Posted on 10/03/2006 5:54:10 PM PDT by BenLurkin
CBS) SHERMAN OAKS Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urged Tuesday voters to support a $37.3 billion plan on the November ballot to improve California's roads, schools and levees.
The governor appeared at the Sherman Oaks Galleria to build support for Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, which together represent a multibillion-dollar plan to overhaul the state's infrastructure.
"California has always been an economic, environmental and technological leader, and this November we have the historic opportunity to make sure we continue this trend by building the roads, schools, levees and housing of the future," Schwarzenegger said.
Proposition 1A would protect Proposition 42 funding for transportation projects throughout the state. Proposition 1B would provide $19.9 billion to build roads, improve bridge safety and expand public transportation.
Low-income families would be provided with $2.85 billion to purchase houses under Proposition 1C, while Proposition 1D would invest $10.4 billion into the state's schools and universities.
Proposition 1E would commit $4.1 billion to repair levees and improve flood-control systems.
California's infrastructure is not equipped to handle the state's 37 million residents, according to Schwarzenegger. By 2020, the state's population is expected to grow to more than 50 million.
"It's clear that California needs more classrooms, wider roads, stronger levees and more affordable housing," Maria Alegria, president of the League of California Cities said.
If you subsidize low income families, what you will get is more low income families.
You ALWAYS get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.
If you had cut spending in your first budget proposal, you would have had the support of your fellow, Republican legislators, the support of the electorate and California would have a large surplus in its General Fund today.
You could build infrastructure to your hearts content with the surplus cash.
California spends $10 billion a year on illegal aliens. I think that money would be a good start for California's infrastructure. Til they take away the bennies for illegal aliens, I will vote HELL NO on every bond issue.
Not even close. California spends, conservatively, an estimated 40% of its annual budget on the consequences of illegal immigration since 1950.
Beginning in 2003, over half the children born in California have Hispanic surnames. Based on historic records, an estimated 85% of those children can trace their heritage to illegal immigration since WWII.
These bonds will cost our children double the amount that is spent. If you accept the figures in circulation, only $11 billion will actually be spent on roads, thus making these improvements even more expensive.
If you wanted to do improvements on your house what would you be willing to pay in order to finance the work? Should the state be satisfied to pay many more times what we would be willing to pay?
It isn't and that is the heart of the problem with any liberal elevated to high public office.
roads, school and flood control are the responsibility of local government. The state's responsibility is the implementation of uniform standards in its infrastructure.
But any conservative would know that. Wouldn't they?
They just about ensured the bennies will continue by passing SB 1534, the final nail in the coffin of Prop 187.
*Section 411 is titled: "Aliens who are not qualified aliens or nonimmigrants ineligible for State and local public benefits."SB 1534, Ortiz Public benefits. Federal law, Section 411* of the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), provides that certain persons are not eligible for defined state and local public benefits unless a state law is enacted subsequent to the effective date of the act, August 22, 1996, that affirmatively provides for that eligibility. (snip) This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to affirm the ability of counties, cities, and hospital districts, at their own discretion, to provide health care and other services to all residents. The bill would authorize any city, county, city and county, or hospital district to provide aid, including health care, to persons who, but for the above-referred to provision of the federal PRWORA, would meet the eligibility requirements for any program of that entity.
I may agree with you on the school issue, but definitely not roads and levees. A lot of those are federal responsibility, too.
Well why doesn't that surprise me? California has already set up a state funded SSI/SSP program for disabled illegal aliens. Just drag grandma across the border and sign her up!
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/CDSSWEB/CashAssist_2257.htm
And why, with the exception of a limited number of state highways for intraregional connections, should the state have financial responsibility for local roads and commuter highways.
It is a tradition for numerous and practical reasons that interregional or local commuters can't be denied access to intrastate and intraregional highways in all but emergencies, but the solution is not to force either federal taxpayers or state taxpayers to underwrite this common, local abuse of these roadways.
This isn't rocket science but rather basic, conservative reason. All politics are local .. and so should be most of the financial burden of government. All else is a classic redistribution of wealth.
I'm all for states rights, but the highways are part of a defense network. Even if the defense is commerce need for wartime.
As for the flood control, and not just looking at the AMerican river, or acouple others in cali, many of the systems in question are multi-state. Look at the missisippi, mosouri and ohio river systems that cover many states.
A coordinated effort at the federal level is required in these cases.
CAPI is a 100 percent state-funded program designed to provide monthly cash benefits to aged, blind, and disabled non-citizens who are ineligible for SSI/SSP solely due to their immigrant status. The welfare reform act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) eliminated Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) eligibility for most non-citizens. As a result, most immigrants who were not receiving SSI/SSP in August 1996 are no longer eligible for SSI/SSP.Exactly the same thing--now they have expanded it to healthcare. P.L. 104-193 mentioned in your link is the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)" referenced in SB 1534 that I posted. What else can they find to give away (using our tax dollars)?
Notice the clever elimination of shall or may.
That easily understood, traditional language has been replaced with declares the intent of the Legislature to affirm the ability, at their own discretion,
I read that as may, but a judge, please excuse the pun, may not.
Not quite a smoking gun, but it does provide a rebutable presumption of legality for local government, at their own discretion, to roll out the welcome mat. It does promote balkanization of policies that aren't even in the purview of local government, but now the subject of real debate because of the absence of an federal leadership.
Schwarzenegger is really beginning to stink. Might want to let Mrs. Crayton know that the governor has estentailly declared; "Welcome illegals.".
I have NEVER voted for ANY Proposition. I NEVER will! Taxes, taxes and more taxes! No thanks!
How classically liberal that sentiment, carefully skirting the already established authority to federalize infrastructure in times of a national emergency and avoiding completely, the issue of local abuses of the strategic concept.
Would residential streets also be of federal, strategic importance and therefor the responsibility of federal taxpayers?
A coordinated effort at the federal level is required in these cases.
Absolutely but those cases don't involve California and are beside the point of this discussion: using state taxpayer money to build new schools in Los Angeles' Mexican barrios, to protect lowland dwellers in Sacramento County and to ease commuter's blues in SoCal.
Building flood protection is the financial responsibility of those who reside below the high water line in the American and Sacramento Rivers drainage. Building new schools in foreign ghettos is the responsibility of our federal government through the vehicle of foreign aid. Building new commuter roads in SoCal is the financial responsibility of either their local users or their local residents or both (toll roads).
Sorry--that may have been my fault. The excerpt I posted is from the Legislative Counsel's digest. The wording of the actual law says:
"A city, county, city and county, or hospital district may, at its discretion, provide aid, including health care, to persons who, but for Section 411 of the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193; 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1621), would meet eligibility requirements for any program of that entity."I read that as may, but a judge, please excuse the pun, may not.
Judge Pfaelzer, perhaps? I didn't realize it before but she used this very same law (PL 104-193) as a basis for her warped ruling on Prop 187 that it was a "scheme" to deny benefits to illegal aliens.
It does promote balkanization of policies that aren't even in the purview of local government, but now the subject of real debate because of the absence of an federal leadership.
Absolutely!
I think this might put poor Ms. Crayton over the edge. And then where would AP go to find good "conservatives" to interview?
Oh give me a friggin break. You think i want to add a bid item for frggin rural mailboxes? I didn't say that, you freak, chill! It's boohoo nuts like you who make conservatives look like morons in the news. I don't appreciate the push towards the middle any more than you, but you know what I said, and decided to ignore it.
Our national defense is an ongoing effort, not necessarily only time of declared war.
I'm not thrilled about spending my paycheck on bottom dwellers (all possible meanings intended) either.
First support for spending federal tax dollars on them and now " not thrilled"?
Can these be reconciled?
A classic, liberal dilemma; the undesirable but unavoidable burden of the privileged?
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.