GOP ROLLED IN SACRAMENTO?

CAPOLITICALNEWS ^ | 5/8/06 | Stephen Franks

[NormsRevenge]

Thursday night the Republican's in the legislature were rolled.  Possibly, when the story of the 2006 election is written, the votes in the legislature Thursday night will be looked at as to why the GOP took a bath in the November elections.  After the Governor had adopted the Democrat agenda for his re-election, he has now imposed a Democrat agenda on the legislative Republicans as well.  Will this agenda inspire Republicans to vote Republican or just stay home?  We will see.

With the Republican Governor taking the lead, all but one GOP member of the Senate rolled over and gave in to Governor Schwarzenegger, Speaker Nunez, Senator Perata and the unions.

From the Sacramento Bee:

ON THE BALLOT

The $37.3 billion public works bond package includes:

* $19.9 billion for transportation projects

* $10.4 billion for university and school construction and remodeling

* $4.1 billion for flood protection

* $2.9 billion for housing and parks

* The plan calls for the bonds to be paid off over 30 years starting in 2007-08
Paid for with General Obligation bonds, not the Revenue bonds that most of the legislative GOP'ers had just weeks before said must be used to get their vote.

Also from the Bee, here are the votes:

Housing: Senate 27-11, Assembly 54-17.
Transportation: Senate 37-1, Assembly 61-9.
Education: Senate 29-8, Assembly 58-12.
Flood protection: Senate 36-1, Assembly 61-9.

This is what the Democrats got:

Billions for schools overcrowded with illegal aliens
Prevailing wages, so the taxpayers pay premium dollar for construction
Billions for affordable housing and rent control.  In Los Angeles and other cities, these go to illegal aliens
The Housing bond also includes tens of millions of dollars for "farmworker" housing--this is the buzz word for illegal aliens in the bond
According to Senator Jim Battin, in his floor remarks, there is $1 billion for a school rehabilitation program that, due to the formula, only one district in the whole state will qualify for, the fiscally corrupt Los Angeles Unified School District.  That means the needs of the kids in Tulare, Mariposa, Del Norte or Marin will not be helped--only the kids in LA will be helped. 
Battin also noted that Los Angeles Unified has a severely declining student population.  This is because over 100,000 kids are opting out of the union controlled district into "charter schools".
 Parents and students are leaving the District as quickly as they can.  It should also be noted that over 100,000 students (in 1990) were illegal aliens.

So, while the taxpayer shells out almost $80 billion in principal and interest, the illegal aliens got a large amount of the benefits.

This is what the GOP got from the deal:

No union reforms
No environmental reforms
Tax dollars to be spent on illegal aliens
Premium wages for union only projects
(So while the Governor is complaining that the Federal government is not securing the borders, he is promoting billions in bonds that will act as a magnet for illegal aliens to come to California.)

Bill Bradley in www.newwestnotes.com wrote this, ?Fabian and I got the Proposition 42 people (advocates of spending the gas tax only on transportation projects) and CTA (California Teachers Association) together on a compromise,? says Perata. That was necessary to head off a ballot measure about to be filed that would have blocked using that money for any other purpose in perpetuity. The compromise allows borrowing from those funds during times of budgetary crisis, but on a much more limited basis."

In other words the guarantee the Governor had given us that Prop. 42 gas tax money would only be used for transportation projects is no longer valid.  Tomorrow, if the Governor and the Democrat legislature wants, they can use gas tax money to study global warming and there is nothing we can do about it, except to continue to pay the tax and pay for the GOP'ers being rolled.

To make the point these bonds are a significant part of the Democrat agenda, here are the first two paragraphs of Bradleys' piece:
Democrats To Campaign With Arnold, Laud His Role In Big Bonds Passage
May 6th, 2006

"More good news for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in the wake of Friday?s early morning passage of the $37.3 billion infrastructure bonds package, now set for California?s November ballot. He is getting major credit from Democrats for his role in making the deal happen. And major Democrats will be campaigning with him Monday on a flyaround tour of the state for the measure.

Joining the former action superstar, according to multiple sources in both parties, on his jet will be Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, along with the Republican legislative leaders, Senator Dick Ackerman and Assemblyman George Plescia. There may be more, it?s not a small plane. And look for other Democrats to turn up at the stops. This is the biggest plan for building for California?s future since the era of legendary Democratic Governor Pat Brown, so that is a name you will hear often."

Do we need infrastructure?  Yes.  Is there anybody, with a straight face that would claim rent control (theft of property by regulatory taking) and affordable or farm worker housing for illegal aliens is infrastructure?

Again, from the Bee, this is what Senator McClintock said:

"State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, signaled there nevertheless will be some high-profile opposition.

McClintock, the leading Republican candidate for the lieutenant governor nomination and whose support of Schwarzenegger helped the governor with GOP conservatives earlier this year, only supported the flood protection bond and voted against the other three.

"My main concern is that much of those three bonds is for equipment, maintenance and social programs that are going to be obsolete before the bonds are paid off by our children," McClintock said, adding that he isn't planning on campaigning against them but that "I'll be offering my opinion from time to time."

But, even he will not campaign against them.

What did the people of California get out of this?

Bonds that will pass
Out of the $19 billion in transportation bonds (fully half of the total in bonds) $4 billion will be used for "mass transit".  $15 billion will actually be used to fix our roads and help unclog congestion.
A stronger stranglehold on the wages of the California taxpayer by the unions
Lots of lawsuits by environmental radicals
A massive debt that will stop all other needed projects in California for 20 years--or we can raise taxes.
More magnets to bring illegal aliens to California and to make life better for them (and more costly for honest citizens)

The GOP'ers, at a minimum could have said, "You will not get our votes for the bonds unless rent control and affordable housing is taken out of the package."  That could have been easy--the Governor needs these bonds, the Democrats need these bonds--so why not get a little something?  Instead, the GOP got rolled.

Dan Walters also believes we did not get a complete deal.  Worse, if you read his words careful, you will note that we are guaranteed, in the future, tax increases.  Whether they are directly for the infrastructure, or for the government services we can't pay for since we will have this new massive debt, taxes will be increased--just that Schwarzenegger and many of the current legislators won't be in office to take the responsibility for the economic mess.  We start in 2007 with, at current interest rates, paying $70 million in interest charges (what gets cut from the budget to pay for that?).  In 2013-14--seven years from now the interest charges, alone, will be $2.47 billion--imagine the cuts in services then--or the tax increases.

Dan said this, "It ignores such pressing needs as water storage while adding to the state's already immense general obligation debt without imposing much-needed revenues to offset the cost, such as higher gas taxes or flood control fees.

It is, in other words, a down payment with borrowed money, not the miraculous panacea that it will be depicted as being." http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14252671p-15068729c.html

The affect of this, as the recent Fleischman commentary ( http://www.flashreport.org/commentary0b.php?showMonth=20060506&postID=2006050612475408 ) notes, Jon is struggling with his support of the GOP this November.  Imagine, someone who has given so much time and effort, someone who understands how politics and public policy works, is struggling about how active his support of the GOP will be this election, how do you expect the activist on the street to understand and spend time electing Republicans? 

Jon wrote, "There was a time when conservatives could champion candidates and causes that matched the rhetoric of individual liberty, freedom, and opportunity with policy goals that matched them. 
 
Now I am wondering what or who to be FOR in the coming elections.  Especially when Republicans seem intent on campaigning on a theme of "what government can do for you" that would make Ronald Reagan angry." 

With all of this said, let us not underestimate the need for road repair and the unclogging of our freeways, levee repair or replacement, water storage (which we will NOT get from this deal, so lack of water was not addressed) repair of schools (we don't need new schools in most areas if we enforced our immigration laws) and expansion of our emergency rooms and trauma centers (which might not be needed if we could control our borders).  These needs can be paid for by public-private investments, revenue bonds, re-ordering our budget priorities, control of our borders and other means short of adding massive debt to the backs of the middle class and the poor of California. (Tomorrow I will present a positive plan for the Governor to use to end most employment of illegal aliens in the state without a single new law and without a single deportation)

Again, where is the Governor's GOP agenda.  Even if he wins, and we need him to win, what has the GOP won?  A Democrat agenda?

I ask those who read this article to go to my blog and answer this question:

DOES THE PASSAGE OF THESE BONDS MAKE YOU WANT TO WORK HARDER OR LESS FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THIS NOVEMBER?

[NormsRevenge]

"State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, signaled there nevertheless will be some high-profile opposition.

McClintock, the leading Republican candidate for the lieutenant governor nomination and whose support of Schwarzenegger helped the governor with GOP conservatives earlier this year, only supported the flood protection bond and voted against the other three.

"My main concern is that much of those three bonds is for equipment, maintenance and social programs that are going to be obsolete before the bonds are paid off by our children," McClintock said, adding that he isn't planning on campaigning against them but that "I'll be offering my opinion from time to time."

But, even he will not campaign against them.


--

sigh

[navyblue]

Who was the one senator that did not roll?

[Owl558]

So the California Republican party is a joke. What else is new? They haven't had their act together for years and years.

[calcowgirl]

 

CALIFORNIA: The New "Bipartisan" Strategic Growth Plan

                                              % of Legislators Voting For Bill
                                 Bond Value       Assembly          Senate
Prop #  Bill #   Description      (Billions)     Rep    Dem      Rep     Dem

1a      SCA 7    Prop 42 chg            n/a     50.0   87.5     92.9   100.0
1b      SB 1266  Transportation     $19.925     46.9   95.8     85.7   100.0
1c      SB 1689  Housing             $2.850     25.0   95.8     14.3   100.0
1d      AB 127   Schools            $10.416     37.5   95.8     28.6   100.0
1e      AB 140   Flood Control       $4.090     50.0   95.8     78.6   100.0

I posted a full list of the votes, for all measures, on my homepage.

 

 

[NormsRevenge]

I'll check the votes out shortly..

[Dilbert San Diego]

Democrats solidly control the Assembly and State Senate. Governor Arnold is the only check and balance against those guys. Last year they passed a homosexual marriage law, and this year, they are going for a textbook law that requires teaching homosexual history. You can bet any Demo. governor will sign these bills. Arnold vetoed same sex marraige, and may well veto the gay textbook bill.

As I see it, on social issues, Arnold is our only hope.

[Amerigomag]

And it shall come to pass ......

Somehow an "I told you so" doesn't feel so righteous any more. Maybe He's gone! would work.

GET RID OF THE AUSTRIAN LIBERAL BEFORE WE'RE ALL IN THE POOR HOUSE!

Vote for the brakeman. Vote for the pig farmer. Just don't vote for the liberal.

[calcowgirl]

This is what the GOP got from the deal:

• No union reforms
• No environmental reforms
• Tax dollars to be spent on illegal aliens
• Premium wages for union only projects

In other words, BOHICA. I will add...

• No Pay-as-you-go plan
• No Water projects
• No limit on debt
• ...

Yes. They got rolled. BIG TIME!

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks, I am curious who the nay sayers are,, what a nbunch of imbeciles standing in the way of the noble work of our fine elected officials. ;-]

[Dilbert San Diego]

Why not vote for Arnold, though he's liberal as Republicans go, so he can be there to veto far out things like gay marriage and gay textbooks? What's the alternative, Steve Westly and or Angelides? Both publicly supporitng gay marriage.

why note vote for Arnold as the best bet on social issues, and vote against this hare brained bond issue in November? Politics and voting is making choices, though alternatives aren't always good.

What the heck do you prove if we end up with a liberal Dem. governor to go with a liberal Dem. legislature????

[Lx]

To go from Reagan to...

[calcowgirl]

Jeff Denham was the only "NO" vote on the flood control bill.

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/news/12/pressrelease3893.asp

State Senator Jeff Denham (R-Merced) cast the only "NO" vote in the Senate late last night against a short-sighted, inadequate flood control bond that does not address the critical needs of the Central Valley.

"A bond package of this magnitude without water storage will ensure that the San Joaquin Valley remains the most impoverished region in America. The responsibility for the economic and public health disaster that will certainly befall the poorest of the poor as a result of this action falls squarely on the shoulders of the Legislature. History, in short order, will hold them accountable,” said Fresno Mayor Alan Autry. “I commend Senator Jeff Denham for recognizing that this bond package without water will not only create insurmountable challenges on this generation, but will surely betray the future of our children and grandchildren. His courage to stand up for the Valley in the face of immense political pressure is truly extraordinary. I can't thank him enough.”

AB 140 is a $4.09 billion bond measure for levee repairs in the Delta, Sacramento and north of Sacramento, but it does not contain any funding for surface water storage that Denham, Autry and other Valley leaders have been fighting for.

“While I certainly support shoring-up the levees up North, I believe a true and complete water and flood protection bond includes building a dam that will protect cities in my district,” said Denham. “Flood control measures needed for Madera, Merced and Stanislaus Counties are absent from this bond. This bond leaves the Central Valley up a creek without a paddle.”

(snip)

[NormsRevenge]

Welcome to FR, dilbert, do we know you by another name here at FR, by chance? Make sure and donate to FR so we all can continue to have a place to discuss the issues and current dilemna in a cordial and friendly atmosphere.

California has survived dem gubs before and likely will have to again.

The gay argument for keeping aRnie is hollow (but at least you unlike many here at least broached it in a somewhat fair and open manner), he is for civil unions aka domestic partnerships and signed a number of bills in support of them, he also has offered that he would sign legislation for illegals getting DLs once the feds institute a refrom package that includes background checks.

To approve of a republican pushing a liberal agenda is to effectively leave the conservative movement nowhere to go in this state.

The New Majority should have thought about that before cutting everyone's throats including their own in a reckless quest for power. That is not what many anticipated would happen when they voted in support of the Recall of not so long ago.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In other words, he opposed it because there wasn't enough largesse for his district...

[calcowgirl]

Both of the Republican "big five" participants, Ackerman and Plescia, voted FOR this garbage--every single bill! Their consistency can go right up there with the 100% Democrat support.

Most curious to me is still the Republicans who consistently did NOT VOTE at all!

Did they go home?  Were they shut out?  Why would these people consistently not vote?

 

Republicans Assembly Members Casting a NO VOTE on Strategic Growth Plan Legislation:

 

	SCA 7	SB 1266	SB 1689	AB 127	AB 140	AB 1467	AB 1039	AB 143
Name	Prop 42 Change	Transport'n	Housing	Schools	Flood Control	Public-Private Partnership	Enviro Streamlining	Design- Build
	Passed	Passed	Passed	Passed	Passed	Passed	Passed	Failed
Garcia, Bonnie	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
Harman, Tom	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
Haynes, Ray	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
La Suer, Jay	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
Leslie, Tim	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
Spitzer, Todd	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•
Keene, Rick	•	•	•	•		•	•	•
Bogh, Russ						•	•	•
Blakeslee, Sam	•
Tran, Van			•
Niello, Roger				•
Wyland, Mark					•
Benoit, John						•
Emmerson, Bill						•
Houston, Guy						•

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Why would these people consistently not vote?

So that they could talk the talk about fiscal conservatism while making sure that they got their district's pork passed.

[calcowgirl]

In other words, he opposed it because there wasn't enough largesse for his district...

That might have been my editorial comment, although I don't consider Water Projects and Dams to be largesse. Those would actually qualify as infrastructure, unlike much of the rest of this garbage.

[45Auto]

So what is the calculation? No more than 25% of every dollar spent actually goes for the project - the rest is spent on environmental impact studies and "species relocation" efforts?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

That might have been my editorial comment, although I don't consider Water Projects and Dams to be largesse.

Past a certain point, they are. I think the state as a whole went past that point about 25 years ago.