Didn't see this posted, nor have I heard that do we really need to borrow 15 billion and if not, why do we still need it. Some folks are playing fast and loose here.. and I , for one, do NOT like it.
I have , in fact, heard that we may not need anywhere 15 billion, but you won't hear it from the media and the Gov's folks, I wonder why?
To: farmfriend; Carry_Okie; CounterCounterCulture; calcowgirl; Amerigomag; SierraWasp; marsh2; ...
.
2 posted on
02/05/2004 2:14:50 PM PST by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi Mac ...... /~normsrevenge - FoR California Propositions/Initiatives info...)
To: NormsRevenge
This author (Mendel) seems to be one of the few publishing facts instead of instilling fear in the voters. The bigger the bond, the easier the job of the current administration to 'balance' the budget. Arnold initially wanted a $20 billion bond, over 30 years. So, I guess this is an improvement (?).
I believe the proposed budget submitted by AS took about $3 billion of the bond proceeds not to pay off any debt, but to 'balance' the budget and avoid cuts. That was before this announcement... so, with a $15 billion bond, they would actually be able to spend $5 billion more than revenues.
A prior article by Mendel pointed out that we won't go bankrupt in June, as the state already paid for a 'guarantee' to extend the short term borrowing if required. While short term borrowing will carry high interest, the interest on the $15 billion bond over 15 years far exceeds that amount. It also exceeds the 5 year $10.7 billion bond approved by Davis.
For a state with a constitution that prohibits debt, this all amazes me.
3 posted on
02/05/2004 2:24:35 PM PST by
calcowgirl
(No on Propositions 55, 56, 57, 58)
To: NormsRevenge
Sorry Arnold.
Already done. I participated in the early voting program and voted Arnold's 15 billion dollar bond down....along with yet another school bond and the Dems 55% majority wet dream.
4 posted on
02/05/2004 2:34:31 PM PST by
dmanLA
To: NormsRevenge; Carry_Okie; forester; sasquatch; B4Ranch; SierraWasp; hedgetrimmer; knews_hound; ...
Short list and Sacramento area list.
5 posted on
02/05/2004 4:59:11 PM PST by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: NormsRevenge
a backup bond plan would be smaller than originally thought and would leave a larger budget gap... without the spending cuts we've all been promised buy have yet to see.
There. I feel better.
To: NormsRevenge
For Cripes Sake, CUT THE SPENDING!!!
7 posted on
02/05/2004 6:48:42 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: NormsRevenge
Why would the smaller bond cost an extra $5 billion? Wouldn't the $15 billion bond also incur the type of costs Arduin is referring to? Or are they built in to the $15 billion figure, and if so, what are the costs and what is the actual amount of the bond? This is so much smoke and mirrors.
8 posted on
02/05/2004 6:53:45 PM PST by
CalKat
To: NormsRevenge
I saw the ad today for Poop! 56 and it is totally deceitful in its presentation. There is no mention of the vote rollback from 2/3 to simple majority to raise taxes...
10 posted on
02/05/2004 7:21:52 PM PST by
tubebender
(Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see...)
To: NormsRevenge
There goes Arnold ticking off the liberals again :-)
12 posted on
02/05/2004 9:28:19 PM PST by
Tamzee
(W '04..... America may not survive a Democrat at this point in our history....)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson