<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/6/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mark Solomon</b> <<a href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">msolomon@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div>Ted,</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>But who knows, maybe that leadership will change on Tuesday.</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>Mark S.</div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_10ebdb614347af59_1">
<div><br> </div>
<div>At 11:41 PM +0000 11/5/06, Ted Moffett wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Bruce-<br><br>Thanks for your response on S.J.R. 107.<br><br>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.
<br><br>Ted Moffett<br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">On 11/5/06,<b> Bruce and Jean Livingston</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:jeanlivingston@turbonet.com" target="_blank">jeanlivingston@turbonet.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
<blockquote>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.
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote>The Lewiston Tribune had this editorial regarding it this morning:<br>
<blockquote>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.
<br></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote>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<i> think</i> that I am speaking accurately, I might inadvertently be mischaracterizing the facts in some fashion.
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote>Bruce Livingston</blockquote>
<blockquote> <br>
<blockquote>----- Original Message -----</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>From:</b> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">Ted Moffett</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>To:</b> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:59 AM</blockquote>
<blockquote><b>Subject:</b> [Vision2020] S.J.R. 107</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote>All-</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote>My team of Boston lawyers kept on the payroll to explain complex legal language that might mislead is on vacation...</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote>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.?
</blockquote>
<blockquote> </blockquote>
<blockquote>Ted Moffett<br></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<hr>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> <span></span> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">
http://www.fsr.net</a> <span></span> <br> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<div><br> </div></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br>