Bismarck, North Dakota News

" "If we got 5% return on that money (per biennium), a very conservative amount, our state could budget $300,000,000 per biennium to run our state government."

Measure 1 will put the money into the Bank of North Dakota rather than a diverse profolio. You'll be lucky to get 3% interest. Wyoming, on the other hand, have a diverse investment plan that makes more than 3% interest with specific allocations for the interest made on their "nest egg." Measure 1 doesn't, so how is this suppose to relieve property tax, which is ahigher tax compared to the amount we pay on income tax? Also, if you are counting on a three fourths majority of state legislatures voting to tap into the principle for property tax relief, infrastructure repair, any emergency, etc, you realize that it only takes twelve legislatures to block it. This could lead to some serious regional turf wars and nothing will get done. For instance, all it would take is 12 legislatures from the western side of the state to decide that nothing will get spent on property tax for "city folks in Bismarck and Fargo" unless the first 20% is spent on road repairs in the west. Even if they get there way, they can still stymie any vote for property tax relief. See, a turf war.

I agree with a savings plan is needed, but not this one. "

" Thanks for the bit of humor FM-I loved it. "

" I agree. Vote yes on Measure 1 and No on Measure 2. Both are long range votes to help North Dakota do well fiscally in the long run. Also in the long run it will help us to keep taxes lower at the expense of higher for the time being. Wyoming has a huge state fund that can't be touched. It generates many millions of dollars of interest in the general fund each year. As a result, Wyoming does not have a state income tax. "

" Yes we are like alaska. We all keep an eye on them canadians. Just think, Hoven has the same credentials as Palin. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING MCCAIN!!!!!! "

" The common schools trust fund is also allocated some oil tax revenue but is separate from the current permanant oil tax trust fund. Please see: NDCC 57-51.1-07.2. Permanent oil tax trust fund - Deposits - Interest - Adjustment of distribution formula. All revenue deposited in the general fund during a biennium derived from taxes imposed on oil and gas under chapters 57-51 and 57-51.1 which exceeds seventy-one million dollars must be transferred by the state treasurer to a special fund in the state treasury known as the permanent oil tax trust fund. The state treasurer shall transfer interest earnings of the permanent oil tax trust fund to the general fund at the end of each fiscal year. The principal of the permanent oil tax trust fund may not be expended except upon a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the legislative assembly. "

" To: To Just Curious

I believe you are incorrectly referring to the existing Common Schools Trust Fund, which generates approximately $70 million for the state each biennium.

This is a different animal entirely that will be in addition to the Common Schools Trust Fund as far as I can tell. There is no provision in this measure to replace the Common Schools Trust Fund that is also funded with oil revenues.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. "

" Over the past year we have heard that our state is running somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.4 Billion dollars in surplus. Now, that means that we are taking in 1.4 Billion dollars more than we projected to spend in the current biennium. A great deal of that is due to oil activity and extraction taxes/royalties. Now, if we were to make a real leap and assume (nasty word) a continuation of activity for another 8 years (4 bienniums) we could see a total of 6 Billion dollars over 10 years. If this is indeed surplus (not budgeted) money then at the end of the 10 years we could potentially have 6 billion dollars in reserve, locked away. If we got 5% return on that money (per biennium), a very conservative amount, our state could budget $300,000,000 per biennium to run our state government. Now, that's tax relief. If even half these assumptions come true we could see $150,000,000 added to replace tax revenue. My question, why not be a bit conservative at this point, budget as we have been in the past, lock up the surplus from our budget and enjoy our profits at the end of the 10 years? Isnt that how our parents and grandparents enjoyed their retirement? They saved and put aside enough to live on in the future. Surely we can do that again. "

" I'd suggest before you post such a bold letter, you at least get your numbers and facts correct. Because you are inccorrect, I will not even consider your letter in my voting decision. "

" Get out the beer mugs, Grumpy, for you and I agree on one MORE thing! Whoopie! People, please VOTE NO ON MEASURES 1 AND 2. "

" You are incorrect regarding your $60 million cut from what I assume you mean general fund spending. The current permanent oil tax trust fund receives all oil revenue over $71 million. The proposed oil trust fund would initially receive all oil revenue over $100 million. Therefore, the proposed trust fund would actually allow $29 million more to be spent from the general fund. In addition, the proposed oil trust fund would be adjusted by CPI to increase the revenue put into the general fund each biennium. Both the current and proposed funds have similar provisions requiring either a 2/3 or 3/4 vote of the Legislative Assembly to use the trust principal. The current and proposed trust funds are very similar, it's just the new fund would have an inflationary factor to allow more oil revenue to go into the general fund each biennium. "

" p.s. I believe the State should save some money, I just don't think this measure is the correct way to do it. It is poorly thought out. "

" To: To Grumpy Old Republican

Actually, you are incorrect. The measure does not take "excess" oil revenues and save them for a rainy day. It caps the state at how much of the revenue can be used. This is very different.

I believe the current use of oil revenue is somewhere around $160 million bucks, the measure would cap this at $100 million. So something around $60 million bucks in spending would need to be cut or made up from other state revenue sources. In particular, your taxes.

Combine this with Sand's measure to lower income taxes and you are quickly talking about this state going from having to deal with a surplus to dealing with a deficit. "

" Numbers, I would assume that her letter contained a typo, but her point was that Alaskan oil production dwarfs North Dakotan oil production. I think she made that point well. The letter that she referenced talked about how nice it would be to get a dividend check in the mail the way Alaska does. The language of Measure 1 does not deliver on that promise.

I don't want the legislature to spend all the money now, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist, a political scientist, or even an 8th grade science teacher to see that Measure 1 has some flaws. And I don't want a flawed plan in our constitution. "

" Your argument about the surplus not being available in the future is exactly why people should vote yes on #1. I think you are confused about what measure #1 does. It puts excess oil revenue into a fund to earn interest and saves the principal for future times when our economy slows down and we don't collect as much revenue. When times get bad, we can tap into the fund to continue to provide services without making drastic cuts or having a major tax increase. For example, if California had a rainy day fund like measure #1, they wouldn't be struggling like they are now ($15 Billion deficit). "

" While I agree with numbers on the need to save instead of quickly disbursing the oil production money, locking the money away and tying the hands of legislators is not the way to go about it. TW "

" Wow, if a stylish mustache and trendy glasses are how you judge a politician, how can we atke your letter seriously? Gotta love the substance of your letter, littered with inaccurate information and how I love the repeated references to John's "stylish" mustache. I am curious as to where you get your info on a "balanced plan for tax relief"? Both Hoevne and Mathern offer tax cut plans, but any kid in Economics 101 knows you can't have tax cuts without spending cuts. If Hoeven or Mathern have any spending cut proposals, they sure are keeping them a secret. Our two major parties have offered us two democratic style spend, spend, spend candidates for governor. God help ND in these economicaly troubled times. "

" Absolutely correct, Jennifer. Vote NO on 1 & 2. These measures are pipe dreams that assume the surplus will always be there and continue to grow exponentially, providing a great magical cash cow that can be milked indefinitely. That just simply is not the case. A great physicist once determined that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Intelligent economists realize that law applies in their field as well. For every boom there is a bust. When the great magical cash cow tips over dead, supporters of 1 & 2 will wish they hadn't squandered the rest of the old dairy herd.

VOTE NO ON MEASURES 1 AND 2! "

" I think we are all smart enough to realize the typo and that the point she made to everyone but you is that ND's oil production is a fraction of what Alaska's oil production is. If both the measures pass, then we can kiss any kind of property tax relief GOODBYE!! What are the citizens more concerned with, income taxes or property taxes? Unless you live in a cave, the answer is once again obvious. "

" Jennifer, your numbers are incorrect. The number for ND you are referring to is during 2007 an average of 123,000 bbls/day not per year. According to NDIC Oil & Gas Division(https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/) we produced 171,751 bbls/day; and 5,324,274 total barrels for the month of July 2008. Production has been steadily increasing about 5000 bbls/day each month since 2007. (https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicaloilprodstats.pdf)

1 bbl=42 US gallons

I disagree with you though, we need to save this money especially during these troubled times. I can't tell you what will happen a week from now much less 1/5/10 years from now. Let's save now so we don't have to be taxed to death if the economy gets really bad. I don't believe in the individual checks, but if we could reach a point where most/all of the ND government's budget is paid without the use of taxes, I'm all for it. It's possible if we don't let our legislature spend, spend, spend. "