• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Schweitzer funding Mt. schools from SE Mt. oil revenue

Faster horses

Well-known member
HELENA — Gov. Brian Schweitzer is proposing to increase funding for all Montana school districts by $38 million a year by redirecting oil and gas tax revenues that now only benefit schools in few counties where the minerals are produced.

His budget office provided information showing that in fiscal year 2010, those school districts in oil- and gas-producing areas spent only a total of $11.8 million of the $33.6 million in total state oil and gas tax collections they received.

The Baker K-12 schools in Fallon County, for example, received $5.9 million in oil and gas revenue, but budgeted only $300,000 of it, state Budget Director David Ewer said.

Schweitzer said Montana legislators often cite Wyoming as an example to emulate. Four Wyoming counties with oil, gas and coal production provide all the revenue for all of that state's K-12 schools, he said.

In Montana, "just a few counties have built such large accounts of (oil and gas) money they can't spend it and they have declining numbers of students," Schweitzer said.

Schweitzer called for sharing this mineral tax wealth with all school districts through what he calls a new "Teach Montana" state special revenue fund.

It requires approval by the 2011 Legislature.

But Willie Duffield, lobbyist for the Oil, Gas and Coal Counties, called Schweitzer's plan "a bad idea."

"The state's already getting over 50 percent of the oil and gas revenue and distributes it around the state," Duffield said. "So there's no need for any more."

If the state wants to distribute this additional oil and gas money to schools around the state, Duffield said, it needs to authorize drilling for oil and gas in more places.

"There's oil and gas all under the state," Duffield said.

Bob Vogel, director of government relations for the Montana School Boards Association, said the group had an inkling of Schweitzer's proposal but is anxious to hear more details.

"Certainly our oil and gas (school) districts are going to have some concern," Vogel said. "At least at this point, I don't know enough about it to comment."

--------------------------------------------
Nothing new here. The east has the money and the west has the power.
They've taken our mineral dollars for years and we don't like it.

I'm with Willie Duffield on this! Open up the state to more drilling if
the Mt. government wants/needs more money! Or implement a state
sales tax. Most of the tax burden in this state is paid by the property
owner. Bunch of liberals in the legislature!!!!!!!! :x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think most of that issue was handled years ago with the Montana Supreme Courts school revenue/financing ruling... Came to be after some coal/oil district schools like Colstrip had so much money they were building Olympic swimming pools in their brand new schools- and other schools in the state had falling apart buildings and didn't even have computers...

Eastern Montana and its resources have for sometime- and now fund much of Montanas school districts....

But whats a better place to invest your irreplaceable natural resource revenue- than in educating what is hopefully the future citizens of the state :???:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I think most of that issue was handled years ago with the Montana Supreme Courts school revenue/financing ruling... Came to be after some coal/oil district schools like Colstrip had so much money they were building Olympic swimming pools in their brand new schools- and other schools in the state had falling apart buildings and didn't even have computers...

Eastern Montana and its resources have for sometime- and now fund much of Montanas school districts....

But whats a better place to invest your irreplaceable natural resource revenue- than in educating what is hopefully the future citizens of the state :???:

And when the Eastern part of the State is broke because they are FORCED by the Democrat Governor to share their wealth to educate "hopefully future citzens of the state" then what Oldtimer? Will the tree Hugging California transplants that reside in the west share their wealth to educate Montana born kids in the Eastern part of the State?

This thread reminds me of Democrat Julie French's election ad. She was bragging about the increase in oil activity in the North East since she took office.

North Dakota 180 rigs and Montana 7 rigs, could this be why Julie LOST her bid for re-election. :? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
I think most of that issue was handled years ago with the Montana Supreme Courts school revenue/financing ruling... Came to be after some coal/oil district schools like Colstrip had so much money they were building Olympic swimming pools in their brand new schools- and other schools in the state had falling apart buildings and didn't even have computers...

Eastern Montana and its resources have for sometime- and now fund much of Montanas school districts....

But whats a better place to invest your irreplaceable natural resource revenue- than in educating what is hopefully the future citizens of the state :???:

And when the Eastern part of the State is broke because they are FORCED by the Democrat Governor to share their wealth to educate "hopefully future citzens of the state" then what Oldtimer? Will the tree Hugging California transplants that reside in the west share their wealth to educate Montana born kids in the Eastern part of the State?

This thread reminds me of Democrat Julie French's election ad. She was bragging about the increase in oil activity in the North East since she took office.

North Dakota 180 rigs and Montana 7 rigs, could this be why Julie LOST her bid for re-election. :? :wink:

Tam- your not appreciating the value of education does not surprise me in the least bit :roll: :(

I agree- 50 years ago when mining and timber was big- the western part of the state did not share-- and the eastern folks had to dig down deep to keep the high quality of education this state has-- but the Supreme Courts ruling (altho late) on reapportionment of all school funds- for the benefit of all the kids of the state- to me seems like what will pay off for the state the most in the long run... I would like to see any extra of that money put to use to where Montana kids can go to Montana colleges cheaper than what they can to a ND college...Sad when a Montana student can attend ND colleges cheaper than those in their home state....

As far as oil wells- the oil leasing companies are around everywhere in droves... I just signed 3 more leases this last month... The oil folks tell me the only thing holding back on the drilling is the lack of available rigs- and the further distance to a pipeline/refinery...The ND fields are closer...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
I think most of that issue was handled years ago with the Montana Supreme Courts school revenue/financing ruling... Came to be after some coal/oil district schools like Colstrip had so much money they were building Olympic swimming pools in their brand new schools- and other schools in the state had falling apart buildings and didn't even have computers...

Eastern Montana and its resources have for sometime- and now fund much of Montanas school districts....

But whats a better place to invest your irreplaceable natural resource revenue- than in educating what is hopefully the future citizens of the state :???:

And when the Eastern part of the State is broke because they are FORCED by the Democrat Governor to share their wealth to educate "hopefully future citzens of the state" then what Oldtimer? Will the tree Hugging California transplants that reside in the west share their wealth to educate Montana born kids in the Eastern part of the State?

This thread reminds me of Democrat Julie French's election ad. She was bragging about the increase in oil activity in the North East since she took office.

North Dakota 180 rigs and Montana 7 rigs, could this be why Julie LOST her bid for re-election. :? :wink:

Tam- your not appreciating the value of education does not surprise me in the least bit :roll: :(

I agree- 50 years ago when mining and timber was big- the western part of the state did not share-- and the eastern folks had to dig down deep to keep the high quality of education this state has-- but the Supreme Courts ruling (altho late) on reapportionment of all school funds- for the benefit of all the kids of the state- to me seems like what will pay off for the state the most in the long run... I would like to see any extra of that money put to use to where Montana kids can go to Montana colleges cheaper than what they can to a ND college...Sad when a Montana student can attend ND colleges cheaper than those in their home state....

As far as oil wells- the oil leasing companies are around everywhere in droves... I just signed 3 more leases this last month... The oil folks tell me the only thing holding back on the drilling is the lack of available rigs- and the further distance to a pipeline/refinery...The ND fields are closer...

The lack of available rigs....why do you think that is OT?


But I hope Oil revenue works out for Montana. You should be drilling in your own Country and state, and putting the money towards state education, instead of drawing money from the Feds.

That's the way it is supposed to work. The Federal Dept. of Education should be abolished. If every state is able to pay for their own, then the Dept. of Ed. is just a waste of money, besides being unconstitutional.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
I think most of that issue was handled years ago with the Montana Supreme Courts school revenue/financing ruling... Came to be after some coal/oil district schools like Colstrip had so much money they were building Olympic swimming pools in their brand new schools- and other schools in the state had falling apart buildings and didn't even have computers...

Eastern Montana and its resources have for sometime- and now fund much of Montanas school districts....

But whats a better place to invest your irreplaceable natural resource revenue- than in educating what is hopefully the future citizens of the state :???:

And when the Eastern part of the State is broke because they are FORCED by the Democrat Governor to share their wealth to educate "hopefully future citzens of the state" then what Oldtimer? Will the tree Hugging California transplants that reside in the west share their wealth to educate Montana born kids in the Eastern part of the State?

This thread reminds me of Democrat Julie French's election ad. She was bragging about the increase in oil activity in the North East since she took office.

North Dakota 180 rigs and Montana 7 rigs, could this be why Julie LOST her bid for re-election. :? :wink:

Tam- your not appreciating the value of education does not surprise me in the least bit :roll: :(

I agree- 50 years ago when mining and timber was big- the western part of the state did not share-- and the eastern folks had to dig down deep to keep the high quality of education this state has-- but the Supreme Courts ruling (altho late) on reapportionment of all school funds- for the benefit of all the kids of the state- to me seems like what will pay off for the state the most in the long run... I would like to see any extra of that money put to use to where Montana kids can go to Montana colleges cheaper than what they can to a ND college...Sad when a Montana student can attend ND colleges cheaper than those in their home state....

As far as oil wells- the oil leasing companies are around everywhere in droves... I just signed 3 more leases this last month... The oil folks tell me the only thing holding back on the drilling is the lack of available rigs- and the further distance to a pipeline/refinery...The ND fields are closer...

Gee big surprise Oldtimer starts his post with another personal attack that he has absolutely no knowledge about. :roll:

I believe Education is very important that is why I told my kids that dropping out of high school was not even an option and not taking some kind of secondary education wasn't either . Oh and by the way I started saving for their secondary education the day they were BORN that is how serious I think education is. So shut you pie hole you blowhard. :x

You proved the West was not willing to share their profits but now that the shoe is on the other foot it is gimme gimme gimme. I can't blame the East for not wanting to share anymore than the courts have already stated. It is time the Western based Dems realize that there are options other than re-distributing the eastern wealth. :wink: :roll:

And I'm sorry Oldtimer I do not buy the new leases but no rigs crap. I grew up in North eastern Montana and I can't even tell you how many times the oil companies came around in droves getting peoples hopes up by buying up oil leases only to disappointed by the fact NO RIG EVER SHOWED UP TO DRILL. :wink: :roll: Buying leases is no proof of actual oil drilling activity. :wink: :roll: And 7 rigs is not a BOOM. :roll: :roll:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Back to the original post-

In Montana, "just a few counties have built such large accounts of (oil and gas) money they can't spend it and they have declining numbers of students," Schweitzer said.

If the state wants to distribute this additional oil and gas money to schools around the state, Duffield said, it needs to authorize drilling for oil and gas in more places. "There's oil and gas all under the state," Duffield said.

therein lies the problem- people want to live in western MT so they can ski, fish, recreate,etc. .... if we continue to take the money out of eastern MT and ship it to westernMT to fund this of course we will have "declining number of students"

on the other hand there is large ammounts of waste in these small districts- something should be changed- I live right in the middle of it- my kids go to school in one of these "overfunded" districtsi it is rediculose what they spend money on because they are required to only spend this money on hard assetts like buildings and busses- not books or wages.
so they are building mansions for teacher houses- busses with TV's in them etc. to me it is terrible to drive into one of these little bergs and see the taxpayer funded assetts WAY WAY nicer than what the taxpayers have.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oh yes-

Fasterhorses wrote:

Most of the tax burden in this state is paid by the property
owner. Bunch of liberals in the legislature!!!!!!!!

you nailed it!

maybe that will change this session- MT is broke GovBS is scrambling,
(evident by your original post) maybe there will be something good come out of this!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
Back to the original post-

In Montana, "just a few counties have built such large accounts of (oil and gas) money they can't spend it and they have declining numbers of students," Schweitzer said.

If the state wants to distribute this additional oil and gas money to schools around the state, Duffield said, it needs to authorize drilling for oil and gas in more places. "There's oil and gas all under the state," Duffield said.

therein lies the problem- people want to live in western MT so they can ski, fish, recreate,etc. .... if we continue to take the money out of eastern MT and ship it to westernMT to fund this of course we will have "declining number of students"

on the other hand there is large ammounts of waste in these small districts- something should be changed- I live right in the middle of it- my kids go to school in one of these "overfunded" districtsi it is rediculose what they spend money on because they are required to only spend this money on hard assetts like buildings and busses- not books or wages.
so they are building mansions for teacher houses- busses with TV's in them etc. to me it is terrible to drive into one of these little bergs and see the taxpayer funded assetts WAY WAY nicer than what the taxpayers have.

This again is a prime example of how government bearucrats thinks they can spend your money better than you can. The Government should have no say in how the money is spent if the school needs new books then BUY BOOKS If the school needs another teacher hire one, if the school needs a new Roof then buy a new roof. You can buy all the hard assets you want but if you have no books or teachers because of government regulations you are not going to give anyone the EDUCATION that is so important. :roll: Government regulations have caused more waste than you can shake a stick at. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oh yes-

Fasterhorses wrote:

Most of the tax burden in this state is paid by the property
owner. Bunch of liberals in the legislature!!!!!!!!

you nailed it!

maybe that will change this session- MT is broke GovBS is scrambling,
(evident by your original post) maybe there will be something good come out of this!

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yep- Montana is so broke all the Republicans around the nation (including Rehberg on the floor of Congress) have used Schweitzers past 6 years of handling the budget and Montanas "surplus" as an example of where the country should be/go... :lol: :lol:

$3.7B budget: Education, jobs are focus

By CHARLES S. JOHNSON IR State Bureau helenair.com | Posted: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:00 am | (3) Comments


Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Monday proposed a two-year, $3.7 billion general fund state budget that would boost school and university funding, while cutting property taxes for homeowners and eliminating business equipment taxes for all but the largest companies.

The Democratic governor unveiled his budget, which now goes to the 2011 Legislature, with Republican majorities in both chambers, for its consideration.

“The top line numbers are we are going to increase funding for K-12 and for higher education, and we are going to cut taxes and we are going to create jobs,” Schweitzer said at a press conference packed with journalists, Schweitzer administration officials and some legislators.

At the same time, Schweitzer also recommended some general fund spending cuts for agencies. He called for eliminating the $2.6 million general fund appropriation to the Transportation Department, which receives nearly all of its funding from fuel taxes. The governor also proposed cutting $4 million, or 28 percent, of the Commerce Department’s general fund budget over two years.

Schweitzer proposed a $125 million ending-fund balance, or general fund surplus, as of the end of the two-year budget period in mid-2013. That’s half of the $250 million budget surplus he recommended at end of the 2009 session and which Schweitzer said helped tide over the state during the tough financial times during recession.

He said the proposed $125 million surplus would be the third largest in state history.

While I agree that too much of Montanas taxes are based on property taxes--and I supported a sales tax---- twice the citizens of the state have voted and threw out any idea of a sales tax....Many old folks are still proud as hell that we aren't a state where you have a pocket full of pennies and get taxed by pennies, nickels, and dimes- or have to pay our way by Grandma cutting short on her food/medicine because she has to pay a tax on it and her other purchases with a limited income...

As of last year- even tho certain parts are earmarked for education and other areas and spent yearly to keep down the Montana taxes- the coal trust fund set aside for a rainy day had around a BILLION $ in it......

I'm not convinced we aren't taxing our depletable nonrenewable natural resources enough.... Let all those folks buying the coal off the coal trains heading east- or the oil heading south pay for our lower wages/standard of living up here...

And Tam-- I'm still not hearing any of the folks that are having the oil companies lease up their land at $30 an acre bitching or moaning like you do.....They're just pocketing the money-- and know that may allow for some drilling on their land when the rigs become available.... :D

So lonecowboy-- tel me again how broke Montana really is :wink: :p :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
A Budget Suplus is not really a surplus. Think about it, when the last U.S. Budget had a "Surplus" the national debt still went up for that same period..

I can set an annual budget for my house and spend less than what was anticipated.

Did I have a surplus of money? Maybe not.

If I spend less than what I said I was going spend, is that really a "Surplus"? If my income were to decrease during that year I could actually be going in the hole.

It's a numbers game that politicians play to fool idiots like OT. :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And Tam-- I'm still not hearing any of the folks that are having the oil companies lease up their land at $30 an acre bitching or moaning like you do.....They're just pocketing the money-- and know that may allow for some drilling on their land when the rigs become available.... :D

OFGS Sure everyone is happy :roll: BUT we are not talking about a few happy folks we are talking about funding education and that is not done by simply selling leases. :roll: The State/County get money for EDUCATION only if the rigs move in and HIT OIL. And the history of North Eastern Montana is a long one of hopes of hitting it rich being dashed due to the fact rigs don't aways move it. This so called boom might be different for a few but don't be surprise if you find out I'm not holding my breath as I don't look good BLUE. :frowns: :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
BTW Oldtimer can you tell me just how many of those happy non pissing and moaning people that brag about pocketing $30 per acre from the Oil Companies are Democrats that like nothing better than to paint those same Oil Companies as BIG GREEDY BASTA*DS?

It's Funny how they are great when it comes time to sell oil lease but worthy of nasty name calling the rest of the time. :wink: :roll:

It is also funny how the Dems call them nasty names but when they want to fund something like Education they have no problem taking their dirty money and passing out. :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldwindbag wrote:
So lonecowboy-- tel me again how broke Montana really is


I'm not going to waste allot of my time arguing with a fool like you:

Montana revenue estimates fell another $41 million in March 2009, the third drop since January, leaving the state $156 million below what Gov. Schweitzer based his budget.

Analysts estimate that Montana's state revenue is running $50 million under projection for the current budget ($5.72 billion overall for 2009-11). Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has ordered $193 million in spending reductions, and the budget's surplus is now projected to be one-quarter of the originally estimated $1 billion.

What's the best way to have a million dollar surplus??
Start with a Billion dollars surplus!


Let's see what the real numbers add up to be- BS has cooked the books
and blocked all transperency! as all Government numbers are based on estimates at first but eventually the chicken come home to roost!
BS needs to try and cover his tracks for one more budget then he can proclaim it was the republicans fault because they are now the majority.
Will he get it done and hide one more time?? we'll see!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
And Tam-- I'm still not hearing any of the folks that are having the oil companies lease up their land at $30 an acre bitching or moaning like you do.....They're just pocketing the money-- and know that may allow for some drilling on their land when the rigs become available.... :D

OFGS Sure everyone is happy :roll: BUT we are not talking about a few happy folks we are talking about funding education and that is not done by simply selling leases. :roll: The State/County get money for EDUCATION only if the rigs move in and HIT OIL. And the history of North Eastern Montana is a long one of hopes of hitting it rich being dashed due to the fact rigs don't aways move it. This so called boom might be different for a few but don't be surprise if you find out I'm not holding my breath as I don't look good BLUE. :frowns: :wink:

Tam are you telling me I don't have to report all that lease money I got in the last couple of months on my income taxes :???:

Sorry sweetheart-- I'll trust my accountant more than you :wink: :wink: :lol: And if you think those lease dollars (that many think are like hitting the lottery in unexpected extra dollars) are not getting regenerated thru the local economy- you have another think coming.... Neighbors wife is driving a nice new white Ford 4 door pickup- and one of the other neighbors thought it would just buy him a new semi tractor....
Didn't you and your relatives keep their leases- or are you/they just expecting big money now :???:
Since I'm living a quite economically secure lifestyle at the present-- I'd just as soon see my kids benefit down the line....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldwindbag wrote:
So lonecowboy-- tel me again how broke Montana really is


I'm not going to waste allot of my time arguing with a fool like you:

Montana revenue estimates fell another $41 million in March 2009, the third drop since January, leaving the state $156 million below what Gov. Schweitzer based his budget.

Analysts estimate that Montana's state revenue is running $50 million under projection for the current budget ($5.72 billion overall for 2009-11). Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) has ordered $193 million in spending reductions, and the budget's surplus is now projected to be one-quarter of the originally estimated $1 billion.

What's the best way to have a million dollar surplus??
Start with a Billion dollars surplus!


Let's see what the real numbers add up to be- BS has cooked the books
and blocked all transperency! as all Government numbers are based on estimates at first but eventually the chicken come home to roost!
BS needs to try and cover his tracks for one more budget then he can proclaim it was the republicans fault because they are now the majority.
Will he get it done and hide one more time?? we'll see!

So why did Rehberg (your newest born again *********) praise Schweitzer on the House floor for his handling of Montana's budget :???:
And several other top Repubs praise Montana for not only having a balanced budget (law) but a surplus :???:

You been listening to too much ********* Bull-- the last I heard was that 46 states had deficits-- Montana and ND were two of the top with SURPLUS'S...
Don't you think that may be the reason Schweitzer is again proposing to give back some excess tax money :???: Didn't you get your tax refund before- I did.....

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/state-budget-deficit-map-2010-esti

Comically- some of the biggest deficit states were run by Repubs-- like Arizona and California .....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
And Tam-- I'm still not hearing any of the folks that are having the oil companies lease up their land at $30 an acre bitching or moaning like you do.....They're just pocketing the money-- and know that may allow for some drilling on their land when the rigs become available.... :D

OFGS Sure everyone is happy :roll: BUT we are not talking about a few happy folks we are talking about funding education and that is not done by simply selling leases. :roll: The State/County get money for EDUCATION only if the rigs move in and HIT OIL. And the history of North Eastern Montana is a long one of hopes of hitting it rich being dashed due to the fact rigs don't aways move it. This so called boom might be different for a few but don't be surprise if you find out I'm not holding my breath as I don't look good BLUE. :frowns: :wink:

Tam are you telling me I don't have to report all that lease money I got in the last couple of months on my income taxes :???:

Sorry sweetheart-- I'll trust my accountant more than you :wink: :wink: :lol: And if you think those lease dollars (that many think are like hitting the lottery in unexpected extra dollars) are not getting regenerated thru the local economy- you have another think coming.... Neighbors wife is driving a nice new white Ford 4 door pickup- and one of the other neighbors thought it would just buy him a new semi tractor....
Didn't you and your relatives keep their leases- or are you/they just expecting big money now :???:
Since I'm living a quite economically secure lifestyle at the present-- I'd just as soon see my kids benefit down the line....



Ot wrote
"Since I'm living a quite economically secure lifestyle at the present"

I'll say, Wifey is workin' and he's collecting county pension. :roll:

But he does recycle that money through the old watering hole. :?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
And Tam-- I'm still not hearing any of the folks that are having the oil companies lease up their land at $30 an acre bitching or moaning like you do.....They're just pocketing the money-- and know that may allow for some drilling on their land when the rigs become available.... :D

OFGS Sure everyone is happy :roll: BUT we are not talking about a few happy folks we are talking about funding education and that is not done by simply selling leases. :roll: The State/County get money for EDUCATION only if the rigs move in and HIT OIL. And the history of North Eastern Montana is a long one of hopes of hitting it rich being dashed due to the fact rigs don't aways move it. This so called boom might be different for a few but don't be surprise if you find out I'm not holding my breath as I don't look good BLUE. :frowns: :wink:

Tam are you telling me I don't have to report all that lease money I got in the last couple of months on my income taxes :???:

Sorry sweetheart-- I'll trust my accountant more than you :wink: :wink: :lol: And if you think those lease dollars (that many think are like hitting the lottery in unexpected extra dollars) are not getting regenerated thru the local economy- you have another think coming.... Neighbors wife is driving a nice new white Ford 4 door pickup- and one of the other neighbors thought it would just buy him a new semi tractor....
Didn't you and your relatives keep their leases- or are you/they just expecting big money now :???:
Since I'm living a quite economically secure lifestyle at the present-- I'd just as soon see my kids benefit down the line....

AGAIN WITH THE LOCAL LEASE PAYMENTS PAY ATTENTION OLDTIMER IT IS THE OIL ROYALITY MONEY THAT THE EASTERN PART OF MONTANA COLLECT THAT THE WESTERNERS WANT. You and I both know the money collected on the income tax on lease payments is not what the Montana Governor is wanting to redistribute to cover the cost of Education so why do you keep distracting the issue, it is just proving how pathetic you are :roll:
 
Top