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.
**There is more – click the link**
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
It takes money to build a dam, get water into the dam and do enough environmental work to get water out of the dam for transport to southern California.
If you don’t want a dam argue against it. But if you want a dam and a canal this is pretty much what it is going to take.
Can’t defend every dime, but not building this water infrastructure would have serious economic consequences that I have never heard you discuss.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Russell, we aren’t talking about a few million extra dollars. The Democrats created a political dynamic requiring BILLIONS of dollars in borrowing and spending that simply would not exist if Republicans could put their own solution forward. The point of my column is simply that this is tragic, and that in tight economic times, it is shameful that the $10 billion proposal that is likely headed to the voters is so unnecessarily extra-expensive.
I “get it” that because the liberals in the Capitol have too many votes, there was no way to put a legislature-created frugal measure before voters to achieve only that which is necessary.
I just wouldn’t blame California voters one iota if, like with the back-room drafted Proposition 1A, they reject this measure at the polls.
Perhaps that will then give GOP negotiators more gravitas to go back and insist on a more reasonable solution.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Again….no General Patton in the house!