Posted on 09/26/2005 1:24:26 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Elementary schools start with the fundamentals, the building blocks, the three R's: reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic. The California Comeback starts with its fundamentals, its building blocks, too. They are a different three R's: recovery, reform, rebuild.
When I took office 22 months ago, I had no illusions about how difficult the job would be, no illusions about what it would take to turn around a state $22 billion in debt. But in that time, we have accomplished the first R - recovery. We saved the state from bankruptcy, increasing state revenues $6 billion without raising taxes. We rolled back the unfair car tax increase, reduced workers' compensation insurance premiums 30 percent, created a positive business environment and brought huge numbers of jobs back to the state - more than 400,000.
You put your full faith and trust in me when you sent me to Sacramento to fix a broken political system. I was - and remain - determined to reach your goal. I knew there would be challenges, but I believed I could get Democrats and Republicans to work together. Initially, we did. We got a lot done, and we did it quickly.
I am proud of the economic recovery, just as I am proud of our other accomplishments: supporting stem cell research, victims' rights, the three-strikes law and environmental initiatives such as the hydrogen highway. I'm proud I set aside more land for public parks than any governor in California's history.
I also know that while meeting those challenges, I made some mistakes and learned many vital lessons along the way that make me a better governor.
I've learned that it is a good idea as governor to listen more and talk less, especially lines best left for "Saturday Night Live." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Your reference to FairOpinion as 'she' and 'her' is another interesting tactic, when gender has never been clarified in FairOpinion's entire history of posting.
Again, it's obvious he/she strikes a raw nerve.
It isn't a tactic.
Excellent post, C.O.
There are a few things to like in Prop 76, but there are also many things to dislike. At this point, I think the cons outweigh the pros. Authorizing yet more bonds is the one that sticks in my craw.
The "Test 3" language as it exists today is the one provision that would actually allow spending on education to reduce, given a decrease in revenues, population, etc. Deletion of that single phrase guarantees that spending can never be reduced below the prior year's level. In the event we could ever send home the illegal aliens populating out school system, population would definitely decrease, but spending would continue, regardless.
Also, the "Cap" that has been proposed, can be waived by the Governor at any time.
Prohibiting the raiding of the Prop 42 funds is another misnomer. It specifically provides that those funds can continue to be raided for yet another year. I agree with your take--why do we need a new law when we already have one that simply needs enforcing?
The debt we have run up from Prop 57/58, combined with the additional long term borrowing in Prop 76, is only bolstering the current socialistic spending levels of today and deferring the obligations to future decades.
I just read this article that says the economy may be ready to slow (or tank) next year. The combination of a slowed economy, with all this borrowing, is a formula for disaster.
'Weak Growth' Is Forecast for California Economy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1492605/posts
I hear you there, but I didn't see where "bonds" per se were mentioned specifically in the LAO report, although they did discuss several financing schemes for repayment against "revenue transfers" (which are plainly illegal). Is that language in the Proposition itself (haven't read it all yet)?
On balance, I would rather have seen restoration of the Gann limits already in the State Constitution. I may yet vote against this for its destructive effects on the separation of powers. Ballot iniatives have protected the legislature from accountability.
I couldn't find the exact language to support it, although I agree with Amerigomag's interpretation:
The OC Register said the Governor would have sole authority to raise taxes. While he could propose to raise taxes as a solution in his "proclamation", I couldn't find anything to support the "sole authority" comment.
Below is from the "Live Within Our Means Act"
(g) (1) If, following the enactment of the budget bill for the 2004–05 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year, the Governor at the end of any quarter determines that, for that fiscal year, General Fund revenues have fallen by a rate of at least one and one-half percent on an annualized basis below revenues as estimated by the Department of Finance or if, following the enactment of the budget bill for the 2006–07 fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year, the Governor determines that, for that fiscal year, the balance of the Budget Stabilization Account will decline to below one-half of the balance in the account available at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Governor may issue a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency and shall thereupon cause the Legislature to assemble in special session solely for that purpose. The proclamation shall identify the nature of the proposed legislation to remedy the fiscal emergency.
Maybe you need a hiatus from these threads as you seem to get a bit emotionally caught up in them and look to be all over the place as a result, not a good sign, imo..
Maybe a little more doodling is on order.. ;-) lol
A paragraph relative to the repayment of transportation funds does specifically call for authorizing bonds:
SECTION 9. Section 1 of Article XIX B of the California Constitution is amended to read:(snip)
(2) (A) The total amount, as of July 1, 2007, of revenues that were not transferred from the General Fund of the State to the Transportation Investment Fund because of a suspension pursuant to this subdivision shall be repaid to the Transportation Investment Fund no later than June 30, 2022. Until that total amount has been repaid, the amount of that repayment to be made in each fiscal year shall not be less than one-fifteenth of the total amount due.
(B) The Legislature may provide by statute for the issuance of bonds by the State or local agencies, as applicable, that are secured by the payments required by this paragraph. Proceeds of the sale of the bonds shall be applied for purposes consistent with this article, and for costs associated with the issuance and sale of the bonds.
How so?
Please correct me but I don't remember your support for Tom being so robust. I guess I could go back and review the Recall threads.
Please correct me, but I recall your support for Tom being VERY robust until he supported Arnold's propositions.
Is that so.. ?
well, well, well, you actually keep track of what I say and draw inferences?
how special of you to "notice" things like that.
Oh, I'm not married to a politician, btw, are you? lol
The other small twist in time is that 76 specifically protects the existing obligations created by Prop 57. Prop 58 didn't protect the bonds specifically. Under 58 these recent bonding obligations would fall under the "contracts" language of existing legislation and might be subject to renegotiation should the governor declare an emergency prior to the passage of Prop 76.
"Renegotation" of Prop 57 bonds would be troubling for California's already weak bond rating and would certainly preclude the executive from borrowing more money which is authorized by the text of 76.
What does that mean?
Oh, I'm not married to a politician, btw, are you? lol
What does that mean?
===
Why continue to blindly vote and support any politician no matter how many times they disappoint or fail to deliver as expected? Command of the issues is paramount, imo.
...
Tom hasn't turned me off support-wise in the least to this point, and I don't expect him to in the long run, but thanks for keeping track of how many times I go to bat for him or post some of his stuff on related threads..
You're welcome.
Got it, and it was as I had surmised. Where did you get the $10 billion? Did you total the liabilities?
Yep. I added up the maintenance factor, the borrowed Prop 42 funds, etc. I pulled them from old articles. If I assume that he will continue to steal Prop 42 funds next year (as the language specifically allows), the number exceeded $10 billion. I didn't keep any of the specific numbers handy.
I had guessed as much. Allow me this suggestion: When you toss a number out there like that, one that isn't published anywhere, you may know what you are doing, but nobody (except for those who know you well) will get it, and even then we'd like a better feel for how that number was calculated so that we can defend it.
So, how much of this is old borrowing versus new? Is there some way I can tease you into patching those numbers together into a vanity post?
I supported Tom but like all politicians he doesn't walk on water.
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.