Borrow And Spend - General Posted by Jeff (Wednesday April 28 2004 @ 10:54PM EDT)

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians went to the polls in order to select major party candidates in a primary election. Included on the ballot was a referendum on a state spending initiative in which voters were asked to allow the state to borrow $250 million dollars for water and sewer upgrades. With the its presidential nomination all but official and a senatorial candidate running unapposed, Democratic turnout was expected to be light. Conversely Arlen Specter, the moderate incumbent Republican senatorial candidate, was in a heated battle with a neo-Naz^H^H^Hconservative candidate named Pat Toomey. That race had national appeal and money poured into each candidate's coffers from political action groups throughout the country. Republican turnout was expected to be high. Although official numbers aren't available at the time of this writing, it appears roughly 255,000 more Republicans made it to the polls. With the Party of Fiscal Responsibility turning out considerably more people than the "Liberal" Spend-Spend-Spend Party, it seemed like this ill-advised spending bill was doomed to failure. WRONG! The borrow and spend initiative passed by roughly 200,000 votes. [Cut to a classroom ten years hence] "Allright class, spell 'cat'." "CEE-AY-TEE-ESS" "Okay, now spell 'Republican'." "DEE-EE-BEE-TEE" "Very good!" -- Partisan turnout was derived from unofficial voting results. Although optimistically accurate, use those figures at your discretion. The Blog Day Talking Points Committee will signal 'considerably more' through your embedded electrode when you debate Borrow and Spend economics on talk radio and 24 hour "news" networks.

< Nine Parts of Desire | George W. Bush >

By Funkman (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 07:10AM EDT)

More detailed results are here

[ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 08:54AM EDT)

It must have been the banker vote.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 10:02AM EDT) At some point that $250 million dollars will trickle down to the working man in the form of additional taxes. [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 06:50PM EDT) I can't believe this ridiculous referendum passed. Everyone's crying poor so......let's borrow more money! Just goes to show you how people feel when it comes to spending other people's money! [ reply | parent ]

By Will is Right (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 06:51PM EDT) Oh, and I voted for Toomey but I guess you already knew that. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 07:03PM EDT) And I voted for Howard Dean, but I guess you knew that.... [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 09:57PM EDT)

Do you dispute the need for the water treatment and sewage infrastructure program, or are you just objecting to this funding mechanism? Or have you become a libertarian? This one puzzles me. Clean water and proper sewage handling would seem to me a good use of state resources.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday April 29 2004 @ 10:30PM EDT) 1. Our definitions of "resources" appear to be at odds. 2. You don't have to be a "libertarian" to vote against a quarter billion dollars worth of debt. 3. If this upgrade was necessary, then I have NO doubt the state could have financed it with existing resources. Pennsylvania has helped fund several sports stadiums in the past couple years. They could have bankrolled this project instead of Heinz Field and PNC Park. [ reply | parent ]

By Biff (Friday April 30 2004 @ 08:33AM EDT) Jeff, Let's not forget the two new ballparks in Philly, and the wonderous new park soon to be started in Lancaster, PA! Whoopie. All the while, libraries are getting shortchanged and cutting back on many resources. Thank you Mr. Rendell. You helped sink Philly to new lows and now your taking the whole state right along with you. [ reply | parent ]

By The Pragmatist (Friday April 30 2004 @ 08:40AM EDT) Capital projects such as this are rarely funded out the general fund. The life of the improvements are sufficiently long that bonds are a more economic way of funding them. Pennsylvania cannot run budget deficits. The Commonwealth may carry debt, the limit for which is set by a formula based on the last 5 years of revenues. If the state gov wants to expand that debt cap, it must go to the electorate for approval. I also think this type of project is preferable to subsidies for privately owned sports team -- but that was decided 5 years ago. I don't quite understand why correct decisions (and I don't know on the merits if this is one) should be held hostage to poor ones. What I observe is that the measure passed in every county but Wayne. I suspect this is because residents know that they will pay for this one way or another -- either through local bond issues or fee increases -- or through a smaller state tax increase (if that would be required at all) $250 M financed over 20 years at current money rates is small compared to the $21B budget. The real question here is how exactly the money will be granted out. This will be decided by the General Assembly. If it tackles what appears to be real issues with PA water and sewage, good. If it is wasted too much as a "jobs" program then not so good. It will be somewhere in between, but the balance is key. [ reply | parent ]

By beakesm3 (Thursday May 06 2004 @ 11:46AM EDT)

790,000 dems vs 858,000 repub. Not that big of a difference jeffy, so your theory is FLAWED (imagine that). In more republican counties the numbers between yes and no were much closer than the numbers in Dem counties.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday May 06 2004 @ 01:58PM EDT) Republicans cast 1,107,568 votes in a hotly contested senate race. That was the race that drove them to the polls. The democrats cast 787,034 votes in the presidential primary which was pretty much the only thing on that card. By my math, there were 320,534 more republicans at the polls than dems. I'd like to thank you for pointing this out to me. The final numbers indicate the difference between republicans and democrats was even wider than I first reported. My point is now more valid than ever. [ reply | parent ]

By beakesm3 (Thursday May 06 2004 @ 02:10PM EDT)

Still doesn't explain why the Dem counties had a higher margin of Yes votes than NO votes. Especially if your theory holds true. The dems really only had one thing to vote for, and that is the ballot question. The Repubs. had another issue on their mind.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Thursday May 06 2004 @ 02:21PM EDT) 1. I wish you would learn to indent 2. Could you post the results of your research? [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!