Proposition 12 - Veteran's Bond Act

[Barry]

Proposition 12 - Veteran's Bond Act

Another reason to stay out of wars. I plan on voting yes. How about you?

[Braggi]

...

Another reason to stay out of wars. I plan on voting yes. How about you?

Huh?

Vote No. This is an expense we shouldn't have to pay and the state is already broke. Even if we, the taxpayers, do pay for veterans' homes (why?) shouldn't it be a Federal expense instead of a State expense? (I know, we've done this dozens of times before, but it was always fiscally irresponsible and the wrong thing to do.)

The worst thing about this measure is the fact the money will be raised by selling bonds which doubles the cost to you and me. The extra money goes to bond sellers and to interest payments to mostly wealthy investors.

Let's stop transferring wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by making government pay "as you go." it's not that tough and you get double the bang for your buck over selling bonds.

Here's how much this turkey will cost:
"Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

Costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans.
Average payment for principal and interest of about $59 million per year for 30 years.

Vote No.

-Jeff

PS. The costs will actually be a lot more because of California's sinking credit rating.

[alanora]

That was a yes from me too. Mindy

Another reason to stay out of wars. I plan on voting yes. How about you?

[Braggi]

That was a yes from me too. Mindy

Can someone please explain a yes vote here?

I really don't get it.

This is a year when we really don't need any more additional expenses.

Besides that, why should the taxpayers of California (a state) give benefits to people who have served in the US military? Shouldn't their benefits come from the Federal Government?

-Jeff

[alanora]

Mine was an emotional response. I am generally positioned in the "no" column for bond acts and propositions, as I do see them as spending for special interests. In this case, the veteran thing pulls at me. They deserve treatment and care in readjustment to civilian life in addition to attempts to restore what was given by the soldier, which may or may not be possible as war changes folks........

Can someone please explain a yes vote here?

I really don't get it.

This is a year when we really don't need any more additional expenses.

Besides that, why should the taxpayers of California (a state) give benefits to people who have served in the US military? Shouldn't their benefits come from the Federal Government?

-Jeff

["Mad" Miles]

...They deserve treatment and care in readjustment to civilian life in addition to attempts to restore what was given by the soldier, which may or may not be possible as war changes folks........

Prop 12 is a bond act to provide low interest housing loans to veterans.

As far as I know it is not for group homes or treatment for PTSD.

(Correct me if I'm wrong.)

It is endorsed by my political party, The Green Party of the United States of America.

The Green party is as anti-militarist and anti-war as they come, so this endorsement (which suprised me a little) is an indication that even if you oppose the policy, you don't believe in punishing the soldiers who carry it out.



Vote McKinney / Clemente for President and Vice President!!!

Obama (who I hope and expect will win) will get all of California's electoral college votes (just as Gore and Kerry did before him) so you won't be risking anything to send the message that corporate control of both dominant parties is not the only way to do politics in our country!

"Mad" Miles

[jitterbug]

Doing my final research and it's looking like a yes on 12 for me. Here's why: https://www.californiaprogressreport...sition_12.html

[Braggi]

Doing my final research and it's looking like a yes on 12 for me.

I liked this statement: " ... When the veterans pay off their loans, they do so at a rate that allows Cal-Vet to pay for the bonds, the interest on the bonds, and all bureaucratic overhead. In this way, the program has been completely self-supporting since 1921 ... "

That's pretty powerful. I didn't understand the program to be ultimately without cost, and somehow in the current financial meltdown this statement might not be true anymore, but it's still a pretty stellar track record.

Thanks for looking it up jitterbug. As much as I dislike the sound of bonds, if they pay for themselves I don't have a problem.

I'll change that to a Yes as well.

-Jeff