State May Be Living on Borrowed Money

Re “Revived Fiscal Plan Goes to Ballot,” Dec. 13: I don’t understand all the celebratory news about passage of the financial plan to issue $15 billion in debt to pay for the operation of California’s government. Since when is living on borrowed money considered something to be applauded? Consumers are criticized for that sort of behavior. The Times’ acquiescence to this arrangement is puzzling. What might have been justifiably welcomed would have been some plan to raise progressive taxes to pay for the state services that most consider essential. Selling bonds is a cop-out and should be condemned.

Harold Watkins

Studio City

*

Gov. Schwarzenegger is obligated to inform Californians of the alternative in the event that the bond measure does not pass in March. If the main alternative is a special tax levy, then he should be upfront with this information. Californians may prefer taking the pain now rather than postponing it into the future. A knowledge of the alternative will certainly affect the vote. The nagging question is: Will there be another bond issue to cover next year’s shortfall?

Edward Hujsak

La Jolla

*

Suppose you got yourself overextended on your credit cards and decided to consolidate them into a low-interest second mortgage on the house. Every financial advisor would tell you to cut up or not use your cards until the second was paid off. We are being asked to take out a second on the California house, but the credit cards will still be fully in use by our profligate Legislature. Accordingly, I will vote no on the spring ballot issue.

Curt Hofeld

Riverside