We will devote quite a bit of space in the FlashReport in the coming weeks to articulating why the five "big bonds" measures on the November ballot — Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 84 — should all be rejected by California voters.
You’ve heard me make the case over and over if you are a regular reader, but if you are new to this site, I can sum up the main over-arching reasons to reject all of this borrowing in just a few paragraphs:
For decades, the liberals who control the state legislature, along with a string of Governors who aided them with budget signatures, have neglected infrastructure investment in California. Instead, these liberals have taken the state budget (which is now well over $100 billion annually) and have put much of that money into their lefty social engineering programs and into fattening the state bureaucracy.
Lack of proper funding for infrastructure has also been exacerbated because of initiative and ballot measures that have been passed by voters over the years that create ‘locked in’ formulas for spending – usually because the voters are taking into their own hands setting spending priorities (because they were unhappy with the job the politicians in Sacramento were doing?).
While I think that ballot-box budgeting is a bad idea, until a global solution to the problem is reached, I could have supported a ballot measure this year that would have required a fixed percentage of the state’s budget each year (say 10%?) must be spent on infrastructure. In other words, a solution to use current revenues to the state to make the necessary investment in California’s infrastructure needs.
The key issue is this: California taxpayers already generate more than enough revenue into state coffers to run a lean, effective state government AND finance all of the state’s infrastructure needs without increasing the amount of money that comes from the pockets of Californians (or in this case, the amount of money borrowed – and debt created).
If California truly had a lean state government, and state income was substantially lower, THEN AND ONLY THEN might it make sense to support bonded indebtedness for long-term infrastructure (after all, people take out long-term loans all of the time for their homes).
Of course, what you won’t see on the television commercials is that all of the bond packages on the ballot contain vast amounts (billions) of spending on programs that go way out of the scope of what any rational person would call "infrastructure" — there is a cornucopia of social engineering spending tucked into them — as well as a lot of ‘discretionary’ spending to be decided later by the legislature. Yes, the SAME legislature that put us into this mess by misprioritizing spending for decades.
Today’s on the main page FR Guest Editor Brandon Powers selected a column from our friend Bill Saracino to highlight as the Golden Pen Award Winner. It is worth a read to gain some insight into why Proposition 1D, the so-called "Education Bond" is particularly poor public policy, and should be rejected.
Bill’s well written piece also talks about the dangerously high level of indebtedness Californian’s have already authorized.
Bill’s piece does not add a footnote on why 1D is particularly heinous — it says that for local school districts to get money for school construction, etc., those districts have to be able to provide a match of local funds. Which means the $10.4 billion of borrowing in the bond measure will then create a surge of local tax increase measures and local bond measures as districts try to do what they can to get those funds. So some have called 1D the "Blue County Bonds" because conservative areas of the state will reject local tax increase measures and so school districts in these areas may not be able to put up the ‘matching funds’ to get some of the 1D money.
Anyways, I hope that you will very much consider these points above, and those made by Bill Saracino today on 1D and on too-much-borrowing in general, and vote NO on 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 84.
What better message to send to the politicians in Sacramento, especially after re-electing a Republican Governor with a new team of GOP Statewide Officeholders — then to tell them: Spend the $100 billion ++ you take in already on infrastructure, but Californians aren’t opening their wallets or credit cards any more!
Proponents of the borrowing will tell you about how the ‘need is great’ (especially on the Levee and Transportation Bonds). Remember that it is this ‘need’ that will put pressure on the legislature to spend current dollars on these priorities. Take away the pressure from Sacramento politicians, and we doom ourselves to several more decades of misprioritized spending on left-wing programs.
Have a great day!
Jon Fleischman
Publisher, The FlashReport
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.