Wonk Alert: Watching the Money

What happens after you — yes you, voters — approve billions of dollars in spending and then walk away?

In 1998, voters passed Proposition 10 and increased the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack to fund children's health programs. This has arguably done a lot of good.

But in 2004, auditors found large amounts of the Proposition 10 money unspent, with no consistent rules in place to govern contracts. In rural Kern County, commissioners used $1,400 to put up bronze plaques honoring themselves in tot lots. ...

Now, California is getting ready to spend $3 billion for stem cell research. It has created a new California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and a five-member panel to audit the money.

How the stem cell commission spends its money already is subject of an appellate court challenge by religious and taxpayer groups over potential conflicts of interest.

Coming up in two months: Proposition 87, which would levy a $4 billion tax on oil companies to fund alternative fuels. If approved, you can expect this initiative to land in court or the Legislature for refinements, according to that scintillating publication, Inside Cal/EPA.

The money will be doled out by yet another commission, the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. The wonks at Inside Cal/EPA report that the initiative doesn't spell out whether the oil companies will be taxed at a standard rate ($4.20 per barrel) or a marginal rate ($2.17 per barrel).

That could make a big difference in how long the oil companies will take to fork out the full $4 billion. Some lawmakers also say the initiative needs tighter conflict-of-interest rules.

Either way, California voters are faced this November with creating another commission to spread around billions of dollars outside the direct authority of elected officials. ...

Cha-Ching, Bada (Stephen) Bing
http://www.kqed.org/weblog/capitalnotes/blog.jsp

It's looking like Hollywood movie producer Stephen Bing may set his own blockbuster record with contributions to the campaign in favor of Proposition 87.

On Wednesday, Bing wrote a $10 million dollar check to the Yes on 87 campaign, supporting a proposal to fund alternative energy research through a new tax on oil drilling.

That makes his total contributions to date for Prop 87 a whopping $26.5 million. Bing has the reputation of being a reclusive millionaire, but it's hard to miss him in this race... considering his contributions account for some 82% of all the money raised in support of Prop 87 (campaign total: about $32 million).

Last year, Bing wrote checks totaling about $4.8 million for his political causes, with almost all of that spent on efforts to defeat the redistricting initiative, Proposition 77. A quick scan of previous years shows that 2005 was his biggest political contribution year... that is, until 2006.

"Bing is clearly on the way to setting a record for the highest contributions from an individual," says Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies. Stern correctly points out that other individuals-- like Al Checchi and Steve Westly-- have spent more of their own money on political endeavors, but they were running for office.

If nothing else, the new infusion of Bing's money makes the playing field in this initiative battle a little more even; records show that the No on 87 campaign (funded largely by oil companies) has raised almost $35 million so far.

posted by John Myers
http://www.kqed.org/weblog/capitalnotes/blog.jsp

Oil Companies should stop supplying gasoline in CA, wait it out until the legislature overturns this silly law. As watermelons continue to claw at energy companies, a few weeks of no electricity or no gasoline would show these weenies who the productive members of society are, and who the leeches are. People will continue to vote, completely misinformed, on issues they have no business deciding.

Here in the state of Maryland every 4 years there is numerous ballot issues regarding local and state bond issues. This is where the government asks the voters if borrowing money by selling bonds is a good thing or not. I don't think most voters know what this means or really cares. I cannot remember when one was voted down. I always vote no on every one of them since I found out what the law says about these "bond bills".
The law says these bills must list in the ballot the specific reason or purpose they are asking to sell bonds and what they will fund if approved.
The law also says once approved, the money does not, by law, have to be spent on the issue which was approved. What????
Yes, the money can be spent however the agency which requested the bond money feels fit at the time.
What a scam.

And due to the fact there is no public transportation available to many of us, how would you suggest we get to work, buy groceries [so we may stay alive] and survive in the still 100° temperatures?

Maybe your not aware that many of us live 20-25 miles from the nearest grocery store or 55 miles from the nearest medical facility etc.,

Your suggestion is absolutely ridiculous.

It certainly is, and it is not real-world. I think if people went one day without energy, they might realize how vital it is, and maybe not complain so much about productive people get energy to market. I sure wouldn't want to hose evry innocent person trying to get on with their lives, but if they shut off power to an activist's house for a week, they might just get a clue. I didn't mean that as a serious comment, just as a "taunt" to the enviro-weenies.

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.