What's more heartrending than a critically ill child in need of heart surgery, an organ transplant or cancer treatment?

We, like many Californians, have first-hand experience with such distressing facts of life. The proponents of Proposition 3, the Children's Hospital Bond Act on the November ballot, appeal to this most human of emotions, our empathy and sympathy for hurting children. We believe their plea is sincere. We believe they mean to help.

Nevertheless, we urge a "No" vote on Prop. 3.

The Children's Hospital Bond Act would authorize California government to issue nearly $1 billion in general-obligation bonds to raise money for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, financing or refinancing of children's hospitals in nonprofit and University of California facilities. Twenty percent of the money would be allocated to acute, rather than children's, services.

Including interest payments, the total cost over 30 years would be about $2 billion, twice the advertised price tag. Just four years ago an almost identical bond measure was passed by voters, approving $750 million for virtually the identical purposes. To date, only $403 million of that money has been awarded to hospital building programs. Despite the unused hundreds of millions yet to be allocated, Prop. 3 proponents are back for a billion more, plus a billion in interest paid by California taxpayers.

This is part of the reason California's state government is in the financial mess it is. Bonded debt in California today stands at $45 billion for outstanding general-obligation bonds alone, which will take many years to pay off, but even longer if more debt is piled on. About $4.4 billion was paid from the state's general fund in 2007-08 on existing debt, but that is expected to climb to $9.2 billion a year by 2017-18. That is without any new bonded debt. California still has another $68 billion of already authorized general-obligation and lease-revenue bonds yet to be sold.

Bond sales pay for everything from freeways to water works and, more recently, even to pay off previous debt resulting from the state's fiscal mismanagement. Adding yet more billions is more than short-sighted. It's highly irresponsible.

This proposition seeks to do good, we have no doubt. There are many good things Californians can do. But ultimately voters must ask "At what cost?" As little confidence as we have in the Legislature funding according to the affordability of agreed-upon priorities, that process still has more checks and balances than an emotional ballot appeal that doesn't take into consideration the ramifications of the added debt. Moreover, as long as the first inclination is to demand bonded debt financed by taxpayers, the private sector will be discouraged from stepping up its own support of needed hospital expansions and improvements.

Driving up costs of operating government by increasing debt burden in the long run does more damage to Californians, and consequently to vulnerable children, than the incremental good this initiative would accomplish.

"Soon either taxes will be raised or other state expenditures, such as schools, law enforcement or parks will be reduced," writes Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, and other opponents in their ballot argument against Prop. 3 "There is no 'free lunch'." We concur. We urge a "No" vote on Prop. 3.