Today's new analysis of the governor's budget initiative from Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill will likely be read as reinforcing some of the arguments made by both supporters and critics. But it also highlights the fact that the initiative leaves some important questions unanswered.

You can read it for yourself here.

First, the "told you so" elements of this new analysis of Proposition 76. Supporters will likely point out that the LAO reaffirms the belief that Prop 76 would "smooth" out state spending over time, making changes from year to year more predictable. The analysis also concludes that giving the governor new powers to alone resolve budget impasses "may provide incentives for on-time budgets."

Critics of Prop 76, however, will point to the new analysis' conclusion that the initiative will reduce state spending in the long run because it may "prove difficult" for the state to stash away enough extra money in good years to cushion the blow in bad years. That's because downturns in recent history were sharper than any modestly growing reserves could offset. And if lawmakers were then forced to slash spending, Prop 76 requires that lower level of spending to be the new template for the future.

But the LAO analysis also highlights how Prop 76 isn't clear on some key questions.

For example, the state currently collects tax dollars in special accounts that are actually earmarked for local governments. Now, let's say the economy booms. Under the current system, local governments get their share of that extra cash.

But Prop 76 says that any revenues above the new spending limit must be held in reserve... so local governments wouldn't get all of the money they are currently entitled to. And the LAO says Prop 76 is vague, in general, about how the source of the extra revenues impacts the system as a whole.

Another example of murkiness used by the LAO: if the governor were to solve a budget impasse by cutting spending, then would any program trimmed back effectively shut down when the well runs dry? The LAO uses welfare grants as an example: an 8.3% cut in the program might mean that recipients would not receive any cash for an entire month.

Granted, this is a wonkish debate... but it's one the voters are being asked to settle, and you're not likely to see much of this in a 30 second TV ad.