And what do you think the spending would be under Gray Davis or Bustamante?
Not to mention that they would have signed the drivers licenses to illagals bill, would have raised taxes, and would have signed the homosexual marriage bill.
I guess you would have preferred that, not to mention that YOU voted FOR the huge budget, because you voted AGAINST the "live within our means" proposition.
No guesses here.
Spending either under Davis or Bustamante would have been less than under Schwarzenegger. Considerably less. The reason is simple:
The spending and its consequent taxation requires a super-majority in both houses of the legislature. The Democrats don't have a super-majority.
The Wilsonegger gang bypassed this constitution due process and deals directly with the Legislative leaders to negotiate the budget, robbing the Republican minority of their constitution rights.
An educated, insider's guess is that the California budget would have certainly increased, along with taxation, but only in proportion to inflation and population growth. The Wislonegger gang, by corrupting the constitutional process, has tripled those rates.
Ah, but since you DID mention it, I can only refer you back to the many unanswered posts to you. Here is one. In short, Prop 76 was a deceptive measure that did little to control spending yet authorized more debt and borrowing.
As to drivers licenses, you seem to forget the referendum process. SB60 would have been dead post haste by the electorate, armed with pitchforks. Instead we are still fiddling around with it. Just wait until Matthew Dowd and his pro-illegal-immigrant campaign group jumps into full gear. Will Arnie capitulate on this issue, too?
As to homosexual marriage, I don't believe Davis would have signed it. If he had, it too would have faced referendum--and Davis a Recall process. More pitchforks. I note that you didn't mention all of the pro-GLBT legislation that Arnold did sign.
As to raising taxes, you seem to forget that it would require 2/3 approval in the legislature, something the Dems had not been able to accomplish, thanks to Republican opposition. Instead, the new Governor(R) chose to create new debt to supplement the liberal, socialistic spending habits of the left. $15 billion in bonds to fund continued deficit spending, paid for by TAXES. This method of deferred taxation proposed by the old Governor(D) was the same method proposed by the new Governor(R), something consistently opposed by conservatives. I note that you were not part of the opposition, instead promoting its passage.