[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Forget the Future: Let's take our BBB Credit Rating to the Bank!

by: Brian Leubitz

Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:06:00 AM PDT


In the last 18 hours, we've gone from stirrings of a possible deal to what has been called a "stall." The stall, as Speaker Bass notes, is the "elephant in the room," Proposition 98 and education cuts.

Further complicating this mess, we have more credit rating downgrades.  Moody's now has us down to a Baa1 credit rating, and Fitch has us at BBB.  Basically, we are hovering just a step or two from Junk bond status, and in terms of the interest rates that we are having to pay right now, the difference between our bonds and junk bonds really isn't that great.  

It is pretty clear by now that at least some part of the budget gap will be made up with more borrowing. The wherewithal for a full cuts-only budget just isn't there, on any side really. So instead, we are borrowing from the future, not just in the pure borrowing sense, but also in that we are cutting our investment in education. However, with these credit ratings that we now have, it will be the current borrowing that will be the object of budgetary consternation for the next few years.

Of course, the fact that we have to use these IOUs has made the problem far worse, to the tune of at least $26 million in July alone. But while George Skelton can see that the Governor's overreaching has much to do with our IOU summer, he also brazenly repeats a conventional wisdom repeatedly borne out to be inconsistent with the facts. You know the schpiel, the May 19 election was supposed to mean that the voters wanted cuts, cuts, cuts. Of course, Skelton, and most of the Broderists calling for a "mandatory" shock doctrining of the state, repeatedly fail to acknowledge the facts that most Californians want a balanced package of cuts and taxes.

But why bother noticing what California's voters actually want when you can read tea leaves from 24% of the electorate that understood/cared about what was going on in May that they bothered to vote.  I mean John and Ken say that there is rage boiling over about taxes, and we can't dare tax the oil companies, or the rich, or the people will explode.  Never mind the fact that it simply isn't true, we MUST cut everything, because that is what the Real Serious People know to be true.

Will we ever default on our bonds? No, our constitution really won't allow for that. But can you blame the credit rating agencies for looking askance at our system? They see it is broken, and in financial circles, that calls for high interest rates. But while Skelton and the conventional wisdom of the Sacramento swamp imply that we just should have cut and be done with it, there are only easy answers in a system that has lost its conscience.

Of course, we really aren't that far away from that, are we?

Brian Leubitz :: Forget the Future: Let's take our BBB Credit Rating to the Bank!
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Bond payments (4.00 / 1)
The diary, like so many before it, insists that bond holders must be paid first under the State's Constitution.  No student of California government would believe for a moment that the payment of bond holders couldn't be gotten around and our unitary-executive-loving courts wouldn't go along.

Let us face it.  California is broken.  To believe that payments to bond holders would somehow be an exception is naive at best.  When an entire government routinely ignores the law and common sense left, right, and center, why would someone thinking of buying a bond believe that the obligation to that bond holder would somehow be an exception to the lawlessness that rules California?


somehow (0.00 / 0)
Prop. 13 is an exception to that lawlessness.  As are the 2/3 rules.  That's simply the way it is in this state - conservative-leaning statutes are considered inviolable; progressive-leaning ones are subject to change.  And I would argue that the pride of place for bondholders in the state constitution is a conservative-leaning statute.  That's why people like Bill Lockyer and John Chiang say consistently that we can never, ever, ever default.

California's broken, but broken in a very particular way.  If you want to blind yourself to that reality, go ahead, but you facilitate even MORE broken credit rating agencies and bailed-out Wall Street banks from gaming the state.


[ Parent ]
You touch upon something that Dems fail to understand... (0.00 / 0)
...that is that the ReThugs are using techniques I learned from one of the most cut-throat developers ever to walk the East Bay soil.

That is...

Everything is negotiable. Even issues which were 'negotiated' yesterday.

Until we get some Dems who know how to throw legislative elbows and kick some ReThug Butt we, the mere citizens, are gonna suffer.

Should the economy turn down again all bets, like 'the rule of law'...acquiescence for the decision of the legislature or the Governor...confidence that things will get better, are off.

Even at best we are in deep doodoo. Read Lester Brown's 'Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress & a Civilization in Trouble' to see what I mean.

We need a comprehensive overhaul of not only our state constitution but accounting rules, taxation and a lot of other things which if they remain unchanged will mean the collapse of not just our economy but our...

...so called civilization.

And we are not even within shouting distance of that.


[ Parent ]
Question: (0.00 / 0)
A Citizen, are you willing to name that developer?  I represent plaintiffs (homeowners) in construction defect cases.  Email me at azureblueskies at sbcglobal dot net.  Thanks.

Agree with the rest of your post, btw.  We need a Rahm Emanuel to bust heads, and instead we have Steinberg.


[ Parent ]
Shouting distance? (0.00 / 0)
I would disagree.  I believe we are within shouting distance.  My continuing problem is that so many of the so-called progressives in California government are corrupt.

I remember my first involvement in politics in the 1971 General election in South Jersey.  Assemblyman Jimmy Florio had been redistricted, adding several Republican strongholds to his district.  I lived in one of those Republican towns.  Our goal was to boost the Democratic vote and switch enough Republicans so that his natural constituencies wouldn't be overwhelmed by his new Republican constituents.  It worked.

Two years before, Florio won his first term by winning the primary against an old-line, on-the-take politician of the worst sort.  There was never any hint of scandal about Florio and money.  That was, then, part of the heart of progressivism, that our candidates were honest.

Sadly, now the progressive candidate is the one who votes the "right" way on one's issue and everything else be damned.  Such a person is not a progressive.  Such a person is a hack.  Our government in California, from top to bottom, is filled with dishonest hacks.

Sad to say, New Jersey has a reputation as one of the more corrupt states.  That is because the US Attorney there has, for over 40 years, made it his (or her) job ot go after everyone who is corrupt in local and state government.  Corruption in state government is less common because the corruption is rooted out early before the person has a chance to move up.

I held an elected county-wide office in New Jersey, tow which I was elected in November, 1973.  Around May, 1974, someone offered me a bribe.  I was in the US Attorney's Office within two hours.  They were set up and ready for someone like me.  They had an entire method for interviewing folks reporting corruption.  I was treated seriously and with respect.  One of the people whom I reported ended up being convicted of numerous felonies involving malfeasance in office.  The other person I reported died in a plane crash before he could go to trial.

In California, our US Attorneys are useless, preening wannabe important people.  They are looking to their next important assignment or that judgeship they so covet.  They indict, occasionally, the odd local in some small town but never go after the big guns.

One of California's biggest problems is that there is no law enforcement when it comes to government.


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox