Hain't this been purdy much whut yew been saying, calcowgurl??? I thank it is, by Golly!!! Shazzam!!!
From the first version I read, I've been saying that it is flawed in many ways. Cato mentions many of the problems. Additionally, it includes almost $10 Billion in new debt (more bonds), although Cato never seems to bother with that little fact (hence they previously gave Arnold a 'A' grade for balancing the budget while completely ignoring that he borrowed $15 billion in bonds authorized by Prop 57 to accomplish it).
By issuing the Prop 57 bonds, Arnold enabled higher spending for two years, which increased the prior year budget base from which this new measure will ADD more spending. The combination of the two are guaranteeing continued growth in government, not the CUT, CUT, CUT that voters thought they were getting.
Arnold had two choices of initiatives to back: 1) this flawed, do-nothing measure (with new debt) and 2) a real Gann-type spending that was submitted by John Campbell et. al. He chose the former, which says he has no real interest in truly reigning in spending.
The authors of the initiative (Zaremberg, et al) are already using language like "balanced budget" to try to sell this non-initiative. The Constitution already required a balanced budget before Arnold took office, yet his cronies sold us "The Balanced Budget Act" in Proposition 58, and are trying to sell us this initiative as another "balanced budget" initiative. The campaign language is blatantly dishonest.
Hain't this been purdy much whut yew been saying, calcowgurl??? I thank it is, by Golly!!! Shazzam!!!
---
It sure caught my eye and made a bell or two ring? :-)
Kudos to calcowgirl, you're great at dissecting & disseminating this stuff here! Thanks!!
Looks like the long hot dusty road race to reform is on.. Buckle up! :)