There has been no misrepresentation of Arnold's position. If you believe there has, then explain this one:
Schwarzenegger quote from an August interview with Hugh Hewitt: "No, no. We never want to cut anything. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. We want to increase funding for education, because as you know, I'm an education Governor."
Arnold has also threatened to raise taxes if #76 is defeated:
Asked ... what he might do to avert future budget deficits if the spending control is defeated, Schwarzenegger said: "Then we have to look at raising taxes, because this is the only option we have, in order to create the money. And this is why I tell people vote yes on Proposition 76 and make sure that we do everything that we can to pass this proposition so that we force our legislators once and for all to live within their means and not to continue spending money and to keep making promises to people that they can't keep." [See Governor: Tax Hike Possible if Prop. 76 Fails, Los Angeles Times, September 2, 2005]
So, FO, if Arnold never wants to cut anything, and if the only option he sees should #76 be defeated is to raise taxes rather than cut spending, why should I believe he will make cuts rather than raise taxes should #76 be passed.. Remember, "...No, no. We never want to cut anything."
I believe you have argued your pro-#76 position as well as it can be argued. The problem is that your argument ignores Arnold's borrowing/no cuts record and statements. So your argument is simply not persuasive because I do not trust Arnold. Remember that old advice--it's still good: "Pay no attention to what they say; watch what they do."
See calcowgirl's post #5: Proposition 76 - A Conservative Argument for Voting “NO”. It is exhaustively researched and well stated. It fairly presents both the pros and cons without shading anything, leaving the reader to make up his own mind. Unfortunately, that's more than we can say about your hysterical cheerleading from the Arnold amen corner.
On balance, there are more negatives than positives in Prop. 76. Until I see something that convinces me otherwise, count me as a NO.
Clarification:
I did not attempt to highlight all of the items included in Proposition 76--it is just too complex. What I was trying to point out is that you get the BAD with the GOOD. Just as Proposition 111, the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act.,” included some GOOD things, and was being pushed by a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN Governor, had I known it obliterated the Gann Spending Limit (BAD thing), and the implications of that, I most definitely would have voted NO.
Remember that old advice--it's still good: "Pay no attention to what they say; watch what they do."
===
Exactly.
Arnold PUT Prop.s 74-77 on the ballot and is actively campaigning for them.
"See calcowgirl's post #5: Proposition 76 - A Conservative Argument for Voting “NO”. "
===
That merely tries to substitute a huge quantity of nonsense, for a short, reasoned argument, facts and logic.
There are NO facts and logic supporting a NO vote on Prop. 76.
If you want to side with the Democrats on wanting to destroy CA, fine, but stop pretending that it's a conservative position.