I have always been skeptical of bonds because of the amount of profit built into the system. Lawyers get a good fee, underwriters make a good living off of bonds, and brokerage houses get their cut. We are talking of million of bucks going to deep pockets before the trickling down gets to the government program and it is the taxpayers footing all those fees and interest along with the principle.
With smart planning and a cash basis a credit rating would be superfluous.

With smart planning and a cash basis a credit rating would be superfluous.

Seriously? I'd like to see what you (of all people) would have to say about your government if it were running and accumulating the revenue surpluses you're suggestion implies. There's a place for public debt, and a service performed by those who are involved in creating, underwriting and selling it. But it needs to be kept under control, which the red figures over to your left tend to suggest it definitely is not, here in Portland.

If the rewards for successfully opposing a particular bond issuance, not for the taxpayers but for the advocates of this position, then we would have some sort of balance to the equation about the value of the "service" offered.

Let's not confuse who the client is that is being "serviced." It ain't the city. (Or lyrically, "service me or be smacked.")

If the Bond insurers such as MBIA don't get their finances ironed out soon a Good Bond Rating might enjoy the value of last nights Trialblazer score or warm spit, which ever is greater.

Me thinks Alan is a grateful benefactor of a corrupt system.
God must have loved the taxpayer..he made so many of them, sometimes referred to as sheep.