Bismarck, North Dakota News

" You are so off base on this, you are advocating that there needs to be protection of these funds, which is what Measure 1 does. Right now politicians and bureaucrats are spending all the money they could get their hands on it as they did during the last oil boom. This measure is put into place to make sure they don't spend all the oil tax revenue. The future is that the oil tax revenue will discontinue at some point and we need to put this money away while we have it. "

" Oil Tax TRUST Fund for future use. Not a good idea. The legislature's actions are very predictable when they know there is a untapped revenue source they would spend if they could get their hands on it. But how far into the future that may be is unknown. As far as I am concerend, these are proposals being sold using emotional motivation to hook voters into approving them and end up being a secret money pool for politicians to dip into for this or that "future" situation. A few years down the road, people will have forgotten all about the oil tax trust funds they voted for, while the state, sitting on a treasure chest of tax money, at the same time will be looking for ways to tax you even more for this or that revenue shortfall. Question is, where has all the oil tax trust money gone? Nobody knows. You just can't TRUST politicians and bureaucrats with proposals like this. "

" Uhm. I think your real name is SPEND NOW!

Would you please just take a look at what the other oil and gas producing states have done and how successful their trust funds have been?? Please do so before you make up more fuzzy math and blow our State's future. "

" To Online Editor--How come the complete article on the AG and pool story is not online?? The paper has a much longer story. I'm sure there will be lots of comments on this one too.
Thanks "

" I am surprised that everyone seems surprised by AARP's political agenda. Do some research, they are not around to simply get discounts. "

" "You can't predict now what kind of situation your legislators will face in two years or 10 years," Wurtz said.

Yeah...but you can BE SURE that if the legislators (and the governor) have all of this extra $$$ sitting around they'll sure find a way to spend it! It's like putting a case of booze in front of a drunk. The only way to protect them from themselves is to keep the bottle (or, in this case...cash) out of their hands. "

" I have no problem at all with the 3/4 vote. A PERMINENT fund should be difficult to access. I do believe, however, that spending some of the windfall now is a must. We have a burning need for improved infrastructure at almost every level of our city, town and state assets. Roads, bridges, public buildings, water, sewer, parks, schools, etc. all need some updating or maintenance which has been put off for many years. Why not use part of this windfall to take care of those long neglected problems. I heard yesterday that the tax on oil is going up from 6% to 11% this June. How much more surplus can we stand? My opinion: Correct the problems of history, which includes neglect of our infrastructure, and put the rest in a trust fund from which only the interest may be spent without that 3/4 majority vote. After that, lower taxes on the average citizen and keep your cotton pickin hands out of my wallet. Once again, shame on AARP for their narrow minded attitude. Look out for number one is not the way we do business in ND. "

" If this had been in place in 2007, there would have been no property tax relief passed. The 10% credit for property taxes paid cost $116 million from the oil and gas trust fund. So comments like Disappointed's are way off-base. Putting that money away will raise other taxes, not lower them.

If we actually collected the supposed 11.5% from every well in the state, we would have more than a billion dollars to invest in the next biennium. That would be enough to double the current property tax relief (which will otherwise expire) and allow the state to buy a Healthy Steps insurance plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield for every child in North Dakota - including vision and dental ... that's what I'd call investing in the future, rather than merely putting money in a bank. Plus it would lower the average cost of health insurance premiums for everyone by more than 15% - a true economic development program for existing business.

The interest on the money we sock away probably won't even keep pace with the decreasing value of the American dollar ... if we're worried about the day that we run out of oil, we should invest in alternatives ... develop hydrogen fuel from North Dakota wind and water, invest in having the healthiest and smartest kids on the planet, invest in what we'll need ... don't just sock money into a bank on the lying promise that our taxes will go down in the far future.
"

" 3/4 is not a hard number to get, over 90% of the appropriations bills in the last two sessions have recieved over 3/4 vote. Currently it requires 67% and raising the bar to 3/4 is only 8 more votes out of the 94 members. "

" Another thing to consider is that opposing this measure does not have to mean that one opposes saving. Too many people seem to be assuming that all of the Oil Trust money will be spent if we don't pass Measure 1. "The Issue" mentioned that a simple majority of our legislature should be enough to determine whether or not any of the money should be allocated for use. The fact is, *that* is status quo. The legislature is not allowed to spend any of this money unless a majority decides to do so.

I can think of a lot of ways that North Dakota would benefit from spending some of this money now. But the fact is, even if I wanted to save the lion's share of it, I'd still vote "no" on Measure 1, because, like "The Issue" said, how are you ever going to get the 3/4 of both houses of the legislature to agree on anything? "

" I am very disappointed AARP came out with such a poorly thought out decision. This generation of people should remember the past oil booms where our State squandered the revenues. States like Wyoming, Alaska, and New Mexico established permanent trust funds years ago. Much of their State's budgets are fully paid for solely by interest from these funds. The funds are used for everything from tax relief, education, roads, bridges, and other public good. Meanwhile, we wasted ours, and have to pay some of the highest taxes around. This could be the last boom, you never know, I hope the AARP and its members rethink this strategy, and fully research the success the other States have had who have established a permanent trust fund. "

" And to "The Issue" I do apologize for my name-calling. Please forgive this impetuous whipper-snapper. "

" Samuel, you are right. I apologize for my disgraceful tone and words. I was wrong and from anyone offended, I ask forgiveness. You are also astute to point out the issue of rising property taxes. For some time I've believed that owners who've no children in the public school system need their taxes adjusted (elderly or not). That would mitigate rising property taxes... not eliminate, but mitigate, as costs associated with maintenence and construction are always on the rise. This would go a long way in not shrugging off our established citizens, I believe. Thanks for helping put my feet back on the ground and addressing a great dog in the fight. "

" The generational greed encouraged by AARP is sickening. I am a retired 60 year old who feels there is a need to preserve the income from this one time harvest of oil in a trust fund. This resource doesn't belong only to our generation. It also belongs to all generations who follow us. Let our generation not rape our non-renewable resources for our own use only. "

" ...is not the fund itself. It is the way that it can be accessed later. This is nothing but a ploy by a fading power (the republicans) to keep control over this fund long after they are out of the action. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a fund but locking that money away for decades is not responsible. The language reads: "The principal of the permanent oil tax trust fund may not be expended except upon a vote of three-fourths of the members elected to each house of the
legislative assembly and not more than twenty percent of the principal may be expended during any biennium."

3/4 is a hard percentage to get to agree on anything, let alone spending this money. I think many would find the trust fund more palatable if it were a simple majority.

I too, take offense in being called a "blue-hair." No need for name calling.
"

" The AARP has no business fiddling with North Dakota's policies. They have their whole arm in the Federal cookie jar, let's put the North Dakota cookie jar away before they can start stealing from it. There is no reason to oppose Measure 1 unless they plan to find a new way to spend money on people who didn't plan for the future themselves. "

" As a young North Dakotan myself, I am ashamed of "Independent Conservatives," deplorable labling of AARP members as "blue-hairs." Is their opinion on this matter less valuable because of their age? With so much of our state's population being retired, I think that it goes without saying that we have a lot of people living on fixed incomes. Their 'dog in this fight' is the fact that every year their property tax goes up, but their income does not. I'm shocked that a self-proclaimed conservative is unable to see that shrugging off our state's most established citizens is more than just irresponsible. It's disgraceful. "

" The Greatest "ME" Generation doesn't want to save for the future? That is not so hard to believe. "

" As a member of AARP, I am ashamed to see them take this position. A permanent trust fund would help stabilize our taxes in the future. Isnt that one of the goals of AARP? Oil booms come and go but taxes go on and on and on. The lean years will come again to North Dakota and the ability we have now to save our surplus would enable us to meet our future obligations without raising taxes as dramatically. Just because we personally come up with extra money in our budget doesnt mean we go out and spend it right away. A little luxury or extra in our lives is great when we can afford it, but dont we put something away in savings? To me the trust fund is no different. Put something away for the lean years. The one way to insure that it will be done is through a change in the state constitution. As to it being hard and time consuming, its OK to make the change hard as it was designed to be in our constitution. Make it equally hard to change back so future generations will think twice before spending the principal gained by this generation. Leave something for the future. "

" Did I wake up in the twilight zone today? Politicians want to save money for future use, and to put caps on what they can spend? This is a week after all of our senators pushed the farm bill? I must be dead. "

" What business does AARP have meddling in this issue? What's their dog in this fight? It has to be about ND's abilities for entitlement spending on the elderly. Message to the blue-haired crowd and its representatives: you are not entitled to my money. If ND wants to reduced my income tax, it's none of your business. Let your children and grandkids own up to their responsibilities to care for you. I'm open to correction from someone in-the-know, but why is AARP (of all groups!) opposing this if not for elderly care issues and immediate, available tax spending? "

" Interesting that opposition to to these tax reduction proposals would come from AARP. I am not sure that I agree or disagree with their stance without learning more about the proposals. I do think that they are right about the amendment process--putting it into the state constitution makes it a hard and time consuming process --both to get it in there, and if need be, to get it out of there in the future. I am of the mind that cutting taxes and doing rebates just because there is money in the treasury is ill-considered at this time. ND has a lot of catching up to do to get the most out of our energy and Agri industries. We must be ready to invest now while we have the money and the nation thirsts for energy and food. "

" Measure 1 is this best thing we can do for the future of North Dakota. Period. And anyone who is opposed to this is just being selfish. Oil will not be around forever and anything we can do to insure the fiscal legacy for future generations from the excess funds of today is best thing we can do for future generations. Look at Wyoming or Alaska as example of how this move is the right move, regardless of if it is in the Constitution or in Law. "