California's Proposition 4 is set to borrow $10 billion to fund a plethora of environmental projects. But is this measure more about politics than sound policy? After this year's budget debacle, the state should be focusing on cutting debt, not increasing it.

The measure's 100+ programs lack a sense of priorities or analysis of what would deliver the biggest bang for the buck. Instead, it's a shopping list of goodies to placate political constituencies.

As climate change intensifies, we need to address environmental issues, but Proposition 4 is not the answer. It's adding $400 million to the state's annual payments for environment-related bonds, which would come from a tight budget and squeeze out funding for other programs.

What if we're borrowing to fund projects that won't make a significant impact? What if the state is prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability? Can we really afford to increase our debt burden when we're already struggling to navigate a recession?

The answer is no. We need to rethink our approach to environmental spending and focus on what will yield the greatest results.

So, voters, do we want to take a step forward or backward? Reject Proposition 4 and demand better.

Would you rather have a well-crafted plan that produces the most cost-effective results or a hodgepodge of programs that just add to our debt? The choice is clear.

California's Proposition 4: A Borrowing Binge or Wise Investment?

Actions