For example, a bond act that would raise money for schools and result in a 25 year payback schedule with interest charges (meaning more money must come from taxes to pay it off) would be titled something like "School Improvements and Class Size Reduction Tax Hike".

A water bill to raise money providing for new supplies of drinking water or public works projects for dams, reservoirs, etc. would be titled something like "Clean and Safe Water Supply Tax Hike", etc.

This is essentially a "truth in advertising" clause, since most people see the phrases for "Safe Water" or "Protecting Children" or whatever, and don't understand that they will eventually be paying up to (or exceeding) twice as much for the loan that the bond is taking out. Money to pay this loan back must come from a future increase in taxes, since that's how goverment makes its money.

No restrictions are placed on the amount of any bond, or its intended use. There's just a requirement that it be clearly labeled so that voters understand that they will be paying for this in the future with an increase in taxes, rather than up front with existing revenues.

2000-May-08 12:00pm salsbury

Periodic review of laws is a good thing, and that's what the 10-year expiration is for. It often takes 1-3 years for sluggish society to really begin to follow and have time to guage a law, so a 1-year review might be premature, but a 5-year might be good. Or, if it really was a bad law, it's very likely that it wouldn't be reenacted after the 10-year expiration happens.

20 and 50 year consequences are also practically impossible to predict, and fall well outside the 10-year scope of any law, so I'd suggest we drop that part.

2000-Nov-03 9:13pm salsbury