Replies

Calcowgirl explained it to me yesterday on another thread. And, obviously you got it, too,

Nope. I'm not the author of the explanation nor did I get it from Calcowgirl. I posted the explanation anonymously as soon as I received the author's email this afternoon. The reply to you was the result of reading your comment just after having read the email. They were remarkably similar and someting I hadn't realized. Remember the topic of this thread is widely seperated from the shenanigan described. Sorry.

The author is apparently having serious second thoughts about what he/she helped achieved in October. Reading between the lines of the introductory part of the email, I don't think the author realized the degree of spousal influence in the new executive. The author requested anonymity because while his/her name is probably not easily recognizable on this forum it would be to the person whoes signature is now on the bottom of the author's paycheck.

If you start a thread for ACAX5 5 or Prop 58,

In view of the current war on vanities I'll pass. Calcowgirl will spread the word.

Tom McClintock explains it in the last few paragraphs of his floor speech on ACAX5 5 "Budget Reserve Act," which is incorporated into Prop 58.

http://www.tommcclintock.com/newsroom/details.cfm?pr_id=PR031212C

........
It is a radical departure from 154 years of constitutional law.

It temporarily repeals one of the oldest provisions of the state constitution—a provision that dates back to the original constitution of 1849. Since statehood, the constitution has required that bonds can only be used for a "single object or work."

Since statehood, the constitution has prevented one generation from passing on its day-to-day expenses to the next. This measure temporarily removes that provision so that you can do what no generation before you has ever dared to do: steal from the future.

Let us be honest. This is nothing but a Trojan Horse. Its façade is appealing but pointless. But hidden inside is the power for one generation to pillage and plunder the future to pay for its own appetite—a power that the Constitution has held at bay for 154 years.

THAT is the purpose of this measure. That is the SOLE purpose of this measure.

And that is why, sadly, I must cast a no vote today.

Thanks for sharing the information you got. Maybe your source heard/read Tom's speech, too. I should have just read his page first, instead of making people on FR explain it, which doubtless will be asked another 100 times before the election!

I hope talk show hosts and news/editorial writers figure it out, too, before they influence people on Prop 58 when the election nears.