Posted on 01/21/2004 6:35:58 AM PST by John Jorsett
Edited on 04/12/2004 6:04:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Gov. Schwarzenegger kicked off his campaign today for Props. 57 and 58
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Un****ing believable duplicity on the part of Harris (and therefore Schwarzenegger. Unreal! Prop 58 allows the borrowing. In fact, it creates the borrowing.
Schwarzenegger must think just about everyone in California recently immigrated to the state with a third world, grammar school education.
He thinks he can SELL anything (after all, he got elected). With a campaign budget of about $10 million to spend, we will have to endure this type of misrepresentation for a very long 5 weeks. Talk radio is already pumping the measures, saying that the alternative would be "Draconian" cuts. TV Commercials will no doubt be excessive. When will the 'Go Arnold' touts return to FR to stifle any criticism of Prop 57/58? I thought they'd be back on the payroll as of today.
I'm also surprised. They must be back at RNC headquarters being reprogrammed with new ad hominem techniques.
In the meantime peace has returned to the forum. Seeyatomorrow.
I oppose the bonds because I believe we need to cut spending. I oppose taxes for the same reason. But... if spending were truly reduced to a barebones level with a past deficit remaining, and the question were bonds vs. taxes, I would probably lean toward a temporary tax. Whichever condition, I believe debt is wrong for the state. I have yet to see a concerted effort to identify viable reductions to spending.
I am going to disagree here. Anybody have data on what % of "temporary" taxes become permanent?
My guess is 95% or more of "temporary" taxes become permanent.
I would trust Arnold to remove a temporary tax at the end of its life, but I fear that the end-of-life would be under someone else's watch, and the temptation to just continue an existing tax instead of letting it expire would be way too great.
Bonds cut down on the amount spent on wasteful programs becasue they have to be repaid, taking money out of the budget. (Most of the budget is wasted in any event.) And, when the bonds are paid off, there is a nice bonus in revenue which can be spent on other things, or not taken from the people to begin with.
I don't disagree, but when I said temporary, I really meant temporary... i.e., only for a fixed period of time, thereafter expiring. (And please note, I said if they were at 'bare-bones'... which in my opinion is at least 20% less than they spend now).
Bonds cut down on the amount spent on wasteful programs becasue they have to be repaid, taking money out of the budget. (Most of the budget is wasted in any event.) And, when the bonds are paid off, there is a nice bonus in revenue which can be spent on other things, or not taken from the people to begin with.
Bonds allow for MORE wasteful spending by effectively deferring cost into future years instead of incurring the full amount in the single year the expenditure is made (as required by existing state law). Additionally, bonds result in otherwise unnecessary (and extraordinary) interest expense. Prop 57 will result in approximately $7 BILLION dollars in INTEREST expense alone.
Assuming the bonds go forward, when finally paid off the absence of the bond payments will not "be a bonus in revenue"... it won't change revenue at all. It will reduce required expenditures, which should contribute to a surplus... or result in a tax decrease... not automatically "be spent on other things".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.