Props. 57, 58 crucial to state's fiscal recovery

OC Register ^ | 2/29/04 | Phil Yarbrough

[NormsRevenge]

Contrary to the contentions made in the Register's Feb. 17 editorial ["Proposition package fails the test"], Propositions 57 and 58 are essential to the stability of California's state finances. Over the past four years, the state budget has been woefully mismanaged. We are now at a crossroad. The choices are daunting. To pay for the $13.1 billion debt the last two budgets have left us, we will either approve the Prop. 57 bond or the Legislature will increase taxes on businesses and individuals.

[NormsRevenge]

Phil Yarbrough is a Trustee at Rancho Santiago Community College district in Santa Ana.

[NormsRevenge]

.

[Khurkris]

NO on 56, 57 & 58.

[DoughtyOne]

Please don't sucker for that Prop 55 nonsense. This is the way they sell every bond for schools. Note that the holes in the roof and all the other repairs are still there the next time they want to float a bond.

Here's how it works. They float a bond to take care of repairs, wink wink. It must go for just that! Right? Well sure, it does. The trouble is, the money they would have used for that is then used on something else, coincidently just what they promised wouldn't be paid for with the bond.

This is just a big shell game. And each time the voters feel sorry for the kids and buy off on it. Not this guy.

[DoughtyOne]

From what I hear, it appears 57 and 58 are going to pass. If they didn't, you'd finally get to see what would have happened if McClintock had been elected. With this legislature, I think it would have left a bitter taste in your mouth.

We'll see...

[Digger]

I guarantee you that this state wil not collapse when the smart voters vote NO on the propositions. As McClintock states the cuts of under 20% for 18 months will solve it with a surplus. What's so hard about that, Ahrnold?

[NormsRevenge]

imo, all that happens is that a bigger mess is being created,, and a bigger debt.

Not a comforting thought.

;-]

[AlBondigas]

Over the past four years, the state budget has been woefully mismanaged.

Correction: irresponsible spending by CommieDems over the past 4 years has created the current deficit & those same basta**s are still in office.

Until we adopt massive spending/budget cuts, It'll be spending as usual in Sacto..

[DoughtyOne]

I know you guy's hearts are in the right place. If we had a legislature controled by fiscal conservatives, I'd agree with your goals, forcing cuts rather than replacing flawed short term bonds with long term bonds.

We all know liberal programs blossomed the budget by 40+ percent over the last five years. We should be able to cut those blossomed programs by 40% and still be okay. It wouldn't work that way.

With this legislature here's what you'd get if props 57 and 58 are turned down. You'd get the same reaction you got to prop 13, only squared to the x.

Every wholesome concern in the state's budget would be ravaged, leaving the liberal programs in pristine shape.

This would force the citizens of California to fund those cut programs through local taxes and fees. It worked after prop 13. It would work again. If you think denying prop 57 and 58 will get you to where you want to go, you're kidding yourselves. It won't get you there, and the democrat controlled house will not be blamed.

As for props 57 and 58 passing off our debt to the next generation, prop 57 would be paid off in 14 years, hardly the stuff of next generation abuse.

[William Tell]

From the article: "We must realize that budget cuts are not a political reality, given the membership of the state Senate and Assembly. "

What nonsense.

Kalifornia's school teachers will demand budget cuts in other areas of the state budget on the day that the banks refuse to honor their worthless state paycheck. The liberals will cut each others throats.

Imagine hearing the teacher's unions demanding elimination of unnecessary programs. It would be music to my ears.

Also from the article: We have done nothing for too long,..."

What do they mean "we"? I didn't create this mess.

[Khurkris]

"Please don't sucker for that Prop 55 nonsense."

Thank for your eloquent response. My sample ballot shows that I have also checked the "NO" box on Prop #55.

[NormsRevenge]

The interest on the 15 billion dollar bond would cost us 1.5 billion a year, if I am not mistaken. That would mean we would pay more interest over the life of the bond and take away monies that could be used elsewhere.

I'm pulling that out of my hat, I have seen so mnay figures and numbers lately.

The key element I dislike about all the recent developments is that no "blame" is palced on the foreheads of those who spent us into this debacle, and now we bail them out and give them a Get Outof Jail FRee card, to boot. All becuz of the "New Tone" that "conservative" leaders trumpet as the best way to reach a meaningful consensus and move forward.

It's like rewarding the foxes with the deed to the henhouse instead of thrashing their sorry arses and slamming 'em into re-indoctrination camps. ;-]

[NormsRevenge]

placed = palced

[William Tell]

DoughtyOne said: "Every wholesome concern in the state's budget would be ravaged, leaving the liberal programs in pristine shape. "

That might be true in the short term.

As I pointed out in my post above, when school teachers have to choose between getting a paycheck or maintaining records of my gun purchases, which will they choose?

I won't let these people increase taxes, spend another dime, or borrow a penny if that particular decision has not been made in my favor. Ever.

Why are you willing to let the state borrow $15 billion dollars knowing that some if it will pay for maintaining gun purchase records of law-abiding citizens?

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. Sorry to have assumed you were going to vote yes on 55. When you mentioned the others with a no, I thought you had singled out 55 for a yes.

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

The interest on the 15 billion dollar bond would cost us 1.5 billion a year, if I am not mistaken. That would mean we would pay more interest over the life of the bond and take away monies that could be used elsewhere.

I'm pulling that out of my hat, I have seen so mnay figures and numbers lately.

The key element I dislike about all the recent developments is that no "blame" is palced on the foreheads of those who spent us into this debacle, and now we bail them out and give them a Get Outof Jail FRee card, to boot. All becuz of the "New Tone" that "conservative" leaders trumpet as the best way to reach a meaningful consensus and move forward.

It's like rewarding the foxes with the deed to the henhouse instead of thrashing their sorry arses and slamming 'em into re-indoctrination camps. ;-]

12 posted on 02/29/2004 11:22:57 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi Mac ... Support Our Troops! ... NO NO NO NO on Props 55-58)

When considering this measure, remember that it is retiring "Gumby's" illegal $11 billion in short term bonds that cost us higher interest rates.  I'm not sure what the exact rate of interest is, but it's nowhere near 10%, which is what your figure would indicate.  I think you'll agree with that.  I saw a figure on the forum that stated the cost of the loan in interest over the full term, and it was something like 3-4 billion.  That doesn't thrill me, but that works out to something like $200 to $300 thousand dollars a year in interest payments.  Of course the principle would have to be added on top of that, as far as payments go, to retire the debt.  We are making those payments for short term bonds at the moment.  Those payments are higher than what we will be paying.

The citizens of California were dealt a bad hand by the last administration.  I still think we are left with very few options in light of the legislature and who controls it.  Like I said, if we had fiscal conservatives in there, my thoughts on this would be about 180 degrees different.

The interest on the 15 billion dollar bond would cost us 1.5 billion a year, if I am not mistaken. That would mean we would pay more interest over the life of the bond and take away monies that could be used elsewhere.

I'm pulling that out of my hat, I have seen so mnay figures and numbers lately.

The key element I dislike about all the recent developments is that no "blame" is palced on the foreheads of those who spent us into this debacle, and now we bail them out and give them a Get Outof Jail FRee card, to boot. All becuz of the "New Tone" that "conservative" leaders trumpet as the best way to reach a meaningful consensus and move forward.

It's like rewarding the foxes with the deed to the henhouse instead of thrashing their sorry arses and slamming 'em into re-indoctrination camps. ;-]

[DoughtyOne]

If the new bond measure's failure would eliminate gun records, it would be a welcome outcome. I doubt that would be the case.

There are plenty of other liberal programs and concerns I'd love to see decimated. I'd close down every state funded commission in the state, starting with the Coastal Commission, but it'll never happen.

[NormsRevenge]

It ain't Gumby's debt.. IT is OUR debt, and we are now being asked to save the day by taking on more debt.

I am trying to dig thru the state treasurer's and controller's site to get real numbers etc.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments Norm. I'm going to have to get out of here. Talk to you later.

[calcowgirl]

Phil Yarbrough is a Trustee at Rancho Santiago Community College district in Santa Ana.

Phil Yarbrough is apparently a shameless tout with interest only in protecting continued state spending from which his livlihood comes.

Over the past four years, the state budget has been woefully mismanaged.

And continues to be mismanaged. The budget PROPOSED by the current administration for the NEXT fiscal year continues to propose spending that exceeds revenues by billions.

To pay for the $13.1 billion debt the last two budgets have left us, we will either approve the Prop. 57 bond or the Legislature will increase taxes on businesses and individuals.

Not much difference. Bonds are NOT free money. Tax me now, tax me later with interest. There is another alternative: CUT SPENDING!

We must realize that budget cuts are not a political reality, given the membership of the state Senate and Assembly.

There is one way to make budget cuts a reality. Cut off their credit and don't give them more money to spend. Bonds are just feeding the spending beast.

Additionally, it will restore confidence in the financial markets, signaling to them that we are beginning to seriously address our fiscal mismanagement.

The bonds do nothing to demonstrate the State is addressing its fiscal mismanagement. They do eliminate the uncertainty surrounding how the past deficit will be funded. The 'financial markets' would have the same reaction if spending was cut or taxes were raised, as long as the deficit issue was resolved. "Confidence" will not be restored until the State reels in spending and solves the continuing structural imbalance in the budget.

If Prop. 57 fails, we would have to rely on the deficit reduction bond illegally passed by the Legislature as part of last year's budget. This statutory bond is now being challenged in our courts as unconstitutional and may not provide the remedy we need anyway.

I assume the remedy Mr. Yarbrough is referring to is that it doesn't provide ENOUGH money to spend. They need even more to satisfy their addiction.

The current condition of California's finances does not give us any painless options.

Right. And the sooner everyone accepts that and starts to address the real issue, the better. The bond issue simply defers addressing the real issue.

Arnold Schwarzenegger deserves the opportunity to implement his solution. Prop. 57 legitimizes the illegal bond approved by his predecessor, Gray Davis.

LOL. Now this is a PEARL!. Suddenly the Gray Davis practice that was so criticized is now being used as a selling point for Prop 57. Arnold's solution legitimizes Gray Davis' bond. Now that's priceless.

Its passage will allow us the time to make the changes to our state budget and finances that we need to get California on a path to prosperity again.

It's passage will allow years of continued overspending and billions in unnecessary interest cost.

Prop. 57 and its companion measure, Prop. 58, deserve our vote in the March 2 election.

Yes they do. Vote NO and NO!