Defeat of Quake Bond Measure

* I must take issue with your editorial of June 10 (“The Bond Vote Quake: What to Do Now”). You state that taxes must be raised for earthquake repairs, etc., because “there simply is no possible alternative to paying for the work that must be done.” I beg to differ.

I ask you, what do major companies (including your newspaper) do when they have business downturns? One of their first actions is manpower reduction programs, usually in the 10%-20% range (sometimes higher).

A manpower reduction program in this range would result in many millions of dollars in savings. Then, when the economy improves, manpower can be increased as needed.

DON EDLING

West Hills

* What The Times is proposing is very similar to the recent judicial decision in Pennsylvania, which stated that unless a woman fights back with force when a man is raping her, then it isn’t really rape, no matter how many times she says “no.”

The citizens of California said a resounding “no!” to the bond issues on Election Day because we’re all just a little tired of politicians and bureaucrats crying poverty when it comes to services for us taxpayers, such as adequate police and firefighting protection, but then squealing in righteously indignant rage when it’s even suggested that they, the politicians and bureaucrats, cut back on their pay raises, benefits and perks.

So, even though we California citizens said “no!”, The Times, and probably more than a few politicians, have decided that what we really meant was “yes,” so there will be an attempt to legislate into law a “temporary” tax for earthquake relief.

Does anybody out there really believe that the tax will be temporary? Or that every cent collected will actually end up being spent for earthquake relief?

Let’s get a citizen state budget committee made up of randomly selected California residents, to whom the politicians and legislators must present each yearly budget. It’s time for these guys to answer for all the wasteful spending, and try to explain to overburdened taxpayers why legislators are still living the good life at our expense, while demanding more and more taxes to pay for it.

ANNIE CAROLINE SCHULER

West Hollywood

* Responding to Sherry Jeffe’s article (Opinion, June 12) on the recently defeated proposed bond measures, I feel she has missed one important fact.

As one of the voters described by Jeffe (“classic, high-propensity voter”), further described as “older, white and more affluent,” I want to point out an important motivation element of this group.

This “high-propensity” group was telling their representatives in Sacramento that our state is in enough financial trouble and we should not compound the problem by adding any more debt at this time. These voters were telling their esteemed representatives to clean up the current financial mess, reduce wasteful spending and then come back to the voters for bond approvals to pay for these admittedly necessary public needs.

M. DONALD LAITY

San Clemente

* Hurrah for Tom Campbell (“Reality Bites California’s Budget Deficit,” Commentary, June 9). I thought that there wasn’t anyone left in Sacramento with any sense at all. A reasonable budget and financial plan with clearly stated contingencies should (with a bit of publicity) play well with both the voters and the bond markets.

If the state really needs new funds to pay for earthquake repairs and road improvements, let’s do it “the California way” with tax revenues that are clearly dedicated to the specific tasks. How about Gov. Pete Wilson providing some “fireside chats” on where we really stand instead of allowing information to flow via the political hot air, which no one believes?

CHARLES W. FOX

Mission Viejo