Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Jon Fleischman, Publisher of the FlashReport Website on California Politics, this morning released the following statement to the State Legislature concerning ongoing discussions to achieve a solution to our state’s water crisis that the legislature would then place before the voters of California…
"As the Governor and state legislators work earnestly with a goal of pulling together a “comprehensive water solution package” to potentially bring before the full legislature this week, we believe that the frame of mind of those working on this important problem should do so bearing in mind that in very difficult economic times, the overriding consideration should not be “what do we want to do” but rather “what do we have to do.”
Our state’s water infrastructure clearly needs improvement and expansion. Californians understand this and we believe are ready to support a proposal that does so with an a manner that is fiscally responsible and does not seek to use a critical issue to reach into the pockets of taxpayers to fund a “wish list” of non-essential spending promoted by Sacramento’s special interest groups. In fact, we feel it would be shameless to use the plight of so many in desperate need of water to promote and fund alternative agendas. This is not the time to apply the principle that “one shouldn’t waste a good crisis.”
We understand that you cannot build dams, or infrastructure to convey large quantities of water across the state without considerable expense. We also realize that due to federal laws, some degree of environmental mitigation will be required to do this.
That said, as taxpayer advocates, we presume that the message sent by California voters to the legislature in the May Special Election is still very loud and clear – that they will reject measures put before them that seeks to tax them (or in the case of a bond measure, tax multiple generations) in order to finance more unnecessary and wasteful spending.
We believe in the principle that the costs of water infrastructure, where possible, should be borne by those who will be utilizing that water. If that investment involves long-term financing, this should be done in every possible instance through the use of revenue bonds, resorting to general obligation bonds only as a last resort. Most important, however, is the idea that this package should include only what is necessary to solve the problem, which is the current challenge of ample water being available throughout the state — nothing more, nothing less.
Economists and water experts who are not a part of the cadre of “Capitol insiders” will be employed to review the final product, to ensure that it is a solution that indeed strictly addresses the problem. We can all think back to February when these same “insiders” assured taxpayer advocates that the so-called spending cap in Proposition 1A would be effective, when independent scrutiny quickly exposed that as a false assertion.
We can assure you that if a product produced by the legislature resembles a Christmas tree, with its boughs laden with ornaments of pork spending, rather than a solution that understands that we need to solve our water issue during a time when no one can afford to spend more than is absolutely necessary — then will work as hard and as vigorously towards its defeat as we did the ill-fated series of ballot measures put before voters by the legislature just a few months ago.
Finally, it is our understanding that California’s debt service ratio has increased simply by virtue of the fact that the general fund has shrunk. If servicing California’s ponderous debt load does not seem like an immediate problem for us today, we assure you it will for our children. Of course, the rough estimate by the LAO of $200 billion pales in comparison to the $9 trillion of debt being incurred at the national level, but California does not have the luxury of printing its own currency. (A blessing, actually).
Even if a bond package emanates from the current negotiations which could be characterized as “responsible” in terms of actually building surface water storage and conveyance infrastructure, state leadership should also seriously consider a review of all previously authorized debt to determine if some projects should be removed from further funding in their entirety. We can think of no better infrastructure bond that exemplifies an ill-advised use of public debt than the so-called High Speed Rail project. It is time to call this project what it is – an unjustified boondoggle that will cost over $100 billion, not the $30 billion advertised to voters. Imagine what we could do to solve the water crisis if the debt capacity of that project were available for something that is actually needed.
In short, there is no denying the need to deal with the water issue in California. But taxpayers and those advocating rational use of the state’s debt capacity will be watching carefully to ensure that the interests of future generations are not jeopardized."
Jon Coupal
President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Jon Fleischman
Publisher, FlashReport Website on California Politics
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.