[Vision2020] [Spam] Re: S.J.R. 107

[lfalen]

I agree. I have voted yes on S.J.R. 107

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:52:19 -0800
To: "Mark Solomon" msolomon at moscow.com,  suehovey at moscow.com
Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] S.J.R. 107

> 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
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>