[Carry_Okie]

Schwarzenegger, he (Campbell) said, has told his advisers that they shouldn't blink at talk of a $9 billion or $10 billion bond when "we should be talking about $60 billion or $70 billion."

Why I'll bet ol' buddy Warren an' his boyz are lickin' dare chops wit great interest. Gots to put in all that infernalstructure so that buddy Eli gets to build his time-bomb tenements on confiscated farm land. Gots to billed them happy trains so's they don't need cawrs an kin only go ware dare allowed. We'll git them riggillations up an runnin as suen as possebill!

[SierraWasp]

And to think there are FReepers on here that think a few of us are out of our minds for objecting to what this maniac is doing to our progeny in the name of Republicanism!!! Sheesh!!!

This is the problem with pragmatism! The principles of limited government just gets flushed down the toilet when the businessman/politician start eyeballin those inordinately low interest rates. Principles be damned!!!

"We need not worry at those rates! We can make everybody happy by solving all the problems without raising taxes or cutting spending!" (they say)

The insanity goes into complete OVERDRIVE!!! (with an "R" headline!!!)

[calcowgirl]

Their strategy exposed in this article probably explains the observation  made yesterday by Amerigomag:

To: calcowgirl

I have reviewed the legislative text and can't find any language to support the premise posed by the OC Register.

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.

53 posted on 09/28/2005 7:09:43 PM PDT by Amerigomag

 

I have reviewed the legislative text and can't find any language to support the premise posed by the OC Register.

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.