election question (California):Proposition 1A

[ritaxis]

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?

Comments

[hrj.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure what it was meant to protect, but I've gotten really wary of initiatives that lock in particular budget items. I'm still dithering over some of the school facilities bond issues, but I'm leaning awfully close to an across-the-board "no" this time. I've gotten so sick and tired of government by initiative. And I've started to get sick and tired of tax-and-fund initiatives where the two items are not logically connected -- even if I approve of both elements in principle independently.