mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The legislature has been "borrowing" from
> transportation funds for years. Have you seen any
> repayments? Have you seen any extra money for
> maintenance? I haven't, and I *have* noticed more
> potholes to go along with the cuts that have
> actually happened. Railroads call this "deferred
> maintenance" and when the bill finally comes due
> they often go bankrupt. And now the latest scheme
> hatched by AS and gleefully continued under JB is
> to pay the "debt service" (essentially, interest
> payments) on general obligation bonds for anything
> even remotely related to transportation from
> transportation funds rather than the General Fund.
> Count on the HSR bonds being paid for the same way
> despite being General Obligation bonds.
>
> GO bonds are General Obligations and under the law
> are supposed to be repaid from the General Fund -
> so paying them from special funds reduces the
> apparent General Fund deficit. I tend to vote
> against GO bonds unless there are clear criteria
> for what will be bought with the money (and it's
> clearly mostly a long-term investment not a pork
> barrel). If there's a specific long-term asset
> being created, I have no problem with bonds; most
> people don't pay cash for their house or vehicle
> either. But you have to look at what you're
> getting and decide if it's worth the interest
> we'll have to pay (through our taxes) to borrow
> the money -- and if it will last at least as long
> as it will take to pay off the bonds.
>
> Now that the balances have been discovered the
> park-related trust funds will almost certainly be
> raided by "loans" to the General Fund the same way
> transportation and other special funds have been
> taken. However, in the great scheme of budget
> games the amounts in the park funds are fairly
> small so they won't help with the overall budget
> situation much, and maybe can be saved for their
> intended purposes to some degree. All the more
> reason, though, to fault management for not
> keeping on top of the fund balances and finding
> *something* useful to do with them in the park
> system.
>
> BTW, I almost think we have to cut the Parks folks
> a teeny bit of slack. If those are "trust funds"
> then there are strict limits on what they can be
> used for. There may not be enough of those types
> of projects proposed every year to keep the
> balance from building up -- but eventually the
> money will be used. Part of management's job,
> though, is to keep track of the funds and have
> some kind of plan to use them appropriately --
> that part of the job doesn't seem to have been
> done well if at all, if the news reports are to be
> believed (note: I take most Bee political
> reporting with some salt ...).

We are in trouble here. It looks like we have a poster who actually knows what he is talking about.
Sigh!
We are doomed!