California Election 2008: Proposition 1A
October 20th, 2008As the first in a series of posts, let me give you a little background on what we’re doing, and where I come from when I decide how to vote on ballot measures.
Everyday for the next 12 days Geeky Weekly and I will post about the props in order at right around 6 pm. Now I’ve got a baby, and I know Geeky Weekly has a life, so if they don’t come at precisely that time, you’ll have to forgive us. We’re posting these completely independent of each other, so it will be interesting to see if there are any differences of opinion.
Before I post about Prop 1A, let me give you a little background on my approach. For the most part, if a ballot measure has the word “bond” anywhere in it, I usually vote no. In case you don’t know how bonds work, it’s basically the government taking out a loan. They sell the bonds now at a certain price, and then pay them back later with interest. I’m not sure if all bonds are sold at the same promised interest rate, but as you’ll see in this post, the bond measure for Prop 1A costs twice as much as it should (because of interest). I understand that for some “big” projects it makes sense to take out a loan, much like a homeowner doesn’t usually buy a house outright, but takes a loan and makes payments. The problem with California selling more bonds, is that we’re broke! Until Sacramento makes healthy spending decisions, there is no way I can support a bond measure that will saddle us with moe debt in the future.
Beyond bond measures, most propositions are either social issues or “fluff.” For the social issues, I of course lean to the conservative side, so you won’t be surprised there. For the “fluff” factor, anybody and their mother can get a proposition on the ballot, and I can’t remember seeing one in the last eight years that makes government bureaucracy smaller. So unless something about it strikes me as an important issue, I’m probably a no on anything that just adds to the size of government because some self-interest felt it needed to be on the ballot.
With all of that being said, here are the main places I’m looking to for how to vote. A great resource for a conservative point of view is Tom McClintock. You can also read the pro and con arguments in the Voter Guide. I’m even looking at the LA Times, but mainly because it lists a lot of donors, which can be a good indicator of whether or not I agree.
Now on to the props!
Prop 1A – SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT
My Summary: This would authorize the sale of $10 billion dollars in bonds to help fund a bullet train between Orange County and San Francisco. The estimated cost of the actual train is $45 billion.
My Opinion: There are a couple problems with this, the first being that it’s a bond measure. The $10 billion dollars in bonds will end up costing $20 billion. As a state we already have over $100 billion in bond debt, so should we really approve more? My other problem is, do we really need this? Like many in So Cal I’m stuck thinking about how far I want to live from work because the freeways are so congested, but instead of fixing that issue we’re trying to spend money on a bullet train? Are there that many people that need to commute between San Fran and LA? I highly doubt it. My last big problem is, I can’t find where the other $35 billion dollars is supposed to come from. From the voter guide: “Section 8(e) says the bond funds are “. . . intended to encourage the federal government and the private sector to make a significant contribution toward the construction…” So they want they state to go further into debt, when they don’t even have the rest of the money to complete the project? The whole thing sounds like a joke.
Bottom Line: This is a prime example of why the government is so pathetic at accomplishing anything. Until Sacramento can balance the books, I refuse to support bond measures. The proponents of the prop claim that it won’t raise taxes, but don’t be fooled. If it weren’t for the $100 billion in debt we are right now, there would be no budget crisis. The ballot measure itself might not raise taxes, but when it saddles the state with debt, someone will have to pay for it. Right now I don’t trust the politicians in Sacramento to cut anything, and when push comes to shove, the only alternative is to raise taxes.
I am voting NO on Prop 1A.
Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 1A.
How wonderfully synchronized! They both popped up in reader at the same time.
Great idea I look forward to reading your take on all the props.
Just a side note I think you might be surprised how many make that commute from LA to SF. Why do you think Southwest has a flight to SF every half hour. Just saying. I’m still voting NO.
I think its going to be interesting hearing your perspective on all the props because I’ve already voted.
On this proposition, I am very supportive of the idea. I think that we need to definitely change the way Californians view transportation, and a better train system would be a beneficial step in the right direction. But the convenience of cars is an endemic social norm that isn’t going to be changed by an insufficient bond issue that pays for only a portion of the train. The benefits don’t outweigh the costs.
As for how many people make the commute from LA to SF…I’d love to see some stats. A boeing 737 that southwest flies holds 189 people based on what I can find. Assuming 48 flights if they go every half hour of every day, and ignoring people returning home the same day…that’s about 9000 people. That’s also ignoring that the middle of the night flights probably aren’t as full. I’m not factoring in other airlines though.
Another way to look at it…Andrew quoted a figure of around $1 billion dollars a year to operate it. Obviously as John pointed out, a plane ride would be the most direct competition. At $1 billion a year that’s about $2.7 million a day. The cheapest southwest ticket I see at a long notice is $69 round trip. Assuming they charged the same price for the train, they would need almost 40k people to ride it each day just to break even. So even if you assume that 40k people make the trip everyday…why would you pay the same price for a slower trip?
Of course, all of the above is super speculative, but the sad part is that none of this is broken down in the bill. When voters have to vote on a bond measure like this, it’s essentially like making a business deal. No business venture in the private sector would be so poorly planned or laid out. I shouldn’t have to be calculating how many people would take the dumb thing, because that should already be figured out.
And Trent, I think it’s going to be interesting reading your responses. So far I’ve gotten that you don’t like that the bonds are insufficient, but you do think cars are a disease to society.
Even if it was a bond for 48 billion plus an additional 10 billion for the operating budget for the first ten years, I wouldn’t vote for it. I, like you, don’t vote for bond unless I deem it absolutely necessary.
What I’m saying is that the idea is good, but any plausible execution, besides having a private company build and run it, is not. I didn’t say disease, I said endemic social norm. I think that Californians love their cars, and while it would be nice to have more cars off the roads (don’t you agree) a tax payer funded bullet train is not going to do the trick.
Sounds like we’re on the same page then.
An improved train system would be awesome. I love the train. Currently you can ride from Bakersfield to Fresno for $19. But this prop isn’t an improvement. If a state is going to spend money, especially money it doesn’t have, there needs to be more of a return to the state. Like when New York financed and built the Erie Canal. They spent $10 million and within the first several years it was completely paid off and in fact turning a profit of $3 million a year. And that was in early 1800’s dollars. There now you all benefit from my history classes. But seriously, a bullet train? That is like the people in Section 8 housing that have an Escalade in the driveway. You might think you’re cool, but you’ve actually set yourself back instead of moving forward.
Eh, I would absolutely love to disagree with you Nathan (come on, when do I not?) but I think you’re right on this.
Being in Europe for these last two months has made me fall madly in love with wonderful public transportation and I would love to see the values represented here transfer to an American practice. However, this hope isn’t enough to make money come out of the air with which to pay for something of this caliber. I guess we just hope that Sac-town gets it’s act together so that wonderful things, like decent and reliable public transportation, can come from periphery spending, and not through a reliance on bonds.
Ugh, I support the blarg’s position on Proposition 1a. Let’s see how many others we agree on.
What we really need is a bullet train from LA to Vegas.
I’ve heard about that bullet train idea for many years, not sure why it has never materialized.