SOS

Rep. Bernie Olson's letter regarding CI-97 is fraught with misinformation and factless innuendo. Frankly, I'm surprised that he wouldn't research what he's writing about beforehand. To set the record straight, here's some facts. Stop Over Spending (SOS Montana or CI-97 has two major features.

First, SOS puts the people in charge. It limits the state General Fund (Which is only 38 percent of the overall state budget) to a growth rate not to exceed inflation plus the change in population. In other words, this portion of the state budget can't grow faster than family and small business incomes. Rep. Olson purports that this is an attempt to "gut state and local government, K-12 education, social services…". On the contrary, SOS Montana allows government to grow, but at a reasonable rate. Apparently, Rep. Olson thinks that it's ok for state government to grow much faster. His votes in Helena prove it. He helped grow overall state government by about 20 percent last year. In a time when the state's economy had rebounded and there were record budget surpluses (or excess tax revenues as I prefer to call them!), Rep. Olson voted practically in lock-step with the tax and spend liberals in control to blow through hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead of spending at a reasonable rate, putting aside some for a rainy day, and returning some to the taxpayers, he chose to spend it. Reasonable people save windfalls in revenue, not blow every dollar they get their hands on.

Secondly, if the Legislature wants to spend more than a reasonable growth rate, they have to ask the people. This is in fact what happened in Colorado last year. Rep. Olson wrote that the people voted to remove that initiative. This is false. The people of Colorado voted to suspend the spending cap for five years-not remove it. Rep. Olson likens SOS Montana to the Colorado initiative. Again this is very misleading. SOS Montana is far less restrictive than Colorado's and actually exempts numerous spending categories from the cap entirely- including all federal money, trust fund money, highway funds, rainy-day reserve accounts, emergencies and others. (For a complete description of the CI-97, go to www.sosmontana.com.)

In short, SOS gives taxpayers a say in state spending, it doesn't cut government programs, and it will help Montana's economy in the future. In the words of Colorado Governor Bill Owens, who Rep. Olson portrayed as anti-spending cap (but who is actually one of the most outspoken supporters for Colorado's cap), "There is no need to resort to scare tactics. Voters, I believe, are perfectly capable of sorting out the facts. One has to wonder why there is such great consternation over letting the voters decide this issue."

That's a good question. Why shouldn't the voters have a chance to vote on this? Here's a couple more: Why shouldn't the people have a say in how money is spent in Helena? Why shouldn't state government be limited to growing no faster than family incomes? Why is Rep. Olson resorting to scare tactics and misrepresenting this initiative to his constituents? Why oh why?

Sincerely,

Scott Mendenhall

Representative HD 77

Chair, SOS Montana