Most state bonds suffer from similar flaws. They promise to fix every manner of problem by “investing” billions of dollars without increasing anyone’s tax bill. However, they rack up state debt and spend money inefficiently, which is why we oppose them except in the rare instances they are targeted at a critical long-term infrastructure project that can’t realistically be funded another way.
Bonds also create pressure for politicians to raise taxes in the future as debt payments crowd out the discretionary budget. The state already owes installments on around $84 billion in bond debt. Lawmakers continue to put additional measures on the ballot because, well, it’s politically easier to float debt than make tough choices about cutting elsewhere.
Proposition 4 would spend $10 billion on various climate-resiliency programs. It is one of two bond measures on the November ballot – the other being a $10-billion (Proposition 2) bond to build schools and colleges. Both were placed on the ballot with two-thirds votes of the Legislature. Per analyses, borrowing $10 billion could divert around $400 million from the budget each year, take 40 years to repay and cost $19 billion to pay off.
We’ll deal with Prop. 2 in a separate editorial, but we can’t see anything in Prop. 4 that justifies such a massive long-term spending commitment. For starters, the very existence of the measure highlights the state Legislature’s profligacy. After having blown through an unprecedented $97.5-billion budget surplus two years ago, the state faced a nearly $47-billion deficit. Instead of cutting programs to fund its climate agenda, lawmakers are trying to offload these costs in a massive bond.
That’s fiscally irresponsible. As with all bonds, backers make grandiose promises. They say Prop. 4 will improve water supply, boost water quality for low-income communities, reduce wildfire risks, help farmers resist the effects of climate change, protect coastal areas from sea-level rise, expand parks and improve energy infrastructure. The state needs improved water and more reliable energy supplies, of course, but it won’t get much of value from this bond.
Related Articles
Endorsement: Yes on Prop. 3 to affirm the state constitutional right to marriage
Little money goes to traditional water-infrastructure projects. The state has been talking about fixing the shameful lack of potable water in some impoverished parts of the San Joaquin Valley for decades, yet no solution ever actually materializes. Much of the energy money goes toward building wind turbines off the coast. The state will offer resiliency loans to local governments. Stop us when you hear projects so compelling they require $19 billion in repayments.
As CalMatters explained, “Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates have been clamoring for increased spending on climate change and the environment in recent years,” after lawmakers cut nearly $10 billion from the governor’s $54-billion climate package in 2022. This gives the game away. Labor unions are salivating at the extra windfall. Sadly, there’s little organized opposition to the bond.
Some say it could save money, as the Legislative Analyst’s Office notes, “to the extent the bond funds result in completing activities that reduce the risk or amount of damage from disasters,” but that’s a grasping-at-straws justification for dumping billions into a giant money pit. Like most bond proposals, Prop. 4 is fiscally irresponsible. But it isn’t just like other proposals – it’s actually much worse. We urge a “no” vote.
