Now I will start reviewing the eight initiatives for California's General Election this November. For those interested in doing their own independent research, I suggest the CA Secretart of States Voter Information Guide, which provides short summaries of each initiative as well as pro and con arguments (each with a rebuttal) from both sides of the issue. It's surprisingly easy to read and understand and not that time consuming. I didn't read the actual text of most of the initiatives as there is too much legalese, the summaries are good enough for me.

Proposition 32: Veterans' Bond Act of 2000.

This initiative allows the state government to issue $500 Million in bonds. The money will be used for home and farm loans for California Wartime Veterans. The total cost of $858 Million (which includes paying back the bonds plus administrative costs) will in theory be paid back by the borrowers. Note that this is a continuation of a fund that started in 1921 and has helped 400 000+ veterans.

The Pro argument is that this doesn't cost taxpayers any money. The veterans pay back everything over a period of 25 years for this particular bond issue. It also continues the California commitment to aid its veterans, as they all sacrificed in order to protect our state and country.

The Con argument is that the bond does cost taxpayers money. The people who buy the low interest bonds could instead be investing in our economy, which would increase taxable incomes. So there is an opportunity loss there. The Cons also point to the lax requirements for a loan, saying that anyone who served in the US or California National Guard during wartime is qualified, including people like Texas Governor George Bush who ducked out of Vietnam service by enlisting with the Texas National Guard. There is also the fact that not all loans are repaid, so the state government eats those losses at the expense of taxpayers.

Pro counters that the people who buy state bonds aren't going to use that money to invest in the economy, they'll invest in other low interest/high security options, with no guarantee that they'll use that money in California anyway. I also add that even if you served in the National Guard, even in wartime, that still involves a good amount of sacrifice since you could easily be called up for war duty. I actually think that these loans should be provided to any veteran, regardless of wartime status or not, but that would probably include too many people and require a much larger bond.

On another note, one of the things I don't like about some arguments is the "although I agree with the sentiment of this proposition, I can't support the methods used" sort of argument. It's the "let's be nitpicky and find a minor reason to not support this proposal" sort of behavior that I don't like. If you don't like the semantics of the proposal, propose and alternative. No proposal is devoid of flaws, everything a large organization does will have some abuses and inefficiencies (and this applies to private as well as public institutions).

Helping veterans is a good thing, something that we owe to them. Not issuing the bond so that people can spend more money on our economy ignores the fact that the approach doesn't directly help veterans. It reminds me of the trickle down theory: help the people who are well off because those people will help the less fortunate through their spending and donations. It doesn't work nearly that perfectly, you have to be more direct.

My US Government teacher said that "politics in essence is taking money from one group to give to another group". I suppose that there always has to be a dissenting point of view, but voting no because they think that some unworthy veterans, by their definition (which I argue with), will get money not due them ignores the good that this program has been doing for 79 years.