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?

[ketelone]

What I mean is, just because illegals are using services doesnt mean they shouldnt be provided even to people who they are MEANT for.

Shouldnt throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Illegals are a problem. The problem should be dealt with.

You dont kill the patient to get rid of the disease, do you?

[Amerigomag]

The measures for the most part seem positive

Norm, apparently Schmidt has a boat load of these folks parked at a board and care. The gang provides the lap top and the password, FO provides a little in-service training and they're off and running in a parallel universe.

Expect a lot more of this vitriolic nonsense before the fat lady sings.

[NormsRevenge]

(snicker) .. copy that

looks like 6 more months of Bizarro World lay ahead.

[Mr Rogers]

California is like an alcoholic that hasn't sunk low enough to start recovery.

Let a democrat governor make things so bad that, at a minimum, California will be a lesson to everyone else on how to ruin Paradise!

[ketelone]

Who's Schmidt?

I didnt mean to produce any vitriolic nonsense... sorry if I inadvertently did..

But I mean its a bit off to say that California shouldnt have new freeways because illegals might use em, eh?

I mean if youve ever waited 4 hours to go 80 miles on I-5, youd be saying what I did too! (I think)

[goldstategop]

Less likely to vote. Not that I think either party represents our interests. They both believe in spending and borrowing to sky's the limit. In California, conservatives don't have a real voice. The passage of these bonds makes that much clear.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Amerigomag]

Those comments were generated by an observation that the BigBangBonds for the most part seem positive. A sure sign that the author lacked an informed understanding of the 9 separate measures involved and probably hadn't read the legislations before commenting.

The illegal immigration references in the original article are there because California's population increases, which drive most of the needs for many components of the BBB, are do almost exclusively to illegal immigration. California's population of US citizens, not counting anchor babies, has been shrinking, since 2001. The increases in demand for services is exclusively do to illegal immigration. Yes there is a need for infrastructure, but not to support a legal population. For example, when the Mexicans stayed home last week, the freeways in LA worked. Tuesday morning they were back to over saturation.

Take the time to read the legislation and then do some research into traditional funding methods. Start with the mechanism for funding local, public, primary schools and what level of public approval (50%, 55%, 66%, ?) is needed to pass a local school bond? A little study will show that the BBB are a way around constitutional limits and are basic pork for two broad classes. Illegal immigrants and organized labor which, coincidentally, are the two, core, Democrat constituencies. Illegal labor in LA and union labor in SF propel the political power for these two blue behemoths.

[ketelone]

Well, thanks for your detailed answer. You are correct.

I based my statement on little more than "The freeways are crowded, so we need new ones".

Ill be more careful to read the whole story before posting next time.