Known for their frequent use of credit cards and loans, college students are always admonished to avoid excessive borrowing. That’s why it’s somewhat puzzling–and troubling–to witness California’s ongoing reliance on bond initiatives to save the state from insolvency.

Education bonds, which the state sells to investors to fund much-needed construction, technology and infrastructure upgrades in California’s rapidly growing public education systems, might do more long-term fiscal harm to the state than their proponents would have voters believe.

One such measure is Proposition 55, which would raise $12.3 billion for public schools serving students from kindergarten to the university level.

The California State University has a history of actively lobbying for bond measures, and who can blame them: Prop. 47, a related initiative voters approved in 2002, promised nearly $500 million in upgrade money for the CSU alone. Prop. 55 pledges almost $700 million.

But the $26 billion in education bonds approved since 1992 have already entrenched the state in a series of expensive loans that even the most educated citizens in the world couldn’t pay off in a lifetime.

According to the state’s Legislative Budget Analyst, California currently has $36 billion in bond debt outstanding from its general fund–the same depleted general fund Gov. Schwarzenegger is looking to replenish without a tax increase.

The governor has his own separate $15 billion bond proposal on the ballot to fill that hole. Meanwhile, as part of a law that passed in 2002, voters are now being asked to approve the second half of a bond that will edge us closer to $50 billion in general fund debt.

And who will pay that off? They probably haven’t even been born yet.

It’s difficult to oppose an initiative that would contribute millions to fund infrastructure repairs at Sacramento State, but it’s time to take a fresh look at the way we build schools in California.

The effect of compound interest and the fees paid to lawyers, Wall Street bond traders and bureaucrats generally doubles the cost of facilities built with bonds. This bond does not even contain an interest rate cap, so the true costs could be much higher, especially if California voters approve additional bonds in this election. We could perhaps build even more schools and help more students if we adopted a more fiscally responsible approach.

In real life, we’re advised to save our pennies and pay for expenses as they arise. Both the governor and the Legislature should follow students’ examples instead of continuously living beyond their means.