" 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.
>>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...