On March 2nd California voters are being presented with four propositions. Here is my take on this year's selection.

Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004. BOND ACT PUT ON THE BALLOT BY THE LEGISLATURE. This $12,300,000,000 bond will provide funds for eliminating overcrowding and the repair of older schools. New classrooms are needed for the colleges and universities to accommodate the growing student population. The state's cost, $12.4 billion principal and interest, payments amount to $823million per year.

Background: K-12 receives general obligation funds from state and local school districts. The Orange Unified School District is putting a $200 million bond act on the ballot this year. Los Angeles County already passed two large school bonds in 2003, as did Orange County. Immigration will fuel the need to continually build more schools in California. Building schools by bond methods doubles the cost by paying for lawyers, Wall Street bond traders, and bureaucrats (Senator Rico Oller) Bond funds are paid with tax dollars. "Proposition 55 targets funds where they are most needed because of overcrowding and rundown facilities," so the advocates assure us. This means of course that Los Angeles will receive a larger share of the money due to their overabundance of immigrant students. The Chamber of Commerce and various school agencies support this legislation. Recommend a NO vote on 55.

State Budget, Related taxes, and Reserve, voting Requirements, Penalties, Initiative, Constitutional Amendment and Statue. 56 PUT ON THE BALLOT BY PETITION SIGNATURES. Essentially this is a measure to allow the legislature to raise our taxes with a 55% vote instead of following Proposition 13 which requires a 2/3rds majority. There are several sugar lumps included along with faulty reasoning to induce passage of this bond: "It will create jobs, end gridlock (easier to pass taxes with a 55% vote) legislators won't receive extra pay for staying overtime during budget talks, and it requires a balanced budget." What will really happen: Higher taxes on everything from income, car and gas taxes, higher parcel taxes on homeowners, taxes on seniors and families, and higher taxes on small business. This is a blank check proposition. Do we want to make it easier for politicians in Sacramento to increase our taxes? Recommend NO on 56

The Economic Recovery Bond Act. BOND ACT PUT ON THE BALLOT BY THE LEGISLATURE. Presently this deficit bond is being challenged in court and hasn't been issued (this is why they need Proposition 58 enacted to make 57 legal) The carryover 2002-03 deficit is being financed through short-term borrowing that must be repaid in June 2004. Proponents say this will consolidate the deficit and put California on the road to economic recovery. It will stop drastic cuts in education and health care and won't raise taxes. Arguments against 57 state it won't end the deficit and plunge the state deeper in debt. The $15 billion in principal plus the added billions in interest will cost more than $2000 per family. As for not raising taxes, where is the money coming from to pay the $15 billion in loans besides the billions in interest? The only thing that will save the state is to cut spending. Budget projections for next year is an out of control $90.2 billion up from 57 billion five years ago. Recommend a NO vote on 57.

Governor Schwarzenegger has mentioned that both propositions 57 and 58 must be passed together. We haven't been told why. There is a specific reason these propositions are dependent upon each other. Since 1849, a provision of the State Constitution has limited long-term borrowing to projects like schools, parks or water projects that serve coming generations. Proposition 58 will nullify that requirement to "allow the government to steal from the future." The Constitution prohibits long-term borrowing to be used to balance the budget but that is just what Proposition 58 is tailored to do. Unless the State Constitution is changed, a positive vote on 57 would be meaningless.

Proposition 58 is bad legislation by itself. Named the Balanced Budget Act it doesn't even require Sacramento to actually balance the budget nor set spending limits. This Proposition's only use is to justify selling bonds to cover the deficit by amending the State Constitution. A no vote on 58.