Tweet
Why is California in a deficit? Because the voters gave unnamed and unelected people $3.4 billion to spend--and no oversight!
"Passed by a 55/45 margin in 2002, Prop 50, the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects Act, authorized $3.4 billion in more bonded indebtedness for California so we’d have higher quality water. The last time I checked, drinking ocean water was not considered healthy, so why is the Ocean Protection Council getting any of these safe drinking water funds? Most of those who voted for Prop 50 probably thought the funds would go to make their water, not fishes’ water, safer, but the ballot summary sneaked in a wide-open barn door for future boondoggles, as the fifth of seven allowed uses was “competitive grants for water management and water quality improvement projects.” Burton jumped on that, and wrote COPA so it could raid the Prop 50 coffers, thereby avoiding the legislative hassles added onto bills that will impact the state’s beleaguered General Fund.
So, what are Californians getting for their money — which costs them $227 million a year in Prop 50 interest payments? For starters, at its November meeting the Ocean Protection Council gave a quarter million to a Portland, Oregon outfit called Ecotrust to develop a pilot program for a seafood market at San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf that would be filled with “regionally sourced” seafood in order to promote sustainable fishing practices. Huh? As any visitor to Fisherman’s Wharf can tell you, free market enterprise has already filled the place with fishmongers hawking regionally sourced seafood. Why do taxpayers need to subsidize another seafood stand on the Wharf, and what does it have to do with the clean water voters thought they were voting for when they passed Prop 50?"
This is just one program that is out of control. Does Fisherman's Wharf need a government program to promote "sustainable" fishing? For those who do not know, the Wharf does No fishing--they SELL fish, not catch the fish. This is a total waste of tax dollars--again. I will buy the fish I want to eat, not the fish some Portland, Oregon firm wants me to buy.
Fishy spending like this is driving California into the toilet--I prefer cops to the "fish consultants", how about you?
More...
"Passed by a 55/45 margin in 2002, Prop 50, the Water Quality, Supply and Safe Drinking Water Projects Act, authorized $3.4 billion in more bonded indebtedness for California so we’d have higher quality water. The last time I checked, drinking ocean water was not considered healthy, so why is the Ocean Protection Council getting any of these safe drinking water funds? Most of those who voted for Prop 50 probably thought the funds would go to make their water, not fishes’ water, safer, but the ballot summary sneaked in a wide-open barn door for future boondoggles, as the fifth of seven allowed uses was “competitive grants for water management and water quality improvement projects.” Burton jumped on that, and wrote COPA so it could raid the Prop 50 coffers, thereby avoiding the legislative hassles added onto bills that will impact the state’s beleaguered General Fund.
So, what are Californians getting for their money — which costs them $227 million a year in Prop 50 interest payments? For starters, at its November meeting the Ocean Protection Council gave a quarter million to a Portland, Oregon outfit called Ecotrust to develop a pilot program for a seafood market at San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf that would be filled with “regionally sourced” seafood in order to promote sustainable fishing practices. Huh? As any visitor to Fisherman’s Wharf can tell you, free market enterprise has already filled the place with fishmongers hawking regionally sourced seafood. Why do taxpayers need to subsidize another seafood stand on the Wharf, and what does it have to do with the clean water voters thought they were voting for when they passed Prop 50?"
This is just one program that is out of control. Does Fisherman's Wharf need a government program to promote "sustainable" fishing? For those who do not know, the Wharf does No fishing--they SELL fish, not catch the fish. This is a total waste of tax dollars--again. I will buy the fish I want to eat, not the fish some Portland, Oregon firm wants me to buy.
Fishy spending like this is driving California into the toilet--I prefer cops to the "fish consultants", how about you?
More...