Lawmakers, governor 'close' to bond deal

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders on Friday were trying to agree on what would be the largest bond issue in California history, pressing to meet a March 10 deadline for placing a proposal on the June ballot. Any agreement between the governor and leaders from both parties requires support from two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and Senate.

The governor has vowed to work through the weekend if necessary, even though the secretary of state had set Friday as the deadline to reach an agreement. Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, said Senate Republicans were ready to vote for a bond package worth about $45 billion if it includes about $1.25 billion for new reservoirs. Ackerman said Senate Republicans were prepared to approve those bills, assuming there's an agreement on water storage, even if Assembly Republicans hadn't signed off on them.

Steve Maviglio, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders were talking about a bond package that would total about $47 billion. Democrats offered to approve about $35 billion in bonds that included money for parks, affordable housing and hospital earthquake improvements, as well as more money for public transit than in Schwarzenegger's plan. Republicans in the Assembly, want a pay-as-you-go requirement that would earmark a portion of the annual state budget for public works projects, reducing the need to borrow by selling bonds.

The Senate canceled a noon session today, but Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, told senators they could be called back on four hours' notice. Perata, on Thursday night, said he would call for a vote Friday on a bond bill, even if a bipartisan agreement hadn't been reached. The Assembly had no meeting scheduled Friday but also was on notice that it could be recalled.

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.

Political News & Views

From CalpoliticalNews:

Even though not a single member of the Republican Caucus in the State Assembly ... 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."

This is a recording of Arnold's comments to the press yesterday about the negotiations:
http://speeches.gov.ca.gov/dir/2006/March/03-09_hallway_scrum.mp3

He says the Democrats submitted a plan, and he submitted a plan, and they will meet somewhere in between. When the Republicans are sitting at ZERO general obligation bonds, the Democrats are at $30 Billion, and Arnold is at $71 Billion, I guess that means that we'll end up with the Democrat-plan-on-steroids.

http://www.newwestnotes.com/arnolds-big-bang-bonds-still-short/

Arnold’s Big Bang(?) Bonds Still Short *

As of this noon hour, despite much brave rhetoric (and subsequently cancelled apocryphal late night pizza orders) to the contrary, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is still short on the votes from his own Republican Party to pass a version of his infrastructure bonds package in time to get it on the June California primary ballot. His principal problem is in the Assembly, where he needs six Republican votes. He has six members targeted, but there is no puff of white smoke over the Capitol Dome.

Floor sessions are scheduled in neither house and legislators are allowed to be several hundred miles away, if they so choose.

There may be a play coming out of the Senate, where Democratic leader Don Perata — who was first to push for an infrastructure package last year — might move a bill forward to the Assembly.

What’s the rush, since it might not be the worst thing for Arnold to be running for re-election this fall with a bipartisan infrastructure bonds package in tow for the November ballot? After all, Treasurer Phil Angelides, the current Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner, does not want the big bonds on the general election ballot. But here is the problem. If Arnold doesn’t get something major in June, he runs for re-election as a governor whose major accomplishments mostly occurred in the early days of his administration. He’s not getting anything else through the Legislature in the early months of this year — and, indeed, has been focused almost entirely on the infrastructure program — and most of the publicity about him that is penetrating the public consciousness is on unrelated, celebrity-type matters like his Arnold Classic bodybuilding extravaganza.

I guess the split the difference's at $50 billion which sounds about right. And Republicans are being asked to forgo pay as you go for what - Democratic social spending disguised as infrastructure development? Hahahaha Now that's funny.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

Yeah... the annoying little brother. Since Republicans are not even part of the negotiations, they should vote NO. They should not sign onto something they haven't seen. And the Governor's failure to back them up doesn't well for his re-election chances in November. He won't even give them a place at the table, so why should they return the favor? Its a good question.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

Looks like Republicans are beginning to cave.

So far the press is only quoting Wilsonegger gang members, not Republicans. We've heard repeatedly from Ackerman and McCarthy but not Republicans.

Rick Keene, leading the Republican Assemblymen in the bonding negotiations with the Democrats, hasn't been quited once to my knowledge. Also notably silent is McClintock in the Senate who usually leads the Senate Republicans on things fiscal because of his background, knowledge and the respect he has gained among fellow Senate Republicans.

I can understand the silence. No one wants to be tarred as obstructionist. Although I think its a good idea to say NO sometimes - like to borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for things we don't need while shortchanging things we do need. This is exactly the kind of situation in which no deal is entirely preferable to a bad deal.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

I can understand the silence. No one wants to be tarred as obstructionist.

Yes, I feel sorry for Republicans in the legislature. They're hemmed in on both sides.

Legislative Republicans have the Democrats, and the MSM opposing them on one side and the Wilsonegger gang and the CRP opposing them on the other.

If legislative Republicans raise a principled objection, the press will brand them as "obstructionists" and work feverishly to highlight the internal disaffection within the CRP in an attempt to weaken it's influence.

If legislative Republicans raise a principled objection to the gang's liberalism both the gang and the CRP will brand them as partisan traitors and work to remove them from their offices by withholding campaign finances.

Legislative Republicans are screwed either way they go. Best to work in silence to undermine the liberalism from the left across the aisle and from within what remains of their own hijacked party

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.