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.
So why did he borrow so much to save the c"rats the pain when he first came into office? Did he do it to avoid all the pain the women, children and illegals would have suffered? That pain will likely just be intensified down the road and shared across the full spectrum of folks in the form of new taxation, imo.
His feeble attempts to act in a bipartisan fashion were just that, feeble... anyone who has been in California the last few years knows the c"rats play the game to win.
His aborted attempts at blowing up the boxes and freezing state hiring were the ultimate in botchjobs or out and out deception and his quips about girlie men only diminished the office he claims to respect in principle.
I won't mention that a veto pen is for use for more then vetoing gay marriage legislation and vehicle license fees and drivers licenses for illegals and token budget cuts.
He obviously thinks we can outgrow the deficits as he certainly has not slowed the rates of spending growth that has been proposed by him the last 2 years in the budget, auto-pilot spending or not. I am not so sure , even with such a staunch "fiscal conservative" at the wheel, that his dream will come true.
I am troubled also that, if nothing else, he has rammed thru untold billions more in spending before the hammer drops on spending or gets capped or whatever, which , imo, smacks of a liberal move if I ever saw one. He has made no bones about his love and support for social programs.
btw, When does the auto-pilot borrowing stop?
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.