Sacramento – The governor is like a card shark when dealing with budgets. They usually have a gimmick that is tied to the sleeves.

Congress tends to follow that, as it has been in Sacramento for the past 14 years, if there is at least one party rule that is biased.

Budget season is open at the California State Capitol. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a state budget of $32.2 billion from July 1st to January. After a long, unacceptable suspension required by outdated legislative rules, the Budget Committee began plowing weeds in the governor’s spending plan.

One Newsom Gimmick has attracted little attention in its focus on wildfires in the Los Angeles area and the chaos created by President Trump.

To balance the budget, the governor wants to grab around $300 million from the $100 billion climate bond, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in November.

Ok, that’s just 3% of the total bond. But that’s the principle of grabbing money. The governor and his successor can set a pattern to continue to immerse themselves in the climate bond pot to balance their budgets.

“The Senate Budget Committee vice-chairman, Sen. Rogerniero, Republican Sen. of Fair Oaks, a suburb of Sacramento, said:

“The governor certainly uses the funds he can find to balance his budget, and Congress does almost anything he asks.”

Proposition 4 climate bonds passed 60% of the vote, or landslides. The official title of the voting measure read that it approved the bond “to protect communities and natural lands from safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and climate risks.”

So here’s the problem. Voters are not told that some of the money will be used to suck up red ink in their budget. They were led to believe – in its most selling pitch – Accelerate preparations to face the dangers of climate change.

There was $1.2 billion to reduce the risk of sea level rise and $850 million to support the transition to more renewable energy, including offshore winds.

However, the biggest item was $3.8 billion to improve the amount and quality of water available to people and reduce flood risk. It also amounted to $1.5 billion in wildfires and $1.2 billion in land conservation and habitat recovery.

“I didn’t support that,” says Niero. “It was a real Hodge Podge. My interest was flood control, and it was almost minimal.”

Democrat news also didn’t support it. He was publicly neutral. Personally, he repeatedly spoke to legislative leaders who don’t want the bill. When it landed at his desk, he was conveniently out of state, Senate leader Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) signed by the governor and placed it on the ballot.

Here’s how Newsom proposes to use Proposal 4 to balance your budget: He hopes to transfer $273 million worth of natural resource and climate projects, previously permitted to be paid by the General Fund, into bond financing. It is the state’s main cash check account, currently pinned at $232 billion.

The governor also proposes shifting $32 million in bond funds in Proposition 4 to payments for clean energy projects that were allowed to raise funds under the state’s cap-and-trade program. It is funded by companies that purchase permits to release greenhouse gases and is frighteningly complicated.

Know that the most uneconomical way for governments to spend their money is through bond financing. You can actually double the cost of a project. It’s like driving long-term credit card debt, rather than paying cash.

The $100 billion climate bond is designed to be repaid for over 40 years at $400 million a year. Newsom’s budget officials point out that turning the costs of some general fund projects into bond funding will not increase the interest total tab, as $10 billion will be borrowed.

However, it doesn’t buy $10 billion as much as it originally anticipated. Newsom’s plan reduces the number of new projects expected based on Proposal 4. That’s because bonds pay for some old projects previously approved for the General Fund.

In budget jargon, this scheme is called “backfill.” When money in general funds for a project is withdrawn, it is often backfilled from another source – as if to steal Peter and pay Paul.

“Voters have passed this climate bond as a supplement, not as a replacement for general fund spending,” protests Gabriella Facio, senior policy analyst at the Sierra Club. “The current situation alone is not enough. The need to invest more in environmental resilience is important.”

“Voters don’t pay any attention to such weed voting measures,” said John Coopal, the president of Howard Jarvis taxpayers, opposed Prop. 4. “They saw ‘climate change’. They were like Pavlov’s dogs and voted for it. ”

Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), author of the proposition, wants to compromise. He serves as the chairman of the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy.

Proposition 4 was “made to provide additional investment” in the fight against climate change, he says. “It wasn’t meant to be a clawback… being attacked and used as a backfill.”

His subcommittee believes Newsom is “raiding too much on Proposition 4,” Allen says. “We work with him and come up with a reasonable set of compromises if he doesn’t eat too much. We’re not interested in being a grab bag to cover budget issues.”

HD Palmer, a spokesman for the finance department for Newsom, says the governor is “financially wise” because it threatens economic uncertainty and cut-offs in federal funding.

However, news media and the public should look to card sharks.

What else should I read?

Must see: Newsom says that trans-athletes’ participation in women’s sports is “deeply unfair”
TKMayor San Jose proposes to jail homeless people who repeatedly refuse shelter
Rimes Special: Trump’s 1% policy war: Transgender people, USAID funding, and now Canadian fentanyl?

Until next week,
George Skeleton

–
Has this newsletter been forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.