UPDATE ON BIG BONDS
I had a chat with Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman this morning, to talk about last night’s 
late session to take up the first-pass at passing a general obligation bond package that is a central part of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Strategic Infrastructure Plan. Ackerman (pictured) told me that after a couple of days of very meaningful negotiations and dialogue, Senate Democrats put up a bill that was so untenable to the entire Republican Caucus that they all unanimously voted no. When I asked Ackerman about the dynamics of the vote he said, "All my caucus members had to do was read the proposal and they all voted no."
The bond package put up for a vote by Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata only vaguely resembles the original proposals for an infrastructure plan proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger back in his January State of the State Address. While the Governor has been focused on trying to achieve some sort of consensus and get a compromise plan out of the legislature — the massive borrowing package voted on last night was more like a Democrat SUBSTITUTE for the Governor’s plan.
Besides the fact that a lot of important GOP ‘must have’ components were absent – including much-needed CEQA reforms, and bond debt limit, and any meaningful commitment to pay-as-you-go — this package was like a Christmas tree on steroids, threatening to collapse under the weight of massive ornaments — these being massive spending on programs that go well beyond the scope of the mortar-and-brick types of construction that Californian’s think of when they hear the word ‘infrastructure’.
You can read a lot more about this in an insightful and telling MUST READ article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, by reporter Greg Lucas, where you can read quotes like this one:
"Protection of environmental resources is as much of a long-term investment in California’s future as is the construction of public works that provide water or improve transportation or schools," said Tom Graff, regional director of the Environmental Defense Fund in Oakland.
The list of massive amounts of funding that go towards an extreme liberal’s view of ‘infrastructure’ is amazing, and you can read about much of it in the Lucas piece.
"It’s far from bricks and mortar, far from setting priorities for getting people from home to their jobs faster," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster in Lucas’ article.
It is precisely the focus of legislative Democrats on all of this non-infrastructure ‘social engineering’ nonsense that has put California in this bind in the first place.
In the meantime, Senate Democrats’ zeal for environmental programs is exceeded by their steadfast opposition to "above ground storage" for water — which, when you take away all of the jargon, means they don’t want any more dams built in California. But no one is really talking about an Hetch-Hetchy style high sierra dams, but rather some rather broad a shallow water storage in some of California’s most remote areas, where the only endangered species is the California Dirt Clod.
Anyways, Ackerman went on to say that he thinks that negotiations will pick up again on Monday morning, and he felt that the legislature probably had until as late as Tuesday to pass something for consideration on the June ballot.
Ackerman made it clear that in his caucus, there is a resolve to let a deadline slip for June if the tradeoff would mean supporting a package such as the one presented to the full Senate last night.
As for Assembly Republicans — their resolve is also strong. I had an opportunity to spend some time with Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher last night, and she was very firm in her belief there there is "not one Republican vote" for a infrastructure proposal that is absent the needed reforms that have been discussed — all of the ones absent from the plan advanced by Democrats last night.
**There is more (on statewide races, and the goings on in Ventura County – click the link below**