I understand what you are saying.
There are two points that I think are relevant and very important.
First, potential buyers of new bonds are assessing whether they want to join the pool of existing bondholders with respect to whether their payments will be timely. The state cannot promise to pay new bonds at the expense of people who are holding older bonds. I think I heard that the legislature was toying with this idea, but the economic advisors must have told them they cannot dilute the "full faith and credit" to which the existing bondholders are entitled.
Secondly, the presumed consequence of the state defaulting on its obligations is that the courts will take over the decision making. Everyone who is owed a dime by a Kalifornia in default will make a bee-line to the nearest court to have their claim paid in preference to others. The political consequences of such a development would be quite entertaining.
Two other points.
Pay attention to the other parts of the proposal which includes the bond measure. These are designed to meet the expected demands of Wall Street before the bonds can be sold at a resonable rate.
Watch for spending limits based on economic strenght, increased taxes/fees and budget reductions including strong decreases in the proposed/forecast annual budget increases.
If the bond measure fails next March look for modifications of Prop 13 and Prop 98 (and it's omnipotent stepdaughter Prop 49)