There were opinions in the Free Press this morning, two for and two against. One of the fors was the mayor of Warren whose sole reason was to eliminate the age barrier for judges. That would be easily amended, no need to go for a rewrite of the whole constitution.

The other for person was Tom George, rep and former candidate for governor. He basically ripped the whole constitution on fiscal grounds because it was written when we were a rich state. I don't see how a rewrite of our constitution can heal our funding woes. Budgeting requirements are already in there and are being worked around, so why a rewrite would help, I can't see. George also said the cost would be limited by a law that he had proposed. However, it would still cost a substantial amount that we would not have to fund if we vote No.

The two against both felt the amendment route was the more fiscally responsible way to go,considering our current financial state. We can't routinely pay for basic services anymore, so spending on a con-con for a result that has a 50-50 chance of being rejected is needlessly extravagant.