Menu
- Move on: Dems should focus on own platform (5/22/19)
- Major investigation seeks origin of collusion charge (5/18/19)
- Golfer teaches a lesson in overcoming adversity (5/15/19)
- Higher ed costs for illegal immigrants shouldn’t fall on the taxpayer (5/11/19)
- Dems ignore how great the economy is doing (5/8/19)
- Indonesian election ballot hand-count turns deadly (5/4/19)
- Survey says: Life moves fast, enjoy every day (5/1/19)
Opinion
Diversion of money shows suit was phony
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Back a few years ago when cigarette manufacturers were sued over the health issues created by smoking, the courts arranged a multi-billion dollar settlement that was allocated to the states to help pay for health-related costs. By any definition, it was a great deal of money.
Any time you have that much money involved, politicians will find a way to spend it. I don't hold the political leaders at fault necessarily. A windfall of billions can solve a host of issues for state government. You can argue that lawyers for the states lined their pockets excessively but that's another story for another day.
When the $965 million in settlement money reached Missouri, Gov. Bob Holden and the Legislature funneled most of that money into the state's general revenue. When Matt Blunt was elected, he did virtually the same. And it's hard to argue that the money wasn't used for genuine state needs. On that point, we have little argument.
But State Auditor Claire McCaskill, now in a heated race for a Senate seat, held a news conference this week to blast the state for diverting the funds into the state's general revenue. She is obviously right but she was also part of the administration that started the money shuffle in the first place.
McCaskill provided one statistic however that is astounding. Of the $965 million in tobacco settlement funds for Missouri, only $1.8 million has gone to programs to battle smoking. And no one in the state disagreed with her numbers.
There is nothing illegal nor necessarily dishonest with the state settlement spending. It simply illustrates the phony nature of the tobacco lawsuit in the first place. The suit was to punish the cigarette makers and not to seek a solution to smoking in this country. To think otherwise would be naive.
McCaskill is right in her math. And she's right that the state has been "creative" with how they spend the money. And she's right to point these numbers out.
It would have been nice had these numbers been explored a long time ago.