Replies

It depends on the size of the bill - if its the size of a telephone book, no one can read the whole thing in a decent amount of time. They have to go by the printed summary, which may be not be completely accurate either since there are often last minute amendments, deletions and revisions. Payoffs, green money and hidden tax hikes - the Left wish list disguised as an infrastructure plan. Under normal legislative processes, none of this would ever fly. But these things can get under the radar since this is anything but a normal legislative process. There are no checks and balances here when the pressure is on you to vote for something that seems popular but which has a lot of stuff you'd oppose under regular circumstances. That's what the Democrats are counting on - Republican ignorance. In the old days, they might have gotten away with it but thanks to the New Media, we can now blow the whistle on this scameroo in real time.

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.")

This is posted at Flash Report. (Note: It was posted in 'upper case' letters, presumably to show Coupal's outrage but making it unbearable to read. I changed it to 'sentence case' for ease of reading).

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.