Veto

Budget To Be Vetoed; Veto To Be Overriden

September 16, 2008 - 6:41pm

Not exactly a fighting veto. Schwarzenegger declared today he would veto the budget -- and expected to be overriden. It's an acknowledgment that he was ultimately irrelevant in the process. He took a few swipes at Republicans, noting -- correctly -- that the "no new taxes" budget is in fact a tax increase in disguise. The budge will be delivered to the governor tomorrow. He will veto, then the Assembly votes on override Thursday.

Arnold Expected To Veto Budget

September 16, 2008 - 2:13pm

He has called a press conference for 3 p.m. Pacific, apparently to do just that.

 

The Lie of a 'No New Taxes' Budget, or Why Arnold Should Use His Veto

September 14, 2008 - 8:44pm

Details of the budget deal reached today by legislative Democrats and Republicans have not been officially released, but the leaks have begun. Republicans are saying the budget is a "no new taxes" budget. Of course, that's not the truth.

Tax rates don't increase under this budget, but that doesn't mean the budget doesn't raise taxes. Instead, this budget will rely on borrowing and gimmicks that inevitably force tax increases in the future. In fact, this unbalanced budget will add to the state's debt and debt service costs, which cuts into the amount of the budget that can be spent on actual government services. In the end, people will pay the same tax rates, but they will get less in services. That's right -- less services for the same money. That's a tax increase in disguise.

And if you want to maintain services -- and the public wants to maintain levels of services, eventually taxes will have to be raised to cover this borrowing and the service level. Bottom line: it would be more accurate to call this a "No New Taxes While The Current Republican Lawmakers Are Running For Re-Election" budget.

Ritter Vetoes Signature Gathering Bill

June 2, 2008 - 10:53am

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter has been a strong critic of direct democracy. But he vetoed a bill that would have stepped up regulation of paid signature gatherers, arguing that it was unconstitutional because it would have treated paid gatherers different than volunteers.

Syndicate content