(I’m really excited about this idea. Crossposted to dKos. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Phil Angelides has come up with an interesting idea for developing our infrasturucture:

State Treasurer Phil Angelides, a candidate in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, weighed in on the ongoing political debate over infrastructure Monday by urging California’s public-employee pension plans to invest some of their multibillion-dollar portfolios in public construction projects.

Angelides said the Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System should put about $15 billion into toll roads, energy-conservation efforts and other projects “where there is an income stream, and we should get it, not private companies.”(Sac Bee 4/3/06)

I really, really like this idea.  How can the pension funds do more for the state of California than actually investing in our infrastructure?  These are reasonable rates of return for the funds as well.  At any rate it’s $15 Billion less that we have to borrow from private and foreign investors.

Also, Dan Weintraub predicts that we might see a bond deal soon:

Separately, legislative leaders have been meeting to try to reach agreement on a public works bond package, and at least some aides believe that agreement could come as soon as this week.(Weintraub’s California Insider 4/3/06)

I’ll believe it when I see it, but I would sure love this to happen already.  The constant bond watch is getting a tad bit tedious and is taking away attention from other issues. (Well, I must admit that I kind of like all the bond discussions.  But, I know I’m strange in my passion for this stuff.)

Michelle Steel, who is running for the BOE 3rd district, has proclaimed loudly on her website that she has been endorsed by Grover Norquist and his “Taxpayer Advocate” orginization.  She is proud of this.  Seriously, I am not kidding.  Grover has been involved in the Abramoff scandal and several others, yet Steel still wants his endorsement.

Well, I guess Ray Haynes always has his Howard Jarvis (Prop 13) endorsement.  Ick!

I wasn’t able to find if there was a Dem running for the position. Anybody know?

I don’t know much about Republican Assembly Member Tim Leslie (AD-04).  But I don’t think I really need to know much more than I learned just based on this SacBee Op-Ed he penned defending John Doolittle’s habit of skimming 15% of campaign contributions by hiring his wife as a commission-based fundraiser. 

I think just a couple paragraphs will do:

While the shear [sic] numbers of negative stories is enough to raise questions, even more disturbing is how important facts are often left out or misrepresented. There is no better example of this than The Bee’s most recent editorial “Questionable practices,” which attacked John’s wife, Julie, for earning a salary for the hard work she performs for John.

In its indictment of Doolittle, The Bee comes to the conclusion that “members of Congress, their spouses and children should not benefit financially from money given to their campaigns.” Fair enough. However, then the editorial goes on to only condemn Doolittle for this practice and fails to mention the names of the more than 50 members of Congress who also employ family members in a similar way.

And how many other members of Congress pay their spouse and therefore themselves (California is a community property state) based on how much in the way of campaign contributions they collect?  I’m not a fan of salaried family members paid out of campaign contributions or government funds, but a percentage kickback? 

Everyone who’s an outsider knows that the practice of contributions for access and the private financing of campaigns amounts to legalized bribery.  Doolittle (like the rest of the Tom DeLay Rat PAC) is unusual in that he helped himself directly to some the contributions.

Leslie’s defense of this practice makes one want to look into Mr. Leslie’s own campaign finance practices.