Those other bonds

We've spent a lot of time talking about the HISD bond referendum, but there are numerous other bond proposals on the ballot this fall. The Chron takes a look at some of them.

On Nov. 6, voters will be asked to approve $9.7 billion in debt, including $6.75 billion in the four bond proposals. The other $3 billion in a separate proposal would fund a new foray into cancer research.

Bond advocates say the proposals serve the greater good and it makes sense to use bonds, with many going to infrastructure improvements that are traditionally funded by borrowing.

But some fiscal conservative groups are wary or outright opposed, including Americans For Prosperity-Texas, which is fighting every bond proposal on the ballot.

"Every government bond is a delayed tax increase. Every dollar spent by government and every bond issued by government equates to a job lost or a paycheck cut in the private sector," said Peggy Venable, director of the group.

That's some pretty incredible logic there. Given that the Texas government spends in excess of fifty billion dollars every year, I'd love to see Ms. Venable's data to back up that assertion about job loss. We must have a hell of a lot of jobs to begin with if we can withstand that. We'd also never build any roads or bridges or schools or hospitals or many other things if we never issued bonds. Call me crazy, but I think not having roads might have a negative impact on the economy as well.

In contrast to one-issue propositions, there's something for almost everyone in Proposition 4, which would authorize up to $1 billion in bonds for construction and repairs for state facilities including a new Texas Youth Commission unit, repairs for state parks and the Battleship Texas, courthouse renovations and a new driver training facility for state troopers.

"It gives us an opportunity to long-term finance our capital investment," said Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, chairman of the budget-writing House Appropriations Committee.

Venable, however, gave a thumbs down: "Though many of these projects appear deserving of some funding, with a state budget surplus, we should not be obligating bonds/future taxpayers to fund them."

Of course, a big chunk of our current surplus is money set aside till the next biennium to pay for further property tax reductions. I wouldn't be opposed to paying for these obligations out of general revenue instead of via bonds if that meant scaling back the property tax cuts - I believe Scott McCown made a similar point about Prop 15 - but I have a sneaking suspicion Peggy Venable wouldn't like that. Hell, I suspect she'd have found a reason to object to the spending regardless of the method of payment.

Michael Quinn Sullivan of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility said voters should carefully consider whether borrowing is appropriate when they look at each of the bond proposals.

"Bonds are tax increases on our children," he said. " ... The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Is what I'm getting for this bond purchase ... going to have a sustained value and a public good that is greater than the final cost?"

One could make the exact same argument about the property tax cuts. It's all a question of priorities, isn't it?

For more information about all of the state ballot proposals, see Rep. Scott Hochberg's resource page.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 15, 2007 to Election 2007