|
By Jon Coupal
In the arguments and advertising in support of Proposition 13 on the March 3 ballot, the proponents are trying to convince the voters it is all “for the kids.” As with previous education ballot measures in California, a parade of disasters is predicted unless the proposal in question is approved.
True to form, the opening argument set forth in the official voter information guide intones ominously, “Despite research showing students learn better in classrooms which are modern and safe, too many school buildings are dilapidated, unsafe, and unhealthy. Thousands remain at risk of wildfires or earthquakes. Others are contaminated with lead, mold, asbestos, and other hazardous materials.”
Really?
The first question taxpayers should ask is if things are this bad, where has all the previously voter-approved bond money gone? Let’s review some recent school bond measures already authorized by voters: Prop. 1A in 1998 ($9.2 billion); Prop. 47 in 2002 ($13.05 billion); Prop. 55 in 2004 ($12.3 billion); Prop. 1D in 2006 ($10.4 billion); and Prop. 51 in 2016 ($9 billion). In addition to tens of billions of dollars in new debt, there’s a nearly equal amount owed in interest costs.
But perhaps the allegedly unsafe conditions are merely a cover to conceal what this is really all about. The proponents of this year’s Proposition 13 are spending millions on advertising (featuring, of course, the obligatory firefighter) in an effort to convince voters that “our kids deserve better.” Turns out that the big funders of the more than $6 million in campaign costs have a lot to gain from more debt and higher spending.
To continue reading, please click here.
A note to our valued members and supporters: To increase the reach of our message to as many Californians as possible, HJTA made an agreement with the Southern California News Group papers to carry Jon Coupal's weekly column. The newspapers in the group, including the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Daily News, have added a paywall that allows only a limited number of page views per month, and then asks readers to become subscribers. HJTA is not marketing these subscriptions or receiving any payment from them. The columns are exclusive to SCNG's papers for one week and then are posted in full on HJTA's own website, www.hjta.org, under "California Commentaries," where you can read them at your convenience. Thank you for your understanding.
For your convenience, here are links to the opinion pages of all the SCNG papers:
www.whittierdailynews.com/opinion
www.dailybulletin.com/opinion
www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/opinion
www.sgvtribune.com/opinion
www.ocregister.com/opinion
www.pe.com/opinion
www.dailynews.com/opinion
www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinion
www.sbsun.com/opinion
www.dailybreeze.com/opinion
www.presstelegram.com/opinion
|
