"I vote against all bond measures. "
====
So do I. I also completely agree with you, that they put the "noble cause" bonds, like for schools, firefighting, etc. on the ballot, then they can squander the other money which should be spend on this.
I thought we already have a 2/3 vote requirement to pass bond measures, that's why many of them fail. I know the Legislature was trying to change that, but as far as I know, they haven't been successful. Am I missing something?
But Arnold is being very responsible, coupling the bond with a spending cut. And as I and others said before, we are facing a crisis, and there is no way to cut enough quickly enough, without some revenue increase, and a bond measure, the way Arnold is doing it, is vastly preferable to a tax increase, which would hurt CA's economy further.
"Schwarzenegger said the bonds must be linked to a constitutional spending limit that will prevent the state from overspending and developing deficits in the future."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20031119-9999_1n19legis.htmlthere is no way to cut enough quickly enough, without some revenue increase"revenue increase"?
You're even talking like a Democrat now. That's a tax increase.
Taxes are monies confiscated by big government from the citizens under threat of fines, loss of homes and businesses, and jail. These monies are used by politicians to buy the votes they need to keep their cushy offices and all the power and perks that go with them.
The monies confiscated are not "revenues" - - they are taxes.
Regards,
LH