Posted on 10/15/2005 2:12:46 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Because we haven't been living within our means, we've spent more than we have taken in each of the last six years. We've tapped out our state credit card, raided funds intended for schools and roads, and now bump along with the worst bond-rating of the 50 states, which costs us hundreds of millions of dollars in extra interest every year. The tired, defeatist answer is: Just raise taxes. But we've spent more than we have received in taxes every year for the last six years. Why do we expect the Legislature wouldn't do so again?
There is a better way. Prop. 76 requires that state expenditures grow more smoothly. Rather than allowing a one-time spike in income to add to permanent-spending formulas, Prop. 76 specifies that the state can only increase its spending over the previous fiscal year by a percentage equal to the previous three years' revenue growth. We're still paying for having put our spending into high-gear based on one-time money at the end of the 1990s. This will stop that. If we have a windfall one year, the extra revenue will go into a reserve to be available for use when a year of exceptionally low revenue occurs.
Prop. 76 walls off the "special funds" that have routinely been raided when the state was spending more than it had. The sales tax we pay on gasoline, for instance, was intended for road building and maintenance; instead, it's been regularly raided for the state's general fund. That would stop.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
So many words, so many words....
BOTTOM LINE: YES or NO on Prop. 76.
NO means voting FOR keeping the very shackles of Prop. 98 and providing NO brakes whatsoever to the runaway spending.
Key Opponents: California Teachers Association, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation."
"Key Supporters: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association."
Key supporters also include conservatives Tom McClintock, and Ray Haynes.
You're welcome. :-)
What a magnificent expose of mischievious potential, calcowgirl! I hope every CA FReeper reads it at least once before voting this November!!!
Anyone that fails to answer your concern is simply stirring up turbidity and blowin smoke up everybody's behind!!!
Yep. Some want you to believe it is just a "spending cap". If one reads it, it becomes quite clear that it is filled with mischief that is totally unnecessary to achieve the objectives being touted on the campaign trail.
I appreciate that direct democracy has its problems when subverted by politcal cartels and unleashed on an uneducated mob but better to have it than not.
The road to success is to practice educated, logical discrimination. Few on this forum are bedazzled by the constant wale of the partisan loyal. The FairOpinon account is a gamer but no matter how hard they pound Freepers aren't buying into the deceptions. I believe that most Californians sense the corruption when organized politcal parties attempt to co-opt the due processes intended for citizens.
I for two, am right there with you, Norm!!!
These pitiful, intellectually dishonest premptory challenges of calling someone the enemy if they don't get in lock-step with the (bleep bleep) throwing out the challenge is a brain dead attempt at "herding!" It won't work on a conservative forum like this one, I don't believe.(at least I certainly hope not)
"A word to the wise is sufficient."
Now let me quote The Fonz!
"Sit on it!"
Now let me once again remind you that you are slipping into total silliness and making a spectacle of yourself and I suggest you refrain from further such unrestrained behavior, lest you become a laughing stock of a lock-step Party person with no real mind of your own!!!
Exactly what I was going to say but much better. Thanks for the data, calcowgirl!
If the Republicans really wanted to defeat 79, why didn't they do it head to head? Plus if I was writing 78, I would have made it more inclusive than 79, not less, to sucker in more "useful idiots".
"lest you become a laughing stock of a lock-step Party person with no real mind of your own"
===
Do you consider Tom McClintock "a laughing stock of a lock-step Party person with no real mind of his own"? As you know he is enthusiastically and strongly supporting YES on the reform propositions.
And please tell me why people here on this conservative site, who are going to extremes to agitate for voting WITH the Democrats against the best interests of CA are not the ones who should be ashamed of themselves?
Now go git me a beer!!!
What is it with you guys, girls, munchkins, or whoever you are, that you keep referring to me in a feminine gender?
I have never made any reference or any indication as to whether I am male of female, precisely because I want people to judge my posts and opinions, not filter them through their preconceived notions.
Is this your pathetic attempt at a "test", figuring that if I am male, I will get tired of it, and tell you what a macho guy I really am and how dare you refer to me as a female, or if I am a female, I will ask you "how did you know?" or make some admission?
Sorry -- your attempt will remain what it is, pathetic.
Just think of me as a "pure opinion".
(Dang! Now this is REALLY startin ta git entertaining!!!)
That is precisely what is going on here, you are female if you ask me. Judging by your posts that is.
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute . VIEW suggests a subjective opinion . BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent . CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief . PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth . SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings .
Jumping to conclusions makes you very prone to errors.
Alright, now put up the definition of "pragmatist,""pragmatism," and "pragmatic."
"Alright, now put up the definition of "pragmatist,""pragmatism," and "pragmatic."
===
??? what's up with that?
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.