Posted on 03/11/2006 6:18:30 PM PST by Amerigomag
Jay Leno was just hitting the midway point in his late-night show when the state Senate reconvened to debate the largest bond measure in California history.The public works plan before senators Friday night was worth nearly $49 billion. That a debate over the future of California's highways, levees, schools, ports and mass transit systems took place after midnight with half the Legislature not even session is symbolic, but not favorably.
The Senate's leader, President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, has tried to make public works financing a priority the past few years. That would seem to put him in step with Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Perata said that he, too, was frustrated that the Friday deadline to place a compromise measure on the June ballot had come and gone without an agreement. Democrats complain that Schwarzenegger didn't get serious about negotiating until the past week. The administration says it already has compromised by significantly lowering the amount of borrowing. Republican lawmakers complain that they haven't heard enough details, from either their leaders or the governor's office.
State Senator Tom McClintock is a Republican running for lieutenant governor on what the party has described as an informal ticket with Schwarzenegger. Yet there he was on the Senate floor criticizing the size of a spending plan that was $20 billion less than what Schwarzenegger had originally proposed. McClintock has built a reputation sounding the alarm on runaway spending, and much of his criticism of the Perata plan focused on how the money was to be spent too much, he said, on maintenance and equipment and not enough on actual construction. But his criticism about the sheer size of the proposed bond package illustrated the difficulty of Schwarzenegger, the Democrats and Republicans trying to reach a deal on such a complex issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at pe.com ...
I just post em. I don't write the headline.
"Limo" is purgatory for dead people with money.
You can tell it's a big deal when it rides a limo.
(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.")
Still no mention by the media of the tax increase included in this legislation.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_134_bill_20060310_amended_sen.html
There shall be collected each year and in the same manner
and at the same time as other state revenue is collected, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount required to pay the principal of, and interest on, the bonds each year. It is the duty of all officers charged by law with any duty in regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform each and every act that is necessary to collect that additional sum.
Although the Assembly has yet to vote on the measure, its leaders were meeting this weekend in hopes of reaching an agreement by Monday, the deadline for the June ballot.
Both the state Senate and Assembly must approve the bond measure by a two-thirds' vote before the governor can sign the bill into law.
If legislators fail to pass the measure by midnight on Monday, they may have to wait until November to put it before voters.
"We are going to see if we can get some consensus," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Democratic state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.
State senators were not part of the talks on Saturday, said Republican Assemblyman Rick Keene, and it was unclear if they would join their Assembly counterparts on Sunday.
During his state-of-the-state speech, Schwarzenegger proposed that California launch its most ambitious infrastructure program in more than a generation by spending $222.6 billion over a decade to expand public works, especially highways, flood-control projects, jails and courthouses.
His plan would require California to sell $68 billion in general obligation debt. He urged lawmakers to help him craft a bill for a bond measure on the June ballot to ask voters to approve a first round of debt totaling $25.2 billion.
Nunez and state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata proposed a $48 billion bond.
The measure failed along party lines in the Democratic-led Senate after Republicans said it did not do enough for state dams and transportation.
While Democrats agree with the governor the state's infrastructure is long overdue for improvement, they have disagreed on which public works need repair and expansion.
Republicans lawmakers said California should not issue more debt and proposed setting aside a percentage of state revenues for infrastructure needs.
Why isn't the lame stream press reporting on the large amount of enviro and special interest graft and corruption...I mean, spending; and the hidden tax hike?
First, March 10. Now, March 13.
I think California should wait until Schwarzenegger/Perata/Nunez find their 8th victim and them we can have an election 90 days latter.
Fair and flexible.
The tax hike is a headscratcher. The language (or language similar to it) that I posted above was repeated no less than 8 times in the legislation. It's not exactly hidden if anybody actually read the text. Did the governor agree to this?
It reminds me of college. If you got that term paper under the professor's door by Monday at 8AM, he'd consider it received on Friday, as due.
Besides, rules don't apply to the Dems and the Wilsonegger gang. I wouldn't be surprised if March 13 slips a bit, as well. Maybe we can just have a special election when they're ready.
(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.")
The question is will we have a deal we can live with? I don't think so since the Democrats have no intention of negotiating with Republicans. They'll try to craft language they and the Governor's people can agree on and then cherry pick a couple of Republican votes to get it on the ballot. The good news is that so far on the GOP side, there have been no takers. Let's hope it stays that way through next week.
(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.")
I hear ya, GSG. The liberals need to be exposed and terminated.
I just found something from HJTA (see next post) exposing more of this scameroo.
Reminds me of the joke about Mr. And Mrs. so and so spent the evening getting out of the limo.
Big Bond Deal Full of PORK
Jon Fleischman - Publisher
3-12-2006 9:51 am
This just came across my e-mail from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - all FR readers should know that this group is the single most effective organization watching out for the rights of taxpayers in Sacramento. A 'must read' memo... (if you want to get their e-mails, subscribe here...)
FROM THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
EMERGENCY NOTICE!!!
BOND DEAL CHOCK FULL OF PORK!!! PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR!!!
TO: All HJTA Members, Supporters And Other Taxpayer Allies
FROM: Jon Coupal, HJTA President
TIME: Late Saturday Night, MARCH 11
We've been told that the infrastructure bond is critical for California's current safety. If that is the case, why are they planning to spend $100 million on soccer fields?
Folks, we thought we had seen it all, but this takes the cake. First, most of you have read reports that the senate failed to pass the bond proposal last night. Good!!! The sad fact is that not one Senator had even read the bill and that there were only two printed copies at the time of the vote!
For those willing to wade through the 102 pages of the current version of the bond bill, click on this link.
The position of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is straightforward: general obligation bonds as a means of financing infrastructure are legitimate as long as they are accompanied by a number of specific reforms.
What we have seen so far falls way short of the mark.
One of the most troubling aspects of this bill is that it leaves it up to a future vote of the legislature as to how much of the funds are spent, by a majority, not a two-thirds vote, of each house. This is wrong. The purpose of the two-thirds vote is to obtain consensus over important matters, including incumbering our children with billions in new debt. This provision would remove fiscal conservatives from the process for future spending.
SPECIFIC CONCERNS FOR RIGHT NOW (there will be more later):
$100 million for California youth soccer.
Another $500 million to coastal protection, including $300 million to the coastal conservancy, and $100 million in the ocean protection trust fund. Yet $330 million more for "resource protection." and then, "the sum of one hundred million dollars shall be available, upon appropriation therefore, for grants for projects that promote sustainable resource use in public facilities, including the use of green building materials in schools."
Majority vote of the legislature to spend $200 million of bond funds (30-year debt service) for school bus retrofit. Not only is the majority vote provision wrong, because these buses will not have an effective life of 30 years, this violates one of the important principles of rational debt financing.
$1 billion appropriation to the state local partnership program account, subject to a majority vote appropriation of the legislature "...and subject to such conditions and criteria as the legislature may provide by statute...." again, a billion dollars to be spent by a simple majority vote.
$650 million, majority vote of the legislature, regional planning, housing and infill incentive fund, for, among other vital things, "grants for preservation of open space" and "urban park creation."
What does this have to do with infrastructure? Isn't the urgency here because of flood protection?
$1.45 billion for the Affordable Housing Account -- continuously appropriated, so of course it's another majority vote. So much for a bipartisan plan.
$135 million to the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Fund. This is not infrastructure.
"The legislature may, from time to time, amend the provisions of law related to programs to which funds are, or have been, allocated pursuant to this subdivision for the purpose of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the program, or for the purpose of furthering the goals of the program." is this an open-ended grant of authority to change all the spending priorities, again, with a simple majority vote?
The good news is that I have heard of no republican willing to sign off on this deal. However, we are urging our members to contact their legislators and remind them that a bond deal without reforms is no deal at all.
Ping to above :
FROM THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
EMERGENCY NOTICE!!!
BOND DEAL CHOCK FULL OF PORK!!!
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR!!!
The cows sheeple will be so disappointed thrilled.
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.