[Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

[Phil Nisbet]

Saundra

Nope, I am a poor private sector geologist and not an employee of the 
University of Idaho.

Yes, the University is going through tough times.  One of the reasons that 
they are is not only the general down turn in the State's Ecomony and 
therefore the lowering of tax revenues for feeding the budget of the 
University, but also the lowering of income to the University from the land 
holdings that the state holds in trust for the University system.

During the discussion on zoning earlier, many folks seem to have screwed up 
what a land grant University is.  It litterally means that land was granted 
and that land is held in trust by the Idaho Department of Lands for the 
benefit of and to supply the financial need of, the Universities in this 
state.  The University itself is not built on state lands held for that 
purpose, it sits on land purchased for the construction of a University.  It 
is, however, state land, and as such is not subject to the zoning codes of 
either the city or the County.

The reason I bring this up is that the land that was granted is all over the 
place here in the state.  Unfortuneately, in too many instances, that land 
is not being put to productive use.  University Trust land is often treated 
as if its function were to provide recreational value or some such similar 
benefit to society as a whole.  It was never envisioned to be something for 
that, its supposed to generate revenues to pay for salaries and benefits for 
you folks who work at the Universities.

Just a one good local example, Moose Creek Reservoir is a great place to 
recreate, but its state University Trust land.  While its great that we have 
places like the old Simplot Clay Mine Reservoir to play in, that land was 
granted to provide money so that we do not have to lay off University 
employees.  The properrty there really ought to be managed to bring in 
revenue, even if its just charging for camping and using the lake, with the 
funds turned over to the University trust fund.

Phil

>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
>To: "'Phil Nisbet'" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>,<vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?
>Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:52:49 -0700
>
>Hi Mr. Nisbet,
>
>Well . . . I guess it's a safe guess that you don't work at the University
>of Idaho, which is Latah County's largest employer.  Hopefully, if I
>bollocks this up, someone will correct me  :-)
>
>Without addressing coverage details (which, IMHO, again decreased for UI
>employees in the form of new & increased deductibles, increased 
>co-payments,
>increased out of pocket limits, switching to MOB, etc), I can tell you that
>our family (employee, spouse, 1 child) will be paying less in premiums this
>upcoming fiscal year.
>
>Why?  Well, if I understand correctly, it's because our particular
>configuration (employee, spouse, 1 child) has been used in the past to
>***subsidize*** the premiums of other groups.  Specifically, the spouse
>portion has subsidized employees with ***no (covered) spouse*** but with
>covered children.  [This information is available from
>http://www.hr.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=80749; scroll down, click on
>PowerPoint Presentation of Changes under FY06 Program Change Highlights,
>then read the notes for Slide 16.]
>
>So, with respect to the UI, I would have to strongly disagree with your
>statement:
>"But there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have
>two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are 
>just
>as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
>burden for those who are not single."
>
>To the contrary:  at the UI, the spouse premium has apparently been
>subsidizing the premium of single parents with children.  Is that fair?
>
>I don't think I'm missing your point, but sometimes things aren't as they
>seem, as I think I've just shown using the UI as an example.
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2005, Saundra Lund.
>Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
>without the express written permission of the author.*****
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of Phil Nisbet
>Sent: Thursday, 02 June 2005 3:13 AM
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?
>
>There was a spirited discussion on spreading benefits about for gays and
>lesbians and transgenders, etc.  Though it has dried up, I was wondering,
>
>Why is there a benefit for people simple because they happen to be sharing
>the same bedroom?
>
>Don't get it wrong, I benefited from it back while I was married and before
>I became a single dad, but now I am happily not married and intend to spend
>the rest of my life in happy bachleorhood.
>
>So I guess I am wondering why it is that simply because two people make a
>choice to sleep together and live together in some sort of bonded
>relationship, those of us who have been there and done that and got the
>Tshirt, but are not to particularly wanting to do it again any time soon,
>are expected to pay higher taxes and spring for higher bills for insurance
>and the rest, simply because somebody else is having a wonderful time of
>matrimonial bliss.
>
>As long as we as a society chose to favor couples with tax breaks and
>benefits, I do not see how all types of relationship are not granted 
>special
>privileges equally.
>
>Those who suggest that marriage is one man and one woman and deserve
>benefits are doing so based on the premise that this is about kids, the
>having and raising of them being something that society needs to assist.
>But there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have
>two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are 
>just
>as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
>burden for those who are not single.  And of course, lesbian and gay 
>couples
>can have households with kids as well.  Then you have childless couples, 
>the
>Double Income No Kids (DINKs), who never are going to have kids.
>
>So if taking care of children is the key, why not attach the benefit to the
>kids and not to the couples?  That means that DINKs do not get a benefit
>simply because they are sleeping together, but that struggling single
>parents see the same benefit as two parent households.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
>http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/