Inter Lake editorial
This year's election lineup is mercifully uncluttered by initiatives and ballot measures.
Only three statewide ballot issues face voters, and they are pretty straightforward and simple to understand.
Initiative 155, for example (also known as the Healthy Montana Kids plan) aims to provide insurance to an additional 30,000 children in Montana.
The initiative would set aside $22 million in state funding to significantly expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. It also would provide help for families to be able to add children to employer-sponsored health plans.
There are no new taxes involved with this plan - the money would come from a tax that insurance companies pay on insurance premiums. That money currently goes to the state's general fund, where the projected surplus means it wouldn't be missed in the short term.
Money raised through Initiative 155 would be matched 3-to-1 by federal money, giving Montana an even bigger fund to help insure children.
This pool of money, plus changes in eligibility requirements, would allow the current health insurance program for children to be expanded.
Initiative 155, in short, has the laudable prospect of providing affordable health coverage to nearly every uninsured child in Montana.
That's a noble goal and one worthy of supporting.
Another ballot measure with a noble goal is Constitutional Amendment 44, which is intended to increase state coffers by allowing state trust funds to invest in the stock market.
Unfortunately, the timing of the amendment is very poor.
CA-44 would allow up to 25 percent of all state trust fund assets to be invested in private corporate stock instead of bonds. No one can argue with the desire to see taxpayers benefit from the kind of choices that have made millionaires out of many investors.
But trust funds are just what they say - money that has been entrusted to the state's care to ensure a source of funding for a variety of programs through the years.
Investing in the stock market works almost universally in the long-term, but trust funds need money available now and tomorrow. The current stock-market malaise probably makes this amendment a moot point anyway, since voters are unlikely to take the chance that short-term losses might become a problem for state trust funds.
Despite our desire to see the state's nest egg grow, most prudent voters will probably vote no on CA-144 and stick with the tried-and-true investments that have proved safe in the past.
FINALLY, Legislative Referendum No. 118, more commonly known as the 6-mill levy, is an easy choice for most Montanans.
This levy came about in 1920 to support higher education, and has been renewed by the voters in every decade since then. It is not a tax increase, but the continuation of a longstanding tradition that pays for educational programs for nearly 42,000 students.
The cost is modest - only $24 on a $200,000 house - and accounts for 9 percent of total state support for higher education. A vote for LR-118 just renews a commitment to education that Montana made years ago.
cowboyznut
Your correct I am passionate about this issue-- All children in this country have a right to an education but not all children have a right to a healthy childhood. I work hard as most do to provide health insurance for my family I would rather try to change something now than pay for incarceration later.
cowboyznut
Rory one question. If your employer was offer 3 dollars to your 1 would you pass? I don't think the feds are gonna send that money back I will take it!
cowboyznut
I do and I am sick of my premiums skyrocketing as well. But as you say here is where we disagree because I do not believe they will go up because it is not costing your insurance company anymore than they already pay. A reallocation of a tax they already pay!
cowboyznut
This tax currently goes into the general fund which has been in surplus--so in my mind we are telling them where to spend it-- I wish my employer would give me the money they say they pay towards mine premium but they won't and I doubt yours will either
naturalresources
L/R118, "only" 24 bucks a year on a 200,000.00 house that you probably couldn't sell for 130,000.00 if you life depended on it.
cowboyznut
Referendum No. 118--I am undecided on this issue which the DIL says is easy. Huh????? I know it is not a tax increase but it is a chance for a decrease and most americans have to trim their budgets maybe the university system should to??? My personal problem with is my mother works for the college! ugggg!
cowboyznut
Initiative 155-"There are no new taxes involved with this plan" this is what I am talking about Rory
cowboyznut
Healthier children should produce healthier adults, if not obesity and diabetes will skyrocket. If stopped that could make the cost of healthcare 15-20 years from now still affordable!
rory
Cowboyznut77, I don't mean for this to sound like I'm mocking you but our same "healthier children" are smoking dope in the bathrooms of elementary schools. I would like the gov to concentrate on that a little more. We get them insurance, they are still going to die of lung cancer or die in the midst of a drug deal gone bad. I say leave the parents responsible for insuring their kids.
cowboyznut
rory- says "I say leave the parents responsible for insuring their kids." The same parents that didn't know that their 3rd grader is smoking pot can really do this??? So by not supporting I-155 this kid will have a better chance at being a productive adult?
cowboyznut
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) Means we are already paying for other peoples healthcare doesn't it? It was in the debate last night that bad debt costs the insured $900 dollars a year and neither candidate disputed it!
cowboyznut
I am as sick of taxes and wasted money on wars and bailouts but standing still doesn't fix anything! If you want something done give it to the extremely busy person if you don't give the task to person who has time to do it!
cowboyznut
I-155 is a good initiative, I know some who have voted against it maybe not understanding it and thinking it is an additional tax. The tax is already being collected. I think all children should have health care since they have no choices as adults do. Also this should help get rid of some of the bad debt health care facilities can't collect!
aGypsy
children are the responsibility of the parents not the state.
cowboyznut
I don't know why this isn't in the latest comments file, but I find the issues get less comments than blowing up a suitcase--which people try to turn into an issue
Jaspear
When did taxes become a "tradition"? I must have missed that memo. ;-)
cowboyznut
Jaspear-- I think when something has been done 9 times over 80 years you could use the word tradition.
rory
So, cowboyznut77, since it's not a tax and the insurance agencies are responsible for it don't you think the premiums would go up and therefore be an increase on us anyway?
cowboyznut
rory--the tax on the insurance companies is not increasing so why would the premiums???? This money is already collected from them it is basically stating the 22 million be designated for the CHIP program and that with that designation we can get up to 75 million in federal matching funds depending on participation--now it is true this may make the general fund a little lighter but it has been in surplus