Posted on 05/09/2006 9:58:45 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Assembly Republicans stood united for four basic points that should be included in an infrastructure bond deal. Why did the GOP Caucus lose its resolve, putting up the votes without achieving policy victories in any of the four areas?
I have now had a few days to stew on the passage by the legislature last week of the four very large bond measures (in aggregate, they call for $37.3 billion in borrowing, which makes it the single largest package of bonds ever to be considered by the electorate.).
Like many, I kept an eye on the progress of the bond negotiations. And, like many, I assumed that the same paradigm existed for these latest negotiations as was in play in the bond talks a few months ago, mainly, that the Assembly Republicans would hold the key to driving any real reforms. The Senate was the weak link, because our Republican minority in the Senate is too small, where only two GOPers would need to be pressured/cajoled into supporting a package. This leaves Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman, a strong conservative, in a weak position. He did what he could to inject Republican principles, but could only go so far before his own members would override him. Thus, the dynamics of whether or not true taxpayer protections would be present in the package would have to be worked out in the State Assembly.
In the previous negotiations, Assembly Republicans under the leadership of former leader Kevin McCarthy, laid out a very clear vision of where negotiations needed to go in order to get GOP sign off on putting a borrowing package before voters:
1) A pay-as-you-go component that specifically called for setting aside a portion of the large annual revenue increases so that eventually 1% of general fund moneys each year would go to infrastructure investment. As a matter of fact, McCarthy wrote about it in an exclusive column for this site. This funding was in addition to an expected and needed fix of the constant raiding of Proposition 42 transportation dollars.
2) Real reforms in terms of how those dollars are spent -- including exemptions to the current, onerous regulations in the California Environment Quality Act, as well as relief from the prevailing wage laws that keep state government from benefiting from the natural advantages of a free-market bidding process.
3) An agreed-upon borrowing cap where no more than 6% of the state's general fund could be spent repaying debt. While this might not be binding on future measures that could include exemption language inside of them, it would be an important statement of the intent of the legislature.
Finally, but certainly not least:
4) Infrastructure should mean just that, bread-and-butter needs such as roads, highways, bridges, water storage (above and below ground), water movement and the like. Assembly Republicans included in their definition of infrastructure funds for universities and colleges that accept students from all around California.
The important point to be made by Assembly negotiators Kevin McCarthy and Rick Keene is how obscenely large the state budget currently is, and that while it makes a lot of sense to borrow money to pay for long-term projects that will last beyond a single generation, it also makes sense to make a commitment in current dollars on a go-forward basis to ensure that California does not get off-track again. Even with all of the reforms above, it was still hard for conservatives to agree to these conditions -- because there is such an over-taxing and over-spending problem in California. Still, these points were agreed upon.
When it was clear that Democrats were not willing to meet the realistic demands of the Assembly Republicans, the GOP legislators refused to support an irresponsible borrowing package, and the deadline for placing a bond measure on the June ballot passed by.
The issue was not resolved though, and the Governor still had as his top priority getting a "Strategic Infrastructure Plan" in front of the voters. So several weeks ago, negotiations began against in earnest. Everyone went back to the negotiating table, with one substitution. Assembly Republicans had chosen a new Leader, George Plescia of San Diego.
I had been hearing for the past couple of weeks from Senator Ackerman and others that negotiations were going well, and that soon there would be an agreement. Naturally, of course, knowing how unified Assembly Republicans were for their very real, very achievable four deal-points, I was comfortable that "a deal" meant that Democrats, eager to spend all of that money, would agree to the GOP provisions.
Wow, was I shocked to find out that after weeks of negotiations, the proposal that came out to both houses of the legislature last Thursday:
1) Contained NO provision for ANY ongoing pay-as-you go from the general fund (unless you include a side-measure for $500 million in one time levee repairs that should be funded out of the General Fund).
2) Contained extremely limited CEQA reforms, applying only to levee repairs and to earthquake retrofits for highways and bridges, and for Highway 99 construction. This is a tiny minority of the overall projects for which taxpayers would be paying. Worse yet, these reforms were not placed in the bond measures to be "locked into place" by the voters, but rather would be passed in statute, freed to be "monkeyed" around with by future legislatures. It was also pointed out to me that current law waives CEQA regulations for levee repairs during a state of emergency, which currently exists.
3) Contained no language at all for a borrowing cap.
4) The idea of bread-and-butter needs was grossly jettisoned as this package includes billions and billions for subsidized housing programs, billions and billions funding of local projects that should be locally financed, and undoubtedly dozens of examples of government largesse, at its best.
So "negotiations" literally achieved NONE of the GOP's four goals. In fact, it seems that what was touted back to legislative caucuses is that the size of the bonds had been reduced, and that many of the "more egregious" spending programs had been eliminated -- and a "Prop. 42 fix" measure to go to the voters to impair future legislatures from taking transportation dollars to use elsewhere. This latter is an important achievement, though a transportation project advocacy group stood ready to submit collected signatures to bring a stronger version of it to the ballot anyway.
Of course, this is all clear now. But last Thursday, I had a really tough time figuring out some of this. I became especially worried as I heard that there were plans afoot to "jam" through the bond package Thursday. (I had visions of horrible pressure being put on members, and all of the forces of big-government bringing their knives to bare). But after Assembly Republicans Caucus adjourned after a late morning meeting, I was reassured by several Assembly Republicans that the entire group had agreed that no matter what proposal came before the Assembly, Republicans would not provide any "aye" votes until the proposals had been in print for at least two days, and everyone had time to digest them. This seemed to make sense -- especially since there was no real deadline -- there is a long way to go before the cut-off for legislatively originated measures to go on the November ballot.
It was clear to me after some limited written information was distributed around 5 p.m. to legislative offices that, with all due respect to our GOP negotiators, relative to the original "deal points" laid out by Assembly Republicans, the taxpayers were about to be screwed.
I had been posting online updates on the FR weblog until sometime after midnight, but finally I had to get some sleep. I do not have words for how I felt the next morning when I awoke to e-mails and pages letting me know that around 3 a.m., all four borrowing measures had passed not only the State Senate, but the State Assembly!
What happens next is hearsay, as I am not a member of the Assembly Republican Caucus. But have been told by many that in the early morning hours of Friday, Assembly Republican Leader George Plescia called another meeting of the caucus, presented this "best we can do" to GOP legislators, and more or less told them that the votes were already locked up to pass each component part of the bill. Further, that this was the best deal that they were going to get, and that the package was "significantly better" than the one previous proposed in early negotiations.
One of Plescia's assertions turned out to be true (about the votes being there for the bills). All four big bond measures (which easily passed the Senate) were passed on the Assembly floor -- the most heinous of them all, a Housing Bond measure that literally contains over $4 billion in spending that are such an obscene violation of the proper role of state government as envisioned by our founding fathers, that it is stunning that it got one, let alone EIGHT GOP votes (normally it would take six Republican to vote with Democrats to get to a 2/3 vote, but two Democrats were absent or not voting for the package).
I was stunned. How could this have happened? By Saturday morning, I penned this abject "woe is me" piece (I'm over it now).
Now, as I see and hear our GOP leaders speaking at press conferences touting this massive borrowing plan, sans any of the GOP's important reforms and restrictions, I am sad. Polling has shown that the voters are heavily inclined to support borrowing from future generations to pay for needed infrastructure investments. But that 2/3 legislative vote requirement to put the package before voters was there for a reason, so that elected officials (including Republicans) could safeguard what went to the voters, and make sure that it was responsible. That system broke down at 4 a.m. last Friday morning, and now the voters are looking at a flawed proposal -- one that didn't have to be on the ballot or one that could have been substantially better if Assembly Republicans had held out for any or all of their original four demands.
Maybe someone can explain what happened. I don't get it. And while they are at it, maybe someone can tell me what was actually in the four bills, since I still can't seem to find out.
Let me close this piece by making it clear. I bear no personal hostility towards anyone mentioned in this column (any of them are welcome to contact me and I would be happy to print, verbatim, their reasons for voting for the Housing Bond). And I will also add that sometimes trying to understand and interpret the inner-workings of the Capitol from my home, 500 miles from Sacramento, as an art more than a science. Thanks for reading my take on all of this.
Jon
P.S. There is a definite need for investment in infrastructure in California - no doubt about it. But it is the responsibility of legislators and the Governor to make sure the borrowing and spending of tax dollars is done wisely.
excerpted from Ca Political News
GOP ROLLED IN SACRAMENTO?
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/discuss.php?id=450
---
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.)
A fitting prelude to that big flushing sound !
Keep in mind there is a political movement afoot called the New Majority that is working to make the states and federal gubamints pretty much indistinguishable when it comes to policy and those in power.
It cost ya 100K to join in California and you have to know someone to get you an invite to join.
Now how's that for diversity and being inclusive?
Oh, and did you know that many prominents moderate Republicans are members of both this ittle society and the Republican Main Street Partnership, and also includes many Gang of 14 members as well on its rolls..
The dems may be a bunch of snakes but at least they are easily located in the tall grass, the ones to watch are those playing the moderate role and taking a moderate stance that are effectively working towards much the same agenda as the dems.
Yo got to love the globalist gelite, they are more than willing to operate in the open these days, much in the same vein of Soros.
Here in Nevada, a supposedly common-sense law to prevent unions from being out-bid by illegal alients turns out to cost the state anywhere from 40-70% more on each construction project (12 schools a year being built in Las Vegas alone each year at 40+% over competitive costs) ensures that the highest bid gets every job. The actual process for determining what is the 'prevailing wage' is done by a political appointee who is virtually always a union crony (Dem or Repub) who looks for the highest rate card turned in by any union contractor and then just charges that amount - no more 'competition.' If you ever hear the word 'prevailing wage' you just have to know that it means FRAUD. Taxpayers are forced to overpay for everything and the union bosses get to keep the profits.
And, mind you, the union workers don't necessarily have to be paid any higher a wage because the 'wage' in 'prevailing wage' in the contracted amount and not an hourly wage for the worker. IE, if the fencing company charges $37 an hour to put up chain link fences around a construction site (real story), the workers themselves don't get an extra $10 an hour just because the last job only got bid out at $27 an hour. ($37 an hour to put up chain link fences?? True story. Seriously. We wer better off under the Mob.)
And in Nevada, State Sen. Bob Beers (who is running for Gov.) submitted a bill to kill prevailing wage but the Dimocrat controlled Assembly scuttled it and Beers lost his AFl-CIO endorsement (which was already a joke). And in Congress, there is nobody standing up to the Union bosses and trying to stop this kind of waste on Federal construction projects.
That description is no longer deserved. When the "leader" rolls, you've lost half the battle. He was one of ONLY TWO Senators voting for the Housing bond (Dutton was the other). HE could have blocked it!
Dick Ackerman Voting on Strategic Growth Plan Bills:
SCA 7 Prop 42 Change Prop 1A AYE SB 1266 Transportion Prop 1B AYE SB 1689 Housing Prop 1C AYE AB 127 Schools Prop 1D AYE AB 140 Flood Control Prop 1E AYE AB 1467 Public-Private Prtrshp (Toll Roads) -- AYE AB 1039 Enviro Streamlining -- AYE AB 143 Design-Build -- AYE
Even illegals get pensions out here. Help me...I'm dying. The illegal horde has stolen MY American dream......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.