Posted on 12/29/2005 9:14:24 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO - After a year of sounding like former Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan and calling for new powers to cut spending, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has shifted gears.
He's begun to sound a bit more like another former California governor, Democrat Pat Brown, who presided over an era when the state built freeways, water projects and universities.
"I want to create an infrastructure — a huge infrastructure — that reduces the gridlock of our roads, builds the facilities that our cities and counties need, speeds up the movement of goods ... and delivers more energy and water and all the resources that we need to grow," Schwarzenegger said in a recent speech.
The emphasis on public works projects comes on the heels of voters' rejection of the four ballot measures the Republican governor championed in the Nov. 8 special election. That included Proposition 76, which would have capped state spending and given the governor greater authority to make midyear cuts.
It also comes as Schwarzenegger prepares for re-election saddled with low approval ratings, particularly among the Democrats and independents who account for two-thirds of California's registered voters.
"I think he understands he needs to build a record if he is running for re-election and a legacy if he is not," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the University of Southern California. "He has taken a page from the Pat Brown playbook."
A spokesman for the governor said Schwarzenegger's emphasis on rebuilding California is part of a long-term plan, not a new direction. Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer also said the governor will continue efforts to control state spending.
Nonetheless, 2006 is shaping up as a year when the governor and lawmakers focus on tackling a huge backlog of public works projects, ranging from highways, to port access, to school construction, to levees.
"There are lots of needs because we have neglected lots of things," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. "California has not invested in a long time in things that make California work."
The state is supposed to draft an annual plan laying out its public works needs but hasn't done so since 2003.
It faces a $160 billion to $200 billion shortfall in transportation funding alone over the next 10 years, said Sen. Tom Torlakson, chairman of the Select Committee on California Infrastructure.
"Our transportation system has been unraveling," the Antioch Democrat said. "We're 50th in the nation in the amount we spend per citizen on transportation, 49th in the nation in the condition of the roads, and we have the most congested areas in the nation."
Finding a way to pay for a massive program to ease traffic, improve levees and build other projects in an era of continuing state budget deficits won't be easy.
The Legislature's budget analyst, Elizabeth Hill, announced in November that the state would have a brief respite from deficits in 2006 if lawmakers don't increase spending beyond projected levels.
But she warned that deficits would return in 2007 unless the Legislature and the governor made additional budget cuts or raised revenue.
During a post-election trip to China, Schwarzenegger said the package he would propose could cost "much, much more" than $50 billion.
"We're looking at something really big," he said.
But Palmer said the governor hasn't decided which projects to include in his proposal, how much it would cost or how to pay for it.
He also said the governor was looking at more than just borrowing money by selling general obligation bonds, a traditional financing method that requires voter approval and can cost the state about a dollar in interest for every dollar it borrows.
"He said, 'Think outside the bond,'" Palmer said.
Alternatives include imposing user fees or assessments on industries that would benefit from the improvements or requiring local governments to chip in, Palmer said.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who is drafting his own infrastructure legislation, said lawmakers should identify a revenue source to pay off the additional debt, possibly through a tax increase, if they approve the use of bonds.
"It's a discussion we're going to have to have," the Los Angeles Democrat said.
The California Alliance for Jobs, a construction industry group, is recommending that lawmakers and the governor approve a $30 billion to $40 billion bond measure as a first step in dealing with the backlog. The group advocates a quarter-cent sales tax increase to help pay off the bonds.
Palmer said Schwarzenegger won't accept a tax hike.
Assembly Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin, also opposes a general tax increase but said the package could include revenue bonds that would be paid off "by people actually getting the benefit" of levee upgrades, water projects and certain other improvements.
The state should also take more of a pay-as-you-go approach to financing public projects instead of selling bonds, Ackerman said.
"You can't bond everything," he said.
State Controller Steve Westly, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2006, joined the debate Thursday by calling for legislation that would impose more accountability for bond spending. He proposed creating an oversight commission that would have final say over which projects get funded.
Proposition 53, a constitutional amendment lawmakers added to the 2003 special election ballot, would have alloted a small percentage of the state's general fund each year for public improvements. Voters soundly rejected it.
Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, said voters' attitudes may have changed since then.
"We are living off of infrastructure that was built not when Jerry Brown was governor, but when his father was governor," he said.
But he added that Republicans aren't likely to support a huge bond measure.
"Our members are going to see what is the need, what is the prioritization, where is the money going and how to pay for it," he said. "I don't think our caucus is going to put generations in debt. We are supportive of building the infrastructure of California. We're just not supportive of living in deficit."
State Treasurer Phil Angelides, another Democratic gubernatorial candidate, also is leery of a huge bond measure. He warned that paying it off without a revenue increase could eat into money needed for education, health care and other programs.
Some lawmakers are considering adopting a series of bonds instead of just one mega proposal. Spreading the bonds over several elections would ease the impact on the state's budget and credit ratings, Torlakson said.
The state hasn't been neglecting its needs completely. Voters have approved nearly $74 billion in bonds since 1996, including $37.5 billion for public schools and universities.
Lawmakers already have placed a $600 million library construction and renovation bond measure on next June's ballot and a $9.9 billion measure on the November ballot to begin construction of a high-speed rail system.
Perata is proposing an $11.7 billion bond measure that would provide money for flood protection, port improvements, low-cost housing and transportation projects.
He said lawmakers and the governor should try to put such a bond on the June 6 primary election ballot instead of waiting until November. If they make that their goal, they would have to act by early February.
"There are lots of needs because we have neglected lots of things," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. "California has not invested in a long time in things that make California work."
---
Gee, Thanks, Don! You mean all the dough blown on illegals and the unions could have been spent on infrastructure all along if folks like you had set the priorities to that end.
And of course these projects will be financed by the the hard earned dollars of California taxpayers. Goodness, can we get a politician that doesn't fall into the tax and spend trap that seems to be the cultural norm these days?
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, hugs a supporter after announcing that he would seek re-election at a town hall meeting in San Diego Friday, Sept. 16, 2005. Schwarzenegger prepares for a re-election campaign saddled with low approval ratings, particularly among Democrats and independents. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger talks with the media after attending a ribbon cutting ceremony at opening of the Leland Stanford Mansion State Historic Park in Sacramento,Calif., in this Sept. 9, 2005, file photo. Schwarzenegger, who called 2005 his 'year of reform' starts 2006 facing reelection in a weakend postion, caused by his ill-fated special election and unrest within his own party with the appointment of a Democratic activist as his chief-of-staff. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, FILE)
Where does the AP come off asserting that infrastructure is a Democratic issue? Infrastructure is necessary for economic growth, and although the GOP experiments in private and market solutions, it has never opposed public spending on economicly productive purposes. It just has a much narrower concept of which government purposes are productive.
Why do we need a high Speed Rail System?
"Why do we need a high Speed Rail System? "
Because the roads are terrible, after many years of neglect.
Whatever happened to shaking hands?
Saddly, his political days are close to over.
Why do we need a high Speed Rail System?
--
To get the fish home from the beach faster?
It's a vision thing.
I ain't going there,, but apparently girly men are. ;-)
The Dems have been ignoring the infrastructure and spent all the tax revenue on social programs instead, and it finally hit crisis proportion under Arnold, just as terrorism has been ignored for years under Clinton and became a crisis under Bush.
This is from 2001, and things have only gotten worse since:
Dec. 27, 2001:
California Tops the List of Worst Roads in the Nation
http://www.allstays.com/Features/CaliforniaWorstRoads.htm
California's rutted, cracked and neglected roads now rank at the bottom of all 50 states in roadway quality and per capita dollars being spent to improve them, according to a new study from Transportation California.
Last year the state's roads were third worst in the nation. With 37 percent of 168,000 miles of state and local roads rated poor, the state has fallen to dead last on the list, according to The Road Information Program, which prepared the study.
``A generation of underinvestment in California's streets, highways, overpasses and bridges has resulted in a shameful deterioration of what once was a showcase transportation network,'' said Larry Fisher, executive director of Transportation California, the state's leading transportation advocacy and public education organization.
California ranks first nationally in extra vehicle operating costs that motorists pay when driving on congested, rutted roads. California motorists collectively pay $12 billion, or $558 individually, in extra vehicle operating costs annually as a result of driving on roads in poor, mediocre and fair condition. Reducing the percentage of poor and mediocre roads to 20 percent, respectively, would save the average motorist $215 annually, and all California drivers $4.7 billion.
And more about CA roads:
California Has the Roughest Roads in the Country
http://www.transportationca.com/recent_news/roughest_in_country.shtml
Puublic works projects are great if you have money to pay for them.
Sometimes you don't have a choice -- see my previous two posts about CA's roads being the worst in the nation.
In LA 64% of the roads are rated poor, compared to the national average of 26% beeing poor.
Heaven forbid be it a *GASP* petroleum refinery!
You don't have to convince me about the state of California roads! I have lived in CA since 1979. I still remember when CA roads, colleges, and high-tech businesses were the envy of the world -- before the arrogantly and hyperbolically stupid Leftists gained power and destroyed everything within their reach. Every penny of gasoline tax, and every bond issue ever floated to maintain roads has been diverted by CA's massively corrupt politicians into the coffers that provide payola to the bureaucracy and unions, which have a serpent's stranglehold on this once magnificent state. IMO, you couldn't execute enough of these bastards quickly enough to bring this state back to it's prior greatness.
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.