitration of IHSS - In Home Social Services for the elderly and disabled.

With full elimination of the VLF and everything else, we will end up having to cut about 32-36% of our budget. That is way too much a cut for basic local services such as police, fire, courts, jail and libraries to continue. This is cutting programs that benefit all of the community in basic public health and safety in order to fund entitlement programs that benefit only a few. (Public Health, Human Services and Behavioral Health are not funded by the County general fund.)

What local services are in the General fund? - sheriff, D.A., fire, grand jury, library, animal control, juvenile hall, probation, public defender, homicide, law library, county courts, elections, tax collector, assessor, auditor, county clerk, recorder, administration, building dept., planning, airports, veterans services, Board of Supervisors, county museum, aid to indigents, indigent ambulance and medical care, state correctional school, and wards of the court.

marsh2 said: "Years ago when the State had budget surplus, it passed that through to car owners by funding a discount in their vehicle tax. They did this by discounting the tax and backfilling the counties and cities for the lost revenue. "

Thanks for the information. It sounds like you are standing on the tracks in front of the runaway Kalifornia budget.

Prior to all this liberal meddling, property taxes, on both real and personal property, were the revenue source for counties, as I understand it.

I pointed out to my wife recently that the VLF [ Vehicle License Fee ] was a net benefit to us as higher income Kalifornians who drive older vehicles. We are personally much better off having the state raise money this way rather than boosting income taxes or ( DON'T TOUCH THAT THIRD RAIL !!!) residential property taxes.

Those who find themselves in this bind should be particularly enraged at the theft of sovereignty that this backfill scheme represents. I am sure that the typical county in Kalifornia is ruled by liberals who were delighted to use the taxing power of the state to encourage open space. Now, having agreed to let the state put its hands in their pockets they (and you) are reaping the consequences.

Personally, I would welcome whatever level of economic disaster will cause the state of Kalifornia to cease infringing my right to keep and bear arms. Many with less severe attitudes might wish to preserve the libraries.

I have a friend who runs a small business which is now about a year behind schedule in preparing new premises for expansion due entirely to regulatory issues, many of which the bureaucrats are unable to anticipate. They don't let him know what they want until it has a delaying effect on his progress. He would probably welcome the bankruptcy and dis-incorporation of the city responsible.

On a different thread I listed the first dozen or so agencies listed on the Kalifornia state web page. Among them were the "African-American Museum". I don't think the state supports an "Irish-American Museum" so I think this could be eliminated. Perhaps to keep your county running you would agree. This could be a marvelous opportunity to reduce the size of government in Kalifornia.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.