The package they just passed is very similar to those they have been talking about all year. Here are some comments that demonstrate this is NOT about infrastrucutre:
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.
You are NOT quoting the curernt bond package, but some old potential ones, which are NOT what passed.
The current bonds:
"The $37.3 billion public works bond package that’s headed for the November ballot could impact where Californians live, how long it takes them to get to work, where there kids go to school and whether they’ll face flooding. The package, split into four ballot propositions that were approved early Friday morning by lawmakers, would generate $19.9 billion for highway, rail and port projects; $10.4 billion for school and university construction and remodeling; $4.1 billion for flood control; and $2.85 billion for housing, parks and transit-linked development."
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=58342
The infrastructure is in dire need of fixing, and the Dems wouldn't have allowed it to pass, without the school and housing part. It's like, when you buy a pound of meat, but you have to take the bone.
It looks like 2/3 are going for useful stuff, such as roads and flood control. That's probably the best deal we could have with the Dems controlling the Legislature.