PD Editorial: No on Prop. 3

Children's hospitals are a vital part of the health care safety net.

And they are struggling with rising costs and limited resources, as are other hospitals. We are grateful for their services and sympathetic to their needs.

But the state has stumbled from one budget crisis to another, incapable of balancing its books and unable to afford new expenses.

So we recommend a no vote on Proposition 3, a $980 million bond act that would pay for expansion of children's hospitals.

The initiative is sponsored by five hospitals run by the University of California and eight run by private nonprofit institutions. The 13 hospitals would share the proceeds of the bonds if Proposition 3 passes.

In 2004, voters approved a $750 million bond act sponsored by the children's hospitals. However, because of rising construction costs, that wasn't enough to pay for their expansion plans. So the hospitals have returned with another initiative seeking more money.

Though their purpose is noble, Proposition 3 is another example of ballot-box budgeting -- and that's a big contributor to the state's fiscal mess.

Payments on existing bond debt take about $4.5 billion from the state's $103 billion general fund. If no other bonds are passed, debt payments will peak at $9.2 billion in 2017-18, according to the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst.

Proposition 3 would add a relatively small $64 million to those totals. But that $64 million must come from new revenue or cuts in existing programs. Neither is identified in Proposition 3, and state lawmakers have demonstrated no ability to agree on either.

A better solution would be for the hospitals to take their request to the Legislature, where it can be balanced against other demands on the state treasury.

The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 3.