Posted on 08/21/2007 9:04:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
No, that is not what I said. If you follow the link, you would find that Prop 76 went too far--it included all sorts of things that had nothing to do with a spending cap or were not conservative in the least. With any proposition, you get the good with the bad. In the case of Prop 76, there enough bad provisions to outweigh any good. Approving it would have made California worse off, not "a little bit better."
Prop 76 was voted down. We kept the status quo. And you are telling me we are better off...
No. I didn't say "better off." Just not worse off.
The rest of your comments are either irrelevant or insulting (but an improvement from your last post--thanks for that, anyway).
Well don’t really want to be insulting. I’m no economic genius.
During elections, I don’t rely on a 1-minute commercial. I read the information in the voters pamphlet. I read other sources as well, then I make my decision.
Resources like this forum are a huge help, but there is often no consensus on any given issue.
My reading and study of Prop 76 lead me to believe that it would retard the state Democrats ability to escalate spending to the degree they have. The increase in the budget is absolutely soaring and the status quo is not slowing that massive increase one iota.
I also see absolutely no reform on the horizon that will change the status quo and begin to slow the horrific rate of budget increases year after year.
Obviously I thought Prop 76 would somewhat slow the massive rate of increases in the annual budgets, or I would not have voted for it.
I believe Tom McClintock thought similarly. You believe he sold out the Republicans to be nice to the Governor.
Further, I believe Prop 76 would have, in time, reduced the portion of the state budget that is guaranteed to K-12 education. At least that was my reading of the language of the proposition. Apparently I am not the only one, or the California Teachers Association would not have mobilized to kill the proposition.
I wish I could know with absolute certainty that Prop 76 was or was not an effective start to fixing California’s soaring sequential budgets. I can’t know that for certain. But my reading and study of it, along with knowing its supporters and detractors, lead me to support the proposition and brand those who voted against it as “idiots”, a feeling I can’t retract.
We sit today with massive runaway California budgets and no solution in sight. Nothing but the status quo. The State will never likely become insolvent, but there will be some brutal years of belt tightening, and better years of massive spending. This isn’t going to change. Voting against Prop 76 guaranteed that.
Yet you continue on, labeling everyone in California who doesn't agree with you as "idiots." Nuf said.
As I said, the bad provisions of the proposition outweighed the good, IMO. Among other things, the "bad" included the authorization of approx $8 Billion in additional debt, revision providing that education spending (1/2 of the budget) could never go down (and actually making it easier to raise taxes), giving more authority to the Governor's office (not just this governor, but every leftist governor in the future), and deceptively providing additional protection to creditors who lent money under Prop 57/58 (see here). The "good" included a very weak "cap"/smoothing of spending and possibly one part of the education formula changes. However, Finance Director, Tom Campbell, said he "didn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013" and that "the key is not to crank government spending down... It's just to spend no more than we have," (the latter an obvious sham since that is already a requirement of the State Constitution). Campbell later admitted the real benefit was to enhance the state's balance sheet to prepare for even bigger borrowing, the subsequent $43 billion in Big Bang Bond initiatives.(see here.) And, the Legislative Analysts Office pretty much shot down any benefit of the change to the education formula (see here, or the post here which lays out the deception pretty clearly.) And even Pete Wilson's Finance Director slammed Prop 76 as a sham (see here.)
Now, I really don't understand why it is that 2 years after the fact we are arguing about an initiative. I'll respect that you voted for it, and somehow felt the benefits outweighed the tremendous downsides. But what I don't respect, or appreciate, is your broad-brush name-calling of all of those who think differently than you or your rhetoric of trying to paint those people as stupid, idiots, liberals, union members, etc. When that was pointed out to you, and a host of rational reasons for opposing the initiative were provided, you didn't miss a beat in calling folks more names. (Hint: an apology might have been in order, here.) Nor did you acknowledge the most glaring inaccuracy in your first post--that this had nothing to do with requiring a balanced budget. Frankly, I find this kind of discourse non-productive.
You are right. My apologies.
Apology accepted. Peace. :-)
this is good....very few politicians say this publicly or even know who John Lott is
Everyone who supported Tom McClintock did. Everyone who was paying attention did. Hell, I was living in Florida, and I knew RINOneggar was a POS liberal.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.