Better Management, Not More Money
Say 'No' to Two Troubling Statewide Bond Measures
California has repeatedly been a bad steward of tapayer money. Legislators don't need more money, they need better management & stewardship. Learn more about both statewide bond measures below:
Proposition 2
Public Education Facilities Bond Measure
Below is the policy position from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association:
No on 2: Why we’re against it
Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2
And here is part of the analysis from state's (independent & bipartisan) Legislative Analyst's Office:
FISCAL EFFECTS: Increased State Costs of About $500 Million Each Year for 35 Years to Repay the Bond. The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million each year (annually) over a 35-year period. Payments would be made from the state General Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.) This would be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. Since the state has to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more (after adjusting for inflation) than if the state paid up front with money it already has.
Proposition 4
Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure
Below is the policy position from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association:
No on 4: Why we’re against it
This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4
And here is part of the analysis from state's (independent & bipartisan) Legislative Analyst's Office:
FISCAL EFFECTS Increased State Costs of About $400 Million Annually for 40 Years to Repay the Bond. The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $400 million annually over a 40-year period. Payments would be made from the state General Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.) This would be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. Since the state has to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more (after adjusting for inflation) than if the state paid up front with money it already has.