Supporters of Measure G State Their Case

* The Times’ editorial of Oct. 22 (“Measure H for Health”) certainly needs clarification. This was nothing more than a disguise for more anti-El Toro airport diatribe and an opportunity to vilify the three North County supervisors for their steadfast loyalty to the principles of fiscal responsibility upon which all three subscribed when running for their elected office.

“‘Integrity” is the word usually used to describe this character trait of the three proponents of the airport.

The three supervisors support Measure G because it is the only initiative that provides for measurable objectives, a citizens oversight committee to provide fiscal flexibility and accountability.

It was interesting that you mentioned the bankruptcy. The fiscal irresponsibility, such as that exhibited in Measure H, was the principal reason for the bankruptcy, yet you are endorsing it. Measure H will cost the taxpayers approximately $1.74 million per year. To the conservatives like John M.W. Moorlach and the three supervisors (Cynthia P. Coad, Jim Silva and Chuck Smith), that is a significant amount of money. The only way it can be provided is to increase taxes or reduce other needy services, i.e. for urban runoff, youth development, gang prevention programs, parks and recreational facilities, and community revitalization funding.

I agree that initiatives by special-interest groups are certainly no way to operate a government. But when hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed by HMOs, hospitals and the medical association to enhance their incomes, it is easy to obtain the signatures and to publish slanted brochures.

But please explain how the HMOs can pay their CEOs exorbitant salaries and then plead poverty. The liberal policies of the past that caused the bankruptcy will not be tolerated by the fiscally conservative supervisors, Coad, Silva and Smith.

Many feel that the tobacco settlement money was also intended to repay the county for the past costs of providing services to those with tobacco-related illnesses. Other departments that provide worthy services worked with reduced budgets in order to fund health care needs. Now these organizations also need to be rewarded by sharing in some of the tobacco settlement windfall and not be continually neglected.

The settlement negotiations broke down because the special-interest health care groups insisted on guarantees that regardless of the solvency of the tobacco companies and the vicissitudes of the economy, they would be first in line to receive full funding from the general fund.

Many knowledgeable and interested parties did have a town meeting place to discuss important matters. It was my office, and they readily used it. It is inconceivable that you did not avail yourself of that opportunity. If you had, your credibility and integrity would still be intact.

CYNTHIA P. COAD

Supervisor, 4th District

* There were two observations made in your editorial that may give your readers the wrong impression.

Measure G provides a two-tier approach. After the debt is liquidated, 70% goes to health care and 30% to public safety. Over 40 years, 58% goes to health care (higher than the national average of tobacco settlement revenue uses), 25% to public safety and only 17% to debt retirement.

Measure G will save money immediately after it becomes effective, not after the debt is retired and only “from then on.” All proportional interest savings on the total bond portion of the debt will be reallocated under the above allocation percentages. In 2002, 5.7% of the bonds will have been retired by the tobacco settlement revenues, generating interest savings of $819,622 (5.658% times $14,486,080), of which $344,241 (42%) goes to health care.

In 2003, it will be 11.5% and increases every year, ramping up to nearly 39%, until these bonds are paid off in 2007, eight years ahead of schedule. Over the regularly scheduled life of these bonds the interest savings resulting from Measure G will provide another $12.7 million for health care.

Measure G is not anti-health care. Quite the opposite. It maintains the integrity of Measure H and allocates a significant portion of the savings from early debt retirement back into health care.

JOHN M.W. MOORLACH

Treasurer-Tax Collector

Orange County

The writer is the author of county ballot Measure G.