CA: Bond bygones

Riverside Press-Enterprise ^ | 3/19/06 | Editorial

[NormsRevenge]

Even stretching the deadline by five days was not enough for the Legislature and the governor to agree on a bond measure for the June ballot. That failure, though, represents a victory for Californians: Instead of a hasty collection of poorly thought out compromises, legislators now have time to craft a bond measure that properly addresses the state's needs.

The governor and Legislature on Wednesday night finally gave up on a ballot measure for June, after extending the March 10 deadline to try for an agreement. But movement toward the first stage of the governor's $222 billion, 10-year public works plan fizzled as discussions wore on.

Gov. Schwarzenegger wanted a $25.2 billion bond measure on the June ballot, with money for roads, water projects, schools, prisons and courts. But that plan quickly sank in the Legislature's political whirlpools, with the size and purpose of the bond changing constantly.

Finally, the Assembly voted to put a $14.5 billion bond on the June ballot, but it only included money for levees and school construction. The Senate did not pass any bond, but appropriated $1 billion from the state's general fund for repairing levees. And then everyone gave up on a June bond.

Fine. The state government ignored infrastructure needs for years; waiting until November won't harm the state irreparably. And Californians deserve a better approach to paying for roads, schools, levees and other projects. A last-minute bond thrown together to save political face does not count as actual planning.

None of the bond proposals offered any sense that state officials had studied the state's needs and set priorities. The governor's Strategic Growth Plan, released in January, contained a grab bag of projects. And the latest five-year state infrastructure plan, which the governor released in March, floats a wish list with no sense of which projects matter most.

The governor and legislators also showed an alarming willingness to sidestep established, time-tested state processes for disbursing bonds that voters approve. Such changes would lead to a feast of political pork instead of sane spending policy.

The state's public works needs are immense, but that is no excuse to spend rashly. California can wait until November for a more carefully designed bond plan.

[staytrue]

The state government ignored infrastructure needs for years

Cheers for Arnold for bringing up and addressing the issue.

The governor's Strategic Growth Plan, released in January, contained a grab bag of projects. And the latest five-year state infrastructure plan, which the governor released in March, floats a wish list with no sense of which projects matter most.

Boos for Arnold for bad execution.

But guess what, the bonds are apparently a good idea and "THEY WILL BE BACK" as most likely Arnold will be too.

[goldstategop]

Fiscal prudence doesn't win politicians re-election. Spending does. So, yes - they may get a spending proposal on the ballot for November.

(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.")

[calcowgirl]

The governor and legislators also showed an alarming willingness to sidestep established, time-tested state processes for disbursing bonds that voters approve. Such changes would lead to a feast of political pork instead of sane spending policy.

From the Desert Sun, March 19, 2006 :

Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, said that the governor and lawmakers dodged a bullet by not passing a bond package that had become bloated and misguided so that only $9 billion of $50 billion would have gone for actual construction, by his calculations.

Associated Press, February, 16, 2006

Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, said he was concerned the governor's plan would eat up the state's ability to sell other bond proposals for as long as 40 years. He also complained it provided too little in bond funds for transportation, flood control and water storage. "We've got only $13 billion going into what I think California thinks infrastructure is," he said.