Posted on 11/20/2005 11:24:12 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO — Despite mounting opposition, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to rebuild the worst of California's ailing infrastructure with a long-term, piecemeal plan that taps tens of billions from varying bonds, partnerships with the private sector and user fees.
Disclosures by administration officials clarified that voters won't face a stunning $50 billion bond measure next year, as originally indicated by Schwarzenegger during his trip to China.
"We're looking at creative ways to do financing, at a lot of competing needs and at how much you can get moving all at one time," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the governor's Finance Department.
Though Schwarzenegger's plan is ambitious, all sides agree on one factor — it will still fall far short of addressing California's total infrastructure needs, which are estimated to be in the $100 billion range.
Priorities include gridlocked freeways, ramshackle schools and colleges, congested ports and crumbling levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that protect Southern California drinking water.
Some corporate stakeholders are cheering the effort, including calls for a special legislative session. Supporters are pointing out that bad roads alone cost Bay Area drivers more than $1,300 a year.
But critics include the state treasurer, who is a leading Democratic gubernatorial hopeful, and Republican lawmakers that ensures the issue will figure inboth the 2006 elections and next year's legislative session.
State Treasurer Phil Angelides, who oversees bonds in California, said the governor's plan is "upside down." He said, "He must first balance the state budget."
California, though gaining a one-time revenue boost from an upbeat economy next year, still spends about $4 billion a year more than it receives.
The infrastructure push comes at a time when the balancing of the budget without a tax increase is already being threatened by a number of ballot initiatives from well-financed groups seeking approval for costly new government programs.
Moreover, a Sacramento superior court judge has opened a $550 million hole in the state budget with a ruling that the governor and lawmakers don't have the authority to borrow the money needed to pay pension obligations for state retirees.
The treasurer also said Wall Street would rebel if faced with huge, new bonds from California. The state has a poor credit rating and voter-approved bonds are already backed up as they wait for officials to move ahead with projects.
"I'm viewing this as political rhetoric from Schwarzenegger rather than reality," Angelides said of the actor-turned-politician. "The governor has just picked up a different script."
Critics say the governor tried imitating reformist Gov. Hiram Johnson, until Schwarzenegger's Nov. 8 special election failed. Now, they say, he's trying the same with the legacy of former Gov. Pat Brown, famed for his state infrastructure building.
The Schwarzenegger administration, to this point, has failed to file even the legally required annual infrastructure needs report.
Though Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Irvine, agrees the state needs infrastructure improvements, he said he wants California to avoid a taxpayer-supported, general-obligation bond so big it triggers tax hikes. "We're already near our maximum," he said.
The nonpartisan legislative analyst, Elizabeth Hill, echoed Ackerman's warning. "We're now spending more on debt service than on the University of California," she said. "Additional spending on debt services means other dollars that aren't going, for instance, to health care and education."
Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, had already made his proposed $10 billion infrastructure bond the top priority in the upper house this coming year when Schwarzenegger began mentioning much larger efforts during a trip to China.
Perata and the administration have begun talking about whether they can combine the two efforts, without triggering a partisan battle or a division between Northern and Southern California interests.
"This is not simply a problem" for the north or south halves of California, said Perata. "It's a problem for the whole state."
But Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, is preparing his own bond to introduce in January. Aides said it deals largely with education.
More like SAMs..
Gee, that will undo all the work of the Bugs and Bunny crowd, and the Cradle to Grave Socialists who would rather overspend on expanding the idle, the unproductive, the useless; and returning us all to the 19th century.
Infrastruction? We don't need no stinkin' infrastructure!
Losers today see infrastructure the way they saw the "environment" in the 60s. At first they couldn't even spell it, but soon it became a major weapon... for restoring 17th century comforts.
What a novel solution to a monumental problem.
Does the judge also have the power to order limitless tax increases on the taxpayers? To force them to pay money they don't have?
This could get interesting...
California desperately needs new and improved highways. I'd rather close a few hundred non-performing schools and redirect the money to where it can actually do some good.
The chorus line for the Schwarzenegger/Perata/Nunez jingle.
Just love the big 3 liberals. When they get a good idea partisan grievances don't interfere with the spending ... or borrowing.
"What a novel solution to a monumental problem.
Does the judge also have the power to order limitless tax increases on the taxpayers? To force them to pay money they don't have?"
I am not sure you read the judge's ruling correctly...he ruled the legislature does NOT have the authority to borrow at that amount without taxpayer approval. He is a good guy in this fiasco.
Hate to say it, but kind of wish my state would go bankrupt so we can reorganize our pensions and benefits to state workers. It is completely absurd the money we owe to these people in retirement. (my sister being one of them)
Well, D'OH! I don't think so.
If "borrowing" is not allowed, guess what's the alternative?
Tax increases?
Ya think?!!?
Tax increases maybe. But not ruled into law by the judge. The legislature will probably try raising taxes on the highest earners (again) like Reiner (again). I look forward to being one those who earn over $400,000 a year so I won't sign any petition raising taxes on the rich.
Really, don't you want the state to face reality and reorganize the pensions and benefits for state workers? Bankruptcy may be what saves us in California.
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.