Posted on 06/19/2006 6:22:32 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata sounded downright gloomy today as he discussed the fate of four bond issues on the November ballot.
Speaking at a Sacramento Press Club lunch, Perata called the defeat of six local transportation bonds and the statewide library bond in this month's primary election "sobering."
Other factors working against the bonds, according to Perata: continuing problems in launching stem cell research bonds approved by voters in 2004 and a cluttered November ballot full of spending measures, including a proposal to up cigarette taxes and one on oil. Frustrated voters may just say "no."
Perata was the one who came up with the idea of a big investment in things like roads, but it was embraced this year by Schwarzenegger and the deal cut between the governor and Legislature to place the bonds on the ballot has Schwarzenegger and all of the legislative leaders acting like proud parents. What happens if voters rain on their parade?
(snip)
He also said Democrats have taken one of the few sticking points in budget negotiations off the table, making it all the more likely that a deal is near. A proposal to expand the state's Healthy Families program, which provides health insurance for poor kids, will become separate legislation instead of a key budget agenda item for Democrats.
Perata said Democrats now agree with Schwarzenegger's budget proposal to provide a small sum of money - $23 million - to go to county health insurance programs, which, by the way, provide coverage for undocumented kids and has met with resistance from GOP lawmakers.
Republicans also opposed the Democratic Healthy Families proposal, but now that it's off the table one of the last arguments on the budget is the money for counties, which pits Schwarzenegger vs. lawmakers in his own party.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Rain, baby. Rain!
Now now,, if it rains, then the levees may break..
It is sad to see a state so full of promise have a legislature equally as full of idiots, especially in so many key leadership roles. It truly shows how the educational system is not getting the job done and hasn't for nigh on 30 years, the state's voters are proof of the poor job that has been done by all those claiming to be concerned about the children and this state's future.
Too little too late? Or Too damn much and not likely to make much of a difference anyway?
We'll see, it would be a shame if every single bond went down in flames, but... as this state has survived quakes, wildfires and corrupt leadership, it will likely have to do so again.
The years when the Internet Boom dollars were rolling in heavy is when we needed to get it done, not now by borrowing billions and billions and taking on more and more debt.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
He's been drunk with government spending his entire life. I doubt he's now entering the sober years.
Come on FBI, let's get crackin' and take this terd down.
It's too bad we have to go through the charade of elections. The sheeple simply do not know what's good for them. Let's find a friendly judge and just legislate from the bench. < / sarcasm>
I'm seeing the call for lots and lots of rain. From Fleishman, yesterday:
http://www.flashreport.org/blog0a.php?postID=2006061705403710&post_offsetP=0&authID=2005081622025042
I share with the concerns of many the idea that there is funding in the state budget for anyone who is not in the country legally for any benefit or service. But let's not get so caught up on this line item in the huge, fat, bloated state budget that we don't step back and see the state budget for what it truly is - an outrage.
The sheer size and volume of the state budget (well in excess of a HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS) is shameful. At a time when the discussions in Sacramento should be about how to REDUCE the SIZE AND SCOPE of state government, instead there is arguing about spending priorities.
How about this for a spending priority -- the vast size of the state budget should allow Californians to easily VOTE NO ON THE ENTIRE BIG BONDS PACKAGE that the legislature and Governor placed on the November ballot. Californians are paying MORE THAN ENOUGH in taxes currently to fund state government AND pay-as-we-go on any infrastructure investment. A vote FOR the bonds is a for TO CONTINUE to allow the Democrats who run the legislature to spend our money on nonsense and on social engineering programs.
there are millions of citizens who live daily with NO insurance coverage, why illegal aliens???
(Republicans also opposed the Democratic Healthy Families proposal, but now that it's off the table one of the last arguments on the budget is the money for counties, which pits Schwarzenegger vs. lawmakers in his own party.)
But he's a conservative!
(sarcasm)
I can't remember the last time I voted yes on a bond measure. I will vote straight NOs this time too. The state legislature has got to get it through their thick heads - I demand effecient, cost-effective state services and until they deliver I won't voluntarily give them any leeway.
Seems that California's state and city employees have figured out that they can vote themselves largesse from the state treasury. Pat Brown figured it out for them. I have to vote against them.
There will be 2 no votes on all their bond issues in this house!
Yes on the levee upgrades. No on the rest.
If the money is earmarked only for illegal aliens, it could be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it was racist in intent (i.e. only going to Hispanics) and in practice (i.e. only going to Hispanics).
Unless they are proposing to give it to poor Canadian and British illegal immigrants, too...
Take the money to upgrade the levees from the schools.
No on all of them. We have enough money to pay for the levies now. We don't need more bonds or more taxes. We need spending cuts in most areas. A pissed off, long time, Conservative CA resident.
Do you realize that the urgent levee repairs were already funded on a pay-as-you-go basis? This levee bond goes far beyond that and includes such unappealing, non-infrastructur-ish things as wildlife habitat improvement.
I don't want to see the state borrow $4 Billion unless they define exactly what they are going to spend it on. Based on what I'm reading, it is more than likely to build new levees so developers can build new housing tracts in flood plains. I don't think General Obligation bonds are the proper funding for that.
We need the levees fixed now. If we wait until we can teach our idiot politicians how to prioritize, we could have another New Orleans on our hands.
Do your homework and don't fall for the propaganda.
The urgent repairs are already in work (and already funded). That's not what this bond is about.
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.