Lynch at Large

Remember the big fight over highway bonds last year? Arkansas voters rejected a proposal that would give the Highway Commission perpetual permission to raise money by way of revenue bonds. I supported it because we know that highways need repairs frequently and are subject to heavy damage from truckers.

It turns out that higher ed has had a similar authority since the 1990's and the college bond issue seeks to continue that on to eternity. This started to bubble up during my conversation with Glen Hooks from the Sierra Club and David Carruth, President of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation. You can hear that interview on lyncho.com. It has a load of good information on political and environmental subjects.

Carruth sent out a letter last night on state finances and he has given me permission to share it with you.

To all:

As most of you are aware one of the problems that is arising with the Grand Prairie, Bayou Meto and Beouf-Tensas irrigation projects is the amount of state money needed and the Ark. Natural Resources Commission's authority to issue general obligation bonds to pay for them. As we have been finding out, in 1998 the voters passed a measure allow the ARNC to issue up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to pay for various water projects in the state including irrigation projects. No more than $60 million can be issued in a biennium without legislative approval. It was sold as a measure to provide money for drinking water and sewer projects for Arkansas' cities and town. However, the vast majority of this authorization has been used on these three irrigation projects with Grand Prairie soaking up some $32 million alone. Much of this $32 million has been paid over to the Grand Prairie project as grants meaning the Arkansas taxpayer will have to pay that money back in full. The remaining $17.2 million is in the form of a loan--a loan the irrigation district has no ability to pay back-- with no payments due until 2043. In the interim, the Arkansas taxpayer will foot the bill for interest to the bondholders.

The Higher Education bond question that is on the upcomming ballot is exactly like the ARNC bond. Actually, in some respects it is worse because the only cap is a $250 million one along with a restriction that bonds cannot be issued if the total payments in one year reach $24 million including principal and interest. The legislature has no say in whether the bonds are issued, only the governor. In my opinion we would be turning control of our tax dollars over to the bureaucrats who we don't elect and who don't have to answer to the voters, only the governor.

The track record of the ANRC with Grand Prairie is an excellant arguement why this power should not be given to the bureaucrats.

I understand the bonds would be used for infrastructure improvments to our colleges and universities. That is not my objection. My objection is that we, the people would not be able to hold the bond issuers, i.e. ADFA accountable. Said another way, I frequently see Senator Jim Luker and Rep. David Dunn in my town asking the voters how they think they (the elected officials) are doing. I have yet to have a state agency, board, commission or bureaucrat do that. The Game and Fish Commission as well as ADEQ have come close but only seek public input or comment to proposed action.

As laudable as its purposes may be, I am voting against the Higher Ed issue for these reasons. With more accountability it would be acceptable. I think the Democrat Gazette has endorsed the measure but I don't think they understand how it can abused.

David Carruth