Only insofar as representation is concerned.
negating your cites of various ballot propositions, again,
No, it doesn't.
What kind of Budget can be passed in Commiefornia?
Shwarzenegger should have submitted an amended budget for 2003-4 that was a 9% across the board cut within a week of being elected. At that time he was riding high. The State had increased spending 40% in five years. A 9% cut was quite doable both fiscally and politically.
After it would have been rejected, he should have submitted another of the same general vein for 2004-5, months early. Then after getting what they would have passed, he could then whack it with a line item veto and take the heat for it issue by issue. The state HAD a Constitutional balanced budget requirement at that time that Arnold has since effectively blown. The Republicans in the legislature are sufficient in number to preclude a tax increase or an over-ride of a veto. Thus the Democrats would then have had to face the choice of insolvency and shutting down the State in the face of Arnold beating them over the head with the scale of recent spending increases. Better sooner than later.
Instead Arnold started cutting deals with the Slave Party. He NEVER should have borrowed the money to cover anything but pre-existing debt and for sure as hell he's accountable for advancing and supporting the provision in Prop 58 that now allows the State to keep borrowing. He deliberately misrepresented its impact to the voters as "cutting up the credit cards." The man was lying through his teeth.
A huge opportunity was lost for which the voters were ready having already been told that the State was broke. Arnold is now responsible for the mess and the Republican Party with him by association.
Good post... you focus on the things that make me irate.