Most of the attention this electoral cycle has gone to the presidential race – and rightly so. I can’t think of anything more important than getting Texas out of the White House, aside from eliminating the state entirely.

But the great fuss over air-conditioned debates and lesbian daughters can easily distract us from thinking about other very important decisions. Like California’s propositions. As a general rule, they are a bit on the boring side. I always read them though, just in case I miss my chance to do something important, like legalize prostitution.

After reading this November’s supply of initiatives, I have decided that, while I have a difficult time rejecting propositions, I may make an exception for some of the ones on the ballot. Specifically, I make it a rule never to approve proposals that involve spending. It’s not that I’m some sort of right-wing nut who begrudges every penny of my tax dollars. I just have the good sense to know when a question is out of my league to decide.

I’ve been harboring suspicion about bond measures since the primaries last March. Chancellor Yang endorsed a bond to fund education. I believe the chancellor is a very intelligent man. At the same time, I know that he is short, and therefore not to be trusted. When I thought about it, I realized that he is absolutely right about the need for educational funding. However, achieving this with a bond measure is a bad idea. Letting people choose the laws that they want to be governed by is one thing, but asking you and I to plan a budget, one item at a time, is a guaranteed disaster. Face it: You have no idea where California’s money is going, why it goes there and what will happen when we send it elsewhere. And yet you, with your college experience, are considered one of the best-educated citizens around. Choosing our budget this way is like asking an illiterate to run the country. We’ve tried that for the last four years, and it just doesn’t work. I have come to terms with my total incompetence in economic matters and realized that voting yes on any bonds would be stupid, stupid, stupid. We have representatives who hire or become experts on such matters for a reason.

Keep in mind that bonds tie up state funds irreversibly, making adjustments impossible even if they are necessary. Part of the reason why California is in debt right now is that lawmakers can only adjust a fraction of our budget. I don’t know what that fraction is; I told you economics ain’t my thang. Rest assured, though, that every time we hamper our lawmakers, we slowly turn our glorious legislature into an impotent Associated Students. To top it off, bond measures encourage lawmakers to act irresponsibly. Instead of making difficult decisions themselves, they pass the buck down to us like the well-muscled cowards they are. These feckless representatives then pretend that they didn’t raise any taxes, by forcing us to do their job for them. If we stop passing bonds, that conservative charade will be shattered.

Trust me, I know there’s nothing more boring than talking about money that isn’t yours. I am painfully aware of this; my roommate’s girlfriend is an economist. My heart would be filled with pity for the poor guy if he didn’t deserve her. But just because economists are dreadfully boring doesn’t mean that they don’t have a purpose. They’re around to make those financial decisions so that you and I don’t have to. From this point on, I encourage all the other qualified voters as well as the republicans to take a stand against bond measures.

P.S. Kristen Miglore, you don’t really bore me. Not that often.

Loren Williams is a Daily Nexus Columnist