For this $500 million bond measure, principal and interest payments (assuming a rate of 5.5%) would come to about $34 million per year, or $858 million over the 25-year life of the bond.

The problems are numerous. First, it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to provide for the retirement benefits of our elected representatives, especially since they are limited to terms of six years in the Assembly and eight years in the State Senate. Equating public service with state employment is a specious comparison. Remember that state legislators are already entitled to Social Security benefits just like everyone else. The proposed constitutional amendment would make legislators unequal participants in the PERS program, eligible to receive full retiree health benefits within a 10 year vesting period as opposed to other state employees, who have a vesting period of 20 years for the same benefit. Why are public servants superior to public employees?

Second, this proposition was put on the ballot by vote of the state legislature. Any time this happens one should be suspicious. Ask yourself why they didn't just pass a law to provide the same benefit? The answer here is because our legislators were already voting themselves irresponsible perks -- over the last 10 years state legislators have voted pay raises for themselves totalling 90%. Voters passed Proposition 140 to stop such irresponsibility. And now the only way legislators can escape those restrictions is through a ballot measure.

Lastly, the ballot measure is a constitutional amendment. Amending the state constitution is the only way the legislators can escape the restraints we voted on them. The state constitution, like our US Constitution, is not a document to be trifled with lightly. Amendments should be reserved for important changes in legal principle, not loopholes to allow legislators to vote themselves bigger perks.

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 208, which established limits on campaign contributions to candidates, voluntary limits on campaign spending, and further restrictions on fund-raising. Enforcement of 208 was blocked by the courts after the Proposition was challenged in court. Opponents of Proposition 34 believe Proposition 208 will be reinstated given a recent Supreme Court decision upholding a similar initiative in another state.

Proposition 34 is being offered by the current legislature to substitute more lenient campaign finance rules in place of 208, should the courts uphold that Proposition. For example, proposed campaign contribution limits under 34 are higher than they were under 208, and some limits from 208 are repealed altogether.

The problem is that both Proposition 208 and the current Proposition 34 are freedom-limiting solutions to a non-problem. The perceived problem is that unrestricted money corrupts the election process. The real problem is that the focus is entirely upon the wrong people. Fraud and blackmail laws are already in place that prohibit the quid pro quo purchase of votes from, or undue influence on a legislator. The focus should be on clear acts of fraud or corruption, not on abridging First Amendment rights because we feel we can't trust politicians to behave ethically. There are strict reporting laws already on the books about campaign contributions. If you feel a legislator's vote has been purchased, file charges against the scoundrel or vote him/her out of office.

The proposed constitutional amendment would allow state and local governments to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and engineering services for all phases of a public works project. While the proposed change seems flawed in that it focuses only on a narrow set of services, it is a step in the right direction in opening up the state's overly restrictive public works contracting. As a principle, the government is responsible for road and other public works construction, but they should contract out these services as much as possible to the private sector.

It is telling that major organizations opposing this proposition are the public employees' union for Caltrans engineers, other public employee organizations such as the California Teachers' Association, and a host of Democratic legislators and local officials.

The fiscal impact, as assessed by the independent legislative analyst, is that the state would save between $100 milion and $150 million annually after implementation from reduced prison operations costs. In addition, an additional one-time savings of between $450 million and $550 million is estimated from avoidance of one-time capital outlay costs for prison construction.

Proposition 37 would amend the State Constitution to classify as "taxes" some classes of government charges that would otherwise be classified as "fees." Proposition 37 affects fees related to health, environmental, or other "societal or economic" concerns. This would make it more difficult for state and local governments to impost new regulatory charges.

Vouchers are needed to break the government's near-monopoly on education. The current state of education allows parents to send their kids to private schools, but they still have to pay for equivalent public education through property taxes. In other words, if you send your kids to private school now, you have to pay twice. This proposition is a first step toward redressing this unfair double-charge. The problem is that it is only a first step -- much more needs to be done to break the government's public education monopoly.

In states where similar voucher programs have been implemented, test scores have improved in both public and private schools. This is because public schools must compete whereas before they had no incentive to improve the quality of their services.

The main argument of Prop 38 opponents is that the public school system should be fixed by spending more taxpayer money on them, and not trusting parents with the freedom to make their own educational choices. The problems with this argument are multiple and manifest. First, it is insulting to citizens to presume that they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves. Second, the problem with public schools is not a lack of funds. Even though per-child spending (adjusted for inflation) on public education is at an all-time high, the quality of public education is at an all-time low. While there are multiple reasons other than money why public schools are failing, the appeal of a voucher system is that it does not proscribe untested theories to fix the problem -- it allows for the free market to devise multiple solutions, and for parents as customers to select schools that work.

Sadly this is the most destructive and deceptive measure on the ballot this year. It is deceptive because it is being sold as a measure to fix crumbling classrooms and improve accountability. This could not be further from the truth. All of the supposed accountability protections touted by supporters of Prop 39 were added after the language of Proposition 39 was filed with the state Legislature In point of fact all Prop 39 does is make it easier for citizens to approve school bonds and easier to repay them by busting the cap on property tax increases.

As mentioned above in the reasons to approve Prop 38, the problem with our public school system is not a lack of funds. Making it easier to get more money through public bonds would only exacerbate the current spending problems.

In general, bond measures are an abomination. It is an abrogation of our elected leaders' responsibility to spend the money they already collect from us in taxes. By issuing a bond measure outside of their normal legislative process, state legislators do not have to spend from their alloted budgets. Worse still, legislators use bond measures to fund projects dear to taxpayers that they know are hard to turn down, like school construction, clean water, hospital care, freeways, and veterans' issues. This is by design -- they know voters are compassionate and care deeply about such issues, and are therefore unlikely to turn down the bond.