Proposition 60A


My take on Proposition 60A - Yes

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 60A - Yes

We seem to have a lot of initiatives this year where the only rebuttal argument is "this one won't do any harm, but it doesn't go far enough." This is one of those initiatives. It attempts to inject some fiscal responsibility into our spend-happy legislature, by requiring them to use any of the proceeds from the sale of State-owned property to pay off our debt reduction bonds. To make this more relatable to your normal life, imagine you had run up massive credit card debt, and then refinanced it all into a second on your house. The responsible and wise thing to do is to pay down that debt as soon as possible. This initiative basically makes our legislators act in the same responsible manner if any of the state's property (now valued very high since, well, this is California) is sold.

It is the if in that last sentence with which the rebuttal takes issue. They counter to Prop 60A is that it only requires them to pay down the debt if they sell the property, but it does not require them to sell the property. I can appreciate this sentiment. To go back to our example, if you had a sizable second home that you didn't need, it would be more advisable to sell that and pay off your refi.

It seems to me, however, that it would be wise to first make sure that the properties would be used for the fiscally wise purpose, and then to exert pressure on the legislature to actually sell some of the ridiculous properties it holds (like a massage parlor and some property in Tahiti).

Bottom line: We have an enormously irresponsible legislature when it comes to money. Anything that binds them to more responsible fiscal policy is a very good idea.

Posted: Sun - October 31, 2004 at 06:49 PM | | | | | | |

©