[Vision2020] S.J.R. 107

[Ted Moffett]

Thanks Sue (my former teacher from Moscow High from at least a million years
ago) and Mark for your feedback on S.R.J. 107.

Mark offers a possible downside to voting "Yes" on this issue, given Idaho's
taxation and funding needs, but apart from his concerns, which may be
quite valid, this measure appears to be aimed at doing with the tobacco
settlement funds what they are supposed to do, funding health care related
needs, something Idaho could use some help with, it seems.

Ted Moffett


On 11/6/06, Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  Ted,
>
>
> One possible downside is the result of the various tax cuts of the last
> few years: the tobacco money has been routinely used to fill the funding gap
> left by the reductions in income tax revenues. We hear all the time from the
> governor (past and present) and the majority party legislators that we are
> now exceeding tax revenue forecasts so those cuts must be working and
> presumably they don't "need" to keep raiding the tobacco/public health fund.
> This conveniently overlooks the simple facts that to balance the budget for
> the past five years or so they have starved public education, higher
> education and state employee compensation (last year was the first time in
> that period in which state employees saw a raise and even that barely kept
> up with COL adjustments for the one previous year). A reasonable guesstimate
> of the unfunded needs of the state dwarfs the entire current state budget.
>
>
> This is a long way of saying that under the current political leadership
> in Boise, removing the tobacco fund from the general budget revenue sources
> could be used as an excuse by leadership to further starve or cut state
> funded obligations.
>
>
> But who knows, maybe that leadership will change on Tuesday.
>
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> At 11:41 PM +0000 11/5/06, Ted Moffett wrote:
>
> Bruce-
>
> Thanks for your response on S.J.R. 107.
>
> As far as I can ascertain, voting "Yes" on S.J.R. 107 appears to be
> reasonable.  But legislation can have many unexpected and hidden
> consequences, as we all know, and is sometimes presented to the voter
> deliberately to hide these consequences.  I was expecting someone might be
> in the know about the possible unexpected or hidden consequences of a "Yes"
> vote on this issue.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 11/5/06,* Bruce and Jean Livingston* <jeanlivingston at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
>
> My understanding is that Idaho received a proportionate share of money
> received from tobacco companies as part of a national settlement of class
> action lawsuits against tobacco companies.  If my understanding is correct,
> the money has been used by the Legislature on general state spending in
> times of state government economic hardship, and has not been spent on
> health and education issues that relate to tobacco smoking as the settlement
> was originally intended.  The issue on the ballot is an attempt to create a
> separate endowment for this money, isolating it from the State's general
> fund and preserving it for use in tobacco related uses of anti-tobacco
> education and to alleviate negative impacts of tobacco caused illnesses on
> our health care system.
>
>
>
> The Lewiston Tribune had this editorial regarding it this morning:
>
> SJR 107: Another amendment, but a less controversial and less dangerous
> one, this creates a permanent endowment fund that would receive 80 percent
> of Idaho's revenue from the multistate settlement with tobacco companies.
> This will protect that share of the receipts from being used for ordinary
> state spending, as has happened in the past. It's a smart move, and deserves
> your support.
>
> Perhaps Reps. Trail or Ringo, or someone else in the know, might elaborate
> on this, as I am writing from a general feeling or vague recollection, and
> although I* think* that I am speaking accurately, I might inadvertently be
> mischaracterizing the facts in some fashion.
>
>
>
> Bruce Livingston
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>
> *To:* Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:59 AM
>
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] S.J.R. 107
>
>
>
>
> All-
>
>
>
> My team of Boston lawyers kept on the payroll to explain complex legal
> language that might mislead is on vacation...
>
>
>
> This might not be the hottest political issue or race on the ballot, but
> can anyone offer their opinion on S.J.R. 107, which will create something
> called the Idaho Millennium Permanent Endowment Fund for tobacco settlement
> funds, etc.?
>
>
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061106/d0c7525b/attachment.htm