Posted on 02/16/2006 6:37:54 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Members of a two-house conference committee outlined sharply different priorities Thursday as they began working over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's $222.6 billion public works spending plan.
"We're all going to have to give up some things" to get an agreement, the chairman, Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, said after a two-hour hearing during which Republicans and Democrats expressed concerns about Schwarzenegger's proposals.
"We're all going to have to give a little and get a little," he said.
The Republican governor wants the state to spend $222.6 billion over the next 10 years to upgrade highways, expand intercity rail, improve levees and build more schools, prisons, jails, courthouses and reservoirs.
The funding would come from a variety of sources, including existing state funding, federal aid, new fees and the sale of $68 billion in state bonds during a series of elections through 2014.
Lawmakers agree the state needs to make improvements in its aging infrastructure, most of which was built in the 1950s and 1960s. But disagreement persists over how much to spend, how to raise the money and what to spend it on.
The Assembly and Senate formed a committee composed of three legislators from each house to evaluate Schwarzenegger's plan and competing proposals. Those include rival bond bills that would generate funding for parks, public transit, affordable housing and earthquake safety upgrades for hospitals.
Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders are hoping to reach agreement on a package of bonds to put on the June ballot for voters to consider, but statements made by committee members Thursday indicated that reaching a compromise won't be easy.
March 10 is the statutory deadline for the Legislature to place a measure on the June 6 ballot.
Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said Schwarzenegger's plan lacked a "unifying vision." With the state facing persistent budget deficits, he said it could force cuts in education, health care and environmental programs.
Assemblywoman Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park, complained that the plan didn't include money for new parks, affordable housing and hospital upgrades and didn't put enough emphasis on mass transit.
"The solution is not just in building highways," she said.
Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, said he was concerned the governor's plan would eat up the state's ability to sell other bond proposals for as long as 40 years. He also complained it provided too little in bond funds for transportation, flood control and water storage.
"We've got only $13 billion going into what I think California thinks infrastructure is," he said.
Keene said Republicans wanted a constitutional amendment that would earmark a "small, modest percentage" of annual state revenue for public works projects, a step that would reduce the need to sell bonds.
Democrats say a pay-as-you-go requirement could consume money needed for other programs and end up costing the state more than selling bonds.
State Finance Director Mike Genest said Schwarzenegger's so-called strategic growth plan reflected the governor's vision of what steps the state needed to take to prepare for population growth of about 12 million over the next 20 years.
"We know there will be dialogue (between the Legislature and governor) that will change the exact mix of priorities," he said.
Murray, Laird and Chu also criticized Schwarzenegger's call for a constitutional amendment that would limit annual bond payments to 6 percent of the state's main budget account, the general fund.
Imposing a cap, administration officials say, would keep California from going too deeply into the red.
"We wanted to have some sort of limit on debt services, although I admit 6 percent is not a magic number," Genest told the committee.
Laird said the debt limit could cripple the state's ability to respond to a major earthquake or other natural disaster.
Genest said he had "every confidence" that Schwarzenegger's plan was affordable "over the long haul." But he also said the state needed to find a way to eliminate its persistent budget deficits.
"We will have to solve that problem before debt service on these bonds starts to be a significant issue," he said.
OO OOO..
I know.. I know
Cut spending Raise taxes .
They better have some good environmental lawyers.
Expect the left to fight and litigate every step of the way, project-wise. They have the big daddy deep pockets green orgs backing them.
Taxes are already at the highest rate in the state's history and produce more than enough money to finance government, including new infrastructure. This fiscal year alone, these inflated taxes are producing an over $5B surplus in the face of a huge spending increases in the 2005/2006 budget proposed and approved by the gang.
Spending, as always, is the problem. Both Republicans and Democrats in government are addicted to it. Right now Republicans have the biggest addiction.
There is more than enough money from the state's General Fund revenue streams to build dramatic, new infrastructure. The Wilsonegger gang simply needs to stop proposing huge increases in non infrastructure spending.
The public works "plan" involves much more than just roads, much more.
It's like a giant smorgasbord for bingers.
More pork than ya can shake a stick at.
I can see the upgrading of things, I would just wish they would quit trying to get themselves and families rich while doing these things.
(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.")
You don't like rich people? lol
The pay as you go is the best route to go here, especially with the gang of thieves running sacramento these days.
When people are using California tax dollars to do stuff, I want a good deal.
The same way I want all government connected employees and unions to be a bargain and not getting paid 30% more than in the private sector.
Pay as you go is a way, but you have to plan future things and to pay for that you need the money.
If they did finance this early with bonds, they better have laws preventing everyone from touching it for anything else IMO.
I think they should plan so much for 5 years and bond that, do the work or start it than repeat the same process later, kind of like an escrow.
a 5 year plan, I'm sure DiChiFi and the Gub would agree. ;-)
"We've got only $13 billion going into what I think California thinks infrastructure is," he said.
Out of $222 Billion?
I'd love to see the detailed list.
Gotta make room for all the new illegal immigrants, doncha know?
No to 222.6 billon going to Sac.Pay as we go.
road projects , 3 years? I wish. Here in the Bay
Area more like 8 or 10
It needs to be spent on real stuff and not abused.
The state gubamint still needs to streamline itself, it is fat across the board.
I'm just not sure the 'beast' can be tamed, easily anyway.
General Obilgation/ Existing New Funding
Total Lease Revenue Bonds Funding Sources Sources
------ ------------------- --------------- -----------
Program GO LR
Transportation/Air Quality $107.0 $12.0 0 $47.0 $48.0
K-12* $48.2 $26.3 0 $21.9 0
Higher Education* $11.7 $11.7 0 0 0
Flood Control and Water Supply $35.0 $9.0 0 $21.0 $5.0
Public Safety $17.4 $6.8 $0.4 $10.2 0
Courts & Other $3.3 $2.2 $0.4 $0.7 0
----- ----- ----- ------- ------
GRAND TOTALS TEN YEARS $222.6 $68.0 $0.8 $100.8 $53.0
You won't. It is purposely being suppressed. Revelation of the list would immediately reveal two things. The geographic distribution of the infrastructure proposals and the nature of the spending, in the majority, for things not considered state infrastructure by voters (schools, prisons, low income housing, training and rehabilitation, etc.)
The initiatives that result from these schemes will be just as deceptive as Prop 76. The devil will be in the details. Read the fine print and be prepared to face the condemnation of the CRP when you publish the facts on this forum. The CRP subscription will go berserk and come at you from all directions. claiming that you are 1) supporting the Democrat agenda, 2) Supporting the Democrat candidate for governor and 3) that you are really a liberal trolling the forum. FairWarning.
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.