Keeping in mind that not a buck of that much talked-about tobacco
suit settlement has yet found its way into state coffers, it's rather extraordinary that
proposals for spending it are springing up faster than crabgrass this year.
That's right, not one thin dime is in hand and some estimates are
that first payment might not arrive until June 2000. Even then there are certain risk
factors. What if the federal government decides to lay claim to a shore, based on its
Medicaid contributions.
Yesterday House Speaker Tom
Finneran, noting that the feeding frenzy
to spend the money not yet even in hand has already begun, proposed setting up a tobacco
settlement trust fund or, as he described it, "a lockbox" into which the 20
years worth of settlement money -- ultimately expected to reach $9 billion -- would be
stashed. During that time the state would spend only the interest, estimated at some $15
million a year to start, but which would eventually build to about $300 million a year.
The settlement "has created an extraordinary appetite for
spending," Finneran said. "Clearly we can go on a binge for 20 years, but at the
end there's nothing to show for it ... If we can just show some restraint and discipline
now, we'll be better off in the long run."
In the spendthrift world that is Beacon Hill politics, Finneran's
proposal is eminently sensible -- although we would quibble with the earmarking of those
trust proceeds for health-related uses on philosophical grounds. (Money is money is
money.)
But the speaker's idea is clearly second best to returning the
proceeds from the tobacco settlement to the people to whom it is owed -- the taxpayers.
Remember, for a moment, the rationale behind the suit. In fact, the state's complaint
charged that "each year, the commonwealth must spend millions of dollars to purchase
or provide medical and related services for Massachusetts citizens suffering from diseases
caused by cigarette smoking." Expenses incurred through the Medicaid program were
paid by ... you guessed it, the taxpayers.
Elsewhere that is how the debate over use of the settlement money is
being framed.
As South Carolina Attorney General Charles Condon put it last
November, "Let's give this money back to the taxpayers. That could take the form of
car tax relief, income tax relief for seniors or simply a scheduled rebate to all
taxpayers. The point is we should pledge this money to tax relief only."
We second the motion. A bill drafted by
Citizens
for Limited Taxation and filed by Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) would do
just that. It deserves prompt and thoughtful consideration.