It is not exactly that, for me. Mostly, I object to the borrowing. Also, this law, if passed, will be in place for many years. The Governor's office will not always be held by an (R). Therefore, one must consider what the changes being made would do, not only tomorrow, but with a (D) in control. Even someone who trusts that Arnold will do the right thing tomorrow, may find the changes not to their liking if a Dem were in power.
The continued effort by FO to quell discussion on items included in this Proposition, other than the mid-year reductions, makes me even more suspicious as to it's implications. Instead of responding to the concerns I have posted by actually discussing the issues, I have been told that it is supported by Arnold, HJTA, Haynes, McClintock, etc. While noted, I've never been much of a follower; I'd rather conclude things on my own. If it is good law, it should be able to withstand scrutiny, IMO.
Mostly, I object to everything except cutting expenditures which, of course is not what Arnold can be trusted to do. Nor, down the line, anyone else with a (D) after his name.
I agree with your other points.
LOL..
I see you have met the latest rendition of the Islamic wing of the CA GOP ? ;-)
Your infidels , indoctrinate or perish..
Tom is one of ours now.
lolol