Veterans Homes Bond Act of 2000.
	Argument Against Proposition 16

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

In an orgy of spending, California legislators passed an $81 billion budget for Fiscal Year 2000. That's up from $63 billion just four years ago. There was a $4 billion budget surplus this year. That's money that should have been refunded to taxpayers. In fact, each family could have received over $330 to spend as they chose. But instead most of our legislators--Democrat and Republican alike--found ways to spend this money on new government programs.

What does this have to do with Proposition 16? Well, if the legislators had an extra $4 billion to play around with, why didn't they spend a relatively paltry $50 million of it (about 1.25% of the surplus) on the proposed veterans homes--and save us more election costs?

No, they couldn't do that. They had to spend it immediately. Now if voters say "yes" on Proposition 16, the veterans homes won't just cost $50 million. BONDS ALMOST DOUBLE THE COST OF ANY GOVERNMENT PROJECT. Taxpayers will have to pay the interest on these bonds for the next 25 years. So, at the end, we'll be out about $90 million.

So we see that this proposal would have cost a lot less if it was paid for out of the current budget. But let's ask: do we really need to build these veterans homes at all?

The federal government, under the Department of Veterans Affairs, provides generous benefits to our veterans--from medical care, to job training, to college education, to no money down home loans. There's really no need for the State of California to provide any veterans benefits.

There are 1525 veterans currently staying at veterans homes in Yountville and Barstow. This is not a big number. Proposition 16 seeks funds to build even more of these small facilities. It's highly likely that these veterans receive a pension from the federal government, and perhaps from a career subsequent to their military service. Should California taxpayers be providing them with shelter? It seems as if they and their families could arrange this privately.

Even if we concede that California taxpayers should pay to house veterans, the veterans could stay at privately-owned retirement facilities. Whenever the government is involved in a building project, it costs a lot more than a private enterprise project. Governments require an expensive approval process, then require contractors to pay the prevailing union wage for construction, which is more than the low bidder would pay. The losers: the taxpayers.

Send a message to legislators. There are alternatives to spending tax money on veterans homes. There also should be some punishment for squandering a hefty budget surplus, instead of refunding it to taxpayers, or even spending it on this relatively small project. Please vote NO on Proposition 16.

GAIL K. LIGHTFOOT
Past Chair, Libertarian Party of California

TED BROWN
Insurance Adjuster/Investigator

LARRY HINES
U. S. Marine Corps Veteran

Proposition 16 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop 17 | Secretary of State Home |