Skip to comments.
CA: Differences emerge over governor's public works spending plan
ap on Bakersfield Californian ^
| 2/16/06
| Steve Lawrence - ap
Posted on 02/16/2006 6:37:54 PM PST by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: NormsRevenge
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.
OO OOO..
I know.. I know
Cut spending Raise taxes .
2
posted on
02/16/2006 6:40:46 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: NormsRevenge
I think the big expense in this is when the work goes out, often they have to award contracts to friends, a special minority and others who are overpaid.
I think there should be quick bids by lots of private companies with a record.
Haliburton comes to mind here... :-)
3
posted on
02/16/2006 6:41:04 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: A CA Guy
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.
4
posted on
02/16/2006 6:44:22 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: NormsRevenge
Then they have to make part of the law that the assignments would be fast tracked and not subject to environmental law.
These are roads, they are not drilling for oil.
5
posted on
02/16/2006 6:46:20 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: NormsRevenge
Raise taxes 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.
To: A CA Guy
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.
7
posted on
02/16/2006 6:51:29 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: NormsRevenge
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.
8
posted on
02/16/2006 6:53:40 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: NormsRevenge
Nothing is going to get done. Its an election year. If a deal comes out of this by March 10th, I will be amazed. Count me skeptical, since what I see in Sacramento is a lot of politicking and no action.
(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.")
9
posted on
02/16/2006 6:56:30 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: A CA Guy
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.
10
posted on
02/16/2006 6:56:31 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: NormsRevenge
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.
11
posted on
02/16/2006 7:03:49 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: A CA Guy
a 5 year plan, I'm sure DiChiFi and the Gub would agree. ;-)
12
posted on
02/16/2006 7:05:13 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: NormsRevenge
Well, each road project (at least where I see repairs and expansion) in CA seems to be at least a 3 year thing, so I do know any financing and planning IMO has be be done with BLOCKS OF TIME and funding kept in mind.
I want a deal for the tax money spent, not triple time spent to some union guy related to the Mayor of Los Angeles.
13
posted on
02/16/2006 7:09:56 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: NormsRevenge
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.
Out of $222 Billion?
I'd love to see the detailed list.
To: NormsRevenge
...prepare for population growth of about 12 million over the next 20 years. Gotta make room for all the new illegal immigrants, doncha know?
To: calcowgirl
No to 222.6 billon going to Sac.Pay as we go.
16
posted on
02/16/2006 7:40:14 PM PST
by
jocko12
To: A CA Guy
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.
17
posted on
02/16/2006 7:41:45 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: NormsRevenge
It is possible that they can be on the same freeway for a while, but they will be on a whole other area of the freeway in 1.5 years.
Out on the FWY 60 I've noticed they are trying to upgrade and do most of it on the freeway after 8PM.
South Los Angeles/North Orange Co. roads get worked on and completed pretty well also.
18
posted on
02/16/2006 7:46:16 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: NormsRevenge
Here's a snapshot. Of course, there is no disclosed "plan" on what they will spend all the money on, just how much they want to spend.
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
To: calcowgirl
I'd love to see the detailed list. 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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson