Posted on 10/10/2008 9:05:14 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Even in the best of times, the three major bond proposals on the November ballot would merit a thumbs down. Propositions 1A, 3, and 10 would put taxpayers another $16 billion in debt to fund some dubious projects.
Proposition 1A spends $10 billion as a down payment on a massive bullet train project. Promoters, which includes the company responsible for Boston's infamous "Big Dig" disaster, claim the project can be completed for about $50 billion. However, a just released study by transportations experts, which includes a former president of the High Speed Rail Association and a former member of the Amtrak Reform Council, show that actual costs could easily exceed $80 billion.
The study also shows that backers have radically exaggerated the potential ridership and that the travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles would be much greater than advertised. Study authors actually support sound high speed rail projects, but they reject the Proposition 1A plan as a fantasy that could cost taxpayers additional billions of dollars for a much diminished outcome. The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation, the Reason Foundation and Citizens Against Government waste and can be viewed or downloaded by clicking here.
Promoters of Proposition 3 know the best way to gain support for a spending measure is connect it to children. Since its purported purpose is to expand childrens' hospitals, its passage might seem a certainty. However, the primary beneficiaries of this billion dollar bond will be five private hospitals. Is anyone surprised that the campaign that placed Proposition 3 on the ballot was paid for by these private interests? After all, it is a great return on investment -- a few million dollars upfront to collect signatures in return for hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars later.
Proposition 10 is a clever scheme. It is designed to ride on the hysteria over global warming by claiming to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. However, it is really a $5 billion subsidy to those who buy vehicles that use alternative fuels, especially natural gas. A company owned by billionaire T. Boon Pickens, a major supplier of natural gas, paid to gather the signatures to put Proposition 10 before voters. Without guaranteeing any net reduction in emissions, Proposition 10 will help to make a very rich man even richer.
Yes, in the best of times, these measures would leave taxpayers holding their noses. However, at a time when the state and nation are in the midst of fiscal crisis, the propositions move into a category under the heading of "You've got to be kidding!"
California is already massively in debt -- we approved another
$42 billion in bonds just two years ago. These new bonds, would add another $16 billion to a debt that must be repaid from our state general fund, which has an ongoing structural deficit. Currently, more than 5% of budget goes to retire bond debt, money that is then unavailable for important state services like education, healthcare, transportation and law enforcement.
But it gets even worse. California is suffering 7.7% unemployment and is setting records for home foreclosures. The State Department of Finance says that California has experienced a net out-migration of citizens over the last decade as taxpayers and jobs are moving to other states and even other countries. Our state is already regarded as a bad credit risk and with the failure of some of our nation's largest financial institutions the cost of borrowing is going even higher.
Usually, government bonds cost taxpayers double their face value when interest over 30 years is added. However, with the high cost of borrowing and our state's poor credit rating, taxpayers could be on the hook for 220% or 240% of bond face value, rates that might make Tony Soprano look like a compassionate lender.
Even without going further into debt, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer warned the state will be hard pressed to pay its bills. Our state's credit situation is so bad the governor has requested a $7 billion bailout from the federal government.
Propositions 1A, 3, and 10 mean more debt, and California needs more debt like a drowning man needs a brick.
Are you "rich"?
I don’t know what the big deal is. Just raise taxes.
This is where "out-of-staters" get a little concerned.
absolutely amazing. I always vote any new spending down on these propositions.. and it never matters. they always pass... because:
ITS FOR THE CHILDREN
or whatever... fools... the whole lot of um.. I am about ready to start voting Libertarian again. A pox on both houses. Not sayin I will... I may wait until next election.
Why not have California borrow from ACORN’s $500 million per year forever fund?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Why? Are voters supposed to be stupid?
Take on enough debt, and it's now very clear you can rely on the government taking money away from responsible spenders to bail you out. Californians would have to be idiots not to pass these bonds.
Actions have consequences, and the bailout will not be an exception.
Drew Garrett
Voters should just say NO to more debt!
But they won’t. Californians just love their taxes.
Norm, why didn’t you include the billions that Proposition 5 (principally supported by GEORGE SOROS) will cost?
Prop. 5 was not included in the piece but Thanks for posting that info. Good old George.
Forgive me, I thought you wrote that. It read like some of your exceptional posts usually do. << That’s a compliment, btw. (-;
Thanks!
I’ll see what I can do posting something on Prop 5. I haven’t spent much time on the propositions. Whoever said cheaper by the dozen wasn’t talking about California initiatives.
All roads lead to George Soros these days or is that a inconvenient coincidence?
Soros seems to always have money to spare for anything that will tear at the foundations of our republic. The man is truly an enemy of the United States and I only wish that someone in our government would arrange an ‘accident’ for him.
Proposition 5:
Requires California to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation.
Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole.
Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes.
Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation.
Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions.
Fiscal impact analysis:
According to the state of California, the initiative, if it passes, would lead to:
Increased state costs that could exceed $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community.
Savings to the state that could exceed $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs.
Net savings on a one-time basis on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $2.5 billion.
Unknown net fiscal effect on expenditures for county operations and capital outlay.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_5_(2008)
The line between Federal government (’controls the nation’s money supply’) and State government get blurrier every day....
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.