[calcowgirl]

Prop 1A was put on the ballot by the legislature. It passed as SCA 7 (Torlakson-D).

The legislators voting against it were: Cogdill, DeVore, La Malfa, Maze, Mountjoy, Strickland, Villines and Walters. Maybe one of them will speak up. Of course, so much of this legislation was put in front of them at the last minute and with little detail, I doubt there was a thorough vetting.

These two comments are interesting (from the May 4, 2006 Assy Analysis). I made some minor corrections to the first:

As written: Spreading the repayment of existing funds "owed" due to prior suspensions of the Article XIX B General Fund transfer will save the General Fund approximately $690 million for the 2006-07 budget year as compared with the Governor's proposed budget and $1.6 billion over the next three budget years, as compared with current statutory law.

Corrected: Spreading the repayment of existing funds "owed" due to prior suspensions of the Article XIX B General Fund transfer will save cost the General Fund Taxpayer approximately $690 million for the 2006-07 budget year as compared with the Governor's proposed budget and $1.6 billion over the next three budget years [for spending on otherwise unaffordable programs], as compared with current statutory law.

And this comment:

Authorizes the Legislature to provide by statute for the issuance of bonds by state or local agencies that would be secured by the minimum annual transfer of "repayment" of suspended funds.

So this is authorizing another $2.3 billion in bonds? ($0.690 + $1.600 from above)

Text of ACA 7 relative to bond issuance (last paragraph):

(2) The Legislature may provide by statute for the issuance of bonds by the state or local agencies, as applicable, that are secured by the minimum transfer payments required by paragraph (1). Proceeds from the sale of those bonds shall be allocated solely for the purposes set forth in this section as if they were revenues subject to allocation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b).

I am continuously amazed that government folks think that proceeds from bonds are "revenue."

[Amerigomag]

Spreading the repayment of existing funds "owed" due to prior suspensions

According to the LAO, Proposition 42 is silent as to whether suspended transfer amounts are to be repaid to transportation.

Therefore, they are not owed. In that light, Prop 1A does provide some relief for Caltrans. Under prevailing code, there is no legal, compelling incentive to repay the suspensions.

[Carry_Okie]

Of course, so much of this legislation was put in front of them at the last minute and with little detail, I doubt there was a thorough vetting.

I take it you're familiar with H.L. Richardson's book, What Makes You Think We Read the Bills?

[Amerigomag]

(2) The Legislature may provide by statute for the issuance of bonds

Here's a just remedy to combat the abuses of the Schwarzenegger Reciprocity Vehicle

1) All state bonds may only be issued to CalPERS.
3) California becomes the agent of record for all state bonding.

Yes, the Austrian would be dead in the waters with his financial backers but the state would receive the bonding commissions and the income from the bonds could be dedicated to offset the staggering, future, medical liabilities of its retirees.