It's that wonderful time of year again and I'm going to post my critical analysis of the propositions on the ballot. We've got 12 to consider this time and some of them aren't exactly insignificant. I'll do my best to cut through the you know what and present the facts and the conclusions that they lead me to. The Blarg is posting his analysis at the same time every night too (we're writing ahead of time so we have no idea what each of us will say), so check his view out too.
PROP 1A - SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT
First up is Proposition 1A, a $10 billion bond to start the creation of a high speed rail system throughout California. They slip the most important word in at the end of the title, BOND. Who wouldn't want a safe, reliable high-speed passenger train system? It would actually be nice to be able to take the train up to grandma's in Turlock or head up to Frisco for the weekend. So how could anyone actually be against this?
Let's look at the bond this proposition authorizes:
- Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area.
- State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year.
- When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.
$10 billion bond that will cost about $10 billion to pay off. Our state budget deficit this year is in the ballpark of $10 billion. That $20 billion just covers the first phase of the project and they're predicting it will take "$45 billion" to complete the entire system. If we have to issue bonds for all of that the cost would be nearly $90 billion, that's getting close to the total yearly budget for California.
Even though it sounds like a great idea I have to say NO. We are in no position to add mandatory spending into our budget and after this year's budget debacle it makes zero sense to put more pressure on a state that is already heavily burdened.
How wonderfully synchronized! They both popped up in reader at the same time.
So far we agree! :)
I finally sat down and browsed all of them today. If I can start reading ahead hopefully I’ll make better posts.
Just checking to see if my “logged in” comment looks any different from the above.
No…it’s the same. :)