Posted on 01/26/2006 10:14:49 PM PST by NormsRevenge
I want to begin by applauding the administration for finally focusing the government’s attention on our long-neglected public works.
I have often lamented the climacteric that befell our state in 1974 with the election of Gov. Jerry Brown and the introduction of a radical and retrograde ideology. He called it his “era of limits.” It was punctuated with such new age nonsense as the mantra “small is beautiful.” I think it can best be described as the naïve notion that if we stopped building things, people would stop coming.
So we stopped building highways; we stopped building water projects; we stopped building houses and electricity plants. And people came anyway. And now we’re dealing with the result.
That ideology permeated two Democratic and two Republican administrations, and I am very glad to see this administration breaking from this folly.
But as pertains to this specific proposal, I would like to offer a few general observations.
First, by definition, transportation projects provide a direct and exclusive benefit upon a distinct class of users, and they ought to be entirely supported by those users. Thus, highways should be financed entirely by the users of those highways in proportion to their use. Ports should be financed entirely by the users of ports; mass transit by the users of mass transit, and so forth.
With respect to highways, California has long recognized that the most efficient way to do so is through a tax on gasoline paid by highway users in proportion to their use.
Second, there should be a clear distinction between the state highway system, that links the principal population, commercial, industrial and resource centers of the state; and local streets and roads that exclusively serve local communities. We used to make that distinction and we divided our gasoline taxes between the state and the various local jurisdictions.
Third, it should be recognized that highway construction and maintenance is an ongoing responsibility of each generation and should be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. Each generation has its own maintenance to do and its own roads to build without being encumbered by the decisions of previous generations. Only in the case of capital intensive projects like tunnels and bridges have genuine revenue bonds been used, redeemed not by general highway users, and not by general taxpayers, but by the specific users of those specific projects through tolls.
Measured against these principles, the bond measure before us is a textbook example of how NOT to finance highways.
First, the use of general obligation bonds for transportation projects literally forces those who don’t use them to pay for those who do. Transportation projects should be paid for by the users of those projects in proportion to their use.
Second, the proposal contemplates indebting ALL taxpayers across the state to pay for local streets and roads in other communities – again literally robbing Piedmont to pay Pasadena . State funds should only be used for projects that benefit the entire state – such as the state highway system. Projects that exclusively benefit local communities – such as local streets -- should be exclusively paid for by those local communities.
Third, the proposal contemplates using 30-year bonds to pay for maintenance and equipment that will be obsolete long before the bonds are paid off, stripping the next generation of their ability to meet their own maintenance and equipment needs.
Fourth, the proposal locks in transportation priorities that may be entirely irrelevant or outdated a few decades from now. Population centers and transportation preferences change over time. If projects are funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, they can respond to changes in transportation needs. These 30-year measures rob our children of that flexibility.
Fifth, by encumbering gasoline taxes to pay for so-called “revenue bonds” for mass transit, you are literally robbing highway users to subsidize mass transit users – destroying the financial connection between the users and the payers of transportation projects.
And here is the fine point of it. Californians pay the fourth highest tax per gallon of gasoline in the country. We rank 49th in our per capita spending on our highways. Our problem has never been a lack of funds – but rather an abundance of very bad public policy.
Our gasoline taxes have been siphoned off for purposes unrelated to our highways, and local governments were given what amounts to veto power over state highway projects.
One other point, just for perspective. At the end of the Pat Brown administration, to produce the historic expansion of the state highway system, the state water project, the state university system and so much more, the total amount of general obligation debt incurred over the eight years of that administration – in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars – was $20 billion. This proposal contemplates general obligation debt of nearly $70 billion.
At the end of that administration, only 2.2 percent of the general fund was consumed by debt service. Today the figure is 5.9 percent.
At the end of that administration, per capita spending – in 2004 inflation-adjusted dollars – amounted to under $1,500 per person. Today it is over $3,000 per person.
Which has delivered us to this fiscal paradox: despite record levels of debt, we have nothing to show for it; and despite record expenditures, we can’t seem to scrape together enough money to build a decent road system.
The fact that the overall plan contemplates nearly $70 billion of debt – compared to only $20 billion amassed by Pat Brown -- leads me to conclude that its sponsors already anticipate that it will be just as foolishly squandered as the record levels of debt and taxes that we are already paying for our public works.
Now, at this point in the proceedings, it would be customary to offer amendments to bring the proposal into line with the sound principles of fiscal policy that Senator Dutton outlined earlier.
But, of course, we are now powerless to do so, because the leadership of the Senate has agreed to bypass the constitutional process of the legislature and instead draft this measure by six members in a conference committee. So the proceedings today are so much hot air. We cannot amend this measure in any way.
In a decision that will rank as the most shameful in the history of the California Senate, the leadership has ab and oned the legislature’s role – and especially the Senate’s role – as the central decision-making organ in the state government. The careful deliberation and amendment of public policy is now a thing of the past.
We’re told our role is now “advisory.” Excuse me, but that’s what the Public Policy Institute and the Comstock Club are for. This is a legislature. We are not supposed to be advising on legislation. We are supposed to be acting on legislation.
I cannot offer amendments, so all I can do is protest, and to vote “No” when this breathtakingly bad public policy is finally dumped in our laps for a take-it or leave-it vote.
McClintock PING!
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
Jerry Brown's election was the end of California. And now conservatives have an almost insurmountable task. We have people running from California into Nevada territory to escape the insanity.
I met two couples who had fled San Diego to east Tennessee when I visited family recently. They said things got too expensive, taxes were too crazy, and their car had just been demolished by an illegal immigrant who, of course, had no insurance and disappeared into the night.
That was the end of California for them.
And the beat goes on...
Like the Democrats care about that. Oh, I'm sorry. The governor has an R behind his name. My mistake.
In a decision that will rank as the most shameful in the history of the California Senate, the leadership has abandoned the legislature’s role – and especially the Senate’s role – as the central decision-making organ in the state government.
Say What?? How can they do that?
Davis had his Big 5 meetings and I guess it stuck, How? Why? Good question.
We have an illegal immigration problem? When did this happen?
:) HA!
I don't think they can, legally. This is looks like another dark of night payoff, with Arnold's clear complicity.
Who's going to sue?
Just more "Open" Gubamint.. kind of reminds you of that most ethical gubamint ever claim by Clinton when he took office...
and the band played on as the ship proceeded at full ahead thru the ice field, Susan Kennedy ensconced with her partner in the Crow's Nest lookout.
snip
Third, it should be recognized that highway construction and maintenance is an ongoing responsibility of each generation and should be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis.
This is a really good analysis by McClintock. I do have one criticism. Pay as you go is right, as long as you actually do that. When you neglected the infrastructure and have to play catch up, then the responsibility for paying for the catch up part can and probably should fall on more than one generation.
This was President Reagan's rationale for borrowing for military spending to replace what should have been spent during the Carter years. That is if
Oh we got an ethical administration out of Clinton, but he never specified what kind of ethics upon which it intended to rely.
See? Reminds you of "special interests," doesn't it?
Its late so I'm hoping the question was sarcasm and we aren't both embarrassed by this response.
Under the ordinary system of US politics there are only two significant partisan factions. No matter how these factions are distributed among the governing bodies, a normal, intended process of governance occurs. Even the minority has their 15 minutes of fame.
California's current system is broken. It is has been perverted by the political class. There is only one faction in the governance. The elite class. Both partisan factions have carved out a slice of the resultant spoils of this ordinarily prohibited class.
The executive is willing to work with the majority, partisan faction in the legislature with no regard to the republican (small r) responsibilities of their office. The corrupted leadership of the minority, partisan faction in the legislature, also certain that there is little consequence to breaching their republican obligations, is willing to work with the majority faction, as long as they, the minority leadership, gets their small slice of the pie for their district.
Compounding this odd situation and making it truly unique is the fact that the executive is occupied by a group that is closer in principle to their partisan opponent's philosophies that that of their own party.
Even today all legislators have a role in the process but the drama is unique. The majority faction votes in lockstep because, the legislation is, after all, of their own hand. Minority factions ordinarily present an obstacle that the majority must surmount by negotiations. Not in this case.
Corrupt, legislative, minority, party leaders have already cut a deal with both the opposition in the legislature and the executive. Under these unique circumstances individual, minority party, member's votes simply don't matter. The majority, combined with the scoundrels in the minority's leadership, assured of the cooperation of the corrupt executive, control in excess of 66% of the vote and can do anything they want. The minority party faithful can pound sand. The executive won't empower the minority because the legislation being decided is also of their own hand.
Ironically the system works well because of the support of the partisan idiots that we often encounter on this forum. When you are challenged by the FairOpinion account just reflect upon the corruption in Dick Akerman, Kevin McCarthy, Duf Sundheim and the Wilsonegger gang that this account supports and enables.
BTTT
You are one very troubled soul if you think FairOpinion's opinions here on FR "make or force" everyone in CA to vote a particular way. You've (and your pals) have been running your fingers off everyday about the evils of "bad policies" and those evil "rinos". It's really having an affect on the legislature in Sacto and voters ALL THROUGHOUT CA, eh?
Blaming all this trouble in CA upon FairOpinion is stupid. Or blaming it on the usual posting (Wilsonegger ad nauseum) by you is stupid.
Blame California, if you must. Do I undersand your frustation? CHAH! YES. But WHAT is to be done?
Do you think if FairOpinion or me just "go away", it's going to change the minds of millions of voters in CA? This is what you appear to posit. You've just gotta beat up on someone for your life not being perfect, or as you think it should be?
This is insane, Amerigomag.
You've implied that FairOpinion is corrupt. You do understand that you've just posted that.
Thanks for the ping.
FO is a shill for the New Majority Big Tent Gay&GReen CA GOP, plain and simple. Is that an attack?
No, it's the most apparent conclusion one can arrive at as her posts of the last year have shown.
Forget discussing social issues, be it environment or LGBT related.
All we get from her is you're voting with the dems if you don't march lockstep with the GUB across the board.
All the while, he appoints more dems and greens and gays to the bench and commissions that he threatened to blow up not so long ago.
OH well. This is all the fault of folks at FR who are trying to highlight the differences between his hype and reality.
Thanks for weighing in, DL, I was wondering where you were hiding your soft touch. You been pretty mute of late.
Your true colors finally emerge, .. again. Thanks!
Facts suck, huh?
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.