Let the Government Live on a Budget

It is apparent that The Times never met a bond issue it didn’t like or a tax reduction it did, even in the midst of a serious economic recession (“Yes on Proposition 40,” editorial, Feb. 20; and “Yes on Propositions 41, 43,” editorial, Feb. 21).

Bond issues are the most expensive way to finance government works. As one of the highest tax-rate states in the nation, how come state and local governments cannot budget funds to maintain and update their capital resources instead of always appealing to the voters to authorize bond issues--future taxes in disguise? It is about time the voters said no to the repeated appeals for more money, more money, more money.

Do not be fooled by the overused words “clean water, clean air” (already mandated and paid for by polluters). Exactly how we buy “safe” parks and coastal “protection” is pretty vague. Then there has been a period of 10 years to upgrade our voting machines, although California voters never heard the word “chad” before the Florida fiasco, other than as a boy’s name.

Stan Katten

San Pedro

*

A read of “Transportation: No on 42” (editorial, Feb. 18) prompts one to wonder if The Times is mindful of its own readership. Remember us? We’re the ones spending the equivalent of one week a year sitting in traffic. We’re the ones who watched overpasses crumble in earthquakes and were reminded that most of our freeways have outlived their designed life span. We care about those things.

What we don’t care about is a philosophical problem you may have with “earmarking” funds, especially when those funds are transportation taxes we already pay and that should indeed be used to repair our old and deteriorated transportation system. Those of us in the real world will be voting yes on Proposition 42.

Grace Smith

West Hollywood