Any strong opinions on Prop 57 and 58 in CA?

[robertpaulsen]

I accidentally threw away my only copy of the arguments for and against Prop 57 and 58. Not sure what's right, especially with TV ads having the Gropinator's face plastered on them. Any strong opinions?

[MsUnderstood]

1. Take your medicine, no matter how bad it tastes

My opinion is vote for these and (as the doctor would say) take your medicine, no matter how bad it tastes. A more thorough analysis here:

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop57-title.html

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop58-title.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. 57 is a really bad idea

will morgage the debt on our kids.. what he wants to do is almost suicidal

Unfortunately 58 is a good idea, balanced budget and all, but if one fails so will the other.

I intend to do no on 57 and yes on 58... hopefully that will send a message

I hate to morgage the future, but sure I want a balanced budget.

[TheStateChief]

3. The key is Prop 56

If Prop 56 passes then the legislature will have the ability to do what needs to be done the right way (without draconian cuts) without having to deal with the right-wing. The association of real estate brokers (which I'm part of) is against Prop 56, but if Prop 57 and 58 are defeated we're going to need the flexibility that Prop 56 provides more than ever. In answer to your question I am Yes on 56 and - fingers crossed - No on 57 and 58. I'd rather deal with the problem responsibly today.

[AP]

10. Yes on 56. I agree. It's an awful trade-off, as all propositions are,

however, the up side on this one is better than the down side.

[truthseeker1]

4. NO on 57!!

Don't give Arnold a clean slate. He was supposed to fix the problems, not just pawn them off on future generations with a huge interest payment to boot.

I wonder if opponents of 57 will get equal time on Meet The Press.....

[Mz Pip]

5. I'm feeling kind of pissy

so will probably vote the opposite of what Ahnold recommends.
Prop 56 changes the requirement for 2/3 majority to pass the budget. I'm inclined to support that since the Repubs tend to hold the budget hostage until they get their their way. Last go around the Repub Brulte insisted in adding 10 million dollars to the budget for a shopping mall in his district.

Prop 57 is the 15 billion dollar bond measure. Ahnold want this or has threatened catastrophic cuts. Problem in this state is that everybody wants stuff but doesn't seem to get it that there is money involved. For years we've had dozens of Initiatives on the ballot to enact programs that sound wonderful. Then the state is mandated to fund them and somehow do this without raising taxes. Duh. No wonder we're in this mess.



MzPip
:dem:

[wryter2000]

6. Yes on 56

For sure, yes on 56. It still requires 55% to raise taxes. Prop 13 has been hell for California.

I held my nose and voted yes in 57 & 58 because the alternatives would be so bad. But I almost wanted to dive back into the mail box and retrieve my ballot so I could change it. I hate bailing Ahnuld out.

[chiburb]

7. From Calpundit...

Proposition 58 allegedly requires the legislature to pass a balanced budget and prevents them from ever again issuing bonds to cover an operating deficit. I have my doubts that it actually has any teeth, but I suppose it's worth a try. I'll vote Yes on this one.


And that brings us to Prop 57, Arnold's $15 billion bond measure. It's primarily meant to cover past debt (although a portion of it would be used for next year's budget), and since that past debt has already been incurred it seems like this bond really needs to be approved, even if you generally dislike the idea of using bonds to cover operating expenses.

But it's not clear to me what happens if this measure fails. (Actually, Prop 57 is just a safety measure, since the legislature already approved bonds last year to cover this debt. However, those bonds are being challenged in court. So what I really mean here is that it's not clear what happens if Prop 57 fails and the court overturns the existing bonds.)

Supposedly, fiscal disaster awaits us if Prop 57 fails, but even after a fair amount of searching I've been unable to verify this. So I don't know what to say about this one.

But I'll keep looking, and if I come up with a suitable answer I'll let everyone know. Deal?

More here: http://www.calpundit.com/

[robertpaulsen]

8. Thanks everyone!

I'm definitely voting yes on 56 and probably no on 57. But Prop 58 is still a question mark for me. I'll look around online to see if I can get more info.

[AP]

9. Vote no on both.

57 is trading debt that Call has to back back in june for debt that has to be paid back way in the future, with more interest being paid to banks, plus the huge transaction costs of issuing bonds being paid to bond companies, AND ON TOP OF THAT, the best reasons to borrow from the future are to pay for things today that create wealth in the future -- schools, health, public works -- are the things Arnold is promising to cut.

California needs to (1) invest in its future and (2) fix the totally regressive way they collect property tax.

Forget prop 57, and start petitioning for fixing the way property tax is charged.

58 -- a balance budget amendment -- is just an excuse to never invest in the future in good times and in bad times.

[jansu]

11. Why the recall, if Arnold is doing the same thing Davis was hung for?

And I had no love of Davis.....for years! Where's the investigation that Arnold promises us on his groping? These were crimes! Another lying Republican who gets away with it, because the media won't keep the pressure on! And I am related to him......ugh!

[AP]

12. Davis still wanted to invest in Cal's future (health care, schools, etc.)

and Arnold doesn't. Davis wanted to recover billions from Enron, and Arnold wants to try private energy markets again. Davis (or at least Bustamanted) wanted to talk about not longer using property value on day of transfer as the measure for property tax, and Arnold is not talking about that at all.

And you KNOW that Arnold is going to use the bond issue to make bond brokers rich. It's going to be a transfer of regressively accumulated tax money to the pockets of the bond brokers.