|
I'm in favor of #1. It's common sense to save during the good years because the lean years will be upon us sooner or later. I think it's a good thing that 26% of legislators could prevend spending of the oil funds - as the last oil boom has shown us, the state legislature cannot be trusted with surpluses. Instead of thinking about the long term, they individually see a surplus as a way to bring money back to their district (regardless of utility) in order to ensure reelection. The house resolution that initiated #1 shows actual concern for the state as a whole, in the long run and not simply the next election cycle. There is a good reason for savings from the oil trust funds to be in the constitution - that's the only way we can protect our (North Dakotans') savings for the future from the legislature.
If the state hits hard times again, and the money needs to be tapped into, I am confident that there will be less than 26% opposition to freeing up some of the trust fund. The measure as it is, is forced legislative responsibility.
|
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
NoDak Ballot Measures
Linear Mode
