Loophole?

Hey, the press conference is still going on, so I'll cut the authors some slack but since the clock is ticking, they won't have a lot of time to answer questions before the session is up (which is why this should have been introduced last spring, but I digress.)

At first blush, this is clearly better than current law.

However, I need to be convinced that this section of the LRB analysis doesn't point to a GIANT LOOPHOLE...

The proposed amendment defines “revenue,” generally, as all moneys received from taxes, fees, licenses, permits, assessments, fines, and forfeitures imposed by the state or a special purpose district, school district, technical college district, county, city, village, or town, lottery proceeds less the amount of any prizes, tribal gaming proceeds, and all moneys received from bonds not including moneys generated from municipal economic development bonds, from the refinancing of bonds, or from short−term cash flow borrowing. However, for the base year upon which the revenue limit is calculated, “revenue” does not include moneys generated from bonds.

Like I said, still digesting.

Will be searching for answers to the questions I raise.

More to come..