Proposition 1D - No


Another bad idea for the state, funded by large credit card-style debt

This is part of my ongoing series of posts on each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my scorecard and links to each of my arguments.

Proposition 1D - No

Summary - This measure would take out approximately 10.5 Billion in bond money to pay for class size reduction in public schools, as well as renovations for older schools.

Commentary - I feel like a broken record, but all of these bond measures seem to be similarly flawed. This is another case in which we are funding something completely backwards. Education is a huge portion of CA's budget - mandated to be so by the Prop 98 constitutional amendment, passed in 1988 - and yet we are looking to borrow yet more sums of money to pay for this measure. If we are already setting aside large sums of money each year, why do we have such a deficiency in education? Where is the money we are already spending going, and why do we need to borrow more at such a great cost?

Once again, the cost of financing this money far outweighs the returns we will see on it. We are getting roughly 10.5 Billion, but we are spending almost as much in interest costs just to get it. As I've said before, that means when we spend one dollar of prop 1D money, it is actually costing us almost two. That is simply unwise use of funds, regardless of how good the intended recipient is.

Another problem is rule #4 - this measure is borrowing money to spend on something that nearly everyone agrees on. Politicians of all stripes love to trumpet their support for education, because it plays very well with voters. So you have to ask yourself, what are they actually allocating money to elsewhere that they are covering up with this measure. If the money we need for education isn't there, who spent it and what unpopular thing did they spend it on? If you simply vote to borrow money for popular issues like education, you are giving in to the politicians' shell game with the general fund money.

But there is one last argument against this prop. It requires matching dollars from the local school district. That means if you are a small, poor school district who are most likely in need of renovations, you'll still have to cough up half of the cash for your project. But if you are small and poor, you're unlikely to have anywhere near have of the renovation costs - meaning that the likely recipient of all this money is going to be wealthy school districts that have some older buildings they'd like to pretty up on the cheap. Once again, CA taxpayers foot the bill thinking they're helping poor kids get an education, and the money simply gets re-routed to the rich and powerful. Don't let them fool you this time.

Posted: Sun - November 5, 2006 at 09:45 AM | | | | | | |

©