Our rail services are threatened, just like our museums, and railtown, so there is at least a rail element in the last few posts. Bonds which voters foolishly pass without a revenue source to pay off the principle and interest are one of the reasons for the cuts in service. Debt service is above the budget-the bondholders-who are great campaign contributors-come first, before schools, or rail service expenditures.

This bonding has been a bipartisan phenomena going back to the first Brown and Reagan-then at least, both cut deals to pay for our water projects with revenues and taxes generated....from delivering the water.

Once, the politicians in Sacramento realized we'd vote for new bonded "debt" without a plan to pay for it, well it has been off to the races. Democrats could get endorsements and construction or prison guard unions to campaign for them. Republicans could bleat nonsense like "no new taxes" while falsely claiming to be fiscal "conservatives", while their developer buddies got new projects or we got "tough on crime". Once you have a serious recession our budget for real services starts shrinking, as bond payments keep sucking up more of the limited revenue.

Every transportation bond issue should be backed by revenues generated from land use benefits, the motor fuels tax, or highway tolls. It would make us think twice when voting, we'd probably pass fewer bonds, they'd work better, and we wouldn't keep fooling ourselves that we were getting something for nothing. We'd almost certainly have better rail services and a more stable economy in the long run.