Posted on 09/21/2005 1:12:35 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Governor: Ballot is for 'big stuff'
Gridlock in Legislature requires bold ideas to be taken to the people, he says.
PUSH FOR LIMITS: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an interview with the Register, says Prop. 76 is key to avoiding future deficits.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
"My goodness what cute bangs you have," said the big bad Waspman!!! (evil grin)
No, it's not, for the very two reasons you mention: (1) don't think we can trust Arnold the RINO; and (2) what will the next (D) governor do (guess) with that expanded authority?
It all seems clear enough to me.
Prop. 76 = NO
"Prop. 76 = NO"
===
If you are advocating NO on Prop. 76, YOU are the one who is not a conservative.
Schools spending is eating up half of the CA budget, since prop 98 passed. Prop. 76 changes that.
Your naivete really is touching. I see you don't have the foggiest understanding of the broad powers it gives a RINO or Rat to raise taxes.
"Schools spending is eating up half of the CA budget, since prop 98 passed. Prop. 76 changes that."
There's that naivete again. Prop. 76 does no such thing. To do what you foolishly believe will be done would require Arnold to act in a way he has so far failed to act. He won't cut education. He'll either borrow more money ("just until the economy improves and revenues increase") or he'll make a few safe, modest cuts, as cover for a tax increase.
Please enlighten us as to exactly what actions you expect Arnold to take if Prop. 76 should pass.
If prop. 76 DOESN'T pass, the entire state spending is held up by the mandatory school spending.
I assume you are referring to those "borrow and spend" "conservatives"?
Prop 76 defers more expense and authorizes more bonds, freeing up more dollars to continue the socialistic spending level.
A change in the education formula will ensure that education funding can NEVER go down.
You should educate yourself about the propositions.
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/
PROPOSITION 76
STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
Requires payment of local government mandates.
You need to read the info about Prop 76 also.
I find it very interesting that the leftists are strongly against Prop 76 and so are the two of you.
Birds of a feather?
PROPOSITION 76
STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
Requires payment of local government mandates.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
The provisions creating an additional state spending limit and granting the Governor new power to reduce spending in most program areas would likely reduce expenditures relative to current law. These reductions also could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments.
The new spending limit could result in a smoother pattern of state expenditures over time, especially to the extent that reserves are set aside in good times and available in bad times.
The provisions changing school funding formulas would make school and community college funding more subject to annual decisions of state policymakers and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.
Relative to current law, the measure could result in a change in the mix of state spending—that is, some programs could receive a larger share and others a smaller share of the total budget.
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/index.shtml
Why do you think it is bad if state spending is held up?
If that "held up spending" exceeds available revenue then tough--it should be held up.
It isn't held up, as in not happening, it's "held up" as in with a gun, they take it, and nobody has any flexibility to reallocate different items within the budget.
LAO:
This measure:...
• Requires the payment of settle-up obligations for years prior to 2004-05 to be paid within 15 years.
• Converts the 2005-06 outstanding maintenance factor to a one-time obligation that is required to be paid within 15 years.
" assume you are referring to those "borrow and spend" "conservatives"?
Prop 76 defers more expense and authorizes more bonds, freeing up more dollars to continue the socialistic spending level. "
===
Are you saying that McClintock is a socialist? He recommends YES on Prop. 76.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16676
Here's How I See the Ballot Propositions for the Special Election
Written by Tom McClintock
Friday, September 09, 2005
Proposition 76: State Spending. Should government live within its means? YES. This measure restores the authority that the governor of California had between 1939 and 1983 to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaces revenue without having to return to the legislature.
Thanks for clearing that up. From here, I couldn't see the mask and gun.
>>Are you saying that McClintock is a socialist?
No.
Certainly not. But Tom is, after all, a politician, although much more honest and ethical than the species as a whole. Nobody here is questioning his conservative bona fides. Tom has decided, apparently, that we are better off with 76 than without it. But in arriving at that position, he has had to assume some of the bad stuff is unlikely to happen.
Like shifting certain cost burdens to the counties as Amerigomag mentions in #19 above (which is the provision I should have referred to in my earlier post re "power to raise taxes" -- an indirect rather than direct power).
Here is what the Legislative Analyst says (see p.23 of the Voter Information Guide): "The additional spending limit and new powers granted to the Governor would likely reduce state spending over time relative to current law. These reductions also could shift costs to local government (primarily counties)."
And you know how those counties will react, don't you? Of course--raise taxes. Considering the financial shape my county is in, there is no doubt that would be the case.
With Reagan, I wouldn't worry. With Arnold...
Well, you said that people who are for Prop 76 are for socialism, because that's what prop. 76 is about.
Well, McClintock is FOR Prop.76.
So according to your logic, he is a socialist.
If you say you don't think he is a socialist, even though he is for prop 76, then you can't say that others are socialist, if they are for prop 76.
Maybe you should rethink your opposition to prop 76 -- it puts you in the company of exactly the people who do NOT want to cut spending, and want to turn Ca into a socialistic state dominated by handouts.
Oh for heaven's sake, grow up. What are you--thirteen years old?
Way to go. You're really changing minds with that tack...
Later...
>>Well, you said that people who are for Prop 76 are for socialism, because that's what prop. 76 is about.
No, I didn't say that. Therefore, the rest of your twisted logic is moot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.