IF I WERE KING! In other words, what change would I make if I were in charge and had the power to implement such a change unilaterally. What would I do with laws that require a referendum to issue bonds?

 

Quite frankly, I would abolish all such laws. In the United States, we are supposed to believe in a representative form of government. In that form of government, an individual is elected to represent his or her constituents. That representative is expected to dig deeply into the issues, learn the facts and take action that is in the best interest of those constituents (or at least the majority of them as it is rare that everyone agrees with anything). If that action involves building a new elementary school or a new jail and that project requires the issuance of bonds to fund it, the representative should be required to make the appropriate decision and be held accountable for that decision.

 

I have observed a board take well over 24 months to study an issue including what is the issue, how did it develop and how can it be addressed. After substantial discussion and debate, a decision is made. If that decision is placed on a ballot for the electorate, the political subdivision or its supporters will be required to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to attempt to educate and persuade the electorate to support the bond issue. What that really comes down to is the board trying to compress 24 months of study into a 60 second commercial or sound bite. That is a waste of time, energy and money. If there truly is a need, it will not go away just because it doesn't pass the election. Not only will the need survive, the direct and indirect cost of addressing the need will usually increase over time.

 

But why are you borrowing money to fund the project, you might ask. Why not pay as you go? The new facility will serve the community for the next 25 years before it needs substantial renovation. In many cases, this number is closer to 40 or 50 years. Why should today's taxpayers bear the burden of paying for a facility that will benefit taxpayers for years to come. That is why projects are financed. It is a way to spread the cost over the people who will benefit. Saving money for 15 years to finance something in cash is forcing the burden on people who may never benefit at all from the facility. More importantly, it is very difficult to keep up with changes in design, technology and cost over that time period.

 

But what about the tea party members who are opposed to taxation. First of all, if that is their position, they need to change their name. The original tea party members back in the 1770's were not against taxation. They were against taxation without representation. Here, we have a representative form of government. If you do not like the way they are representing you, un-elect them or recall them if that is an option. You may have taxation, but it is with representation.