Replies

So basically, you have no explanation and will attempt your usual strategem of diversion, denial, and answering one question with another question.

You really don't have an answer, do you? Of course not.

Your man Arnold is a complete and total fraud. He's busy now cozying up to the unions, public employees and the Rats in Sacramento.

To call your little act pathetic would be to give you more credit than you deserve.

And please explain how we are better off, now that the unions are stronger and Prop. 76 with its speding cuts, and limitations of Prop. 98-s power has been defeated.

This is just more disinformation, your stock in trade FO. Prop 76 did NOTHING to limit Prop 98, indeed it BORROWED money to satisfy Prop. 98 deferrals. Further, with the revenue baseline fattened by the real estate bubble, there was virtually no prospect that Prop. 76 would have forced cuts in subsequent years of declining revenue because it allowed overspending the limits in such a case.

Had Arnold chosen to merely restore the Gann spending limits, he would have had my whole-hearted support. Prop. 76 wasn't even a near equivalent.

And please explain how we are better off, now that the unions are stronger and Prop. 76 with its speding cuts and limitations of Prop. 98-s power has been defeated.

Spending cuts? What spending cuts? You forget so soon (or should I say "continue to ignore"?)

"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell, Schwarzenegger's former finance director, who left the post to campaign for the initiative. "It's just to spend no more than we have."
San Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 2005
But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005
"Prop. 76 smoothes out education funding, so that in the low-revenue years, more money will go to education. That's not in doubt... During high revenue years, the Legislature can choose to add more to education..."
North County Times, October 22, 2005

Prop 76 was a sham masked as a "spending cap" that deferred expenses, authorized more bonds and made the borrowing terms more attractive to lenders. All of this, in preparation for Arnold's new BIG BANG BOND of $50 to $100 BILLION dollars!

I am disappointed that Props 73 thru 75 did not pass, but I am relieved that Prop 76 and Prop 78 didn't. Not all of the propositions touted by Arnold were favorable to taxpayers.