An analysis of new ads supporting Propositions 57 and 58

Sac Bee ^ | 1/10/04 | Tom Chorneau - AP

[NormsRevenge]

Schwarzenegger: "To resolve our fiscal crisis, the Legislature placed two measures on the ballot that comprise a bipartisan balanced budget plan." Westly: "Proposition 57 will refinance past deficit borrowing with lower annual interest payments."

Schwarzenegger: "Prop. 58 requires a balanced budget every year without borrowing, so that we never get into this mess again."

[NormsRevenge]

some terms in here that caught my interest.. "Our state has been running huge deficits that have been papered over by borrowing without voter approval. I am committed to putting our financial house in order. And I need your help. After all, it is your money. ..

so now, rather than borrowing without voter approval, we will be borrowing WITH voter approval. That makes it better, huh?

Proposition 58 does not prohibit short-term loans and some critics have argued that lawmakers can creatively use the loophole to continue borrowing.

Some might also argue that the ads give the impression that if voters approve the two measures, the state's fiscal crisis will be over. It will not.

Remember who ran this smoke and mirrors operation down the road.

[Amerigomag]

The two ads do not deviate much from what Schwarzenegger and Westly have been saying for weeks in public appearances up and down the state

If this article starts out with this glaring inaccuracy what follows must be chicken soup.

[dpwiener]

so now, rather than borrowing without voter approval, we will be borrowing WITH voter approval. That makes it better, huh?

Yes that makes it better. It's still not good, and I intend to vote against Proposition 57 (and probably against Prop 58). But it's definitely better for California to borrow money legally, with voter approval, than to borrow it illegally, without voter approval.

The $10.7 billion in borrowing from last year is being challenged in court, since it directly violates the California Constitution. Hopefully the courts will strike it down, but there's always a chance that they won't. Letting it stand would be a horrible precedent which would eviscerate any chance of preventing such borrowing in the future. If Prop 57 passes, the court case becomes moot. The legal presumption will remain intact that borrowing to cover current expenses is forbidden absent an explicit vote of the people.

[Carry_Okie]

To believe for an instant that the current Legislature would approve for the ballot, a spending limit as tough as the Gann spending limits already in the California Constitution (that they now ignore), is the height of stupidity.

Cut up the credit cards my butt.