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.
You need a defender, imo, you don't have an ability to carry your own arguments , quite frankly.
You don't seem to care or are reluctant to discuss LGBT issues much less the appointments of so many gays and greens to critical positions under the Gub.
Those are all the fault of conservatives too, I'm sure , it's in your script the CA GOP faxes ya daily.
You and others here seek to make it personal as you can't argue the issues.. nor debate the facts of what we are confronted with, never kiss a Trpjan Gift Horse, he may move in with ya and then what ya gonna do?
Why am I always the topic, instead of the issues or the article?
See my reply to Amerigomag. You shouls also see a doctor about your obsession with me.
FO, because you won't discuss issues or facts, DUUuuHHH!!!!
Your talking points are just that, hollow like the promises the Gubinator made to get elected, mostly by dems and moderates from both parties..
It seems like you are becoming more and more like the "ilk': Can't win the argument with gacts and logic, so you attack the poster viciously.
I used to think you are above that, but since you've been hanging out with the "ilk", you are sinking lower and lower.
FO, the same could be said of your MO the last few months here at FR as you relentlessly demanded blind support without fair and even handed examiniation of the intitatives in question.
Now you stomp around like a child because you are not able to win much of any arguments as to why a Trojan Horse is the best entry to have in the election derby come November.
I have the benefit of being able to be honest with myself , you sadly appear to be lacking that ability.
Oh, and go ahead and insult others all you want and if it makes you feeel better. I can hear the (M)ilq applauding your every baseless accusation.
Nope.
I do encourage partisans to join the fray but I don't accord them special privilege because they are Republicans. Simply bring conservative principles, be prepared to discuss philosophical political differences and avoid partisan promotions and loyalties. Democrats are not our enemies, liberals are.
From my perspective, the CAGOP's current leadership is a malignancy upon California's body politic and those that either promote or enable the corruption of an otherwise fine old institution and of California's constitutional protections and procedures is my political adversary regardless of party registration.
That the New Majority neoliberals are influential in the CAGOP does give me a headache. I simply refuse to allow their promoters to turn this forum into the current, CAGOP, house organ or a blank wall upon which to plaster redundant, partisan spam.
For those who wish to promote their party and discuss the ebb and flow of local political battles I suggest the CAGOP or RNC websites as an outlet for partisan pangs. That's not a desire to banish rabid partisans but a suggestion to balance their pursuits and leave them more amenable to the traditions and etiquette of a non partisan, conservative forum,
Yes, we know you can hardly wait for Angelides to be governor, or perhaps Al Gore.
I believe I have referred to you as a shill (if not, I have certainly thought it). I base it on the fact that you post much inaccurate information on these threads, and when corrected, rarely bother to acknowledge those mistakes but instead come back another day to post the same, or similar, misinformation. Always, this information seems to be favorable to either the CA GOP or Schwarzenegger, hence my conclusion that you were shilling for one of them, or a related group.
I offer but a few examples (Check the post, and the replies refuting the statements):
Riordan and Villaraigosa:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565057/posts?page=37#37
Arnold "resturcturing debt", not "new debt":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1273689/posts?page=9#9
Arnold doing 8 out of 10 things "right" so in the "overall score Arnold is way ahead"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1414618/posts?page=41#41
"Republicans are united in supporting Prop. 76"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511120/posts?page=46#46
Here's a classic misrepresentation. After reinforcing another's post about "Tom McClintock's YES vote for domestic partners to gain the same property tax advantage as married couples on the transfer of property, SCA 9," you repost the link and and further flame the anti-McClintock fire and pumping up Arnold. HOWEVER, all one had to do was click on the link to see that McClintock's vote for SCA 9 had nothing to do with domestic partnerships or property, but dealt with the State Transportation Fund.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/990737/posts?page=238#238
That post also contained this classic: "...Arnold is at least as good about the fiscal issues, as Tom, but he can actually get elected."
Your comments are childish. They speak for themself. and you own them.
An accurate statement if the we is either the CAGOP or members of the Wilsonegger gang. Both have endured my sensibilities for years.
Personal friendships going back to high school days have remained in tact because we had the common sense to avoid the use of you in our discussions.
Don't go gitten too high and mighty over there in the CA annex, buddy!!! (grin) You guys are kinda like the same as Canada to the US, ya know. We sneeze and you all catch pneumonia over there!!!
That crappola started back in Jerry Brown's and Jesse Unruh's era IIRC.
You know why Nevada is so windy, don't you SW?
Because California sucks!
:) Hehehe!
Actually, I'm ready to get rid of the RINO Governor we have. And it's election time for Governor this year. Time to get a conservative.
I dunno...Pelosi is a screech hag. Their tactics, however, remind me of the Union goons I've brawled with over the years in CA. They seem to come from such a place of insecurity that they must use bullying tactics in order to 'seem' strong. Which tells me that not only are they insecure about what they claim to "believe" but for fact they are rotten representatives for Tom McClintock. Tom is not insecure; nor is he a bully. He's a fine man, fully able to countenance dissent with civility and the full force of security in what he believes and thinks.
Hmm. Something to think about. I just figured they were abusive because they were terribly insecure about what they believe. I honestly don't think they think about their hypocrisy being exposed in terms of conscience, but rather, strategy: They want what they want and that's it. Ideas not their own or different from their own are to be destroyed and crushed.
that doing things that helps the Dem agenda and helps leftist, socialist Dems get elected is NOT a conservative position.
Bears repeating. Learned this first-hand and up-close time after time.
Oh, and thanks for confessing that you are with him, it makes it easier to accept that you are as much a liberal as he is. Keep up the act. It's all ya have left at this point.
I'm not a liberal. And have you got cyber stormtroopers waiting to come get me - that's what you meant by "all ya have left at this point" -- an implied threat?
Egads, I can just imagine what it might be like to have YOU as a parent. Eyuck. If I don't eat my peas, the headless bogeyman is gonna get me?
"WE" ? ?
Who is "we"? All of FR? Your little band of roving cyber drive-bys?
If ya stop propping up RINOs and liberal agenda pushers,
ya might get a little respect, 'til then..
PS - MY cats won't eat peas, no matter how much honey I put on them. You would? ;-)
I guess then you could say that NV is either a low pressure area, or that it's just a vaccuum, right? (grin)
Hey! I can remember back to a time when your "biggest little city in the world" didn't even have a "Gay Rodeo!" Yuck, yuck, yuck, Yucca, NV!!! Tee Hee.
Yeah, instead of rolling just craps, yer Governor has rolled a lotta crappola atchew Nevadanites! You might as well have a Carpetbagger in there from Taxachewsettes!!!
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.