Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 32

PROPONENTS' CLAIM that the Cal-Vet loan program operates "entirely without cost to the California taxpayer" IS NOT TRUE.

Raising money by selling tax-free bonds results in a loss of revenue (from income on other possible investments that would be taxed) to both the state treasury and the federal treasury. This is explained in the main argument against Proposition 32 on the opposite page.

The question is whether continuing the Cal-Vet program is worth its high cost.

On this point, PROPONENTS' CLAIM that the program has assisted "wartime veterans" IS MISLEADING. Most California veterans have not been able to obtain assistance through the Cal-Vet loan program precisely because the program is not limited to war "time" veterans, or persons who served in actual combat, or veterans who became disabled by serving in the military.

Even someone who stayed at home in the National Guard is a qualified "veteran" under the Cal-Vet loan program.

Presidential candidate George W. Bush of Texas, who joined in his state's "Air" National Guard instead of going to fight the War in Vietnam, is technically a "veteran." But would he deserve a subsidized home loan for such service?

Instead of funding another half-billion dollars in low-interest loans for the purchase of "homes and farms" for relatively small number of persons in the broad category of "veterans," let's spend money on programs limited to the most deserving and needy people—such as persons who became disabled in military combat.

MELVIN L. EMERICH
Attorney at Law