Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

pretzel, sleeping
Prop 12 continues funding a program established in 1921 that buys
homes and then sells them to veterans, providing them with what
appear to be below-market mortages.

According to the writeup the the program has always paid for itself,
never costing the taxpayers anything.

The funding is via a $900 million bond.



There are some of questions here:
-- Why is this funded via a bond measure and not via annual appropriations?
-- Why is it needed at all?
-- Who among veterans gets selected?
-- Is it really cost-free? Presumably if you loan money at below
market rates there's an opportunity cost.

Yet the principal rationale that the opposing writeup comes up with
seems to be that this is a bad idea because all veterans, not just those
who served in war zones, might benefit.
Sheesh.

(As someone pointed out somewhere, military people generally don't have
a lot of say in where they serve, so they are all at risk.)

They also mention the fact that tax-free bonds have various implications
on who is in fact shouldering the burden, but that's like a 3rd order effect.

Basically, it seems like we have a program to provide some California veterans
a little assistance in owning a home, and given that there's no such thing as
a free lunch, it's probably costing someone something somewhere. But not much.

On the one hand, it seems like a needless bureaucracy. You could give them
a state tax deduction instead. On the other hand, it seems to have worked
for 80 years, 26 different similar bond measures have been passed, and no one
except Gary Wesley, whomever the hell he is, is saying they are against it.

I am somewhat conflicted.

Links to previous discussions:

Prop 11: Redistricting, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/80488.html
Prop 10: Alternative fuel vehicles, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/77351.html
Prop 9: Crime & victims, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/75467.html
Prop 7: Energy, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/73412.html
Prop 6: Crime laws, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/71943.html
Prop 5: Drug laws, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/70593.html
Prop 4: Parental notification before teen abortion,
http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/68644.html
Prop 3: Hospital bonds, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/66885.html
Prop 2: Animal welfare, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/65172.html
Prop 1: High-speed rail, http://jpmassar.livejournal.com/63921.html

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]n6tqs wrote:
Oct. 25th, 2008 06:45 pm (UTC)
(As someone pointed out somewhere, military people generally don't have
a lot of say in where they serve....)


Or where they live, so it can be difficult to get started early on the "property ladder". Or maybe that's what you meant by "serve".

[info]jpmassar wrote:
Oct. 25th, 2008 09:08 pm (UTC)
No, the comment I was semi-quoting meant that a given serviceman
doesn't know when he enlists whether he'll be sent to Iraq or
Germany, Hawaii or Afganistan.
[info]undersupervised wrote:
Oct. 25th, 2008 08:09 pm (UTC)
though the wife is not generally in favor of bonds, she says that vets have been getting their benefits cut and this seems like a reasonable counter. i was neutral/conflicted and so let myself be talked into leaning Y.




[info]jpmassar wrote:
Oct. 25th, 2008 09:06 pm (UTC)
In what sense have veterans been getting their benefits cut?

(Not a rhetorical question. I am a bit surprised)
[info]undersupervised wrote:
Oct. 27th, 2008 04:31 am (UTC)
sorry, will try to resp to this within a cpl days....
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

pretzel, sleeping
[info]jpmassar
jpmassar

Latest Month

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com