CA: Tom Campbell campaigns for Prop. 76 (threatening tax increases)

Contra Costa Times, CA ^ | Sep. 15, 2005 | Elise Ackerman

[calcowgirl]

Former Silicon Valley Rep. Tom Campbell brought the fight over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives to San Jose on Wednesday, warning members of the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce that new taxes are "highly likely" if a proposal to curb government spending is not passed by voters in the Nov. 8 special election.

Last week Campbell announced he was taking an unpaid two-month leave from his job as the state finance director to campaign for Proposition 76, a proposed state spending cap.

"This is the most important thing I can do for our state," Campbell said at a round-table discussion sponsored by the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce. "If we fix this system, we fix it for our children, we fix it for a long time."

Prop. 76 would limit spending based on the growth of revenues during three prior years. It would also give the governor broad power to cut spending and declare a fiscal emergency under certain conditions.

"It eliminates checks and balances," said Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for Alliance for a Better California, which opposes the measure. "It makes funding for counties and cities so unstable that they may be forced to raise taxes."

Without reform, Campbell said, the state legislative analyst has forecast budget deficits exceeding $4 billion through 2010, including a $7.5 billion deficit for next year.

Almost all of a $15 billion bond measure passed by voters last year has been spent, Campbell said, leaving California with the lowest bond rating among all the 50 states and no budgetary breathing room.

[Czar]

"BTW, given your past posting history, I find you trying to use Tom McClintock as a selling point is pretty disingenuous. You trashed him at every opportunity."

Oh my. It seems we have the ugly specter of hypocrisy raising it's head.

How about it, newzjunkey?

[calcowgirl]

Well, Tom is running for Lt. Governor and will hopefully get some support from the CAGOP this time around. I suppose he is trying to look at the bright side and bite his tongue a bit on the negatives.

To fund last years budget, in addition to the huge Prop 57/58 borrowing, Arnold borrowed a bunch of money from education, transportation, and local governments. Ordinarily, these dollars would have to be paid back over the next couple of years. What this Prop does is to authorize bonds for repayment to the respective funds and then provides for the bonds to be paid back over the next 15 years. As such, more near-term budget revenue is freed up to spend on other things (avoiding cuts and/or tax increases).

I don't think Arnold has any intent of making deep cuts. He is just looking for an excuse to raise taxes. If Prop 76 doesn't pass, he can use that as an excuse.

[Czar]

"What this Prop does is to authorize bonds for repayment to the respective funds and then provides for the bonds to be paid back over the next 15 years. As such, more near-term budget revenue is freed up to spend on other things (avoiding cuts and/or tax increases)."

I keep looking for a reason to say YES on Prop. 76 and you continue to give me reasons for voting NO.

So far it's a NO.

[calcowgirl]

Funny how the stories change over time. I suppose "save" really meant "defer":

CA: Schwarzenegger takes reform agenda on the road to San Diego ,
Associated Press, April 11, 2005

"We're going to save, I guarantee you, $5 billion for the state because of this election we're going to hold," the governor said, later asking for SAIC employees to sign his initiative petitions. He did not explain how the money would be saved.

[Czar]

"Funny how the stories change over time. I suppose "save" really meant 'defer'"

No doubt...