What a problem to have, a surplus of revenue in North Dakota. There are 48 other states that must wish they had that problem, and many taxpayers wish the federal government would underestimate future income to end up with a surplus. When the Legislature met in 2007, no one would have predicted crude oil prices at $120 a barrel, thus we couldn't predict a surplus or the availability of a tax decrease.

Dustin Gawrylow's May 3 letter seemed to downplay the importance oil development has had on the state surplus. Oil is one of the highest taxed commodities in North Dakota. It also has led to thousands of new jobs, an increase of double-digit tax revenue in communities involved and an increase in income tax revenue from thousands of mineral owners.

In Gawrylow's response to the comparison of North Dakota taxes to other states, he assumes that legislators don't care or worry about taxes. This couldn't be further from the truth. North Dakota's legislators are citizen legislators and therefore are subject to the same taxes as all residents, and I can make assurance that no one wants to pay taxes.

As far as Gawrylow's numbers being bad, people can link onto the Web site for the Tax Foundation comparison guide (www.taxfoundation.org /research/topic/48.html). The figures and quote I used were theirs, not mine.

One statement that I do agree upon is that we realize that all taxes affect the bottom line of the average North Dakotan, and the more dollars we can leave in the hands of the people the better off all of us are. That's why I was proud of the $120 million dollars that we in the Legislature returned to the taxpayers after the last session. Some of the tax reductions were permanent, such as the homestead tax credit for low income senior citizens and the disabled.