Gruenhagen: “I’d have to see the specifics. I’m not going to make a statement based on generalities.”
Could you support new revenue that comes from delaying an even higher percentage of K-12 school payments? Could you support new revenue that comes from borrowing money that would be repaid with future tobacco settlement payments?
Rosen: “ Yes I am.
Actually the governor was on board for (the K-12 shift). His proposal was 50 percent the first year and 50 the next, but we came back with a 60-40 split.”
Sheran: “ We have to, in the budget settlement, accept some short-term revenue solutions. I would hope we won’t use (tobacco) bonding to pay for ongoing expenses. As a policy, to me that’s the worst possible solution.”
DeKruif: “ The problem I have with that particular bill, is it talks about money but not the policy. We can juggle numbers around.
Policy changes direction. I want to know what the whole agreement is first.”
Parry: “If we were to do the tobacco settlement, I’d have a hard time accepting that unless there was good reform going forward. As for the schools, we’ve shifted too much. It’s time to stop that nonsense.”
Morrow: “I’d be willing to look at an overall package that moves that number (on the K-12 shift) if the other parts of the solution were fair. On the tobacco bonds, I absolutely oppose them because there are a variety of legal, economic and constitutional issues with that.”