There's a thread here on FR with it!
McClintock Floor Speech on AB9 Deficit(California Bond Issue)
The only way this bond can be issued constitutionally is to temporarily repeal one of the oldest provisions in the state constitution that dates back to the original document of 1849.
I think this is the purpose of Prop 58 (which also reaffirms the balanced budget requirement). Without the repeal (temporary or not), it would be unconstitutional to issue a bond such as the Prop 57 $15 Billion bond, because the bond wouldn't be for a specific project. If Prop 58 passes, the legislature will be free to "throw the burden of paying the present expense of the government upon posterity."
In the truest sense both Prop 57 and 58 are shams. The object of the sham is to get the electorate to suspend, recind or repeal the constitution's restrictions, even temporarily, which then removes the voters from the loop. The governance can then legally indebt without the voters specific imput. Hers's how it's being done.
Quick background. You'll remember from basic California civics that you can't include more than one issue in a single initiative. For example, you can't either rescind, repeal or suspend provisions of the constitution AND authorize a specific bond on the same initiative. Two initiatives are required. That's were Prop 58 comes in. It not only enables Prop 57 but it also enables the legislature, without the currently required specific voters consent, to accomplish the same thing if Prop 57 fails.
The game plan is sound. How do we (the governance) get the electorate to approve a measure, the bond, that is not terribly popular. Answer. We don't. If we want to borrow we really only need the amendmentment and if we also get the bond it's a plus but it is not necessary. We can always legally borrow the money, without the voters specific approval if we can just get them to, even temporarily, suspend the constitutional restrictions.
So this is what we're going to do.
1) Not emphasize to the voters that what we are proposing is extrodinary by allowing them to become aware that both Propositions are required to authorize the bond. Too much knowlege leads too many embarassing explanations of the gravity of what we are doing.
2)Propose Prop 57, which is controversial, so that the electortate will focus on only that issue. Let the opposition's energy and resources be spent fighting Prop 57 and hope they will disregard Prop 58 because it appears to be close enough to the voters will to be a slam dunk.
3)Frame Prop 58 in a manner that belies it true purpose, allowing the governance to indebt without specific approval, yet appears to be meeting the demands of the mob: a "sort of" spending cap.
When and if you can get your hands on the first legislative draft of Prop 58, review it with a careful eye, not only for what it authorizes, but also for what it does NOT exclude: General fund borrowing, by the legislature and the governor with out the currenlty, necessaary approval of the electorate.