Posted on 08/18/2006 4:37:26 PM PDT by calcowgirl
California must spend $107 billion on its roads, ports and other transportation infrastructure to keep its economy competitive and its quality of life decent, a member of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Cabinet said Thursday in Oxnard.
Sunne Wright McPeak, California's secretary of business, transportation and housing, was one of the architects of Schwarzenegger's massive public works proposals, some of which will appear on the Nov. 7 ballot. McPeak spoke about those proposals and some of the other challenges facing the state at a dinner held by the World Affairs Council of Ventura County.
Voters will decide on four bond measures worth a total of $37.3 billion in November. The largest one, at $19.9 billion, would pay for improvements to California's roads, highways, ports, bridges and public transit.
The transportation bond is part of a $107 billion plan to improve transportation infrastructure over the next decade. The plan was hatched in the early days of the Schwarzenegger administration, McPeak said, when the governor asked her to draw up a list of the state's most pressing needs. Don't be constrained by money, he told her.
"I think the governor and I have enough of a common approach to know I would be disciplined with it," McPeak said.
She identified traffic congestion as the biggest problem, and decided that the state could actually reduce congestion over the next decade. Because shipping by truck contributes greatly to traffic, the state plans to spend $15 billion on improving access to California's ports, including the Port of Hueneme.
"It became obvious that at the top of the list for investment had to be the goods-moving infrastructure," McPeak said. "We all appreciate sneakers coming in cheap from China, but we don't appreciate being stuck behind the trucks on the freeway that are bringing them to the store."
The current plans don't include the necessary funding for a proposed "bullet train" connecting Northern and Southern California, McPeak said in response to a question from the audience. That will probably go on the ballot in 2008 as a separate bond measure.
"We want a multi-modal system," she said. "We don't want just freeways, but if we don't fix what we've got first, we won't have a world-class infrastructure."
Once McPeak finished her speech, the conversation soon strayed from infrastructure bonds. A series of questions focused on vocational education, and what the state should do to help high school students who aren't college-bound.
"High school is for two things," said Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Charles Weis, who attended the dinner.
"It's for preparing people for college and preparing them for the working world. We do a pretty decent job at the first and a terrible job at the second."
Part of the answer, McPeak said, is for business leaders to work closely with school officials to design programs that will produce the right kind of workers.
Common example:
Legislation dealing with the creation of a new tax or significant debt or increasing the rate/amount of an existing tax/debt requires the approval of a super-majority of both houses of the state legislature. A due process to protect minority interests.
That same legislative intent, when introduced into a direct democracy setting, requires only a simple majority. A simple majority of those who actually voted. Recent elections have demonstrated that as little as 15% of those eligible to vote can impose their will on the remaining 85%.
That is a serious, but easily resolvable, problem with California's present model of direct democracy. The system is further flawed because complexity, a favorite tool of the political class and special interests, tends to promote voter apathy and apathy further empowers an increasingly smaller minority, out of all proportion to the intent of California's Constitution or Hiram Johnson's original proposal.
A simple fix, which would not erode the will of the mob, would be to require a similar, super-majority in the direct democracy process, when encountering similar intent.
This discussion of the abuses of direct democracy does not involve voluntary actions. The discussion involves the imposition of the will of a small minority on a majority of individuals.
An accurate analogy would be:
but are you against your neighbors forcing you to take out a mortgage for a house to be paid over many years ?
Are you seriously going to let those politicians borrow all that money with your co-signature? Mama Mia!!!
",,,Common example:
Legislation dealing with the creation of a new tax or significant debt or increasing the rate/amount of an existing tax/debt requires the approval of a super-majority of both houses of the state legislature. "
...Which has nothing at all to do with the bond issue at hand.
Why would you even think that "direct democracy" would have anything at all to do with ANY legislative votes by REPESENTATIVES ?
Your concept of some sort of "super majority" does NOTHING to reflect the will of the 85% (your number) of the people who are not eligible to vote.... when they didn't even elect those representatives !
Why would you think that any GIVEN percentage of people who CAN vote would correctly represent those who cannot ? ... simply absurd !
I'm not. But I am against taking out a mortgage to pay for car repairs, groceries, and prettying up the garden.
(which is equivalent to what much of this bond money does).
This is essentially the same thing as me paying my day to day living expenses with a loan from Household Finance. A very slippery slope.
"but are you against your neighbors forcing you to take out a mortgage for a house to be paid over many years ? "
Well lets see ...
The guy a few doors down says no, so he and his family crap in his back yard instead of paying for and hooking up to the sewer line.
He's paid his portion for the street, and his yard drains down the block ... past your house 3 houses down.
Do you have a right to complain ?
"I'm not. But I am against taking out a mortgage to pay for car repairs, groceries, and prettying up the garden.
(which is equivalent to what much of this bond money does)."
So .. we agree - don't vote for any bonds unless you think they are advantageous.
( See, it wasn't so hard to agree with me :)
Not really. Your implication was that these bonds are equivalent to buying a home--i.e. infrastructure. They're not.
Very little of the bonds are to build actual infrastructure. Therefore, whether the programs are advantageous or not, bonds should not be the financing mechanism. Our Republican legislators who voted against this understood that clearly. Unfortunately, strongarming from the administration forced enough legislators (R) to join with the 100% unanimous democratic supporters to achieve a super-majority vote and put these atrocious propositions on the ballot.
I will be voting NO. Unfortunately, their is a large monied interest that will do everything in their power to get people to vote for these bond measures. Campaign donations and advertising expenses can be indirectly reimbursed quickly with a $107 billion dollar spending plan.
Pehaps I don't understand...
So what you are saying is that you would require the elected legislature to protect the people from being able to vote on bonds ?
My God !
They actually were forced to put something in front of the voters !
How horrible that we should have to vote on things !
( do you understand what your last post said ? )
The bonds in question are not Intitiative Statutes put on the ballot via Hiram Johnson's petition process, they are Legislative Bond Acts, placed on the ballot by the legislators. That is their job as representatives, to vote on whether they think the action is sound, the law is appropriate, etc. That is the way our Constitution is written, which I highly favor over mob rule (direct democracy). The process provides for a two-tiered approval process, first the legislators and then the electorate.
Some of the most horrendous destructive laws have been created through the direct democracy process. The complicated nature of the laws, combined with no requirement to be truthful in promoting them, has led to their passage. Under the guise of the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act,” voters in 1990 chose to unknowingly wipe out the Gann Spending Limit that had been in place for more than a decade. There are many more examples.
Do I understand what I posted? Absolutely!
Do you?
Your question has been answered in my post and those of Amerigomag.
If you prefer the SDS mantra of "Let the People Decide", go join with Tom Hayden and his bunch.
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.