Posted on 03/10/2006 12:36:43 PM PST by Amerigomag
Today and over the weekend, high-level nogotiations are taking place among the legislative leadership and the Governor - the focal point of these discussions - infrastructure investment.
LOOK CAREFULLY at what comes out of the negotiations. Were the Republican Governor and Republican legislative leaders able to hold the 'line in the sand' against the big-government, spend-a-holic Democratic leaders?
Does the plan:
1) HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PAY-AS-YOU-GO COMPONENT FOR FY '07-'08 AND BEYOND?
2) HAVE A 6% BORROWING CAP?
3) CONTAIN CEQA AND OTHER NEEDED REFORMS?
4) LIMIT THE BORROWING TO MORTOR-AND BRICK REAL INFRASTRUCTURE?
*From Senator McClintock:
5) LIMIT GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDING TO STATE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION?
Second, state bonds should be used only for projects that benefit the entire state. Projects that exclusively benefit local communities should be paid for exclusively by those communities. A state university, for example, accepts qualified students wherever they live in California – a local school does not. In the past, state bonds were used for university facilities, while local bonds paid for local schools. Senator McClintock; December 20, 2005
Remember that it is not only okay to vote NO if the best compromise plan doesn't pass muster. As a matter of fact, you SHOULD vote no if the plan doesn't have these important components. The Democrats want to spend, and will eventually come around, even if it means delaying until a November vote. The GOP also has the option of going to the ballot for November with an initiative that contains every point mentioned above.
Integrity is sometimes defined as doing the right thing when no one is watching. Courage is defined by doing the right thing when everyone IS watching.
For members of the legislature, I will say this -- the vote on this plan is going to be a defining moment in your careeers...
I second that.
(snip)As Governor Schwarzenegger grapples with the resulting fiscal paradox of crumbling infrastructure despite record spending and borrowing, he should remember three principles of public debt ...
First, bonds should only be used for capital projects with a useful life at least equal to the debt service. ...
Second, state bonds should be used only for projects that benefit the entire state. Projects that exclusively benefit local communities should be paid for exclusively by those communities. ...
Third, revenue bonds, not general obligation bonds, should be used for capital-intensive projects that provide direct services to distinct users.
The next few days should tell us how much legislative Republicans want to see Arnold Schwarzenegger re-elected.That's not a "compromise" in my book. More like abandonment of principle.
The infrastructure bond currently being negotiated does not appear to meet the principles of fiscal conservatism that Tom McClintock outlined in January. But that bond, regardless of the policy specifics involved, is a key to the governor's re-election. While Schwarzenegger can certainly be re-elected running a "taxes on steroids" campaign against Phil Angelides, the ability to tell voters he's done something significant in terms of road, school and levee construction will make that task much easier.
So do Assembly Republicans protect the state's fiscal situation and endanger Arnold's re-election? Or do they compromise on principle under the assumption that four years of Governor Angelides would be much more damaging?
My guess is that six Republicans in the Assembly compromise, just enough to get the bond on the ballot. The rest of the caucus gets to have it both ways. That's one of the few advantages of life in the minority caucus.
(snip)The issue is clear. California has massive infrastructure needs. Roads, levees. water projects. Note, I do not say schools. That is because the extremely large number of illegal aliens in the Los Angeles schools have stolen education money from honest students. And, the Los Angeles District is so corrupt and incompetent, that they have "lost" track of over one billion dollars--why give these folks more money?
But the Guv has shown himself to be a creative negotiator. Even though not a single member of the Republican Caucus in the State Assembly (congratulations to moderate Keith Richman for standing tall against billions in bonded indebtedness thrown on the backs of California's hard working families) supports this effort, the Governor continues to negotiate with the Democrats for a deal. Yes, the Democrats, not the Republicans. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in a blog today noted, "Of course, if we do vote on Sunday, none of us on the Republican side will have actually read the bills on which we will be voting as they are negotiated between the governor and Democrats with the Republicans viewed as a kind of annoying little brother who keeps interrupting the discussion."
To make the point even clearer. On Wednesday of this week the Governor, after spending hours with the Democrats appeared at the Republican Assembly Caucus. He showed them a few pages with numbers on them (I have copies of the documents), no details, no priorities, no explanation what the $71 billion in bonds, and $222 billion in total expenditure, will buy. No discussion as to whether the unions get to keep prevailing wage and Little Davis-Bacon, the enviros get to keep the lawyer enriching environmental laws or whether there would be any reforms the Governor asked for last Fall. Instead, the GOP'ers were told, "this deal is good for California". Yes, but what is the deal?
Would you authorize spending $71 billion without seeing the details? That is what the governor is asking 120 members of the legislature. First vote the money, then I will give you the complete details.
Here are some of the numbers and an explanation:
$135 million for "farm worker housing". Why aren't the farmers paying for this, instead of the taxpayer? Plus, maybe a majority of the farm workers are illegal aliens--why are we building housing for illegal aliens?Good business people don't spend this kind of money without extensive hearings, investigation and understanding. At best they will be given 48 hours to look at everything before they will be forced to vote on Sunday, March 12. Is this the way to do business? Is there any wonder folks have no trust in Sacramento, when they decide to spend this much money with absolutely no oversite and little explanation!$4.7 billion for mass transit, out of $11.3 billion in the 2006 bond--yet only $1 billion in road maintenance at the same time (STIP spending)
$2 billion for "Trade Infrastructure"--but no explanation what that is and how the money will be spent
$300 million for "Transit Oriented Development"--what is this? Is some of this money for eminent domain? No idea, because there was no explanation.
This is a twenty year plan to be decided by the legislature in less than 48 hours, with most not even getting to see the complete deal. What ticking bombs are in the plan? How much for attorneys to fight the battles of the environmentalists? How much more in programs can be in spent if Reforms are put into place? What are the ramification for other needs of the State if these pass? How much in current programs will need to be cut to pay for the interest payments. How much of the "education" money goes to Los Angeles and how much to the rest of the State?
These are just some of the question not answered. The phrase "Rush To Judgement" comes to mind.
As I was finishing the editing of this piece a friend called and asked me what I was doing. When I told him that I was writing a piece on the governor's Infrastructure Plan, he said, "What Plan?"
Since this got moved to "bloggers", I'm giving it another ping.
Does our Republican Governor expect support from Republicans if he doesn't include them in any of the negotiations or give them any details of his "plan"?
Does he expect Republican support if he pushes a plan that includes elements unanimously opposed by the Republican caucus?
Well, the Legislature is both Democrat and Republican and based on who has the votes, that is who will have the most influence it seems.
That is why I say we need to replace Democrat legislators.
In addition, we have boat loads of increased property tax money flooding the state and that gives the politicians the impression that things are real good.
IMO, there will be a big RE crash and they won't be as flooded with property tax money as they think long term.
Yes, and liberals of all stripes.
If the Legislature is swung to the right, then the politicians on the Republican side will follow the same swing right as well.
I still think the root issue is the government employees and unions being too entrenched and powerful.
They do everything to survive, so they funnel a lot of money to Democrats who keep growing their ranks and keeps them 50% overpaid.
See ya later, I have to go out. Brrrrrrrr.
This is really starting to shape up as a royal screw job. I am free to talk openly on a thread banished to the blogosphere, right?
See also this thread:
Lawmakers, governor 'close' to bond deal
Tom McClintock is a "blogger"?
Why?
As I said earlier, it's an automatic NO.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in a blog today noted, "Of course, if we do vote on Sunday, none of us on the Republican side will have actually read the bills on which we will be voting as they are negotiated between the governor and Democrats with the Republicans viewed as a kind of annoying little brother who keeps interrupting the discussion."
I remember a scene I watched on CSPAN, back before the Contract With America won offices for Republicans, when the Democrats controlled Congress. The Rats controlled with no mercy. None.
The Rats brought out a budget bill they had prepared behind closed doors. It was a stack of loose sheets of paper and stickum notes held together in a large bundle by rubber bands and string. They wouldn't let the Republicans read it. "Vote against it, we don't care" was their attitude."Read it later if you must" was their message. The minority leader asked to approach the podium and merely touch it. Motion denied.
Those were terrible days in America. We have those days now in California because the Republicans quit standing for anything. Congress should take a lesson, if it isn't already too late. RINOs, plunging into the abyss.
Is tax and spend on steroids any worse than borrow and spend on steroids???
How vociferous his apologists were, how timid they are now.
Glad you found this poor little thread so rudely shoved into the "Bloggers & Personal" pit! I keep intending to ping you to strong stuff like this but the memory in my bio computer isn't as strong as it once was. Sorry about that!!!
Just when I think he can sink no lower...
There are Republicans among the leadership in the Legislature.
Keep in mind the property tax money is racing in with all the newly bought high priced homes.
People would maybe before be paying $1500 a year in property taxes and with new high prices, they could be at $7500 for the same home easily.
That has reflected into the state as a boat load of cash and instead of realizing this won't last, they are trying to spend some of it.
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.