RC>It's far from settled, even in Texas - all it takes is one
RC>person to contest the "class" action suit in order to have
RC>the agreement submitted to a constitutional test.
 
       In the upcomming Texas Attorney General's race both the legality
and advisibility of this settlement will be raised.  At this point both
Democrats and Republicans are watering at the mouth over the potential
of having a $15.3 billion windfall in state revenues.  Each clamoring
to see which side can commit the money to spending projects first and
neither raising even the slightest hint questioning the settlement
itself.  Bush, our governor, sees the settlement as an expressway to
the White House, Mattox, the heavily favored Democratic contender for
Attorney General and former Attorney General before Morales sees the
settlement as a means to fund all sorts of wild and unnecessary new
social programs.  Noone is looking at the cost of this settlement.
        First, and most important of all, I suggest the state should
not be in the business of selling our right to civil litigation to the
highest bidder and granting corporations immunity fromt he law. 
Second, states should not be using threats to extort funds from private
businesses, but there is more.
        Assume for a moment these billions of dollars suddenly flow
into a state, what is the result?  New spending programs will pop up
like salt grass and then, when the money is gone, we will either be
looking at massive tax increases to continue to support the programs or
politicians actively approaching other corporations, or threatening
them, looking for new grants of immunity in exchange for money.
        Besides being outright illegal, any settlement such as this is
a fast track to expansion of government which itself is dangerous.
RC>... I WARNED you about Clinton!!
 
       While I do not wish, in any way, to be consider a Clinton fan,
the Texas settlement is being conducted as an independent settlement
and not tied to, or associated with, the 40 states involved in the
federal settlement that Clinton referred to in the State of the Union
address.  The feds, apparently, are planning on keeping all the money
in 40 state settlement since Clinton, on the basis of that settlement,
declared a balanced budget and proposed no less than 24 new spending
initiatives during the address.  
       The Texas settlement, however, is an independent settlement
involving Texas alone and local political figures such as Governor Bush
and Attorney General Morales are in full combat gear fighting each
other over who gets to spend the money and where.  Morales, who
recently married a stripper, is not running for re-election and has
announced he will direct the funds towards social programs.  Mattox,
sort of a Texas icon for the Democratic Party in Texas, is comming our
of retirement to run agian for the office he retired from eight years
ago attracted, apparently, by the possibility of getting his hands on
all those billions of settlement dollars.  Bush is arguing about the
fees paid attorneys in the settlement trying to wring even more money
out of the deal and has his own plans for the cash among which are
increasing the harassment of the residents of south Texas.
        It's going to be a VERY interesting election cycle. 
 
                                              Mike Angwin
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------