Shane Goldmacher at the Capitol Weekly has some interesting points about the bond deal:

As the Capitol recovers from its bond-financing hangover, the challenge of getting a bond on the November ballot is more complicated than the puzzle of a June deal. If there is going to be a deal for the fall, legislative leaders will have to negotiate amid the summer’s annual budget wrangling–just as the gubernatorial campaign picks up steam.

“People need to remember that getting it done [in June] was important,” said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. Now, “you are going to see a lot of other forces entering this, including partisan politics with the November elections … It’s hard enough to do a deal on policy grounds. When you start dealing with politics, it is really tough.”

If there is a bond on the November ballot, Democrats may be in an awkward position of campaigning for Governor Schwarzenegger’s bond, but urging voters to vote against his re-election. But the campaigns of both state Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly said a bond would not be a boon to Schwarzenegger’s campaign.
(Capitol Weekley 3/23/06)

Basically, he’s making an uncontroversial statement: it will be harder to pass a bond deal while negotiating for the budget.  While the budget may be a little less rocky in the election year, it will still be a mess.  On the other side of the coin, the Dems could use the bond deal as a club to beat Schwarzenegger into some concessions on the budget.

On the other point, that it would put Schwarzenegger’s opponents in a difficult position. Well that’s probably true.  At this point it would be hard for Westly to campaign for the bond deal, seeing as his ties to the Governor are already seen as too strong.  And in the articele, it looks like the Westly camp is actually making some statements to play down the effect of the bond deal:

“He’s now developed a pretty distinct pattern of coming up with big grandiose plans, and watching them turn into a puddle on the floor,”  says Westly spokesman Garry South. “His performance review evaporated into the ether. Last year, he puts four crappy measures on the ballot, and they all get voted down. Now it’s this pie-in-the-sky infrastructure proposal.”

Angelides’ situation is a little more tenable here.  He has a little more flexibility given his past Arnold-baiting to take a stand on the bond deal on his views of the package.  But, no stand needs to be taken unless they can actually get something on the ballot.

(Forgot to promote – promoted by SFBrianCL)

UPDATE: No deal yet, but the recent stories say that it’s getting close.

“We’re very close to coming to an agreement,” Schwarzenegger said Thursday afternoon, just before settling into one of a string of meetings he has conducted in his office the past four days with Democratic and Republican leaders.

“We have some hurdles to overcome and some obstacles to overcome,” Schwarzenegger said, “but I have great hopes.”

The Senate and Assembly had scheduled late sessions Thursday but adjourned so the governor and legislative leaders could continue talks on a compromise package to build highways, schools and levees.

The Assembly adjourned until Monday, but told members to be on call through the weekend. The Senate was to return today.State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, promised a vote by midnight tonight.(Sac Bee 3/10/06)

It looks like a deal for the bond package is getting close.  If it happens soon, it will be able to get on the June primary ballot (typically a better time to pass these sorts of things.)  The deadline for the June ballot is tomorrow (3/10/06), but it looks like legislative leaders and the Governor are going to be able to come to an agreement. 

Hat tip to Julia Rosen, especially for the visual of somebody walking around in a duck suit.  That made  me laugh, mostly because it really describes the craziness of the current atmosphere in Sacramento. The Bee provides more details of the proposed deal:

The elements most discussed seem to be these: education (state funds to match local funds to build schools); water and flood control (regional water projects, levee rapairs, etc.); transportation (a balance between transit and roadway projects); housing (projects targeting low-income residents); and natural resources (funds for coastal preservation and state conservancies).

There are other bond ideas that may not make this package – funds for state prisons, county jails, courthouses and seismic retrofit fixes for hospitals. If those items don’t make it into the package, the governor and Legislature are likely doing the state a considerable service. There are some serious questions about making such investments with state funds that could go to other needs. Beware of last-minute desires to end a debate on, say, water needs, by simply throwing more money at it.(SacBee 3/9/06)

Well, obviously this plan isn’t quite the grand dream Ahnold had in mind, but I actually think this could be a good thing.  We desperately need infrastructure improvements.  The levees need more attention, and affordable housing is a laudable goal.  And the costs are pegged at a more  reasonable figure…always an important feature when it comes to my analysis.

On the down side, high speed rail keeps raising its head.  Personally, I think the costs would outweigh the benefits on this one.  We have a very functional air service between the major regions of California, do we need the high speed rail?  Would enough people ride it to make it worthwhile?  I’m not so sure.

And then there’s the political aspect.  A success in the bond deal would give Arnold a big boost in the general election.  That is why he really wants this on the June ballot.  But for Dems, it can’t be seen as a good thing to hold up infrastructure improvement.  It be like insulting Mom’s apple pie.

As for what was left out, I’m ok with not building more prisons.  We need to get rid of 3 strikes and other BS like that which is filling them up.  However, we do need more courts.  The court system is working on a fraction of the budget they should be getting.  Also, water storage is one of those big concerns that eventually we will have to deal with.  Southern California’s water needs aren’t just going to go away.  Someday we are going to have to deal with water concerns in a more meaningful way.  Apparently today is not that day.  But, that’s ok, they did what was possible, for now.

The Sacramento Bee, despite the sad state of its Op-Ed columns, seems to do pretty well in its actual reporting.  For example, here’s a handy thumbnail sketch of the competing proposals for infrastructure spending. [Graphic will open in new window]

Now we know what the fuss is about, at least at a high level.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) spoke to SacBee reporters, who published portions of the interview.  What I found most interesting was a tidbit about the debate over the bond packages:

A: I can’t tell you whether it’s going to be in June or November. … But here’s what it’s going to take to get it done for June. It’s going to take political will, not just on the part of the Assembly Democrats. It’s going to take the Senate Democrats, and it’s going to take the Republican legislators. … The thing that you’ve got to understand is there are a lot of issues on the infrastructure bond that come into play when trying to figure out what ought to be in the bond, what ought not be in the bond. One really needs to take their time and make sure that it’s done right. And, really, a lot of it is about people putting their cards on the table early and saying, “Look, this is what I can live with and this is what I can’t live with.”

And what the Democrats apparently can’t live with is a large bond package.  Nunez is balking at the $68billion that the Governor is asking for:

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said Tuesday that his caucus cannot support a $68 billion package of general obligation bonds that is a linchpin of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 10-year “strategic growth plan.” (Sac Bee 2/15/06)

As I’ve discussed before, we need to take a look at how we are going to spend these bonds.  We’ve neglected our infrastructure for so long, it isn’t even possible to estimate what kind of money we need to expend to improve it.  There

There are many infrastructure projects that will need money in the next ten years.  Obviously, the LA and SF Bay areas need attention, but the booming economy of the Central Valley requires massive infrastructure improvements as the roads around the major Central Valley city are too small for the current population.  But, as I’ve stressed before, the levees around the SF Bay Delta need a major overhaul.  While this should be a combined state/federal project, the state needs to ensure that we have the funds for that.

Which brings me back to the issue of timing.  The Governor, and some Democrats, are aiming to get the bond issue on the June Primary election ballot.  Why the rush?  The statewide conversation on these issues just began.  Perhaps what would be more wise is a statewide prioritization of infrastructure needs.  A rapid task force would probably also be helpful, but perhaps that delay would turn off voters.  However, we are going to have to have this discussion before any money is spent anyway.  Why not wait for this election until we are sure of our needs? $68Billion is a lot of money, we need to make sure we know where it’s going.

There was more, mostly about the assisted suicide bill, a topic that I plan on tackling in the near future.