California has a variety of measures on this November's ballot.  But first, a word about one type of them: bond issues.

Bonds are, for some of you who do not already know, a mechanism by which California's government can raise money it does not yet have for various projects.  For example, imagine California wants to build a dam, but can't afford to do so.  The state has three choices: raise taxes to pay for the dam, borrow the money, or do without the dam.  If the government really wants the dam but isn't willing to raise taxes, that only leaves borrowing.  It can do this by selling a billion dollars' worth of bonds.  People may buy the bonds, but people are entitled to a return on their investment - after all, if I lend the state money, and the state promises to pay me back in fifteen years, I don't want back what I loaned the state; I want it back with some interest.  That's only fair.  If you disagree, and you think expecting interest is wrong and people should only get back what they invest, then I want to borrow money from you for some home improvements, and I'll pay you back in fifteen years.

So, let's continue to imagine that the state sells a billion dollars in bonds (that is, borrows a billion dollars from people willing to lend it), and spends that billion to build the dam.  Let's get really imaginative and pretend there are no cost overruns.  Now the state has a dam and owes a billion dollars, plus interest on that billion.  How will the state ever pay back its debt?  The state has only one method to get the money: through taxes.  

A bond, then, is a gamble by the citizens of a state that, although we don't have enough to pay for a project now because of our financial condition, we'll be in better financial condition fifteen years from now when the debt must be paid.  Not only that, its a gamble that by that time, our financial condition will be so much better that it justifies going into debt now and paying the added money we'll have to tack on in the form of interest.

It is precisely this thinking that has gotten families trapped in unmanageable credit card debt, or enslaved to borrowing against the value of their homes to get things now that they are unwilling to wait for and save for.  It is why so many people are in economic bondage.  It is why so many families wind up choosing between being crushed by their amassed debt and welching on their creditors through bankruptcy.

It is also precisely this thinking that has allowed our legislators to spend our taxes stupidly, with all the restraint of drunken sailors in a foreign port on payday.  When our elected officials piddle away the money we entrust to them because they think to themselves "it's okay, we can always issue bonds and borrow against the taxes on the next generation," then we the taxpayers are in trouble, and we suddenly understand why the Boston Tea Party was such a great idea.  Our legislature is profligate, and I frankly wouldn't lend our government lunch money or cabfare.

For that reason, it is the policy of STAND to oppose bond measures as a general rule.  First, there would need to be an extremely good reason to go into debt, and second, I think we the people are entitled to see some serious financial restraint - that is, to see the legislature demonstrate they are responsible enough in their spending habits to justify an increase in their allowance - before allowing them to borrow against our future.

Finally, voters seem to have a short memory.  Over the last twenty years, how many bond issues have we approved for clean water? For school building repair?  For a variety of other noble causes?  Where did all that money go?  If we've already paid for clean water and fixed up schools, then why don't we have them, and why are we being asked to pay for it again?

Now, to the issues:

Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection.  YES.  Years ago, we agreed to increased taxes on gasoline to be specifically spent on transportation issues - new and repaired roads, for example.  The government, flouting the will of the people, raided these funds for other unintended spending.  We agreed to the taxes for specific purposes, and we're entitled to the government keeping its end of the deal.  A YES vote forces the government to do so.

Proposition 1B: Transportation Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.

Proposition 1C: Housing and Shelter Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.  It's not the job of the government to house the public at the expense of those of us who work and pay taxes to pay for our own housing.

Proposition 1D: Education Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.  And we've paid for this, many times over.  Government does a lousy job of educating, and I for one am tired of pouring money into this varacious black hole.

Proposition 1E: Disaster and Flood Bond.  NO OPINION.  I don't know enough about how bad the condition of the levees really is.  The results of a flood could be catastrophic.  This may be one of those rare situations which justify the indebtedness.  If the roof of your house leaks and the storms are coming, it probably is cost effective to borrow against your house now to put on a new roof.  Let's talk about this.

Proposition 83: Restrictions on Sex Offenders.  YES.  We have an epidemic of perverts who prey on our children.  If they think this is too harsh a punishment, then they need to think twice before diddling your eight-year-old daughter, or go do it somewhere else.

Proposition 84: Water Quality Bond.  NO.  It's a bond.  See above.

Proposition 85: Teen Abortions.  YES.  Not just YES, but HELL, YES.  Opponents of this one have raised lots of straw-man arguments against it.  I would love to debate this one with anyone who disagrees with me.  I dare you.  This proposition acknowledges the right of parents to parental authority in their families.  It's really no more difficult than that.

Proposition 86: Cigarette Tax.  NO.  When the tax on a product is more than the price of the product itself, that's a clear sign of government greed.  Second, taxing a product to support and subsidize a particular industry or to conduct social engineering is simply wrong.

Proposition 87: Energy Tax.  NO.  This will produce no results other than to fund a very expensive and unaccountable bureaucracy, and shows a plain wrong-headed notion than flies in the face of the simplest principles of economics.

Proposition 88: Education Property Tax.  NO.  More money down the rathole of a failed education system.  Period.

Proposition 89: Public Campaign Financing.  NO.  Campaign funding - the voluntary donation of money to conduct a political campaign - is the role of citizens who support a candidacy.  Collectivization of assets and redistribution of them by the government to accomplish this is not where this belongs.  Wait for my discussion of the First Amendment; we'll go into detail on what I mean.

Proposition 90: Eminent Domain.  YES.  Kelo is a blantant abuse of the law of eminent domain.  This measure prohibits the government from more such takings.

The election is just days away.  Read the issues and decide for yourselves.  If you disagree with any position, tell me why - this is the forum to discuss it.  Whichever way you decide, whether you agree with me or not, vote. 

- Keith