Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Democrats abandon campaign tour for public works bonds (Good News!)
AP - San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | Oct. 03, 2006 | AARON C. DAVIS

Posted on 10/03/2006 4:26:39 PM PDT by calcowgirl

SACRAMENTO - The Legislature's Democratic leaders on Tuesday abandoned plans to campaign with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for the massive package of public works bonds on the November ballot, a development that signals an abrupt end to the bipartisan dealmaking that has buoyed the governor's re-election bid.

It also could jeopardize the record $37.3 billion borrowing plan. Polls released last week show voters supporting the four infrastructure bonds, but just barely.

Tuesday's change of direction came after Schwarzenegger and the two top legislative leaders - Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland - had said they would campaign publicly in support of the public works plan in the weeks leading up to the election.

Nunez and Perata attended a private fundraiser with Schwarzenegger on Tuesday morning in Los Angeles but did not appear with him at three campaign events around the state to promote the bonds, which would provide money for transportation, levees, schools and housing.

"I think we've been pretty consistent in our message, but now it's October and we need to consolidate the Democratic base, and the Republicans need to consolidate their base," he said.

Nunez said he and Perata plan to use their time to raise money to pay for television commercials for the bonds.

Nunez said he will continue to appear with Schwarzenegger at fundraisers for the bonds but has no plans to campaign publicly with him before November.

"Are we going to fund-raise for the bonds with the governor? The answer is yes. Are we going to campaign for the governor's re-election? The answer is no," Nunez said.

Paul Hefner, spokesman for the Rebuild California Plan, the coalition supporting the bonds, confirmed that Nunez and Perata would not attend any public events Tuesday or Wednesday with the governor to campaign for the public works bonds.

Perata was expected to attend another private fundraiser for the bonds Wednesday with Schwarzenegger in the San Francisco Bay Area, but would not attend a press conference scheduled later in the day.

Hefner acknowledged partisan politics were at play.

"My understanding is that the speaker and the pro tem - both obviously being Democrats - had more pressing demands on their time than to be campaigning with the Republican governor," he said.

Schwarzenegger has used his dealmaking with the Democrats who control the Legislature to great political advantage this year, a strategy that has undermined his Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Phil Angelides.

Schwarzenegger has struck deals with Democrats on a wide range of popular issues, including raising the minimum wage, cutting prescription drug prices and signing a Democrat-sponsored bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also has surrounded himself at highly orchestrated bill-signing ceremonies with some of California's most influential Democrats, including Nunez, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Those appearances have been like a poke in the eye to Angelides, a former California Democratic Party chairman who is trailing Schwarzenegger in the polls.

The decision by Nunez and Perata to back out of the public campaign for the public works bond could hurt Schwarzenegger on two levels: It robs him of the chance to appear with leading Democrats and might threaten the chances at the polls of one of his signature policy priorities.

Appealing to moderates and centrist Democrats is important for the Republican governor because about two-thirds of California voters are registered as Democrats or independents.

California Democratic Party spokesman Bob Mulholland called the move by Nunez and Perata a serious setback for Schwarzenegger, who had made the public works bonds one of the cornerstones of his re-election campaign.

"For two weeks, he's been saying the Democrats would be on the plane with him, and today they were not," Mulholland said. "The bill-signing honeymoon is over; Schwarzenegger has been orphaned. Now Democrats across all of California are going to fight like hell to defeat Schwarzenegger."

Katie Levinson, communications director for Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign, said the governor was pleased to have joined Perata, Nunez and state Republican leaders Tuesday for the private fundraiser.

She said his efforts to support the bond would not be affected by the absence of the two Democrats on the campaign trail.

"The governor will continue to campaign up and down the state for these bonds," she said. "Roads, schools and levees are not Republican or Democrat. They are for all Californians, and the governor will continue to work in a bipartisan way for their passage."

Recent polls have indicated voters favor the bonds. But the two largest ones - Proposition 1B, a $19.9-billion transportation bond, and Proposition 1D, a $10.4-billion education bond - hold narrow leads.

The other two would provide $4.1 billion for flood control and levee repairs, and $2.9 billion for affordable housing programs.

Visible, bipartisan support is crucial in persuading voters to approve the bonds given the record price tags, said John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.

"The regular voter doesn't really know if new schools are needed or not, so they rely on people they trust to help make decisions," Matsusaka said. "When you have leaders of both parties standing up, that's going to ease people's concerns - assuming they do."


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: bonds; calbondage; infrastructure; nunez; perata; prop1abcde

1 posted on 10/03/2006 4:26:41 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I always vote no on bond issues. I don't care what they're supposed to be for - they are stealth taxes.


2 posted on 10/03/2006 4:30:57 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The A team can't be accused of piling on poor old Phil in the 11th hour. Phil still has many friends and other not so friendly folks in his pocket. Life after November would be uncomfortable for the A team if they foul their own nest. Any thing over a twenty point margin would be seen as excessive and unsportsman like, even within the CaDEM.
3 posted on 10/03/2006 4:34:23 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
Any thing over a twenty point margin would be seen as excessive and unsportsman like

ROFL!

I'm just glad the bondage campaign will lose some flair.

4 posted on 10/03/2006 4:38:12 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Argus
I don't care what they're supposed to be for - they are stealth taxes.

Exactly right... and in this election, $84 BILLION of TAXES!

5 posted on 10/03/2006 4:40:54 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I'm not inclined to vote for ANY of these bonds - sorry, Arnold - and I KNOW I won't vote for any more education bonds. Ever.


6 posted on 10/03/2006 4:45:51 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus
they are stealth taxes

Nope.

If governance is willing to cut spending to offset the cost of the borrowing, then borrowing does not effect taxation, stealth or otherwise. The bonding obligation is simply a change in expenditure policy.

If, on the other hand, governance refuses to create a revenue source, then the General Fund shoulders the burden. Borrowing becomes a direct tax liability.

In either case, bonding does not create stealth taxes.

Here's the point.

If Schwarzenegger had proposed spending cuts to offset Davis' mismanagement, Schwarzenegger would have had the support of his fellow Republicans in the legislature and the electorate, who had given him a mandate to do just that. Instead, Scvhwarzenegger shocked his fellow Republicans and the electorate by substantially increasing spending, widening the states structural imbalance and then borrowing $15B to plug up the holes he created. That $15B gambit will turn into $30B by 2020.

If Schwarzenegger had made the cuts, California today (Oct 2006) would have over $50B in General Fund surpluses, that's cash in the bank without a defined, legal obligation, with which to build new infrastructure.

Schwarzenegger took the low road and today is proposing more of the same, using as an excuse a deteriorating infrastructure. a situation he exacerbated by his own hand

7 posted on 10/03/2006 5:15:42 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag

I'm not arguing with your very good points, but I call them stealth taxes because extra levies for "bonded indebtedness" show up on my property tax bill after they are passed. It's remarkable how many California property owners don't know what these are.


8 posted on 10/03/2006 5:23:55 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Just curious. Who has Schwartzenegger campaigned more with this season, McClintock or other (R) candidates (to support electing Republicans), or Nunez (to foist more debt)?


9 posted on 10/03/2006 5:27:43 PM PDT by LexBaird (Another member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/NWO/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus
You are correct.

The saving grace about these obligations is that they are local issues, until recently, approved by 7 out of 10 of your neighbors. Today, less than 6 have that power.

10 posted on 10/03/2006 5:41:54 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Who has Schwartzenegger campaigned more with this season, McClintock or other (R) candidates (to support electing Republicans), or Nunez (to foist more debt)?

He campaigned with (R) candidates? Who knew? ;-)

11 posted on 10/03/2006 6:00:06 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The Democrats are hedging their bets. If the bonds lose, they want someone to blame. They know Angelides is gone but that doesn't mean they're going to extend Arnold a welcome mat in the New Year if the bonds falter. Maybe things will return to normal in Sacramento. Who knows.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

12 posted on 10/04/2006 9:28:06 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson