Here in Oregon, we have had, in several years where the state ran a budget surplus, a "kicker", which is a check from the government based on how much state income tax you've paid. Of course, liberals howl louder than Teddy Kennedy's liver on a three-day weekend every time this happens. I say, you think schools are underfunded, fine, then donate your kicker check to your local school district. I always wonder how many of them actually do.

Romney says that since the money was taken from taxpayers for a very specific purpose, and most of it was not needed for that cause, it should be returned to those taxpayers.

Unless I'm reading a different article, Romney did not say that the funds should go back to the taxpayers, but to the state coffers, i.e., the general fund used to pay all the other budgeted items.

Keep in mind also that an "earmark" is not the same as a one-time tax for a specific purpose. The legislature didn't go out and dunn the taxpayers an extra 5 cents for Katrina relief. They just sliced out a portion of the budgetary pie specifically for Katrina relief, which was an incredibly stupid thing for a state like Mass. to do to begin with.

You are right, however, that returning the funds to the general fund is the "sane" thing to do here.

e.g.:

Last month, Gov. Mitt Romney said while he’d like to see the money help fund college and university capital projects, the funds should go back into state coffers.

I understand the confusion, however, as it's easy to confuse "coffers" with "coughers" (as in those who cough up the tax money). :-)

5% JayTea? My God, you are the eternal optimist. If there was such a thing as less than zero, that would be my guess.

Kevin, the less than zero could be that instead of giving the money back, they take more money.

Which is probably what will happen anyway.