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.
Tom should be the one sitting in the governor's mansion instead of the Austrian dufus we put there.
Well, my question wasn't really sarcastic. It was more an expression of amazement and
disgust at how far the political system has broken down and been corrupted.
When you say the "system works well," I assume you mean for the elite political class.
I am in agreement that behavior demonstrated by Sundheim and others reinforces and
further enables the corruption. The media is suffering from some similar malady.
CUT, CUT, CUT would have been a refreshing change, huh?
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=BUDGET-01-26-06
(snip)
Republicans on the committee focused on the deficit.
"The actual numbers on our state ledgers show a widening deficit at a substantial rate and a substantially faster growth in expenditures than we saw" in the administration of Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, said Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks.
(snip)
McClintock made an unsuccessful attempt to amend the budget bill to remove funding for nearly 5,300 new state jobs the governor has proposed.
Just 5 minutes ago, Michael Medved was speaking with a frustrated caller who asked him why so many are moving out of CA.
Medved said "It's the government!"
He paraphrased a recent talk he heard by Tom McClintock who said what else could make someone move from such beauty full of redwoods and beaches to nuclear deserts?
Only government can do that. Bad legislators, bad business regulations, bad schools.
So glad to hear him praise McClintock.
With the New Majority/Lincoln Club/Wislonegger wing of the CAGOP in charge of party finances, strategy and policy, McClintock will not be given a chance to run as a Republican gubernatirial candidate.
To this emerging and wealthy class of neoliberals within the CAGOP, McClinctock's steadfast principles are simply heresy. This enlightened group firmly believe that rigidity is fatal, traditions can and should be ignored if they compromise victory and principle is that which best satisfies the whim of the mob.
McClintock will not be given a chance to run as a Republican gubernatirial candidate.
Sheesh! He already ran and came in third, Mr. Denial.
Which part of Democracy is most unfair to you fellas?
Sorry it was late.
Yes I did intend to highlight that the charade in California governance is being enabled by the emerging class of neoliberals within the CAGOP. That their institutional subscriptions on this forum are designed to blunt, misdirect or suppress criticism of their efforts as they work diligently to corrupt California's constitutional traditions and the fabric of its conservative minority.
CA: New Majority now 'integral' to O.C.'s GOP
OC Register ^ | 12/25/2004 | Martin Wisckol
Posted on 01/27/2006 10:37:05 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Those pesky little facts.
McClintock entered the recall without the support or approval of the CAGOP. In fact, the CAGOP still officially opposed the recall when McClintock filed on Aug 5. The CAGOP didn't endorse a candidate in the recall until Sept 25. That candidate was not Tom McClintock.
I just love neoliberals.
But first off, FairOpinion is NOT a schill. And the personal ad hominems and gang-bang attacks on this board against FO are truly obscene at times. Disgusting. And reveal more about the person posting them than scores any great "ideologic" or "intelligent" points.
Sometimes, I get the impression that you happen to live in one of the red enclaves of CA. A bubble. A sanity bubble, yes, you might say that. But there are far more of all Californian's living in the blue and purple zones who live with the reality of what's become of CA -- every single day. I sure did. The hammering of the left NEVER lets up, anywhere. Talk shows help. Reading conservative ideas and issue items, HELPS. But it doesn't cut through or bypass the reality of existing among socialists. There is no low, too low, for them. There is nothing they will not stoop to HURT a conservative residing in a strongly-held blue or purple zone.
And this is what I think may be a problem in these threads.
For many of us fighting daily with liberals? Arnold is the path. He's not a RINO. His way is the way through it. And how do many of we know? We know his path and because we have to live it every single day. And we do stand up and say our conservative minds, daily. And watch as more liberal democrats via unions ad nauseum make moves to take-away more freedoms in the "purple zones". But! We also get to witness more on-the-fence liberals becoming MORE conservative.
The hysterics of liberalism will always be hysterical. Can't do much there.
But to those liberals of good sense and love and respect for fellow man but fed "propoganda" daily by the liberal means, Arnold makes sense. Many liberals in "purple zones" are getting to experience and witness that these aren't liberals seizing their freedoms -- but fascists (common vernacular translation: control freaks).
And this is why I think often, you and your group live in a bubble. The stuff you write "looks good and valid on paper" but it is UNTENABLE in the realities, the daily lives, of many CA conservatives who LIVE AND WORK AND are RAISING THEIR CHILDREN in the hell-zones.
And if such CA conservatives CAN'T talk here, and they can't talk in their realities, it's hardly surprising they MOVE out of state and or leave these CA threads ALONE.
They can jolly well stay in their own areas of domicile without taking further abuse from "so-called" conservatives on FREE REPUBLIC on line!@
As I've asked before: Which party (since it is certainly not Republicans, or only Republicans you "esteem" as having worth as "real conservatives") do you support and/or vote for?
Again, which part of Democracy is most unfair to you?
There's no getting through to the "Let's lose one for the Principle" crowd.
The skies with those big ole' fluffy clouds. And those colorful sunsets which melt your heart. I miss the greening of those golden hills in spring. I miss that elven feel while walking through the redwoods, wondering about what-all these old redwoods have seen through the passage of time, koyanisquatsi-film-technique style. Or the gabillion stars seen in the foothills of the Sierras. And the predictability of the weather... SUNNY. lol. Wandering the lagoons, exploring the caves. Following old miner trails.
and it's that which makes me wonder about what they post. It's not reasonable nor civil unless you fully agree with them.
The part where party-above-principle Hispandering GOP Big Tent RINOs like you are actually permitted to vote.
Don't blame us just because your man, Bustamante, couldn't manage to win an election.
Go contaminate a different thread. The adults around here don't have time to play "slap the quisling" this afternoon.
Perhaps later.
An odd concindence?
That their institutional subscriptions on this forum are designed to blunt, misdirect or suppress criticism of their efforts.
If my failing memory serves me correctly the discussion was prompted by a challenege to the statement:
McClintock will not be given a chance to run as a (endorsed) Republican gubernatorial candidate.
He wasn't in the summer of 2003 and he won't be in the 2010 cycle.
Typical drivel from the Petty Paleos.
I supported the wining candidate, Arnold.
You know Arnold, the Governor you didn't help pass anti-Union and anti-Abortion ballot measures.
Did you like his Death Penalty stance?
Did you agree with him lowering your car tax?
Did you agree with him not allowing illegal to get driver's licenses?
Who's the quisling?
Which explains their election winning percentage.
Maybe I should call them Pelosi's Petty Paleos?
No, total number of votes received is why he came in third.
Democracy Rules.
OK, I'll bite.
You!
You just have to learn to stop serving up these gofer balls. If you don't, we're liable to nominate you for the "FR's Dumbest Quisling" award. The prize is a lifelike Frito Bandito sock puppet.
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.