This is in response to the Sun Journal editorial of May 18.

We have arrived at a place where the state Legislature and the Sun Journal consider state bonds to be a necessary and continuing component of state government. I don’t.

I will concede that borrowing might sometimes be absolutely necessary, but almost never is. When we, as a state, consider whether to borrow, we should not do so by comparing our state to a young family or even to a business in need of financing to get started. This state is nearly 200 years old — old enough to pay-as-we-go, or even to pay ahead. It costs the same, minus the cost of interest.

My own resistance to using bonds is based upon a concept of how a state should conduct itself, and a deep-seated and overall mistrust of politicians, and especially of the creative explanations they might offer.

I wonder if our legislators have spent available state money imprudently and now want us to authorize debt to fund the neglected and important.

The way bonds are presented —  with promises of matching funds and the creation of jobs —  it’s difficult for an ordinary citizen to disapprove them. It’s difficult for non-politicians to judge the need or the truth behind a bond package, but sometimes there are clues.

The University of Maine, already substantially funded by Maine taxpayers in an annual amount approaching $200 million, will be the recipient of additional millions of dollars if the bonds pass.

The Athletic Department at the University of Maine operates at a deficit. A recent budget anticipated spending $7 million more in university funds than received in revenues. These university funds come from student tuition and annual state subsidies.

I will find it difficult to vote for education and research bonds knowing the university already uses state money to make up a $7 million operating deficit.

When I envision that amount, I know it could be better spent. It could, if properly used, provide tuition for 800 bright, but economically disadvantaged students. In fact, if we agree that state money should be used to educate our children and not used to fund athletic events, then we should consider that the annual salary of just one of those university bureaucrats who supported the decision could fund tuition for an additional 30 students.

When I consider whether to approve bonds, I have to ask myself: If all these bond needs were so important, why weren’t they already authorized and funded by the Legislature? Why didn’t the Legislature ensure that roads and bridges were repaired? Why didn’t they capture the matching federal funds? And why didn’t they create the possible jobs?

Can we possibly believe that everything the Legislature authorized was more important?

Richard Sabine, Lewiston