This article is from Cal-Tax Digest, published
by the California Taxpayers' Association.
Cal-Tax Home Page | About Cal-Tax | Subscribe

The governor and Legislature have placed billions of dollars in state bonds on next year's ballot for voter approval. Buoyed by the overwhelming public support received by last November's record $9.2 billion school construction bond, lawmakers and the governor approved a $2.1 billion parks and open space bond, a $1.97 billion water facilities and flood control bond, and a $350 million public library construction bond for the March 7, 2000 ballot. In addition, an $8 billion transportation construction bond championed by state Senate leader John Burton - which was pulled late in the 1999 legislative session - is likely to resurface next year.

While lawmakers and special interests have clearly pinned their hopes on a growing crop of big state bond measures, the outcome of this new era of borrowing remains uncertain at best. The first and most significant hurdle is the voter. Was the success of school bonds a harbinger of things to come, or will voters surprise the pundits by being more discriminating about bonds in 2000?

That the state needs to spend well beyond its current means for repairs and new construction projects is now the conventional wisdom in state policy circles.

The California Business Roundtable estimates that more than $90 billion must be spent on California's outdated and overburdened infrastructure in the next 10 years, including transportation projects, public schools, colleges, prisons, water projects and other public facilities. With only about $35.6 billion available for infrastructure investment from "pay- as-you-go" sources like the budget surplus, bonds are an attractive option. The state treasurer's report says the state has the debt capacity to safely borrow up to $32.5 billion over the next 10 years, including $14.7 billion in state bonds that have been authorized but not issued.

Not surprisingly, state politicians have concluded that the easiest thing to do in a situation where revenue projections fall far short of infrastructure investments is to ask the voters to pass state bonds. Voters are seen as more inclined to pass bond measures - essentially allowing more debt to go on the state credit card - than to pass tax increases. Indeed, voters continue to tell pollsters that they are overtaxed and don't trust their elected officials to spend their tax money wisely.

Moreover, a state bond is less difficult to pass than a local bond. In California, all you need to pass a state bond is a simple majority (50 percent plus one) of voters; by contrast, a local bond must jump the difficult hurdle of a two-thirds majority.

These conclusions may be good in theory, but they may not come to pass in reality. The public's enthusiasm for school bonds last year was a special case that had little to do with the voters being in a generous mood.

Californians care deeply about their schools these days. Last fall, statewide surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that schools were the No. 1 issue for voters. Equally important, two in three voters believed that the state was not giving enough funding to public schools. Given this context, it is easy to understand why a state bond for fixing California's schools could garner strong support.

Unlike school bonds, the state bond issues looming for next year tackle issues that are not even on the public's radar screen. In the Public Policy Institute's most recent statewide survey, 1 percent named water, 1 percent mentioned transportation and traffic, and 3 percent named environmental issues such as parks and open space as the biggest problems facing the state today. Most Californians remain singly focused on education as the top state issue, and most still believe that their local schools are shortchanged by the state.

Mark Baldassare is a senior fellow and survey director of the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. The results of the statewide survey appear on the institute's website, (www.ppic.org). This commentary is reprinted with permission of The Sacramento Bee. It appeared in The Bee's October 10 Forum section.

So, if state officials are banking on strong voter enthusiasm for infrastructure bonds, the institute's statewide survey tells us they may be in for a big disappointment. In fact, Californians are telling us they are generally satisfied with their local parks, open space and water. And while they also say that their local traffic is bad, the number complaining about transportation varies sharply from region to region.

The result is that many of the state's infrastructure problems do not register at the statewide level. Simply put, there is no public groundswell of support for the state bonds that will be on the ballot next year.

It also appears that much of the bond optimism at the state Capitol relies on voters being more willing to say "yes" in good economic times. Indeed, the public is bullish about the future: Six in 10 Californians in our latest survey say the state is headed in the right direction, and three in four expect the good times to continue.

But these exuberant attitudes have a dark side as well. Our latest survey finds a growing apathy about government and public affairs. It will be no easy task to get voters motivated to pass infrastructure bonds when few are worried about tomorrow. What will happen when voters are confronted with a ballot stuffed with many bond measures and billions of dollars in borrowing? They could well get suspicious and reject them all.

State voters desperately need some leadership on the issues concerning the state's infrastructure. They certainly won't get it from the bond proponents, who are concentrating on self-serving strategies to assure their own success on a crowded ballot. The public needs someone to tell them what to expect from the future, as well as what needs to be done to accommodate California's inevitable growth.

Given his strong standing with the public, Governor Gray Davis has the opportunity to create a broad dialogue on these critical issues, if he chooses to step up to the plate. He'd be wise to try. After all, Governor Davis' place in history will be determined by his ability to bring his vision to bear on the state's future.