I am going to make pitch for all FR readers to keep an eye (or a browser) trained on the blog of Chris Reed’s Blog at the San Diego Union Tribune Editorial Department, America’s Finest Blog (a humble name, no?).  Chris pens a lot of great stuff, and shares great insight, which often times makes to to the pages of the FlashReport. 

Anyways, I gave Chris the testimonial so that he will instantly forgive me for taking the entire text of his latest blog post (bad internet etiquette, for sure!) and placing it here.  But I know Chris would want as many people as possible to read what he says after hearing Tom McClintock talk to the U-T Editorial Board about the bond measures on the November ballot.  You can read the post here on Chris’ page, but the whole thing is here:

McClintock’s devastating bond critique

Tom McClintock visited our editorial board and delivered a devastating analysis of the infrastructure bonds that changed my vote on 1B. (I was already opposed to 1C and 1D.) He noted that historically bonds were used to pay for major projects that last for at least a generation, under the theory that if it takes 30 years to pay off, the people here in 30 years should still be benefiting from it. He said that argument was crucial to rationalizing passing bonds, since, with interest costs, they end up costing $2 for every $1 spent.

But McClintock said the highway-transit bond (1B); the education construction bond (1C); and the affordable housing bond (1D) were so badly written by the Legislature that less than half of the money in each actually goes to projects that will last a generation. Instead, a majority of the money goes to ongoing program costs, routine maintenance, etc. Which, as he notes, is ridiculous, given that bonds are the "most expensive way we can possibly finance" government operations.

The slim bit of good news is that the levee bond (1E) is about 75 percent devoted to projects that will last a generation. McClintock backs it as a result.

He provided an, oh, infinitely more accurate and honest look at the infrastructure bonds than we got from Arnold yesterday when he visited the U-T editorial board. The governor went on and on about how he was the one who was finally and gloriously rebuilding California. He bristled when I questioned him on spending and budgets and compared some of his practices to Gray Davis’. But on the bonds, as on the budget, he’s not remotely the fiscal conservative he pretends to be.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 13th, 2006 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.