Is there something special about the figure $9 billion, other than it is a huge amount of money?
Well, it has been a popular figure this week — and a potentially expensive one for Californians.
Earlier in the week, the liberal Democrats who dominate the California legislature held a press conference and announced that in order for California to be a state worth living in (or words to that effect), we all need to embrace $9 billion in new taxes. Seriously.
I was proud that the immediate and strong response from legislative Republicans was that this proposal was dead on arrival (fortunately for taxpayers, the State Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber to raise taxes — how prescient).
Actually, I mused to one legislator friend that Republicans should match the call by Democrats for billions in new taxes with a call for an equal amount in tax cuts. Somebody somewhere is going to start saying "let’s compromise" and I say the GOP position should be such that the "middle" represents no additional taxation on Californians.
I thought to myself that one "silver lining" to this overspending-caused rain cloud was the opportunity to present to the public a clear contrast between the two political parties — with Democrats rather boldly proclaiming themselves to be the party of bigger government and higher taxes, and Republicans staking out the position of a more limited government along with individual freedom and responsibility, and opposition to any more taxes.
After all, when you are the minority party, you need to be able to show how you would govern differently if placed into the majority by the voters.
Well, my idyllic picture of contrast got mucked up yesterday when our "Republican" Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the midst of what promises to be the most prolific budget battle in memory, literally comes out of left field, with Senator Dianne Feinstein in tow, advocating another plan to grow state government by $9 billion.
The Schwarzenegger/Feinstein proposal is a massive bond measure, that they want to see on the November ballot, to deal with California’s water crisis.
Let me say, for the record, we absolutely have a crisis in terms of water conveyance and storage infrastructure. California is a big state, and much of it is arid, and there is a need to be able to move water from one part to another, and to store water in times of plenty to rely upon in times of drought.
That said, I will make a specific observation about the $9 billion in proposed borrowing — the vast majority of it does not go do dealing with the actual problem of water conveyance and storage, only a fraction actually does. Most of it is the sausage of a political process, where the liberals who run the legislature (the same ones who have made huge "investments" of our tax dollars in social-engineering programs instead of into needed infrastructure, in fact creating our current water crisis) will not even put a "water fix" on the ballot that isn’t filled with all kinds of "Sierra Club wish list" items costing billions of dollars.
So, now we have a much muddier picture out there than the clear contrast between Democrats who want $9 billion in taxes, and Republicans who don’t. Now we have the proposed $9 billion in borrowing, most of it with no direct impact on solving our water crisis.
**There is more – click the link**
July 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Ya know…..we all sort of smelled a rat way back when King Arnold was pushing the gov. health care scheme..now….3.9 billion dollars spent above the approved fiscal 07/08 budget…naughty!
How long have they know this? Do we have a California ENRON? Moderates…..DO YOU CARE? hello!
July 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am
There you go again, Jon, right off the rails. Did you read the proposal before you decided to trash it? Do you know that the plan includes $3 billion for reservoirs and other storage projects, with costs to be split between the state and local water providers; $2 billion for projects to use water more efficiently, protect its quality and reduce runoff; $1.9 billion to develop a Delta management plan; $1.3 billion for conservation programs along the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Klamath rivers and the Salton Sea; and more than $1 billion to improve groundwater quality and recycle water (according to the Associated Press)? So where is all that social engineering that you write about? What, specifically, is the social engineering that you object to (and why)? Inquiring minds would like to know – if you can tell us, that is.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Bob, if you re-read my commentary, you will see that my reference to social engineering programs is to all of the programs that the Democrats have been funding INSTEAD of instrastructure. Basically, I am referring to their welfare programs, where government takes from one Californian through confiscatory taxes and then bestows a benefit with that money onto another. It is immoral. That said, I have sat down with water experts and we need nowhere near $9 billion dollars to solve our problems. Even worse is that this won’t just cost Californian’s $9 billion, but it will force local water districts to raise rates to raise capitol to buy into reservoirs as well.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon, your post said ” … our ‘Republican’ Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger … comes out of left field, with Senator Dianne Feinstein in tow, advocating another plan to grow state government by $9 billion … a massive bond measure … the vast majority of it does not go do dealing with the actual problem of water conveyance and storage, only a fraction actually does. Most of it is … in social-engineering programs … filled with all kinds of ‘Sierra Club wish list’ items costing billions of dollars.” So what are these social-engineering programs in the Governor’s proposed bond measure? That’s all I’m asking of you – to be specific instead of throwing mud.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Bob, the specific paragraph from which you excerpt reads:
“That said, I will make a specific observation about the $9 billion in proposed borrowing — the vast majority of it does not go do dealing with the actual problem of water conveyance and storage, only a fraction actually does. Most of it is the sausage of a political process, where the liberals who run the legislature (the same ones who have made huge “investments” of our tax dollars in social-engineering programs instead of into needed infrastructure, in fact creating our current water crisis) will not even put a “water fix” on the ballot that isn’t filled with all kinds of “Sierra Club wish list” items costing billions of dollars.”
Again, I am laying the social engineering in the hands of the legislature. That said, since you asked, I would ELIMINATE from the proposal billions for development of Delta management plans, billions for conservation programs, billions for projects to “use water more efficiently” and just stick to the basics — building some dams, and moving water. That’s it. Not only have numerous “eco-friendly” bond measures already been passed by the electorate, but in this time, we need to pursue an austerity plan. We also should insist as part of a plan that a significant percentage of this year’s and future budgets include an ongoing commitment to infrastructure.