California's budget is balanced, and Governor Brown's vision moves forward.
Silicon Valley Mercury News/Steven Harmon and Mike Rosenberg, 11/12/12. "California Governor Jerry Brown clear to embark on more visionary policy."
 |
| Our state economy and vision are coming back |
Governor Jerry Brown's Agenda includes:
"High-speed rail: With President Barack Obama's re-election, Brown expressed hope in stepping up construction of the first stages of the $69 billion bullet train.
Water: Brown hopes to work with environmentalists, Southern California farming interests and others to start construction of two massive water tunnels in the Central Valley that would ease water distribution and strengthen conservation efforts.
Regulations: Brown wants to ease regulatory burdens on businesses "where it's retarding investment in job creation," though he's mindful of the effects regulation changes would have on public health, the environment and working conditions." Read full article.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
20 comments:
High speed rail=failure. The idiots in the state capital want to give out good old boy contracts for the high speed rail project. 69 billion! the state is broke.
Water=he wants to work with enviromentalists and southern california farming interests to start building another water shipment center to socal. failure
education=worse then Miss. failure
They need to drop high speed rail. This is not a public works project for all. It only serves a few. Why do liberals have such. A problem with the word "we are broke"
Its not just the libs. All politicans are tax and spenders.
Just like in Pacifica.
No. it is just the communists. If I hear one commie complain about their life in California or blame a republican for their lack of prosperity , I will slap them silly.
The only communists left are in North Korea and China.
Balanced budget = A+. First time in 15 years, according to the article. And your various comments which follow also need an attitude adjustment F=Failure Anonymous, 6:12 AM.
Those of you railing against high speed rail in California probably would have rejected the vision and innovation of Bart, which began construction in 1964. The rest of us with more "liberal" views will move forward. Those who have a more regressive "conservative" view clearly lost in the last election. Note: from the article "for the first time in more than 120 years, Democrats..captured 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature" in California.
Water shipment to growers, including those in southern California, is essential for agricultural. And what in the world do you mean by "another water shipment center to social. failure", Anon 6:12AM?
Education? I suspect those involved in education management understand the need for local and testing improvements, whereas your nonreflective view and oblivious F only grading system does not, Anon 6:12 AM.
No complaints about easing regulations? That one fits into the category of: it depends on the impact of the regulation.
Anon 8:15 AM, you have convinced those of us who are centrists to think of ourselves as liberals; whereas the more you name call us "communists", the more we think of you as low information "fascists".
@ Kathy, I respect your opinion but Bart serves many many more commuters than high speed rail would. And HSR costs ten times more. We can't afford to spend $100 BILLION+ for a system that moves only a few thousand people per day.
4 hours to LA by train for $150? You can fly in an hour for half that. So tell me how is that competitive?
Give up this "progressive" idea. Stop trying to be like Europe or we will be failing just like they are.
Which way is the population going and how long will it take to construct the full high speed train network, Anonymous 9:58 AM? Moving people through traffic, locally and state wide, is necessary.
The final cost to California is expected to be $40 billion+, with federal government funding. And how long before the full project is completed? Bart took 20 years to reaching the building stage. Locally there are long awaited projects, such as the tunnel, and widening 1.3 mile of our highway 1.
I'm sure some people were against developing the interstate highway in the USA as well. People in Europe and Asia have successfully used their train systems for longer distant transportation. So will we use bullet trains for transportation, which may also be an alternative to airplane travel.
You cant compare interstate highways or Bart to a limited rail system that will be used by a tiny fraction of citizens. It is NOT a project for "the people" like the Hoover Dam or the interstate freeway system, it is a project for the very few at a cost of over 100 billion by the time it is completed.
The money would be better spent extending Bart to San Jose and improving LA's mass transit.
I believe if high speed rail went before the people now it would fail.
Kathy, you are further out as a wingnut then the hippies nobees and the Sneaky Pete and Sue and Julie Council.
Tin foil hat much.
If Jerry Brown was a republican you would be thrashing every move he made.
Southwest Airlines gets me to SoCal in 45 minutes for about 100 bucks round trip.
The 40 billion dollar high speed rail 2.5 hours.
Why do liberals have such. A problem with the word "we are broke"
November 14, 2012 7:20 AM
Why do liberals have such. A problem with the word "we are broke"
November 14, 2012 7:20 AM
Cause they are the problem!
"The money would be better spent extending Bart to San Jose and improving LA's mass transit." Anon 11:31 AM.
Spend money on both projects. Its all about population growth, transportation, and the future infrastructure of this state. The studies have been done. Whereas your opinion is just that. The "tinfoil, wingnut" award goes to you and Anon 11:51 AM (possibly one and the same).
"Southwest Airlines gets me to SoCal in 45 minutes for about 100 bucks round trip."
From which airport to which airport? I fly to SoCal all the time on SW. Cheapest SW fare I can find from anywhere in Bay Area to anywhere in SoCal is $154.
Still, it's an hour flight for the same fare cost as the projected 4 hour trip by HSR. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
Kathy no need for name calling because you think I'm right.
HSR was bearly approved by a narrow margin. If the vote was held today it would probably fail.
Those numbers of yours have already shown to be unreliable.
California faces $1.9 billion deficit
California faces a $1.9 billion deficit through June 2014, significantly smaller than in recent years after voters passed two tax initiatives last week, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said Wednesday.
The Analyst's Office said in its annual precursor to the budget process that California faces a small deficit because spending is higher than expected and the state will not receive as much as Gov. Jerry Brown predicted from shutting redevelopment agencies. It also believes other revenues from a managed care tax and cap-and-trade auction will fall short.
But the 19-month deficit figure of $1.9 billion pales in comparison to the $13 billion gap the LAO predicted last November or the $25 billion shortfall it foresaw two years ago. The deficit includes a $943 million deficit in the fiscal year that ends in June.
"The state's economic recovery, prior budget cuts, and the additional, temporary taxes provided by Proposition 30 have combined to bring California to a promising moment: the possible end of a decade of acute state budget challenges," the LAO said in its report. "Our economic and budgetary forecast indicates that California's leaders face a dramatically smaller budget problem in 2013-14 compared to recent years."
The Analyst forecasts the possibility of surpluses starting at $1 billion in 2014-15, growing to more than $7 billion in 2017-18. But that depends on Brown and lawmakers restraining program growth, and numerous advocates are likely to ask for existing cuts to be reversed given the additional money available.
Post updated with quote and additional details at 12:45 p.m
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/california-faces-19-billion-deficit.html#storylink=cpy
Anonymous 1:16 PM, any name calling was a quote from you, or from Anonymous 11:51 AM that looks just like you. You want to be Anonymous? Own the downside.
Regarding the bullet train, the "final cost to California is expected to be $40 billion+, with federal government funding." This comment is from my 11:10 AM comment and Mercury News link. Your claim of claim of $100 billion is from nowhere, nor does it include any off-set from Federal Government or other funding.
Sorry, it's 98 billion Kathy.
Voters were sold a load of BS in 2008.
HSRA estimates that the projected ridership would be about 30 percent lower than estimated in the November 2011 draft .
The price tag for a scaled down system will be $68.4 billion. Last year, the HSRA actually estimated the costs would be over $98 billion.
The costs have changed so much from what voters were promised that funding should be halted
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/02/local/la-me-1102-bullet-train-20111102
those are billions with a B
for a train?!
pretty soon we're talkin' real money
Thanks for your LA Times, 11/2/11 news source, Anon 3:28 PM. The Mercury News news source I quoted was dated 6/20/12. (Mercury wipes off their original articles in less than 6 months).
I'm not trying to make you feel bad, and I appreciate you doing an internet search. The bullet train cost for California ultimately fits into the category: who knows until all the funding is put together, and the project is built.
There is a new San Francisco Chronicle bullet train article. Think I'll post that.
California is still on the hook for up to 500 billion in unfunded pensions. So it's more like a 501.9 billion deficit.
Dump this bullet train.
Post a Comment