Ex-aide wrong on Prop. 76, Wilson says

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/12/5 | Andy Furillo

[SmithL]

Former Gov. Pete Wilson's one-time finance director has filmed a television advertisement blasting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget initiative - prompting a response Tuesday by Wilson that his former appointee has developed a case of "amnesia."

In the ad that began airing last week, the state's former budget chief, Craig Brown, said that Proposition 76, scheduled for the Nov. 8 special election ballot, "doesn't fix the budget or stop new taxes."

Moreover, Brown said the governor's budget measure "destroys our system of checks and balances."

"This isn't reform," Brown said in the ad.

On Tuesday, Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team fired back, releasing a statement from Wilson saying he was "surprised and disappointed" that Brown, who oversaw the Finance Department from 1996-98, came out against Proposition 76.

"I could not disagree more strongly," Wilson said in a statement released by the Schwarzenegger campaign. "Craig must be suffering from amnesia."

[Carry_Okie]

Spoken by Pete Wilson, Mr. tax increase himself.

Yup, Prop. 76 is a RINO sellout, again.

They call it a "spending control measure," but HOW they intend to control spending is another matter entirely.

[calcowgirl]

It doesn't control spending at any reasonable level (or any level voters anticipated when they put a 'fiscal conservative' touting CUT CUT CUT into office.) It locks in higher spending by basing future budgets on inflated spending propped up by Prop57/58 borrowing, as increased by the prior 3 years of revenue growth. It also converts other borrowing to one-time obligations and stretches it out over the next 15 years. It also authorizes issuance of new bonds. They finally ran out of tricks to fund their social programs, and need to find new money.

From today's SacBee:

But the Legislature has not garnered the two-thirds vote needed to raise taxes, and state budgets have been balanced largely by borrowing, funding shifts and some spending cuts in recent years.

"The strongest reason is the record of the last seven years, every one of which we've spent more than we've taken in," said Schwarzenegger's former finance director, Tom Campbell, who helped write the measure and is campaigning for Proposition 76.

"We are borrowed out. We've borrowed from every special fund that we can, and our state cannot continue this way."

So Prop 76 gives them new ways to borrow and defer. If it ONLY dealt with mid-year spending CUTS, I would support it. But it goes much further than that.

Craig Brown's quote from the above article also points out the obvious. If this administration wanted to cut, they should have:

"When you propose the budget, you get to bat first and you get to bat last," Brown said. "You get to propose the budget and you get to veto it. What more power does the governor need?"

[Prime Choice]

I encourage any and all interested parties to not rely on the media or any talking head to give you the straight dope on what's at stake. Indeed, I encourage all interested to read up on all of these ballot measures before voting in the coming weeks.

I recommend http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop73/args_rebuttals.shtml as a good starting point. There's loads of jumping-off points to proponent and opponent web sites from there.

Happy reading, folks!

[Prime Choice]

D'oh. Pasted the wrong darn URL.

Sorry, folks...the one I meant to post is this:

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/

Okay, officer...I'll go quietly now.

[calcowgirl]

Excellent advice, Prime Choice. I also recommend reading them all, the full text, not just the summaries or pro/con positions.

I also highly recommend reading the following article as a primer. It highlights past deceptions from (including some offered by Republicans like Prop 111 that obliterated the Gann spending limit under the guise of the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act.") :

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/balaker_20040229.shtml

Such a Deal
Californians have a history of buying ballot measures that are deceptively written and advertised
February 29, 2004
By Ted Balaker

(snip)

Shady sales jobs and unfulfilled promises are part of today's reality in politics.

Californians must walk into voting booths on March 2 like they would walk onto a used car lot. Expect deception, don't listen to fast talk and watch your wallet

[SierraWasp]

How right you are!!! Anytime Pete Wilson sticks his head up and defends something... I just instantly know it's a dead issue! I got my sample ballot yesterday and marked both 76 and 77 NO!!! (at least that was my initial reactive vote. It's not final just yet)

[Amerigomag]

Prop 76 is a seroiusly flawed piece of proposed legislation based on a false premise. The intiative was proposed to control a "runaway legislature" when, in fact, the initiative's chief supporter, Schwarzenegger, is part and parcel of the problem.

Schwarzenegger, not the legislature, proposed and approved, the two largest budgets in the state's history when Schwarzenegger knew he didn't have the tax revenues to support the spending. It absolutely boggles the mind that anyone, even a Republican loyalist, would honestly believe that Schwarzenegger, given power under this initiative, would cut any part of the state budget based on his past actions. Schwarzenegger's premise is simply, fundamentally false. A big spender will not cut.

The initiative is also deceptive. Ask yourself why a big spender would seek power to cut spending. The obvious answer is he wouldn't. Then why seek the legislation? Because the initiative authorizes billions more in borrowing which allows Schwarzenegger to continue to increase spending without the necessary tax revenue.

Prop 76 is bad legislation being deceptively marketed. Vote NO on 76. Force Schwarzenegger to bring spending in line with revenues. Do not allow Schwarzenegger to continue spending borrowed money. Force Schwarzenegger to proposed balanced budgets and/or veto legislatively approved budgets when they aren't. It's already the law ... or didn't you know?

[FairOpinion]

"Yup, Prop. 76 is a RINO sellout, again."

===

Are you calling Tom McClintock a RINO?


Tom McClintock on the propositions (CA special election)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1470118/posts

"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."

[Carry_Okie]

Are you calling Tom McClintock a RINO?

Are you putting words in my mouth again?

[heleny]

The initiative is also deceptive. Ask yourself why a big spender would seek power to cut spending. The obvious answer is he wouldn't. Then why seek the legislation? Because the initiative authorizes billions more in borrowing which allows Schwarzenegger to continue to increase spending without the necessary tax revenue.

There are some good parts to 76 (such as the spending increase limits, school spending base levels, mid-year cuts, etc), but it's too bad they had to include authorization to borrow more. Why couldn't they make each part a separate initiative?

I got my ballot today. It's short and simple; for the first time I've ever seen it this way, it has only one card instead of several cards.

[calcowgirl]

McClintock strongly opposes Prop 78--you support it.

McClintock strongly opposed Prop 57/58--you supported it.

McClintock voted against the GLBT bills that you think "aren't really important" (e.g. AB 1400 - Civil Rights Act). Just as you ignore the onerous parts of Prop 76, you tried to keep people focused only on Arnold's veto of Gay Marriage, while he passed 6 other Pro-GLBT pieces of legislation. See this post as an example. You then went on to avoid the follow up question, despite posting other questions to me, again trying to change the subject. See Here and Here and Here

In answer to your question, no, Tom McClintock is not a RINO. On most things I agree with him; on others I do not. On Prop 76, I do not. I believe his tepid and limited comment in his endorsement suggests that he may also have some reservations (compare it to his out-and-out campaign for something he passionately disagreed with--Prop 57/58--for which he wrote the ballot arguments).

You supposedly embracing McClintock's position is a self-serving, transparent move of a propagandist. Instead of discussing it, you continue to ignore facts, post deceptive information, or try to change the subject. If Prop 76 is a good law, it should be able to withstand scrutiny.

By the way, you posted more of your deception on Prop 76 HERE, to which I replied HERE, proving you wrong once again. Is that going to be another "Watch FO play cut and run" game, or will you ever respond? One would think the honorable thing to do would acknowledge that you were wrong.

[calcowgirl]

Why couldn't they make each part a separate initiative?

Because then they couldn't call it "spending control" and get people to vote for it. Remember the "Balanced Budget Act"? (Prop 58) Same strategy.

[calcowgirl]

Correction to above. Here is the quote I meant to highlight (although the other one works too)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497464/posts?page=7#7

Your post, in response to being shown the GLBT bills signed by Arnold:
"He vetoed the REALLY important one: the homosexual marriage bill. These are mere crumbs."

AB 1400, the Civil Rights Act of 2005, was hardly "crumbs"!

[calcowgirl]

Post #14 is for you.

[FairOpinion]

I thought we were discussing Prop. 76.

And you can rant all you want to, but the bottom line is STILL, that:

ALL DEMOCRATS are fighting tooth and nail AGAINST Prop. 76, and so are you and your very small group -- or am I being redundant and I actually covered you, when I pointed out that Democrats are fighting AGAINST Prop. 76?

Virtually ALL Republicans, especially and including REAL CONSERVATIVES, such as Tom McClintock and Ray Haynes, and myself, are strongly supporting Prop. 76, the "live within your means" initiative.

I guess it's "birds of a feather flock together", isn't it?

[FairOpinion]

California League of Cities votes to support Proposition 76

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501662/posts