One of the criticisms of the $11.1 billion water bond is that California has passed so many bonds that the financially strapped state won't be able to handle the annual debt service on this huge bond. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the bond is structured in a way that will make the debt service feasible.
Schwarzenegger and bond supporters have two big problems: The first is selling the measure to voters at the November 2010 election when the citizenry is expected to be in a rebellious mood. The second is the bond should have cost $9.4 billion, but was loaded up with extras (pork) to get the votes of lawmakers who were on the fence in supporting the historic measure. Opponents will be pointing out the pork in this bond measure during the campaign.
But we need this bond package for many reasons, including providing enough water for San Joaquin Valley farmers to grow their crops. We also need to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and have enough drinking water for the state's growing population.
You can't argue that we need to build dams for more storage capacity and then argue that we shouldn't pass a bond to pay for the dams. That would put you on the same side as the environmentalists who oppose this bond because it would help build dams for Valley farmers. So now the environmentalists are in the fiscally conservative camp, claiming the state can't afford the bond.
Legislators told reporters after the passage of the water package that the bond has been written so only about half could be sold before July 1, 2015, which would reduce the early impact on the state's general fund.
The chart below shows the state's debt service. The blue is the existing annual debt service. The maroon is the debt service for the water bond.
Sacramento modus operandi - offers that can't be refused. Mr. Boren, I was led to understand that the environmental lobby was rewarded in this proposal. Why would they oppose such a bond? Perhaps your description leaves out some important content. Lets get the whole story before the vote, that's why I subscribe. I am also wondering about the title. Are we acknowledging that plants "drink" now? Very curious in light of the use of language in these times. My fertile mind is working on the first sign/implication of using such a verb to describe capillary action. Anyway it appears that irrigation has been subordinated at the beginning of the text. I can't wait to see the bond described in the ballot explanation.
Herr Schwarzenegger, governor of California USA.
Did you structure the bond to be re-payable? Pumping iron must be very educational. Because I, the taxpayer of 57 years in California would not know how to back that bond.
Respectfully
Frau Lawson
Those who are fiscally responsible buy only what they need, then make sacrifices to be able to afford it. At least that is what the middle class does who are supporting this state. When we can't afford pork we make a big pot of beans. We've been eating beans for some time now so that Sacramento can have it's "pork". Maybe that is why the citizenry is so moody. Cut the pork, get rid of the many unnecessary give-away-freebie-programs the state finances to offset the costs and I'll vote for it. Until then don't bother me. My family has made some MAJOR sacrifices to be fiscally responsible and it's time Sacramento and the rest of those who haven't yet sacrificed take their turn. California needs water. I'll vote for water. I'll help pay for water ONLY... so quit playing political games dear "leaders."
Isabell,
Looks like you are still up to shaking the platform. I smile in fond remembrance Frau Lawson!
Here we go again so read my lips yet again - If these bonds require that we pay one more cent in taxes to retire them, then we will vigorously support and contribute to those who advocate their defeat!
Mike Dozier; I really enjoyed hearing from you! It was salve on my wounded ego. Those Beehive guys really hate my guts, no matter what I say...hahaha! How do you like your new super job being Director of the much greater jurisdiction. Since leaving Clovis I have somewhat lost track of time. I hope I shall be able to remember come February 2010. Since you are doing Swearengin's former job now, perhaps you will even follow in her mayor footsteps. Since I digressed so shamefully from the blog topic, I am asking you what you think about our Governor's capability to manage our money, other than spending it? The question is rhetoric, yet I stuck to the topic...kind of! Take care!
Promises...Promises...Where has all the money gone that should have fixed this for the past few decades?...Down the same government rathole as the rest of it for empty promises.1 billion plus in pork to get the parasites to approve it...Disgusting!
The amount of debt our government is accumulating is outrageous!