The debate over the language inside Governor Schwarzenegger’s initiative proposals didn’t end when the pension plan was postponed last week. There are more questions about the spending reform proposal and the redistricting plan… and some say they are no less serious.

On this weekend’s edition of The California Report (various station times listed here and also online) we’re taking a look at specific parts of both initiatives.

In addition to the on-air report, here are a few more issues that came up in the course of my reporting:

*The Schwarzenegger allies circulating the spending limit initiative, Citizens To Save California (CSC), agree with the assessment that the proposal would reduce the long-term funding for schools under Proposition 98, by removing money owed to the schools (after years of borrowing) from the calculations of future funding.

* A CSC representative did not return a phone call, however, seeking their opinion on our report’s discussion of how the initiative may give the governor powers that can’t be granted by initiative. The issue lies in the fact that changing the balance of power between the governor and the Legislature requires revising the state constitution, which can only be done through either the Legislature placing the item on the ballot or by a full-blown constitutional convention– but not by an initiative.

* Governor Schwarzenegger often says last year’s back-and-forth over reforms to the worker’s comp system are a template for what he’s doing now– negotiate, but gather signatures just in case. But even GOP political analyst Tony Quinn says this year is different, because these proposed initiatives were not well drafted or vetted. Quinn says the workers comp changes had been discussed much longer, and were therefore more viable with, or without, the Legislature.

* And the mystery continues over just who bankrolled a radio ad that criticized the governor’s plans for redistricting because of the possible involvement of, in their words, liberal federal judges. The committee mentioned in the ad has no real records in California, and the attorney representing the group– Lowell Finley– told me the non-profit is organized under Washington, DC laws which do not require disclosure of the donors. The ad, he says, is no longer on the air. Finley was the attorney who challenged reimbursing Governor Schwarzenegger for his personal loan to the 2003 campaign, which has led some Republicans to think Democrats are behind this. Finley denies any connection between that issue and this one.