Replies

You keep avoiding my earlier question, which is: "Please tell me why I should trust Arnold to make the hard decisions on cuts when Prop. 76 makes such cuts merely permissive rather than mandatory, and given the fact that Arnold is already on record as opposing "cutting anything". That leaves (1) borrowing, and (2) tax increases. Arnold has already shown that he is a serial borrower and has threatened to raise taxes "unless Prop. 76 is passed".

Under these circumstances, please explain why I should vote YES on Prop. 76.

Arnold is the one who is pushing for spending cuts.

What is the worst that is going to happen? At the very least, we get rid of the mandatory funding for schools, imposed upon us by Prop.98. At best, it will really cut spending.

Leaving the current system, with the huge portion of the CA budget being mandated for schools is the WORST of the WORST. A NO vote on Prop. 76 preserves this untenable system. Voting NO on Prop. 76 is exactly what leads to no other alternatives, except tax increases.

=====

McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions

"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.

Also, why are you MISREPRESENTING Arnold's position.

Arnold said:

"No one has ever raised taxes and solved the problem, nor will we solve the problem. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem."

http://www.schwarzenegger.com/news.asp?id=1940

Here is the speech:

February 23, 2005

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER CALLS UPON LAWMAKERS TO STOP THE RED INK

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called upon legislators to approve his plan to prevent continued overspending and vowed to let the people do so if the lawmakers do not act. Speaking at Cal Expo, where he shut off a spigot of flowing red water to symbolize the State's autopilot spending problem, the Governor explained why spending control is required.

"I have declared 2005 a year of reform and job number one is reforming our out of control budget system," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "We can't have a system that says for every $1.00 we take in we have to spend $1.10. If we don't get control of the auto-pilot spending, there will be deficits as far as the eye can see and we will risk every program for years to come. If the legislators don't do their job the people will and I will stand with them to stop the red ink."

Under the current budget system, California is always at risk of spending more than it takes in. The Governor's Spending Control Proposal contains reforms that:

Stop auto-pilot formulas from allowing spending to out-pace revenues and require greater budget discipline.

Cut spending when expenditures outpace revenues.

Prevent spending from automatically growing in the absence of a budget.

Block borrowing from special funds to cover general fund obligations.

Close off the state's ability to borrow from K-14 schools (Proposition 98) and transportation (Proposition 42), as well as from special funds.

Require accounts with unpaid debts and no scheduled repayment to be repaid over a period of no more than 15 years.

This year, California took in at least $5 billion more in general fund revenues than last year. Autopilot formulas within the budget system, however, require that the state spend over $10 billion more than it did last year. California does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The Governor's budget proposal holds spending in line with revenues, but without changing the state's budget process, California will continue to face multi-billion-dollar deficits in future years.