[calcowgirl]

I've been reading all of these editorials saying that we need mid-year spending cuts. The out of control spending hasn't happened in the middle of the year--it starts with the Governors (both D and R) that have proposed out of control spending for the year. The spending cap won't change that--it is so high that it will just reinforce higher spending.

We already have to "live within our means" and have a balanced budget--it is law. And we already have a process for mid-year overruns (enacted last year under prop 58).

The only reason they need Prop 76 is to authorize the new bonds, defer more expense, and lock in the debt service payments (to allow new infrastructure bonds).

Prop 76 is another sham. No on 76!

[Amerigomag]

and lock in the debt service payments

Congratulations. You get it.

One of the key demands of the lending community is that California constitutionally protect the lenders on the Prop 58 bonds. Without that protection California's bond rating will continue to suffer. Not only for the until recently illegal borrowing to support General Fund expenditures but also the traditional borrowing to allow infrastructure improvement.

Prop 76 is about California's creditworthiness. On its face to control spending during unforeseen economic downturns, midyear corrections, but at its heart, protections for California's creditors from the whims of California's political class.

Voting NO of Prop 76 obviously cripples the political class in California if they seek to continue spending increases in the face of insufficient traditional revenues but the electorate need to take care not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Each voter needs to decide. Is the continued borrowing so destructive that infrastructure must suffer until the political class gets the message?

I suggest YES. I reach that conclusion because both parties won't listen.

[Czar]

"The only reason they need Prop 76 is to authorize the new bonds, defer more expense, and lock in the debt service payments (to allow new infrastructure bonds)."

In one simple sentence, all the rationale anyone needs to vote NO on Prop. 76.

[FairOpinion]

Tom McClintock pointed out in his voting recommendations ( see link below) that all governors HAD this authority until 1983,it was something that relatively recently was taken away and it's time to restore it:

Tom McClintock: "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. "

=====

THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions
Dean urges voters to reject measures governor supports [California]
CA: Feinstein to oppose Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives
John Alden (Marin cnty Dem Party chairman): Vote no on Prop 76 - we need better leaders
McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties
CA: McClintock stumps for governor's ballot initiatives
Supporters of the CA Propositions 74-77 include CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, Ray Haynes, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives, Republican Party, and many others. Click on the link for a more comprehensive list.
And you can see from links above who are the ones opposing them: Democrats, Unions, Howard Dean, various Dem party chairmen, etc.