Replies

He shamelessly refers to his proposal as "debt reduction bonds," as if it's possible to borrow your way out of debt.

Like giving a bottle to an alcoholic to 'cure' the DT's.

No, more like breaking a rib while giving some one the Heimlich maneuver. Painful, but better that than choking to death.

Of course, I do not (currently) plan to vote in favor of the bonds, because I have not seen any commitment to spending cuts that would actually be a cure. If there were some real cuts, and changes, I could understand borrowing to pay off current payments. It somewhat like restructuring a loan - extending payments over a longer time, but making it possible to go on.

Just trying to be fair to his proposals.

Drew Garrett

My analogy was simply trying to say that any source of money for Sacramento to spend is just feeding the addiction. Also, as this article points out, the prior $10.7 billion deficit amount has actually decreased to $8.6 Billion. So... instead of just 'refinancing', the $15 Billion Bond proposal is almost double the amount of the deficit that existed at the end of this past fiscal year and extends it over a much longer period. Doubling the amount can hardly be called a "debt reduction", as quoted in the article.

In the meantime, there is no action in Sacramento on current year budget reductions. The proposed budget for next year is also structurally out of balance, further increasing the deficit. The saga continues.