I guess it should come as no surprise that Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed a massive NINE BILLION DOLLAR borrowing scheme that includes billions for "above ground water storage" (I guess that polls better than calling them "dams"). The Governor LOVES to ask Californians to indebt themselves and future generations. It has become a hallmark of his administrations. Bonds, bonds bonds.
I guess the Governor and his team have done some figuring. They know that Republicans legislators will not support higher taxes. And they know that Democrats will not support any cuts in their state-sponsored social engineering and wealth-redistribution programs. If you can’t get the politicians of today to raise taxes or cut spending on other programs, let’s once again whip out the California credit card. Just when you thought it was maxed out – think again.
First and foremost let’s be clear — California has a water infrastructure problem. That is real, and it needs to be dealt with. However, California government also has an overspending problem that is equally real, and a borrowing addiction that has reached tragic proportions.
The plan that has been introduced by the Governor is, simply put, too large. Billions of dollars of proposed borrowing doesn’t even go towards water storage, but rather into a bunch of enviro-programs that are designed to attract the votes of liberal Democrats to the borrowing, not based on actual needs for California.
In addition, there is no effort here whatsoever to change the way that California does business when it comes to infrastructure. Long gone are the days of Democrat Governor Pat Brown, and outlays of substantial general fund dollars to incrementally deal with our state’s infrastructure needs. The "new" model (which has now gone on for decades) is to use dollars that should be for "mortar and bricks" infrastructure instead on liberal social programs. Then when the need is too great, foist borrowing on the already overburdened taxpayers. Even though taxpayers already send enough to Sacramento to pay for infrastructure, they pay again — as do their children — through borrowing.
We are extremely disappointed that there is no component of the Governor’s plan that calls for reprioritizing billions out of the state general fund for the construction of dams.
We see that Republican State Senator Dave Cogdill is the author of the bill for all of this borrowing, and hope that even he doesn’t support foisting that much debt on our children.
In the end, every time Republicans sign on to more borrowing, we move away from forcing state government to live within its means. The more urgent the issue, such as our state’s water infrastructure needs, the more powerful a tool we have to make the case of how Democrats are completely off-base on where are tax dollars are spent. When Republicans sign off on borrowing, it completely takes the pressure off of the liberals in Sacramento to change the way they do business.
What needs to happen here? Two things… First, the billions of dollars in proposed non-dam spending need to be stripped from the Governor’s proposal. Second, there needs to be a significant portion of the resources that pay for reservoir construction coming not from the sale of bonds, but from a reallocation of state funds to this important priority.
Former Assembly Republican Leader (now Congressman) Kevin McCarthy used his position as a bully pulpit for pay-as-you-go spending on infrastructure. While his successor’s successor, Mike Villines, is on the right track with this legislation to reprioritize current authorized bond funds into actual real water-related needs, now would be a time for him to rally his caucus for ‘living within our means’ as a state government. It’s a safe bet that there would be support from their GOP colleagues in the State Senate. Without a change in the ‘spending paradigm’ where general fund dollars are not spent on infrastructure (except to service bond debt), there should not be GOP votes to put ANY more bonds on the ballot. Period.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Earth to Jon. Earth to Jon. Jon, read the Governor’s proposal before you go off half cocked. The Governor proposes to spend a lot of money on building dams and protecting the Sacramento Delta. That is a good thing. And if you can specify where in the General fund the Governor can find the money, then you should tell him (and us) where the money is. Otherwise, your just spewing and not helping. Try helping.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bob, I did read the Governor’s proposal. Have you read the Governor’s California Performance Review that he commissioned? It contained billions and billions in proposed savings in California government. Of course, it was assaulted by the unions and the left, and was left unimplemented. That would be a great place to start.
Bob, I would like to hear your proposals on how we go about how we can meet California’s needs without increasing the amount of money that government spends.
Or do you just believe that the tax and debt burdon on Californians is too low?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, as I recall the “Governor’s California Performance Review” was dead on arrival. So there is no there there, as you well know. I want you to, specifically, state where in the current budget you think you can find the money to carry out the much needed water improvements. You are the one raising varmint objections to the Governor’s reasonable and rational proposal. Now it’s your turn to be rational. Can you do that for us Jon?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
oops… that should be vehement. Sorry for the typo.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Courtesy of Tom McClintock, here are forty suggestions. Of course the liberal Democrats won’t like ANY of these. So we need to ask which of these programs is more important than dealing with our water infrastructure needs?
$2.895 billion in reductions:
1. Adopt the governor’s plan to conform welfare eligibility to federal law. ($324 million): Federal law sets a five year limit on the time a person may remain on welfare and requires work activities as a condition of receiving welfare. Most states conform to these requirements and have seen a dramatic reduction in their welfare rolls as a result. California law allows welfare recipients to remain on the welfare rolls indefinitely, or to ignore federal work activity requirements, with only a slight reduction in benefits – paid entirely by state taxpayers. The above savings DO NOT include the added cost savings of reducing the state’s welfare rolls and avoiding federal sanctions for failure to do so. (5180)
2. Repeal in-state tuition subsidies for illegal aliens. ($75 million): Under current law, California taxpayers provide non-residents of the state of California – including foreign nationals illegally in the United States – the same in-state tuition subsidy as legal California residents – as long as they have spent three years in and graduated from a California high school. In 2005, the LAO estimated the total cost of the AB 540 waivers at the UC, CSU and Community College system at $120 million annually. According to the L.A.O., the University of California estimates that up to 13 percent of their waivers are for foreign nationals illegally in the United States and the Community Colleges estimate that up to 90 percent of their waivers are affected. Assuming a 13 percent rate at CSU as well, that brings the total cost to California taxpayers of providing the in-state tuition subsidies to foreign nationals illegally in the United States to as much as $75 million per year. (6110, 6610 and 6870)
3. Eliminate vacant staff positions. ($200 million): The Senate Republican Fiscal Office has identified approximately 6,000 vacant staff positions in non-health and non-corrections agencies that could be eliminated. Many agencies maintain these vacant positions – while continuing to receive funding for them – and use the unspent monies as a giant slush fund. (Various items)
4. Extend San Diego County’s “Project 100 Percent” statewide. ($80 million): Within 10 days of the application being accepted, a public assistance investigator for San Diego County makes an appointment and actually visits the applicant in their home. This home visit allows the investigator to confirm with their own eyes whether the applicant actually lives there, has the children they claim and is otherwise eligible. Over the ten years this program has been in existence, they have found that one in five applicants misrepresents information on their welfare applications. Based upon the FIRST MONTH’S welfare benefit, they estimate the program saved a half million dollars last year in San Diego County. Since the average stay on welfare is 25 months, the actual savings of this program are more likely in the $12 1/2 million range. Annualized and extrapolated across the rest of the state, that’s over $80 million per year. (5180)
5. Rescind the governor’s proposal to increase salaries for prison guards, de-couple salaries from CHP, and institute a 12-month wage freeze. ($330 million): California prison guards make more than guards in any other state in the nation. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 5,000 guards made over $100,000 last year in wages and overtime. This is in addition to a benefits package that includes retirement as early as age 50 with 90 percent of their highest year’s earnings. Offering an additional wage increase totaling $330 million is unjustifiable in good budget times; in the state’s current fiscal condition, it is unconscionable. (5225)
6. Repeal appropriation for Cesar Chavez Day. ($5 million): Chavez Day celebrations should be funded with private donations – like any other holiday. (0650)
7. Eliminate funding for the methamphetamine anti-use ad campaign. ($10 million): There is no evidence suggesting that this advertising campaign will be effective in reducing methamphetamine use. (4200)
8. Abolish Physical Education Teacher Incentive Program. ($40 million): It is not clear why a $40 million incentive program is necessary to attract gym teachers. (6110)
9. Adopt LAO recommendation to match veterans who could transfer from Medi-Cal into the VA health system. ($250 million): The LAO writes in its Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget: “Our analysis of population survey data indicates that approximately 144,000 veterans who are entitled to comprehensive medical care and health services through the federal Veterans Administration (VA) heath care system are enrolled in the state’s Medicaid Program (known as Medi-Cal in California). We believe it makes fiscal sense for the state to examine the possibility of encouraging veterans to seek medical care from the VA instead of from Medi-Cal…We estimate that the cost of such benefits totals approximately $500 million ($250 million General Fund).” (4260)
10. Eliminate general fund support for UC Labor Institute. ($6 million): This is precisely the sort of special interest program that should be funded with private grants and donations and not public funds. (6440)
11. Maintain all education categorical programs at their current levels. ($837.054 million): Despite the third consecutive year of declining enrollment, categorical programs continue to escalate. With fewer children in the public schools, maintaining categorical funding at its present level still produces a per pupil increase in actual support. (6110)
12. Eliminate general fund support of UC outreach activities. ($26.3 million): This still leaves $57 million out of UC unrestricted funds for outreach activities, in addition to the work of every high school counselor in the state, who is supposed to be doing precisely that. (6440)
13. Delete the three-year pilot program to increase legal representation in civil proceedings. ($5 million): The LAO recommended this item be deleted from the budget “because the benefits of the new program are not clear, relative to other potentially less expensive approaches and it would move the state in the direction of a major new funding commitment it could not easily afford.” (0250)
14. Eliminate general fund support for the Science Center. ($14.808 million): This is the only museum in the state that is subsidized for 64 percent of its costs. This is exactly the sort of function that should be funded by private donations, patrons and visitors. (1100)
15. Transfer $100 million from PTA to reimburse general fund for STA debt service. ($100 million): Given the unexpected windfall to the PTA as a result of sky-rocketing gas prices, it is not unreasonable to transfer an additional $100 million for general fund debt service costs.(2660)
16. Require full county participation for transitional housing plus program. ($29.950 million): Once the share of cost requirement was eliminated last year, program costs have exploded from $1 million to $20 million in one year. This should be a county-option program. (5180)
17. Reinstate Transitional In-Patient Care. ($19 million): The TIC program shifts the care for patients with short-term medical or rehabilitative need from costly hospital-based general acute care to a transitional care unit within a skilled nursing facility. (4260)
18. Reduce COLA for UC and CSU administration at 3.4% rather than 4%. ($33.8 million): This is a LAO recommendation based on the fact that the governor’s proposed 4 percent COLA is well in excess of the inflation rate. (6440 and 6610)
19. Adjust UC and CSU growth rates to reflect actual figures. ($24.9 million): The governor proposed funding UC and CSU growth at rates considerably higher than actual numbers would justify. This is an LAO recommendation. (6440 and 6610)
20. Raise qualifying GPA for CalGrant B program from 2.0 to 3.0. ($29.7 million): The CalGrant program is supposed to assist students to afford college educations in which they will be able to succeed. A minimum threshold to determine the likelihood of success is a “B” average. (7980)
21. Eliminate general fund support of OPR. ($5.436 million): OPR is a pet office of the governor that duplicates policy analysis that is provided by Executive Branch departments. In practice, the office does little to assist local governments and could easily be downsized or eliminated. (0650)
22. Delay implementation of biomonitoring program for one year. ($3.7 million): This is a new program and could easily be deferred for one year. (4265)
23. Eliminate California veterans cash benefit program. ($5.422 million): This is a state-only program that pays out cash benefits to certain veterans who would qualify for SSI/SSP in California but have returned to the Philippines. California should not be paying cash benefits to individuals who are no longer California residents. (5180)
24. Eliminate the Naturalization Services Program. ($5 million): This program is intended to increase the number of individuals naturalizing. It is a worthy goal, but the responsibility of the individual – not the state. (4700)
25. Rescind the augmentation to the Coastal Wetland Account for maintenance and management. ($5 million): This program has traditionally been funded by interest earned on the fund balance, and that funding mechanism should be continued. (3600)
26. Eliminate general fund support for litigation on climate change both in the Air Resources Board Budget ($1 million) and the Attorney General’s Budget. ($2 million): Litigation on climate change will make no appreciable different on climate change, but have a chilling effect on economic activity. (0820 and 3900)
27. Reverse the 2006-07 marginal cost augmentation for UC and CSU. ($23 million): This was a discretionary augmentation removed and then re-inserted into the budget in 2006. There is no policy justification for this expenditure – and is not even part of the governor’s compact. (6400 and 6610)
28. Rescind Medi-Cal continuous eligibility for children expansion by reinstating quarterly status reporting. ($26.5 million): This option would only dis-enroll children WHO ARE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE to receive Medi-Cal benefits. (4260)
29. Fund CSU pre-collegiate level coursework at the Community College Rate. ($10 million): This is a recommendation that the LAO has made in the past – pre-collegiate coursework should not be paid at collegiate prices. (6610)
30. Eliminate AVID funding. ($9.035 million): School districts can continue this program if they believe it is a high priority with their own discretionary funds. (6110)
31. Require Medi-Cal co-payments. ($34 million): Co-payment amounts would be used to offset Medi-Cal costs and reduce over-utilization. Providers would collect up to $3 from the beneficiary for specific services. No person would be denied care if they could not afford the co-payment. (4260)
32. Rescind the general fund augmentation made by the legislature for Student Aid Commission operations. ($15.4 million): Administrative overhead has traditionally been paid from the student loan operating fund. (7980)
33. Postpone establishment of the Chief Information Officer for one year. ($7.874 million): This is a brand-new office within the executive branch that can be easily postponed without affecting any ongoing programs. (0502)
34. Eliminate augmentation for Access to Justice program. ($2.5 million): Whatever the justification for this program, additional augmentations in a tight budget year are not justifiable. (0250)
35. Eliminate general fund support for African-American Museum capital outlay expansion. ($2.325 million): Capital outlay should be financed by revenue bonds redeemed by private donations and patrons. (1100)
36. Eliminate general fund support for emergency housing and assistance program. ($4 million): Proposition 1C provides for $50 million for homeless shelters supported by EHA. (2240)
37. Freeze CCC funding at last year’s level. ($2.002 million): CCC has undergone considerable expansion in the last several years. It is a worthy program, but has far outstripped the growth of the general government. (3340)
38. Eliminate state-only cash assistance program for immigrants. ($128.3 million): A condition for legal entry and residence into the United States is a pledge that the immigrant will be gainfully employed and will not draw upon government support. This state-only program flies in the face of that pledge, which is why the federal government refuses to fund it. (5180)
39. Reduce County Single Allocation Funding. ($90 million): This is entirely a discretionary augmentation included in the 2006 budget act and continued in 2007-08. (5180)
40. Reduce CalWorks earned income disregard. ($70 million): This proposal will allow CalWorks families to keep $200 and 40 percent of remaining earned income. The state’s earned income disregard policy will still be one of the most generous in the nation. (5180)
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bonds are taxes it is not free money, California has borrowed again and again in order to continue spending more and more. Until the Governor has the balls to stand up and cut the budget there should be no more borrowing of money. Funny thing is his Water Bonds will be defeated by a coalition of Conservatives who hate bonds and Environmentalist who hate water projects.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, as you well know the proposals by Senator McClintock are also dead on arrival – if these porposals were not dead on arrival they would now be in effect. Not to mention that it is not nearly enough money. So again, I beseech you to tell us all, where in the budget do you find rational and realistic (that is, will pass muster with the legislature) cuts to make in the current state budget to pay for the much needed water improvements? You are the person raising objections to the Governor’s proposal to use bonds to pay for the needed water improvements. It is up to you to tell us all, in a rational and realistic manner, where you think the money can be found in the budget.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bob, the liberals in Sacramento will want to make NO cuts.
The only way cuts will occur (such as those above) will be if the Governor supports them, and forces them.
What is YOUR solution to creating solving our state’s water crisis WITHOUT increasing net state spending?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I am not the person who is calling the Governor names and saying that the entire water improvement plan should be paid for from general revenue instead of bonds (which every corporation in this world uses for capital improvements). Jon, you are. So it is up to you, Jon, to tell us all where in the budget you think the money can be found that the legislature will go along with. We all know that the cuts that McClintock proposed are dead. So where do you think you can find the money? As for the liberals in Sacramento. Much of that is the fault of the far right CRA knocking off moderate Republican candidates who had a good chance of winning their election by running a straw candidate in the primary who they knew could not win. If you want sanity to return to the legislature, support Republican candidates in districts who can win regardless of if you think they are conservative, moderate or liberal so long as they are for effective and efficient government that does not waste our tax money by giving the money to the favored few of the Democrats.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It is unbelievable that our State legislators (dems) and governor (?) cannot find a place in California’s $145 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET to fund infrastructure needs to ‘pay as you go’. It makes you wonder what the he– they are spending all this money on!
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
In that exchange we see why nothing good ever happens in Sacramento… too many braindead people like Bob Evans. When will the careless and irresponsible tax, borrow and spend ever stop?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Why thank you, Ken Campbell, for that nice complement. I return it to you with all the love and sympathy I can muster.