Daniel Weintraub: If Arnold could just get 'er done, he'd be fine

As he toured China last month the governor was asked about his infrastructure plan and gushed that he might want to spend $50 billion. Now his aides are sending signals that the actual plan will be closer to $30 billion. It likely will be spread over several years. And some of the money might be repaid not with tax dollars from the general fund but with surcharges on the people who use the services provided. So in the end, the portion of the state budget dedicated to debt service would not be expected to rise above the 6 percent level that experts say is prudent.

Some of the state's problems might not be as insurmountable as is commonly assumed. The voters in recent years have approved borrowing $21 billion for new and refurbished K-12 public schools at the state level and another $20 billion in local bonds. Our universities, while struggling to serve a growing college-age population, do not use the space they have now as efficiently as they could, with much of it vacant for most of the summer. And we might have plenty of water for a growing population if we could figure out a way to distribute it differently.

It is mostly our transportation system that has fallen behind the growth curve as the gasoline tax, the major source of funding for new roads and transit, has been eroded by inflation and the trend toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. That revenue source now delivers about one-third of the buying power per mile driven as it did in 1970, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Most of this opinion piece is politcal rehash. I've cherry picked a few pearls from a fellow who is close to legislators and sources within the executive They may tip off the direction the state is headed. These veiled indicators fit the pattern of both the executive and the legislature in that they facilitate increased spending and bolster union employment while not hampering business.

User specific fees supplementing traditional, broader public taxing systems. Renting public space for private use during off-peak periods. New public works delivering northern water to a swelling southern population, flexing its political muscle, but appropriatley at the expense of that same, eagar mob. A new system to exact a larger tax burden from motorist since their cars are getting more efficient, defeating the old taxing scheme, yet not stifling new car sales, the golden goose of taxation and among the executive's largest contributors. Perhaps an "efficiency" surcharge; a "gas miser equalizer"?

I am sorry, but the statement that our fuel tax has been eroded by anything is BS. We spend our gas tax on anything BUT infastructure and we do not need to float a bond, we merely need to spend the gas tax for what it was designed for, not light rail, not health care, not any of the other boon doggles that Dems and Reps can think of to spend it for. We need to spend it on roads.

Who would like to bet me that if we float this bond that the "infastructure" that it is spent on will be light rail or some other form of mass transit and not one penny will go for roads, the thing we need the most. Politicians suck and there must be a special place in Hell for them because they are some of the worst criminals in our society.

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.