Moore: Let’s Reject All Bond Questions
Monday, October 31, 2016
Maybe we should just keep more of our money in our own pockets?
With every new election cycle in Rhode Island comes a crop of new questions placed before voters asking us to fund new, supposedly, crucial new spending projects.
And every single year, the questions seem to easily pass voter muster. That puts us taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending, and indebts our state government even further than it was previously.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTYet for all this supposedly wonderful government spending we approach with each passing election, life doesn’t seem to improve by leaps and bounds. We tend to have the same problems--lack of affordable housing, sub par programs for veterans, a lackluster economy, and a higher education system that always needs more money for new buildings and programs.
Spending Lots of Money
This year is no different. This year there are questions asking voters to agree to spend money on higher education projects, port infrastructure projects, environmental and recreation projects, and affordable housing projects.
My friend Pat Ford, who heads up the state’s fledgling Libertarian Party, recently made an excellent point about the bonds and their real costs to Rhode Island taxpayers in a GoLocalProv.com article. Namely, that it’s not just the cost of the projects that will be kicked out by Rhode Island taxpayers if all these questions are approved, it’s also the cost of the interest on the borrowing that will eventually have to be paid off.
"Voters will have to decide whether to authorize the government to spend another $364 million. The total face value of the bond questions is $225 million, but interest over the life of the bonds – which create a general obligation to repay, like any loan or mortgage - adds another $139 million - almost 62% more debt to be paid," said Ford.
That’s a lot of money where I’m from.
The $364 Million Question
According to Governing Magazine, the state of Rhode Island has the seventh highest debt per capita in the country. That’s quite a bit of debt. In my opinion, that means the state shouldn’t be spending any money unless the projects are absolutely necessary.
I, for one, have some serious questions as to whether any of the bond questions are absolutely essential. I’m not inclined to believe that should voters decide against spending additional money, that the sky will fall. In fact, it’s my belief that, for the vast majority of Rhode Islanders, their lives won’t be affected one bit regardless of the outcome of the bond questions. (Special interest groups, however, do stand to benefit greatly from the issuance of new, collective spending.)
Yet even if the special interest groups who believe this spending is in everyone’s best interest could possibly convince us so, it’s still not enough to get me to support these questions.
Here’s why: the state government’s budget is slightly less than $9 billion. That’s a whopping 9 thousand million. It can be hard to understand just how much money just a single billion dollars represents due to its sheer enormity.
Priorities?
How can state government leaders possibly tell state taxpayers, with a straight face, that there wasn’t a way for them to fund this supposedly crucial projects within the state budget, when the budget is that large? Make no mistake: $364 million is a lot of money. But it only represents about 4 percent of the state budget in any given year.
A much more prudent fiscal move by state leaders, would be to set aside a certain amount, let’s say, $60 million per year (about 1 half of 1 percent of the state budget), over four years. After that four years, the state would have $15 million more than the $240 million it needs to fund all of these supposedly important projects. It would save taxpayers $139 million since we wouldn't’t have to pay any interest.
Sound financial practices like that, if implemented over the long term, would make certain that the state would have the lowest debt per capita over the long term.
For these reasons, I recommend voters just say no borrowing more money and increasing our debt. It’s in our best interest.
Russell J. Moore has worked on both sides of the desk in Rhode Island media, both for newspapers and on political campaigns. Send him email at [email protected]. Follow him on twitter @russmoore713.
Related Slideshow: Pros and Cons for the Tiverton Casino - 2016
Related Articles
- Moore: Voters Must Demand Transparency From ProvPort
- Moore: House Budget Punishes Charter School Success
- Moore: Raimondo Let Insider Politics Kill Bill to Protect Women
- Moore: Happy Fourth, Now Remember It’s Meaning
- Moore: Shocking Police Beating Video Warrants Answers
- Moore: RI Reformers Winning Big This Year
- Moore: Cynicism Dominates RI Politics
- Moore: Elorza’s Budget Doesn’t Match His Rhetoric
- Moore: Federal Hill’s Parking Meter Lesson
- Moore: The Real Ethics Reform Heroes Aren’t Legislative Leadership
- Moore: A Bad News Week For RI Reformers
- Moore: RI Progressives “Major in the Minors”
- Moore: Will RI Government Rules Close a Key Nonprofit?
- Moore: Time to Overhaul the State Investment Commission
- Moore: Catholic Church Should Focus on Charity, Not Firing Gays
- Moore: A Mattiello Defeat May Be a Hollow Victory for GOP
- Moore: Igliozzi Provides Fiscal Sanity, Leadership in Providence
- Moore: Does Raimondo Want Mattiello to Prevail?
- Moore: Will Mattiello Appease Progressives?
- Moore: Progressives Are Being Disingenuous
- Moore: Only Voters Can Stifle RI Corruption
- Moore: Raimondo’s Pension Fund Experiment Fails
- Moore: Is Election 2016 the End of The Mainstream Media?
- Moore: Apathy Portends Low Turnout This Primary Election
