Posted on 11/19/2005 9:42:33 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger mulls an infrastructure bond of perhaps $50 billion or more, his office has failed to comply with a law requiring it to submit a five-year plan on the state's building needs.
The requirement was enacted in 1999, when California was flush with money from the stock market boom, and was intended to prevent wasteful spending.
The idea was that if legislators were given a report showing everything that was needed over a five-year period, instead of just one year, they would have a better perspective from which to assign priorities to requests for new schools, highways, water facilities and other projects.
Former Gov. Gray Davis submitted a plan in 2002, the first year it was required, and 2003. But after taking office in November 2003, Schwarzenegger's office did not submit a plan for 2004, and it has not yet submitted one this year. The plan was supposed to be included with the governor's budget Jan. 10.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, which is responsible for assembling the infrastructure plan, said the department was too busy assuming office to produce a plan in 2004. He promised a new plan would be done by January 2006, when the Legislature comes back into session.
``It's something that we are working on putting the finishing touches on right now,'' he said.
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office, which reviews spending, has pressured the governor's office to produce a capital plan.
``We've raised the issue both times, both years, and finance just said, `Oh well, you'll be getting it fairly soon,' and then it never shows up,'' said Paul Guyer, principal fiscal and policy analyst with the legislative analyst's office.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Plan Plan.. We don't need no stinking plan.
Just Spend , Baby!
I thought the whole Five Year Plan thing was a commie invention...
This is California, yaknow. ;-)
Five year plan? What does that remind you of?
Evidently this state has evolved a lot more than even I thought.
Russia, China, Cuba... can anyone think of other nations/states that have the infamous five year plans?
What's California?
I thought that state was called 'Commiefornia'?
:-)
Something should've been produced as required by law but, the requirement itself is another example of the ridiculousness under Davis and the Dem legislature.
This article conveniently leaves out the fact that california is once again running a budget surplus.
Why mentio the Budget surplus? Color it gone.
That money , ~1.2 billion after all the other obligations are met is already spoken for and is another one time thing.. but watch the spending continue regardless.
Read the LAO report for yourself.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_05.htm
mention
And Arnold--the Great Equivocator--blunders on. Lucky we got him elected and avoided being stuck with Tom "if you vote for him Bustamante will win" McClintock...
5 year plan sounds like a Communist state.
What are you guys talking about? Are you suggesting that long-term planning is a BAD idea???
Every major (private) organization I've worked for has had long term planning to effectivlely manage investments, particular major capital projects. Those plans are submitted to boards of directors for review and approval thereby providing some accountability of those entrusted with huge sums of money. Every major federal government department is required to prepare the similar plans.
This California law was passed with unanimous support from both Dems and Republicans in both the Senate and Assembly--not a single "NO" vote. Effective planning makes for better use of OUR taxpayer dollars.
I'm not saying it isn't a good idea, but what I am acknowledging is the infamous five year plans that Russia, China and Cuba used to announce publicly, but never fulfill. The mere mention does bring back shades of cold war nightmares. Mentioning it in concert with a China visit does reinforce that take.
Mentioning it's absence in concert with a $50 billion infrastructure bond should worry every taxpayer.
With or without the "Five Year Plan", the $50 billion bond matter is a fiasco in the making. A five year plan isn't going to stop those who would support such a mind numbing suggestion.
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.