On the March 2 ballot, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is asking that we vote for a highly unusual bond, designed to pay off the state budget deficit.

Ordinarily, bonds are proposed for capital construction --- to build things that will continue into the future such as schools or roads. The $15 billion bond in question, however, would primarily finance the payoff of debt accumulated for regular State operations.

I have serious concerns about the bond described in Proposition 57, along with Proposition 58, the constitutional amendment necessary to enact the bond. As a citizen, I'm concerned about California's fiscal health, and as a Catholic I'm concerned about the effect that this will have on the poor.

As a citizen, the idea of a deficit bond seems backwards. Instead of incurring bond debt to finance something that will carry us into the future, we are refinancing and prolonging past debt. It is akin to taking out a home equity loan to pay for credit card charges for daily living expenses.

Floating a deficit bond feels to me as though we're running away from a problem. It is not unusual for the state to run a deficit during a recession because of the drop in state revenue that typically occurs. In the past, however, governors have confronted these shortfalls directly, through a combination of budget cuts and temporary tax increases. Governors Reagan and Wilson both did this.

Governor Schwarzenegger, however, proposes a quarter cent sales tax, so as to extend the debt over the next 9 to 14 years. My kindergarten age daughter could be in college by the time this "short-term" debt is retired.

In spite of his pledge of no new taxes, the quarter cent sales tax is still a tax. So the real question is not whether to tax, but how to tax most prudently and equitably. In contrast to the governor, State Treasurer Phil Angelides proposes a more direct solution, modeled on what Reagan and Wilson each did in the past. Angelides proposes restoring the 10 percent and 11 percent income brackets for couples earning more than $280,000 a year. He points out that combined with the quarter cent sales tax, this would erase the debt in three years.

In the broader context, it is important to remember that beginning in 1998-99, Californians have enjoyed significant tax cuts on the state and federal level, including the very recent $4.1 billion cut in vehicle license fees. State programs have grown, but at a slower pace than increases in personal income. In other words, the current deficit was created as much by past tax cuts as by state spending.

The governor argues dire consequences if the deficit bond does not pass, including severe cuts in services to the poor. But the governor is already proposing serious cuts in health care, child care, emergency food assistance to the poor. In his proposed budget for next year, for example --- in which he assumes passage of the bond --- the governor's cuts are so deep that they will result in the loss of major federal matching funds, including $1.4 billion in federal health and food stamp programs. If we are to avoid these sorts of cuts, adopting the governor's plan does not appear to be the solution.

As people of faith, we're called on to look at how our actions affect the poorest among us.

Especially in a state as wealthy as California, we can do far better by the homeless, children and working poor families that come every week to church doors for help.

The problem with the governor's proposals, however, is not just in their cuts in assistance. The problem also lies in the way that his proposed tax deepens the gap between rich and poor. The governor's sales tax would disproportionately hit the working poor --- as a regressive tax --- who are forced to spend nearly all of their income on the necessities of life.

In contrast, the affluent among us have recently benefited from a windfall federal tax reduction, far greater than the amount proposed for the state's upper income tax brackets. Furthermore, the affluent have already benefited disproportionately from the recent tax cuts, including the car tax cut. It is only just that those who have reaped the greatest rewards should also shoulder a greater burden.

When asked to vote on something as extraordinary as a deficit bond, I expect to hear a compelling case. So far, I have yet to be persuaded either as a citizen or as a Catholic.

Rick Mockler is the executive director of Catholic Charities of California. He can be reached at rmockler@cacatholic.org.