Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998.
	Argument against Proposition 1A

Proposition 1A will cost taxpayers $9.2 billion in principal and $6.0 billion in interest--a total of $15 billion over the life of this bond.

Yes, taxpayers will be obligated to repay $15,000,000,000.00!

• It obligates an average family of four to repay $2,000 through their taxes to retire this debt. Bonds are the state's charge card, and California families are obligated to repay the full amount just as surely as if it appeared on their personal credit card statements.
• It is three times larger than the largest bond measure in California's history.
• It is almost as large as the total of all the state K-12 school bonds that have been approved since 1982 added together.
• It adds $750 million of new spending to the state's general fund every year for the next 20 years--spending that cannot be repealed.

And here's the real tragedy: the politicians could easily have used the state surplus for immediate pay-as-you-go school construction. Paying for all of this year's school needs from surplus funds would have saved California taxpayers $700 million in interest costs alone. Instead, they spent the surplus on political pork projects for their districts, and now want to stick taxpayers with billions of dollars in interest costs.

The approval of this bond means that almost five cents of every state tax dollar will be consumed by debt service--twice the rate of a decade ago.

As economies around the world struggle to regain sound footings, this is not the time to start California down the road to massive, huge crippling debt service. Passage of this measure would take debt service in California perilously close to the 5.4 cents per dollar in debt payments, which caused national credit rating agencies to reduce the City of Philadelphia to junk bond status.

In the 1950's and 60's, when the population grew twice as fast as today, Californians financed their school construction needs through local bond measures and pay-as-you-go financing. Instead, today's profligate politicians have run up record levels of debt that guarantee higher taxes and crumbling infrastructure for many years to come.

If the politicians were serious about building more schools, pay-as-you-go financing would build 70 percent more for the dollar than will this bond.

A "NO" vote will force legislators to behave responsibly and enact pay-as-you-go financing and cost containment measures.

ASSEMBLYMAN TOM MCCLINTOCK LEWIS K. UHLER
President, National Tax Limitation Committee EDWARD J. "TED" COSTA
C.E.O., People's Advocate Inc.

Proposition 1A | Rebuttal to Argument in Favor | Proposition 1A | Rebuttal to Argument Against |