CA: Partisan split may erode infrastructure bond plans

Fresno Bee ^ | February 22, 2006 | Dan Walters

[calcowgirl]

Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature's Democratic leaders are patting each other on the back for their recent collegiality and pledging that they'll jointly fashion a multibillion-dollar infrastructure improvement program this year.

Quietly, however, major conflicts are emerging on how the massive public works program would be financed, mirroring the division that underlies the state's 5-year-long political stalemate over closing the state budget deficit.

Schwarzenegger wants infra- structure bonds to be largely financed from a budget that already is gushing red ink and is resisting major new taxes, such as a boost in the gasoline tax. But his approach would commit a substantial portion of the state budget to bond service for many years, thereby denying those funds to other forms of spending, and that raises the hackles of Democratic legislators.

The conflicts over financing surfaced Tuesday when Schwarzenegger's budget director, Mike Genest, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez made a joint appearance, along with the Legislature's budget analyst, Elizabeth Hill, on a panel to discuss chances for infrastructure improvements.

Nunez told the panel that Democrats want to hold the level of bonding to less than half of the $68billion that Schwarzenegger is seeking over the next decade and also envision more user fees — possibly including gas taxes — to offset their cost.

(snip)

Genest, however, insisted that the debt service costs of the Nunez alternative would not be substantially less than those of the Schwarzenegger plan, at least in the initial years, because of lag time in getting projects built and bonds issued. And he told the panel discussion that the governor's plan represents the priorities that the administration carefully chose from a list of potential recipients.

[calcowgirl]

Genest, however, insisted that the debt service costs of the Nunez alternative would not be substantially less than those of the Schwarzenegger plan, at least in the initial years, because of lag time in getting projects built and bonds issued.

Deficits? Debt? No problem--let the next generation pay.

[MillerCreek]

I bet I am not alone in this opinion and that is that this article, or perhaps the politicians involved, (but probably both/all), leave me more confused than had I not read a word.

[45Auto]

Yep. These scum bags are just arguing over how much deferred taxation they are going to pile up on the next generation. Damn fools. And the voters of California are just as foolish as the clowns we have put into office. On top of this nonsense I see that the state's pension fund is so in the red that more bonds and/or tax hikes are needed to pay for tens of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities. There are a few fiscal conservatives in the Cal legislature - but they are greatly outnumbered by the Marxist Utopians who think the tax dollar trough is a bottomless pit of free money to be tapped for every nutty welfare state giveaway. We can also thank the greedy teacher's unions and the greedy state employee's unions for a big part of the mess.

[MillerCreek]

BUT, I read this loudly and clearly and agree with it, for the most part:

The emerging conflict over the size and repayment of bonds reflects the long-standing stalemate over whether the budget deficit should be eliminated — if, in fact, it is to be erased — through holding down spending or raising taxes.

The political reality is that the voting public appears to want neither, and both parties are being coy about their true intentions in this election year.

It's a crying shame that we have "elected officials" for a state as massive as CA (or any other, for that matter), who continue to argue whether the deficit should be reduced/eliminated. Preposterous. And not just one interest doing so, but now pervasively.

[goldstategop]

I used to think Arnold was making peace with the Democrats. The more I look at it, the more I think he's paying them back in spades for his humiliation last year by forcing them to choose between domestic spending and infrastructure spending. And they were too stupid to notice the trap in front of them and they walked right into it, being the Democrats they are. Gotcha!

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

The Democrats want everything but they know if they have to choose, screw infrastructure. The votes are with their dependent constituency and they will do everything they can to keep them fed and happy.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[goldstategop]

The liberals in this state love spending but don't want to pay for it. There's the appetite for Big Government and low taxes. Don't ask me to explain the formula: this is California.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[MillerCreek]

Yes, agreed, and completely. Problem is, all our state government IS liberal and they're just arguing with one another with the same goal in mind: increase the taxpayer dollars inorder to increase the funding for socialist programs. It's just a case today of degrees of liberalism in government but I don't see any difference of opinion as reported in this article so much as I see difference in degrees with the same process in mind: more money from taxpayers to fund more and depreciate the deficit less.

[MillerCreek]

I feel, today, like just writing, "I'm so tired, I'm so tired, I'm so tired." Because, I admit it, I have no more ideas and am stuck on analyzing the problem and not any solutions. Thus, I'm tired.

[MillerCreek]

Well, Nunez is opting for social spending. Given his reign, I'm assuming that means there will be social spending and less attention to infrastructure. Then the public workers union will want extra benefits for the inconvenience and then...it's a downward spiral called Liberal ruled California.

[Deek1969]

Dont blame me, I voted for McClintock!