........
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.
Again nope.
The pity is that McClintock wasn't more specific. That McClintock didn't specifically say.
"If you don't vote for Prop 57 it doesn't really matter because the bonds will be legally authorized anyway. If Prop 57 is defeated it doesn't really matter because the bonds will be legally authorized anyway. If Prop 58 is passed, even if Prop 57 fails, the bonds will be legally authorized by the legislature without your direct approval as long as the legislation refers to the bonding as the California Economic Recovery Bonds.