Last night the State Senate made a decision that the Assembly will mull over this morning — do you put a "solution" to the state’s water problems in front of voters that includes billions of dollars in unnecessary spending?
To talk to Republicans who are supporting this proposal, they would tell you that they support some of the non-essential spending in order to make the measure itself more appealing to liberal votes in parts of the state that aren’t suffering from water shortages. Talk to others and they would tell you that the water crisis is so bad that billions of non-essential borrowing and spending is simply the price paid to get a water-fix through a legislature dominated by liberal Democrats.
Either way, if the water bond proposal as passed by the State Senate last night is approved by the Assembly and scheduled to go before voters in November of next year, there is serious question about whether or not such a "Christmas Tree" measure (with boughs filled with ornaments of enviro-pork) will be passed or rejected by voters.
To be sure, there is a large chunk of this proposal that makes sense — borrowing to build dams (which is less than one-third of the nearly $10 BILLION price tag of the Senate-approved legislation). But it is a sign of a dysfunctional legislature that has earned its pathetic 13% approval rating that, during a recession, they just can’t bear to put a proposal before the voters that proposes to borrow and spend only what is needed to solve the water crisis, but rather seeks to increase the overall indebtedness of California government (with taxpayers on the hook) vastly more than need-be.
The water crisis is real, so I can’t say that I blame GOP legislators for trying to seek a legislative solution to the state’s lack of water infrastructure for trying to get something done. In fact, I can lay a large amount of blame on the liberal Democrats who have caused the crisis by decades of refusal to use pay-as-you-go general fund spending on needed water storage.
That said, the question is going to be how voters react to what is essentially the legislature providing them with only two choices.
The first is to take a step towards creating the first major investment in water infrastructure this state has seen in a long time — but also approve with it literally billions of public spending on items that should NOT be jammed on statewide taxpayers (such as a billion or so in PORK spending, or billions on regional water solutions that should be funded locally, not by general obligation bonds).
The second choice will be to reject this legislature-created "complete water solution" at the polls, sending a message to Sacramento politicians aren’t "chumps" who are going to put up with blackmail-style ballot measures that fall under the category of "in order to get what California NEEDS, you are also going to have to give us what we WANT"… This outcome of course leaves the water infrastructure problem unresolved.
Of course, there is a third course here, one that can still be made by the members of the State Senate and the State Assembly. That would be to scrap this current mega-whopper big-bonds deal for one less than half the size that would treat California voters maturely, and allow them the option of solving the water infrastructure problem without having a proverbial gun to their heads. If legislators are intent on asking voters to approve billions of dollars in elective spending that they feel is important, even if it is not direction tied to water storage, then they should put two separate measures before voters, and make their case without tying the two together.
Notwithstanding any of these issues, there is also the deplorable use of this crisis by Capitol Democrats to pass new regulations on Californians who drink water (guess what? that’s everyone) forcing lifestyle changes that infringe on individual liberty.
California taxpayers have the right to be cynical about a legislature that would pull this kind of maneuver. Look for the voters to be even more receptive to punitive measures like term limits and a part-time legislature as direct democracy becomes the only means available to bring sanity to the political process. Perhaps someone should just go qualify a ballot measure that seeks to solve our state’s water infrastructure mess without asking voters, in the midst of a recession, to "over spend" by billions of dollars to do it.
I don’t envy legislative advocates of this "deal" — spending a year during a recession trying to explain how their efforts to deal with the water crisis come with a price tag more than double that needed to do the job…
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.