![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I don't get this. It's a constitutional amendment to say that funding bonds and appropriations for transportation can't be diverted?
It sounds wrong and scary and also probably sneaky, since I bet that the interpretation of "transportation" is going to be "subsidies for the US car and petroleum industries."
Am I right? I'm voting against it unless I hear compelling reasons to vote for it. And probably even then. An amendment to the state constitution to lock in funds for a specific issue? How dumb is that?
It sounds wrong and scary and also probably sneaky, since I bet that the interpretation of "transportation" is going to be "subsidies for the US car and petroleum industries."
Am I right? I'm voting against it unless I hear compelling reasons to vote for it. And probably even then. An amendment to the state constitution to lock in funds for a specific issue? How dumb is that?
Tags: