Originally Posted by woj

I wouldn't call it a technicality...when a fund is setup, it's supposed to be used only for that purpose... when there is a surplus the fund grows, so when in later years revenues slow down, there is $$ in the reserve... but because of mismanagement, the $$ that was supposed to grow the reserve in the fund was stolen for other purposes and so there is no reserve...

it seems ridiculous to call giving back what was stolen a "subsidy"...