vision2020@moscow.com: (Fwd) RE: 1% editorials

(Fwd) RE: 1% editorials

Steve Cooke (scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu)
Fri, 18 Oct 1996 07:27:40 PST8PDT

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: Jim Fisher <jfisher@lmtribune.com>
To: Steve Cooke <scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Subject: RE: 1% editorials
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 17:15:00 PDT

Sure
----------
From: Steve Cooke
To: Jim Fisher
Subject: RE: 1% editorials
Date: Thursday, October 17, 1996 12:03PM

Jim,
This is an interesting discussion. Do I have you permission to share
it w/ the Onepercent and/or vision2020 list?
Steve Cooke
>
> I think you are correct about the motives of the initiative's sponsor(s).
> Rankin and one of his wealthy backers, Harry Magnuson of Wallace, both
have
> long records of seeking to starve public schools to hold down taxes, or in

> Harry's case to avoid paying them altogether. But regarding the
legislative
> reaction, I think you are on much softer ground. I base my more optimistic

> view on my first-hand observation of the way legislators responded to a
huge
> revenue shortfall in 1983, when they essentially replaced all lost money,
> and my second-hand observation of their handling of the first 1 Percent in

> 1978. As a result of that, by the way, properties in Idaho are assessed
much
> more equitably around the state and local government budgeting is less
> arcane. Those are both good things, representing an attempt to relieve
some
> of the pressure from voters who passed an unconstitutional and unworkable
> initiative. This one has slightly fewer constitutional problems, but still

> requires great legislative tinkering before it achieves anything. And the
> pressure that might pass it (although I'm betting it won't) isn't going
away
> anytime soon. So maybe legislative reaction to it wouldn't be such a
> disaster.
>
> But then again, maybe I'm the second most optimistic man in America (Bob
> Dole being first, of course).
>
> By any chance, are you and Jack Wenders in communication about any of
this?
> I'd love to be a fly on the wall if so.
> ----------
> From: Steve Cooke
> To: Jim Fisher
> Subject: RE: 1% editorials
> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 1996 2:01PM
>
> Jim,
> Thank you for your permission. I have six of your editorials on some
> aspect of the 1% dating from May 12 to Oct. 6.
>
> "Jim Fisher Editorials, Lewiston Morning Tribune
> Defeat 1 Percent and kiss property tax relief goodbye, Lewiston
> Morning Tribune, May 12.
> Phil Batt proposes fighting a virus with
> bacteria, Lewiston Morning Tribune, July 8.
> Will Godzilla eat
> Idaho if the One Percent passes? Lewiston Morning Tribune, July
> 21.
> A welcome suggestion to collect unpaid taxes first, Lewiston
> Morning Tribune, July 22.
> Let Batt fight property taxes, not
> property valuations, Lewiston Morning Tribune, August 8.
> With
> that column on the One Percent, boy did I goof, Lewiston Morning
> Tribune, October 6. "
>
> As you may know I have been beating the drum of the 1/3 cuts to "Yales,
> Ails, & Jails." As you know, this is how the math works when you move
> $228 mil. to the state, hold public ed. harmless, and not raise
> taxes in FY 1996. Let me explain why I think this is appropriate.
>
> I agree or at least hope that the leg. would raise rev. to offset
> some of the expenditures for which there is not current revenues. But
> the 1% Initiative does not suggest or even allow for this
> possibility. In fact, it specifically states that any addition
> revenue should come out of growth in state revenues and a reduction
> in other less essential state services.
>
> My thinking is that voters
> are voting on the 1% Initiative as written and not the 1% Initiative
> and a bet on the legislative reaction to the 1% Initiative.
> I am not Jean Dixon so I do not know what the legislature will do in
> the future. (I don't think the legislators themselves know.) But I do
> know what the 1% initiative says. And it does not include raising
> taxes.
>
> My take on the 1% Initiative is that it is an attempt to use the
> citizen's dissatisfaction w/ property taxes' unfairness to cut state
> and local gov't. There is nothing in the current 1% initiative to
> address the unfairness of property taxes except to reduce the extent of
> property tax
> use for funding local services in Idaho. It goes a long way to reduce
> state and local services - 15% reduction on a $2 billion total state
> and local expenditures.
>
> The irony is that the opponents to the 1% are not, in general,
> interested in property
> tax reform either. This is what makes your frustration so
> understandable to me for it is my frustration as well.
>
> Steve Cooke
>
>
> >
> > No problem. I assume you refer to my personal columns, in which I have
> > recanted from an earlier position, in addition to any editorials I write
> for
> > the Tribune. You are free to use either.
> >
> > While we're on the subject, however, I must voice continuing objection
to
> > any and all assumptions about what the initiative will do to any
services
> > other than those provided by local government. They are in the direct
line
>
> > of fire, whereas state services like higher ed might or might not be
> > similarly affected, depending on what legislators do. I am not alone in
> > believing that the likelihood that higher ed will suffer a 30 percent
> > reduction in funding is close to zero.
> > ----------
> > From: Steve Cooke
> > To: jfisher
> > Subject: 1% editorials
> > Date: Wednesday, October 16, 1996 12:47PM
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Jim,
> > > I have posted your editorials on my homepage on the 1% initiative. I
> > > wanted to check w/ you that this is acceptable to you. If not, pls
> > > let me know and I will remove them.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Steve Cooke
> > > Associate Professor
> > > Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
> > > University of Idaho
> > > Moscow, ID 83843
> > > http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
> > > 208-885-7170 (phone)
> > > 208-885-5759 (fax)
> > >
> > Associate Professor
> > Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
> > University of Idaho
> > Moscow, ID 83843
> > http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
> > 208-885-7170 (phone)
> > 208-885-5759 (fax)
> >
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
> University of Idaho
> Moscow, ID 83843
> http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
> 208-885-7170 (phone)
> 208-885-5759 (fax)
>
Associate Professor
Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
208-885-7170 (phone)
208-885-5759 (fax)
Associate Professor
Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
208-885-7170 (phone)
208-885-5759 (fax)


This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet