Los Angeles, CA: Were California voters fooled by the $40 billion in infrastructure bonds they approved in the November 2006 election, because there was no organized opposition to the massive ballot proposals?
The shocking truth about the historic campaign for the massive bond measures is revealed in a nine minute Full Disclosure® Video News Blog covering a debate hosted by the Milken Institute just days before the election. The video is to be featured on the Internet and on 43 cable television systems, as part the Full Disclosure Network'sT regular programming.
Here are a few of the revelations from participants featured in the video news blog:
- Don Perata, California State Senator in describing the massive bond proposals stated.. "We don't know how it will work, until we have the money" saying that Californians don't mind incurring debt "after all the average family is much more in debt than is state government."
- James McNulty, CEO Parsons Corporation informs the panel that he does not expect there will be substantial bidders on the bond projects nor does the industry have the capacity to complete the massive projects, citing the reasons why.
- Dr. Adrian Moore, V.P. Reason Foundation argues that each year's state budget was to include infrastructure projects, but the legislature has spent the money on other matters. He asks the question "How will we pay (for the bonds) if we don't have the funds? Where are we going to get the money?
- B. Scott Minerd, CEO Guggenheim Partners a public finance expert tells Full DisclosureT "the likelihood that we are not going to get everything we paid for in the bond issues is quite high"
Billed as "the news behind the news" the Full Disclosure Network® is an independent, educational, public affairs cable program featured on 43 cable systems and the worldwide Internet website www.fulldisclosure.net Hosted by Leslie Dutton, who in 2002 was presented with a public affairs Emmy Award from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for their series entitled "L.A.'s War Against Terrorism". Channels and airtimes.
Comments to date: 10. This is page 1 of 1.
michael los angeles
Posted: 09:54 pm [PST] on February 01 2007
Another good reason to start paying closer attention to the tax honesty movement. Most americans have no liability under subtitle A income tax or subtitle C employment tax.
michael mcguire los angeles 14cd
Posted: 09:40 pm [PST] on February 01 2007
Great news outlet pleaase keep up the good work
Leslie Dutton Los Angeles
Posted: 09:54 pm [PST] on January 27 2007
Stan: your comment you appear to be trying to cause trouble" Would you care to elaborate?......Please tell us to whom the questions posed in our survey would cause a problem? apparently you do not object to the fact there was no organized opposition to the bonds? The democratic process supposedly depends on the electorate and the taxpayers giving their consent to government. Do you suggest that is not necessary? And did you cast your vote? Your response would be appreciated here.
Stan Los Angeles
Posted: 07:01 pm [PST] on January 27 2007
As is often the case recently, you appear to be trying to cause trouble. There are not enough facts in your reporting (of a few people's opinions) to knowledgeably answer your questions. Clearly there will be problems rebuilding needed infrastructure. Does that mean any attempt to do so is a scam?
George Margolin Newport Beach
Posted: 01:27 pm [PST] on November 21 2006
Leslie -- Brilian show. Keep up the good work. George
Samantha Whitmore Whittier California
Posted: 07:48 pm [PST] on November 20 2006
What a revelation. I cannot believe that Senator, all he wants is the money and ask questions later. That sure sends up a red flag. We got snookered
Robert Los Angeles
Posted: 04:08 pm [PST] on November 19 2006
I voted yes on 1e, because we need to shore up our levees. But I voted no on 1a through 1d, and here's why: the ballot measures were specifically designed to accomodate the illegal immigrant population, and encourage even more illegal immigration. Let's say that, after 20 years of denial and inaction, the federal government finally starts enforcing our immigration laws. Let's say that we start deporting illegals, or encourage them to self-deport through employer sanctions. The result is that we would not need to build up our infrastructure. We wouldn't need to widen freeways. We wouldn't need to offer affordable housing to illegals (but would hopefully still offer it to low and middle-class Americans). We wouldn't need to build more schools, because a lot of those children would be required to go back to their home countries. California should come out with ballot measures like this only after Congress enacts immigration reform. (Hopefully the kind which denies Amnesty & Guest Worker).
Robert Los Angeles
Posted: 03:49 pm [PST] on November 19 2006
The bond measures that the voters recently passed, without fully understanding the situation, are remarkably similar to the ballot proposals that Governator Arnold put forth 1 or 2 years ago. But back then, there was an intense, massive, advertising campaign, urging voters to vote no on these proposals. Arnold's proposals failed.
Brad Robertson Los Angeles
Posted: 02:18 pm [PST] on November 19 2006
if the government used the money we already give them thru taxes how they were supposed to, there would be no need for bonds. but since half are theives and the other half are too scared to speak up,we're stuck
Howard Winkler Los Angeles
Posted: 02:05 pm [PST] on November 19 2006
COMMUNITY RESEARCH & INFORMATION CENTER, A California State PAC serving the Jewish Community of So. California OPPOSED the sale of these bonds and recommended a "NO" Vote on Propositions 1B,1C,1D,&1E.
We did our RESEARCH correctly.