Posted on 05/11/2008 4:01:16 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
A $980 million bond measure aimed at modernizing and expanding children's hospitals in California has qualified for the November ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.
Summary Date: 09/12/07 Circulation Deadline: 02/11/08 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponent: Diana S. Dooley
Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.) (Full Text)
Why don’t the Children’s hospitals invest their own funds?
Am I missing something? Why is the state getting involved to float more bonds for a private enterprise?
I note that there is a 20% diversion of the funds from the titled purpose, to help other acute hospitals. I wonder why that is necessary... Perhaps we should ask La Raza.
Count me out.
Obviously no budget problems in California.
Apply tag line and eliminate the bonds
More specifically, those "other acute hospitals" are units of the University of California system. In other words, the state universities' balance sheets are getting a $196 million boost from the bond sales. Whether they actually use the funds for the intended purpose is a question to ask the auditors.
What your not seeing here is the requirement that the nearly $1 billion in contruction, remodeling, etc..... be spent with union and minority contractors.
Here’s the list of eligible hospitals, per the LAO
Figure 1
Children’s Hospitals Eligible for Bond Funds
Specifically Identified as Eligible
Mattel Children’s Hospital at University of California, Los Angeles
University Children’s Hospital at University of California, Irvine
University of California, Davis Children’s Hospital
University of California, San Diego Hospital Children’s Hospital
University of California, San Francisco Children’s Hospital
Additional Eligible Hospitals
Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego (formerly Children’s Hospital and Health Center, San Diego)
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
Children’s Hospital and Research Center at Oakland
Children’s Hospital of Orange County
Loma Linda University Children’s Hospital
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford
Miller’s Children’s Hospital, Long Beach
Children’s Hospital Central California
Why? Because these Calif hospitals are probably treating a huge number of illegal aliens for no charge. So, they expect that the state should shoulder the cost. And if it does, I would like to see the assurance that the federal gov’t cuts off any funding to California while it continues to run a sanctuary state.
It is the Federal government's failure to secure the broader that cause these hospitals to loose money.
The Federal government should be responsible and pay for these cost caused by their failure to secure the boarder
These are not Federal bonds being voted on in California, they are state.
California is a donor state, that is it pays far more in federal taxes than it gets back from Washington.
Some of the Hospitals list are among the best in the world.
Apparently, you missed the point or choose to ignore it. The state of California should be cooperating with the illegal alien situation rather than running a sanctuary operation. I do not disagree that the Feds own the responsibility for the borders, but California has to become less of a welcome mat enabler to illegals coming into the country and then hiding them in the shadows.
Face it. These are facts that cannot be justified. It will be the ruination of the state....it’s already started.
Thanks for the point. I appreciate it.
I did miss that. So it’s the 2008 Union Labor relief act. Sounds about right.
Thank you.
I wouldn’t doubt it, although I don’t have much knowledge about these children’s hospitals. Still, I’d have to believe you’re right.
One of the things I like least about the Federal government is that they take your money and then say I will only give it back if you follow my rules. It is just wrong to extort us with our own tax money. The same thought behind not returning tax money to a state for this issue is the same as if you don't teach gay pride in school you can't have your money back.
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.