Posted on 10/31/2005 7:47:14 PM PST by NormsRevenge
The latest ad from Governor Schwarzenegger's campaign has a clear message: if you're opposed to a tax increase, vote yes on Proposition 76. But when you examine the way Prop 76 would impact the state budget process, you're likely to conclude that the ad is a pretty big stretch.
The ad features three "average" people sarcastically asking for a tax increase, higher state spending, and modifications to the property tax initiative Proposition 13.
"This is how Sacramento thinks we think," says the narrator. The ad ends with a plea to "Say yes to 76, say no to a tax increase next year."
While Schwarzenegger may oppose a tax increase next year, Prop 76 does not prevent him from changing his mind.
New tax revenues would simply be subject to the Prop 76 spending cap. In other words... the initiative only limits how much money is spent, not how much money is collected.
Legislators and the governor would still be free to raise (most) taxes any time they want. If the Prop 76 spending cap is calculated to be higher than revenues, then those new tax dollars could be spent immediately.
The only impact on a tax hike comes if state spending is already maxed out under the Prop 76 spending cap. Even then, a tax hike would be allowable; Prop 76 would simply force the new dollars to be held in reserve.
The ad's implied message about tax increases is even more intriguing when you consider it's been debunked by none other than Schwarzenegger himself. At last week's televised forum in the Bay Area, the governor argued that Prop 76 wouldn't force a budget deficit to be solved through cuts alone-- that tax hikes could still be part of the solution.
The ad also implies that Prop 76 would restrict current state spending. But the measure would probably not force a lower level of state spending next year-- that's the assessment of both the non-partisan Legislative Analyst and the governor's own outgoing finance director, Tom Campbell.
In an interview earlier this month, Campbell told me that he believes the first forced restraint on spending under Prop 76 probably wouldn't happen for another few years.
As for the issue of Prop 13, the legendary "third rail" of state politics... Prop 76 offers no long-term protections of the property tax initiative. If lawmakers or voters decide to modify Prop 13 in the future, Prop 76 will play no part in that decision.
And people can read McClintock's ad ( see link below)
===
THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions
Dean urges voters to reject measures governor supports [California]
Davis opposes Schwarzenegger's reform initiatives
CA: Feinstein to oppose Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives
John Alden (Marin cnty Dem Party chairman): Vote no on Prop 76 - we need better leaders
Top Democratic leaders at Penmar Park rally to 'swat' governor's special election measures. Key note speaker: Angelides, Dem candidate for governor
McClintock's recommendations for CA Propositions
Summary of Recommendations on the CA Propositions by various organizations and parties
CA: McClintock stumps for governor's ballot initiatives
Ad watch: McClintock in radio spot supporting Prop. 76 (includes actual text)
Supporters of the CA Propositions 74-77 include CA Club for Growth, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, Ray Haynes, San Fernando Valley Town Hall Conservatives, Republican Party, and many others. Click on the link for a more comprehensive list.
And you can see from links above who are the ones opposing them: Democrats, Unions, Gray Davis, Howard Dean, various Dem party chairmen, etc.
"Prop 76 offers no long-term protections of the property tax initiative. If lawmakers or voters decide to modify Prop 13 in the future, Prop 76 will play no part in that decision."
===
Prop. 76 also won't wash the windows, cure cancer or eliminate wars and world hunger, therefore we shouldn't vote for it. (/sarcasm)
That's only a minor detail.
LMAO! The folks at AdWatch must not have been charmed by the glow.
lol
You know your baloney, eh? lol
Don't vote for prop 76 because it will lead to a tax increase? Preposterous BS from desperate Libs who se their end coming faster and faster (KQED? Might as well cite PBS. LOL!).
Yep. From Campbell's own mouth:
But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005
Really? Please list them, specifically.
Still waiting, FO.
Waiting for what, for MoveOn to offer you a spokesperson position? They will at least give you A for effort.
I have already posted plenty of links showing who supports what, and Republicans and conservatives overwhelmingly support the reform propositions, and Democrats and unions overwhelmingly oppose them -- and that's the side you chose of your own free will.
This article is full of distortions.I said:
Really? Please list them, specifically.Can you back up your statement or not?
You need to check your eyes. ;)
I didn't say the article is full of distortions, as you claim, I said you are distorting things, when you try to highlight some of the crumbs Arnold threw to the gay lobby, while vetoing the most important bill, the homosexual marriage.
I didn't say the article is full of distortions, as you claim, I said you are distorting things,
Excuse me?
See your post #2, above:
"This article is full of distortions"
Still no response after you were proven so blatantly wrong.
Do you ever admit when you are wrong, or just spew (false) allegations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.