idaho18

Statesman Editorialist Stole My Hymnal

2010-08-29T16:57:00.006-06:00

I typically don't like to respond to things I read in an editorial or an article. This is mainly because I'd rather use this blog for unique content that comes from my own thoughts instead of focusing on what someone else has said, but today will be different.

Today (Sunday), the Statesman chose to make public education the focus of its editorial. Definitely a worthy choice. With thousands of school children and college students throughout Idaho just finishing or preparing to start their first week of the fall semester the topic is also very timely.

Reading the editorial was a bizarre, almost speaking in the third person type experience. The editorial itself had three basic assertions.

Cuts to public education (K-12) have resulted in higher property taxes for local property taxpayers.
Idaho continues to disinvest in post secondary education and shift the costs onto students and parents
Cuts to K-12 and post secondary education are nearsighted and there hasn't been any effort to innovate/reform the system

Let me take each point one at a time.

First, the Statesman is absolutely correct that the cuts to public education have shifted costs to property taxpayers. Unfortunately, that isn't news. On March 25 I argued vigorously on the floor of the House that cuts to public education would have this precise impact. I did so in an attempt to discredit the education budget as it clearly violated Joint Rule 18, which states in part:

Statement of Purpose and Fiscal Notes.-- No bill shall be introduced in either house unless it shall have attached thereto a concise statement of purpose and fiscal note. The contact person for the statement of purpose and fiscal note shall be identified on the document. No bill making an appropriation, increasing or decreasing existing appropriations, or requiring a future appropriation, or increasing or decreasing revenues of the state or any unit of local government, or requiring a significant expenditure of funds by the state or a unit of local government, shall be introduced unless it shall have attached thereto a fiscal note. This note shall contain an estimate of the amount of such appropriation, expenditure, or change under the bill. The fiscal note shall identify a full fiscal year's impact of the legislation. Statements of purpose and fiscal notes may be combined in the same statement. All statements of purpose and fiscal notes shall be reviewed for compliance with this rule by the committee to which the bill is assigned. A member may challenge the sufficiency of a statement of purpose or fiscal note at any time prior to passage, except upon introduction.

Essentially this says that each bill has to have a fiscal note that reflects fiscal impact to both the State and any unit of local government. If it doesn't, the bill is invalid. Obviously, with dozens of districts throughout Idaho raising property taxes as a result of the budget cut, the rule was violated. Unfortunately, the majority was more interested in balancing the budget on the back's of school children than following the rules we have given ourselves.

The second point on the disinvestment in post-secondary education is also very well made and the same point I've been making since my first day in the Legislature. I don't want to spend too much time here, but obviously there have been a few of us that get that point. The combination of cutting public education and raising the limits on tuition hikes is devastating for middle income Idahoan families. I have, without exception, opposed all attempts to reduce funding to higher education and raise student tuition/fees. We are leaving our students with a legacy of debt.

Third and finally, I couldn't agree more that innovation is necessary throughout the education pipeline. As it turns out, I co-authored what has been described as the most innovative change to public education since the late 1990's. The Master Advancement Pilot Project (MAPP) is exactly the sort of innovative policy solutions that the Statesman seems to be talking about, but fails to recognize. Now, I know in the past they have given it some credit, but to ignore MAPP in this editorial just doesn't make sense. I am excited for the future of MAPP and look forward to the positive changes it makes to Idaho's public education system.

I suppose the whole point of this post is to try to find a way to tactfully say, "I told you so." More than that, I just wish the Statesman would quit trying so hard to avoid giving credit when it is due. The decision to omit information is what makes the electorate in Idaho less informed and less well prepared to vote. There legislators fighting for the things they are talking about, lets name names and quit dancing around the issue.

Good news for U of I Law in Boise

2010-08-24T15:35:00.003-06:00

While I have never tried to hide my bias in favor of BSU in the athletic competitions, when it comes to academics I don't think there is much room for rivalry. With the Idaho Legislature making it an almost annual quest to kill (or at least severely disable) public post-secondary education, disunity amongst Idaho's public higher education institutions makes that objective too easy. I think that there is a structural problem that breeds this sort of contempt, which I have tried to address in legislation the last two sessions. Alas, this post isn't intended to be about that problem so I'll leave alone for now.

First a little background. As a graduate student (and even in undergrad) higher education policy and economics was one of my primary areas of research. As a legislator, I have immersed myself in issues surrounding higher education and subsequently attended several leadership conferences on the subject including one to Boston with the US Department of Education and one in Denver with National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). As an instructor at the community college, I have seen the real life impact of higher education policies.

Last fall when U of I President Nellis was announced as the new president, he hosted a conference on higher education leadership, which I attended. At that event I had the opportunity to discuss the status of the U of I College of Law program with law school dean Don Burnett. I explained to him my dissatisfaction with the isolated nature (geographically) of the law school in Moscow and my desire to expedite the process of setting up a complete program in Boise. As we talked I learned that we had a common vision.

In order for the U of I College of Law to remain relevant in Southern Idaho, something needed to be done. No one, including me, is calling for an elimination of the College of Law in Moscow. However, we must recognize that it is a strategic disadvantage for the State of Idaho and its citizens to have the only public law school so far away from the majority of Idaho's government and commerce.

Dean Burnett and I both envisioned the old Ada County Courthouse, which was just used the temporary Capitol (aka Capitol Annex) as the ideal location for the U of I College of Law program in Boise. Right in between the Idaho Statehouse and Idaho Supreme Court and only a couple blocks from Law Library and downtown commerce you couldn't find a better place. I committed at that time make that vision a reality.

Now, today, with the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, the U of I College of Law is one million steps closer to that goal. The one million dollar donation will be a significant investment in Idaho and will pave the way for future development. While some may look at this and say its a waste of money spent on creating more attorneys, I have to disagree. Law education is not just about creating more lawyers. Law education is about teaching people how to think critically and work with divergent and sometimes contradictory information. As I have read many places many people that get law school school educations don't actually practice law. The benefit to society is a more intelligent and critical thinking workforce.

So from a third generation Boise State graduate, bravo U of I. Lets work together to get Idaho back on track and put public higher education as a priority.

NCA Problems Bigger than Meets the Eye

2010-08-13T08:43:00.004-06:00

I understand that there is vigorous debate here in Idaho about whether or not Nampa Classical Academy (NCA) should be teaching the Bible as literature and history. Frankly, I can very easily see both sides of the argument, but that is not what I want to focus on in this post. Instead, I want to look at what I see as a much large structural problems with the Idaho Public Charter School Commission (IPCSC). These structural deficits, I believe, have lead to the issues facing NCA.

First, the staff at IPCSC have always been, in my experience, very professional and accessible. I have not personally had much in the way of interaction with the individual Gubernatorial appointed commission members, which I suspect puts me in the majority of most Idahoans. A brief review of the commissioner's backgrounds on the IPCSC website would suggest a minimal emphasis is placed on understanding the education profession relative to other factors. That is neither here nor there and I since I don't personally know each of the commissioners, it would be unfair to attack their credibility.

However, what I do find troubling about the the structure of the the commission is the aforementioned notion of Gubernatorial appointment. Due to the politically connectedness to the governor, commissioners (if political science research is any indication) are likely to side with what is in the best interest of the Governor, not necessarily what is in the best interest of the institutions (the individual school or the commission itself).

Now that I've stated the obvious, what does it have to do with the issue at hand? Well, simply stated, due to the fact that individual commission members are not personally accountable to those that fund their activities (the taxpayers), there is no oversight to their actions. To compound this, any appeals of a decision by the IPCSC are referred to another unaccountable group of Gubernatorial appointees, also known as the State Board of Education (SBE). The current case surrounding NCA proves the point. Clearly there were differences of opinions, as was stated at the outset. However, the process that was followed left a lot to be desired on both sides of the debate.

I think that is pretty clear to anyone watching this from the outside (which is where I am on this one) that the SBE has been put under some serious political pressure to overrule the IPCSC. Whether or not they should or shouldn't isn't the point. The point is that when it is all said and done, the people of Idaho will not get an opportunity to let their views known as it relates decisions that have been made by holding the decision-makers accountable.

The solution, in my view, is to completely change the structure of the IPCSC (you're surprised, right?). To do so, I would first eliminate the Gubernatorial appointment and replace it with an election. Commissioners would serve four and two year terms that would rotate so as to always have a core group remain (similar to the way county commissioners are elected). The commissioners would be elected from conglomerations of counties known as regions that are created based upon population size. As for the appeals process, that is a bit more tricky. I would prefer to have the SBE also be elected and for the same reasons. Given that is even less likely to happen, I would also remove the appeals process from going to the SBE and instead direct it the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Now, I can hear someone saying, aren't you making the problem worse by making it even more political? The answer to that question is only yes if you believe that elections aren't useful. That is, if you believe that elections don't offer the public an opportunity to hold decision-makers accountable then doing what I suggest is without value. However, if you believe, as I do, that elections do matter and they can serve as a vehicle to manifest public preference, then I do think the modifications I am proposing make sense.

Ultimately, something has to change. My proposal may not be the panacea to the problem, but I do believe it would yield better outcomes and provide more transparency and accountability than the current guarded process that we are watching slowly unfold before us.

Unemployment Benefit Update

2010-08-06T09:30:00.002-06:00

If you or someone you know has been without unemployment benefits due to the delay in federal action, good news is on the way. Unemployment benefit recipients in Idaho should receive an, "Emergency Unemployment Compensation Notice" from the Dept. of Labor via snail mail within the week. The letter is the first step in the reestablishment of eligibility of unemployment benefits for those that were left in the lurch. I'll provide more details as they become available.

Invest in Idaho

2010-07-22T15:20:00.001-06:00

I read with a modicum of humor a recent Op-Ed by Idaho Association of Commerce Industry (IACI). In the piece, they excoriated elected officials like me that have been pushing investments in small businesses. They surmise that by doing so, we are neglecting a significant number of employers that don’t fit the small businesses mold and creating an, “us versus them” dynamic.

Unfortunately, they just don’t get it. By virtue of the fact that IACI has a stage in which to trumpet their cockamamie story, they disprove their own point. Anytime a large employer wants to get something in the Idaho Legislature, they usually do. Not so for their small business counterparts. While large employers have the benefit of IACI and even possibly their own private lobbyists doing their bidding in the Legislature, who does the mom and pop shop have?

To be sure the Chamber does a degree of lobbying (albeit much less than in years past), but it is hamstrung between supporting the needs of its larger clients and those of the small business owner. There is also the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), but their lobbyist is only the payroll part-time and really can’t compete against the larger employers multiple full-time lobbyists.

To that end, news reports this week reveal what most of us probably already knew. According to the Gallup Job Creation Index, Idaho is the sixth worst job creator in the country. That doesn’t just happen. It is a concerted effort by those in state government to ignore the sector of our economy that actually creates most of the jobs, small business!

So what can we do? Well, in addition to the traditional mantra of “taxes, taxes, taxes,” I do think that government does have a role to play. The biggest problem most small businesses face when they want to expand is the difficulty of accessing capital. To create more jobs, small businesses must have more capital. No capital, no job creation. It is that simple.

Small Business Administration (SBA) Loans have dropped considerably as of late, which is compounding the problem even further. Last legislative session I proposed an innovative approach to providing more capital small businesses. The legislation, dubbed the Micro Enterprise Development Association (MEDA), would have created a loan fund for credit-worthy small businesses that were finding getting a loan in the credit tight environment impossible. I believe in investing Idaho small businesses.

Unfortunately, the Governor and IACI don’t see it that way. Instead of focusing on investing in Idahoans and Idaho small businesses, IACI and the Governor are more focused upon luring large corporations from out state to Idaho with big tax break. The result is just as Gallup reports it to be, an abysmal record on job creation.

What it all comes down to is a lack of understanding of how jobs are created and total lack of vision. My vision for job creation is to support small business owners. If investing in small businesses is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

Update on Unemployment

2010-07-20T12:40:00.004-06:00

As I go door-to-door, I routinely meet individuals that have been given a rough shake during the recession. A good deal of these unemployed constituents would be classified as older workers that were kicked to the curb in what should be the prime of the careers and at the highest point of their earning potential. These residents are clearly visibly shaken and concerned by not knowing what is going to happen next. The inability for the U.S. Senate to extend unemployment benefits has only exacerbated this anxiety.

For full disclosure, my dad happens to be one of those many unemployed Idahoans. He, like many others, exhausted his unemployment benefits and is a situation of unimaginable desperation. I can state without hesitation that he has done everything he could to find employment since losing his job in November. Unfortunately, that hasn't been enough.

But, now, there may finally be some good news. It looks likely that the U.S. Senate will vote to extend unemployment benefits for those that are hardest hit by the recession. The bill currently before the U.S. Senate would provide retroactive payments to those unemployed individuals that became the victims of a cynical political ploy to balance the federal budget on the backs of the unemployed. Due to some logistical issues with not being permitted to submit weekly reports and the inability to file for extensions to unemployment benefits, many constituents were unsure what would occur even if the bill were to pass.

But wait there's more! According to a representative from Congress Walt Minnick's office, the retroactive component is in the legislation and can not be ignored by any state. Also, I was assured by a division manager at the Idaho Dept. of Labor that should the legislation pass that Idaho would gladly provide retroactive payments for any weeks missed due to the unfortunate political games being played in Washington, D.C. If you or anyone you know has any questions, they can contact me or the Dept. of Labor for more information.

Thoughts on Ethics Panel

2010-07-01T11:15:00.003-06:00

As a member of the Idaho House of Representatives, I am very concerned about the perception of the institution that I am honored to be a member. I have always been honored to have the opportunity to represent my district and do my best to avoid doing anything that might place a negative light upon the institution, my district, my family, or myself.

It is not the intention of this post to be the judge and jury of Rep. Phil Hart as I do not have the benefit of the full information and even if I did, it is not my role and this certainly isn't the proper venue. However, as a member of the House, as I mentioned early, I do have grave concerns about anyone or anything that might impede or distract the legislature from its important duties.

With that said, I do have serious concerns with the composition of the Ethics Panel convened by Speaker Denney. If truth is what we are searching for, then it seems to me that there are most certainly better alternatives than the legislators picked for this important task, specifically on the majority side.

The first thing that I immediately noted when I saw the list was a generational divide. There is not one single person on the Ethics Panel younger than 60. Is this really all that relevant? Perhaps not, but it is curious. Then again, when the average age of the Idaho House is over 60 (the oldest of any chamber in the United States), I suppose the natural order of things would likely lead to this occurring.

The second thing I observed was that every member from the majority party are chairman. This is significant because it means that all of the majority members on the panel are fiercely loyal to the Speaker. I am not saying this is going to have an impact, but I do believe it is worth noting (even though the media has failed to).

The next thing I noted was the gender disparity. With the exception of Rep. Wendy Jaquet, all of the other members of the panel are men. While I admit a serious disability in understanding gender politics, I have become much more sensitive to them thanks to the thoughtful and patient guidance of Rep. Jaquet and others. I don't know if the gender disparity will make any difference, but you never know.

Most interestingly was the geographic divide. Not a single member of the majority on the Ethics Panel lives or represents the CD1. I can understand not having someone from the far north, given the local politics, but no one from CD1 at all? I have a feeling this is a lot more meaningful than meets the eye. I have a few hunches, but I'll keep them private.

Finally, the thing I find most difficult to understand is the apparent lack of consideration for professional background when it comes to majority member appointments. With the notable exception of Rep. Rich Wills, who is a former law enforcement officer, the remaining members are all farmers/ranchers. While this certainly is a noble profession, I am not certain that it has the monopoly on ethics and law. These members are all good men who work hard, but are they the best fit, I don't personally believe so. Speaker Denney, in my view, missed a golden opportunity to take advantage of the legal acumen of Reps. Leon Smith and Lynn Luker, both trained attorneys and mediators.

Ultimately, it is my hope that the process is thorough and fair. I hope that my colleagues on the panel do not rush to judgement, regardless of which side of judgement it may be. The process deserves their best efforts and so do the people of Idaho.

Question for the Governor

2010-06-11T20:57:00.006-06:00

Today the Idaho House Majority Leadership team tried to pin Keith Allred down on his position regarding Idaho's so-called "right-to-work" law. The group says that Allred should state his position on the issue so that he can, "come clean with Idaho voters." The GOP leaders conclude that either Allred isn't really as independent as he claims or he is a DINO.

To start off with, unlike the recent form of the majority party in Idaho, Democrats don't kick people out just because they don't conform on every issue. I don't know Keith's position on every issue, but I don't have to. I know that is probably hard for Moyle and company to understand, but that is why Democrats are known as the Big Tent party. We accept people within our party because our differences make us stronger. We are not bent on some sort of ideological purity crusade. Which, by the way, is also why many moderate Republicans in Idaho are realizing that they aren't welcome in the own party and heading in droves to support Idaho Democrats like Keith Allred.

So, now I have a question for Governor Otter so he can "come clean with Idaho voters." My question is, "Mr. Otter do think that we should abolish the Federal Reserve and return to the Gold Standard as the Idaho GOP Platform plainly advocates?" Based upon the logic of Denney et al in their attempt to discredit Allred, I am assuming the answer must be yes because otherwise they wouldn't be supporting Governor Otter.

In the words of the Majority Leadership, Otter must own up to his opposition to repealing the the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold Standard and face the consequences from the fringe elements of the majority party, or state openly that he opposes the Federal Reserve and wishes to return to the Gold Standard and drop the charade of being a "A Man for Our Times." That is, of course, unless the time that Otter is speaking about is 1933, which isn't the vision for a prosperous Idaho future.

Off Topic Commentary: BSU to the MWC... er Big XII?!

2010-06-06T20:18:00.003-06:00

So as a big time college sports fan (not just football), I've been following the conference expansion talk pretty closely. With word today that the Pac 10 commish has the authority to go out and shop for members the whole game is in play. While I would really like Bob Kustra to get a call from the Pac 10, I know deep down that is about as likely as the USA winning the World Cup this year. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not even close.

Now, as any even minor follower of BSU athletics knows the Mountain West Conference (MWC) is going to be meeting this week to discuss among other things, conference expansion. It is anticipated that BSU will be invited to join the MWC and BSU will accept on the spot. This is a pretty notable development although won't be all that surprising. However, this is where things get interesting!

Word in the college athletic world is that the Pac 10 is going to raid the Big XII and take six teams. The likely schools to leave the Big XII for the Pac 10 are Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Baylor or Colorado. In regards to the BU or CU dilemma, it appears that politics mean something. You see, the Pac 10 would probably prefer CU because it gives them a footprint into the Denver media market. However, don't underestimate the value of a good political struggle! A state senator for Waco seems to be reluctant to allow his beloved Bears (BU) left behind while the rest of the top teir Texas teams head to the Pac 10. No doubt that BU has the academic cred, but the athletic component specifically football, which is really driving most of this talk, is lacking.

In addition to the moves being made by Pac 10, we also see the Big 10 making similar ovations towards Nebraska and Mizzou. In fact, the courting of Nebraska and Mizzou has gotten so public that the Big XII has demanded that the two schools make a decision on where they want to be by the end of this week. That sort of public excoriation is unprecedented as far as I know. It also sounds a lot like a conference that is desperate and realizes that the ship may be sinking.

So what does this have to do with BSU? Well, if the Pac 10 and Big 10 do as is expected and ransack the Big XII, then the Big XII is stuck in a big time pickle. With only four schools remaining (Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and BU or CU) they don't really have a conference. The remaining schools will be looking to find a new home and fast. In comes the MWC to save the day. With the regional proximity and the athletic and academic comparability (albeit somewhat less prestigious) a merger between the MWC and Big XII would be a natural result, with the Big XII keeping the namesake for marketing purposes.

If you are MWC schools this is dream come true. If you are the four remaining Big XII schools, this is called making the best of a terrible situation. If you are BSU or a BSU fan, this is called the unthinkable happening. The crazy thing is, this isn't that crazy! To be sure, nothing is certain and a lot of pieces of this giant jigsaw puzzle are still waiting to be placed, but if they are then the result could be nothing short of miraculous.

The Hidden Costs of 2010 Budget

2010-04-07T09:01:00.005-06:00

In economics, there is something known as a hidden cost. As defined by BusinessDictionary.com hidden costs are:

Expense not normally included in the purchase price of an equipment or machine, such as for maintenance, supplies, training, and upgrades.

In the process of setting the state budget, members of JFAC will routinely attempt to identity what the fixed and variable costs of any budget setting action might be. They look at the world with little complexity and simply as a matter of "balancing the state's checkbook." Unfortunately, this de minimis view of the budgeting is neither useful nor realistic.

While Governor Otter and majority legislative "leadership" praised themselves for a "stellar" session, they failed economics 101. Yes, the state budget is "balanced" but the true costs are not calculated. As has already been reported, not more one week after the end of the legislative session, the Department of Health & Welfare is closing nine regional office and laying-off 126 employees. Now instead of helping struggling Idahoans get access to services to give them a hand-up, they'll be putting their own hand out.

Unfortunately, the 126 employees is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the job losses will be seen in the private sector by private social service providers that will no longer be able to offer services, especially in our small rural communities. The multiplier effect is a funny thing, when you cut off income to one group, it finds its way to all segments of our economy. Whats more, as clients of private providers and H&W are unable to get access to services, many of which are preventative in nature, they will undoubtedly be accessing more expensive services in the form institutional care either in corrections or a state hospital. It is a lose-lose propisition with the Idaho taxpayer stuck holding the bill.

The Department of Health & Welfare is only the beginning. In future weeks other agencies will face the budgetary reality that our nearsighted Governor and majority leadership placed upon them and make similar cuts to services and jobs. In education, this will be felt very close to home. In fact, many local districts in rural Idaho will be faced with the choice of closing down entire schools or trying to raise property taxes. So rather than address the funding problem at the state level, the decision was made to make the local district make the tough decision. What kind of leadership is that?

After all is said and done, productivity will decline, marriage and family situations will strain, students will be less well prepared, and Idaho will be worse off. These are the hidden costs to the 2010 budget.

No Alternatives?

2010-03-05T10:41:00.004-07:00

The tag line of the majority members of the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee as they set budgets this year has become, "There isn't any alternative." What I believe to be the most telling of this commentary is the implicit defeatism. It is saying that we in the legislature have no control. If that is true, everyone should be worried.

Consider this quotation from Senator Jim Hammond (R-5):

I’m not comfortable with this budget either. I don’t like it. But I truly don’t see an alternative. As I return home each weekend and I talk to those businesses who have already laid off 30, 40 percent of their staff and are trying to stay alive, they beg me, ‘Don’t tax me any more, don’t raise my taxes, don’t raise the taxes of those employees that I still am able to employ.'

Luckily, the issue isn't an absence of alternatives, but instead the insistence to prefer a slash and burn strategy over a protect and preserve. The slash and burn strategy adopted by the majority is indicative of the defeatism their mantra suggests. However, defeatism doesn't have to win the day, although it likely will. There are several options to improving state budgets that don't include raising taxes, including:

Delaying the implementation of the elections consolidation - $8 million
Collecting on unpaid taxes - $30-40 million
Reforming the parole system - $10 million (approximately)

There are also of course those pesky exemptions and delaying the increase in the grocery tax credit, but there are alternatives. It is an inconvenient truth for the majority that the alternatives exist, and they don't have to be in the form of a tax increase.

Now I do believe that every efficiency in government should be found and any waste needs to be cut. However, there is a point of diminishing returns. We have reached that point. Many students, especially struggling students, will be irreparably harmed by the current budget proposals. The elderly and disabled will be cut off from services that they need to survive. In some cases it is literally a matter of life or death. The corrections budget will put the public safety in jeopardy. That is not hyperbole or propaganda. That is the stark reality.

We have a decision to make and it's a very important one. Do we believe that government should be shrunk, no matter what the costs or do we believe that long-term and social costs should also be considered. My philosophy is the latter. We are not defeated. Idahoans can make it through this difficult time without leaving those in need behind.

Homeless and helpless

2010-02-16T16:35:00.002-07:00

I am disappointed to report that just moments ago in the Senate Local Government and Taxation Committee my effort to provide temporary tax relief to non-profit homeless shelters in Idaho (HB 435) was soundly defeated. The measure was unanimously supported in the House, but that didn't matter.

Senator Mike Jorgensen compared requesting the exemption to a story in the Old Testament where two women had fought over a baby and the King concluded that the only fair way to settle the dispute was the split the baby in half (1 Kings 3:16-28). Unfortunately for Senator Jorgensen, he doesn't understand how the story ended. The real mother of child asked for mercy on the child and relented on her demand. In other words, mercy and wisdom ruled the day. Sen. Jorgensen exhibited neither (to little surprise).

While the measure itself was rather minor, its symbolism was its greatest virtue. Republican legislators (in this case in the Senate), especially so-called "conservatives" deride entitlement spending and the role of the Department of Health and Welfare. Yet despite their contempt they offer absolutely no vision. They lay blame, but have no solutions. I am not saying my bill was a panacea, but at least it was an idea. It was a try to reduce the size of government in a real way. Lip service doesn't rehabilitate the addicted or shelter the homeless. Here is my challenge to those naysayers: What's your plan? I suspect the question may as well be rhetorical, but here is to hoping that they can figure out a way to put aside their personal agendas and partisanship and actually do something.

Can I get a Witness?!

2010-02-12T12:47:00.005-07:00

You know when you are watching a television show like Law & Order and they call up the expert witness? To state the obvious they are doing that because that individual supposedly has some sort of useful insight into the situation. The expert's testimony is credible and thus has influence on decisions. In the Idaho Legislature when it comes to issues surrounding budgets and economics an expert witness is just another voice no different than the rest.

At least that is the impression that I get from the decision made earlier today by the JFAC when it set its target budget well below the budget recommended by the State of Idaho's Chief Economist, Mike Ferguson. Rather than follow the recommendations of the expert, members of JFAC decided that they liked the beat of their own drum a bit more thank you very much. Never mind if the beat is a bit slow and depressing.

So why does it matter? The revenue number that they accept and target the budget to has everything do with the amount of money the state spends for services including schools, parks, safety net programs, and countless others. So the lower the number, the more cuts.

To be fair, Mr. Ferguson has been a bit off with his projections the last couple of years. Perhaps this is the response, distrust. However, even with my own education and training and Mr. Ferguson's missed projections, he is still the expert. By ignoring his recommendation, JFAC is making the concerted effort to disregard his efforts.

Frankly, if Mr. Ferguson was new to the team and had messed up early and often, I'd understand, but Mr. Ferguson has been at this game for a long time (longer than nearly all the legislators). The combination of his training and experience are irreplaceable even by a strong gut reaction, like the one exhibited by JFAC. Projecting budgets and the economy isn't easy, especially at a time like now when the economy has been demonstrating some unusual characteristics.

Regardless of the spastic nature of the economy, numbers still work and trend lines can still be predicted. Idahoans deserve that the expert that they are paying for be listened to. Ignoring him and treating him like just another uninformed voice puts our economic recovery at risk and needlessly cuts services that we all value.

Semanko doesn't get it

2010-02-10T09:42:00.004-07:00

Norm Semanko doesn't seem to understand the tough economic times facing Idahoans. The fact is regular Idahoans have been hit hard by the economic downtown. They need solutions not partisan gamesmanship.

Yesterday I along with the 17 other House Democrats voted against the ill-named Health Freedom Act (HB 391). Unfortunately for Idahoans, this legislation is yet another distraction for lawmakers from our real work of getting Idahoans back to work. And for what end? So that Norm Semanko and others could try to score a political point.

Well, here is a news alert, Norm: I care more about fixing the problems for Idaho families than scoring political points (see exhibit A , exhibit B,and exhibit C). It's your insistence on playing partisan games instead of finding solutions that has degraded the public's confidence in our government. You keep playing games, I'll try to get some real work done and help my constituents back on the road to economic security.

Never mind that the legislation itself was foolish, and that is putting it politely. The legislation ignores Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (aka the Supremacy Clause). It states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." But Mr. Semanko isn't interested in upholding the Constitution, that is only important when he and his party are trying to pacify the Tea Party folks.

Oh and on the final point, the bill has a $100,000 fiscal note. So rather than employing teachers we will be employing attorneys. Great idea. I suppose if legal community needs a stimulus package, Norm has the bill for them. That is not the vision I have for Idaho. I'd rather spend the taxpayer dollars someplace more valuable than in a partisan treasure hunt. Norm can keep scoring political points and I'll keep working for Idahoans. I trust that when Election Day comes the regular Idahoans that Norm is neglecting will let him know they would have rather the legislature spend more trying address their needs rather than serve his own partisan agenda.

Week Four Recap: Its all about jobs

2010-02-05T13:04:00.002-07:00

Another week of the 2010 Legislative Session has come and gone. Things have been definitely cookin' and the weeks are beginning to blur together (already!). While Governor Otter continues to talk about ways to cut budgets and send mixed signals about everything from the Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA) to the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, I along with legislative Democrats have been putting forward a vision for how Idaho gets out of the mess it is in. In two words, job creation.

We've all heard about how high unemployment is to blame for the budget woes, so it seems to reason that we should actually try to get to the root of the problem. Simply trying slash and burn the budget will not create a single job (in fact it will result in ending many jobs, both public and private) and thus will not solve the real problem (or in fact actually make it worse)! I can personally say that the unemployment bug has bit my own family in a very real and direct way. I suspect that story of family is familiar to nearly all Idahoans. Thus, the need to find a solution is real to my family as well.

To be clear, much of what we are experiencing is a national problem and so efforts at the state-level alone will not be a panacea. However, I think situation is bigger than just the impact of legislation. It is also about attitude. Right now, I am hearing from Governor Otter a message of retreat and despair. I suspect that message does nothing to improve consumer confidence or restore hope in the entrepreneurial community.

Instead of saying what we can't do, I think it’s important to say what we can do. We need to tell consumers what we know, which is that good times will be here again. We need to tell entrepreneurs that we believe in their own goals and that we will stand behind them and provide them the tools they need to succeed. After all, if they succeed, our budget will improve and we will all benefit.

Okay, so now you may be saying, what are the specifics?! Idaho Democratic legislators have proposed six bills, known as the Idaho Jobs and Opportunity Blueprint (IJOBs). These bills have been getting hearings and are beginning to get traction. In addition to the IJOBs proposals, I have personally worked on a job creation bill known as the Micro Enterprise Development Authority (MEDA). This legislation was recently spotlighted in the Idaho Business Review. After spending several weeks listening and incorporating suggestions, I expect to submit the legislation to the House Business Committee early next week.

So as I stated a few weeks back, if this legislative session is really only about the budget, then it'll be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Now is the time to be innovative and thoughtful. Now is the time to think about how to get us out of the budget hole we are in. Now it’s all about jobs!

Two Weeks Down

2010-01-22T10:28:00.003-07:00

We are closing out week 2 of the 2010 legislative session and a lot has happened already. As expected the budget really has dominated the discussion. This has made some legislators coy as to their intentions with things and made others fearful of what budget cuts could mean to their favorite programs. I for one am particularly concerned about cuts to safety net programs and k-12 and post secondary education.

As a member of the House Health and Welfare Committee, I have spent considerable time doing what is known as rules review. Idaho is unique in that the legislature is given the responsibility of reviewing and approving of administrative rules that are promulgated by executive agencies. For those that are familiar with rules, they are essential the guidelines for agencies are to implement law. They carry virtually the same weight as law, although they are subservient to statute. Anyway, H&W always has a ton of rules and this year was no exception. We are still knee-deep in them and I suspect at least a week or two away from completion. Some of the rules can be controversial because they are where actual cuts to safety net programs exist. I have been pushing back against the notion that the budgets need to be cut as much as proposed. My rationale is two fold: 1) Safety net programs are being demanded by Idahoans at rates that have never been seen and 2) Many of the cuts will actually result in higher costs to the state in the long term.

The short-term thinking has really got a lot of downside. While it may be politically convenient to only think about the upcoming budget year, it is often times done at the detriment to the future prosperity. Unfortunately this short-term thinking has really become the slogan of the 2010 Legislative Session.

In the House Education Committee the same sort of short term thinking can be found. We have seen potential ideas that could save the state long-term and improve education outcomes dismissed. The problem is that the germane committee, in this case House Education, does not have the authority to dictate where the spending priorities are for education. That responsibility rests with the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee (JFAC). Needless to say, I have a lot of issues with this model. It says that all the policy work that is done in House Education is meaningless. I'd much rather JFAC tell us the amount of money there is to spend on public education and higher education and then give the germane committees (House and Senate Education) the responsibility for deciding how it is best divvied up.

In terms of my own work, I continue to work on a few pieces of legislation. Here are four of them briefly:

Micro Enterprise Development Association - Creates the Micro Enterprise Development Association, which is given the authority to give loans to small business (less than 50 employees) of $35,000 or less. They are created as independent corporate body politic, which essentially means they are private, but still oversight from the state (the same as the Idaho Housing and Finance Association). I'll dedicate a full post to this idea next week.
Online Education Endorsement - Requires that all teachers or persons employed in the capacity of instructing students in an online program have an online education endorsement. This is important because there are programs outside of Idaho that are contracting with Idaho school districts and there is very little assurance of quality or competency.
Master Advancement Pilot Project - Establishes a voluntary and limited pilot project that allows students to go through the public education system at their own pace. Early completion of the k-12 curriculum can earn a student a scholarship to be used at an Idaho public post-secondary institution. This is really about putting incentive into education.
Homeless Shelter Temporary Sales Tax Exemption - Provides non-profit homeless shelters a two-year sales tax exemption. While I tend to dislike sales tax exemptions, this is one that will serve a real need and has a defined duration. The cost to the general fund is $15,000, but the benefits to the state will be much greater. There is a hearing on this legislation next week on Tuesday.

I have a few other bills, but those are three that I am putting a lot of effort into at this point. As always, I look forward to your feedback.

2010 Legislative Session Preview

2010-01-05T21:28:00.005-07:00

The 2010 Legislative Session is less than a week away and the keyword for the upcoming session has already been coined, "Difficult."

As everyone that pays any bit of attention knows already the main issue for the Session will be the budget. As the AP reported, Speaker Denney is taking the position that, "Anything that has a price tag probably won't even get a hearing." Personally, while I understand that money is tight, limiting discourse on issues that have been lingering doesn't seem to be the best idea. The reality is that only 18 of the 105 legislators sit on the State's budget committee, JFAC. So what are the rest of us supposed to do? I'm not saying bills with large fiscal notes should necessarily pass, but to not even have the discussion seems to be a bit obstructionist. What if one of those ideas with a fiscal note had some really positive changes that could help the state in the near term? We may as well have the discussion so that we can become better prepared for later. Anyway, I'll get off from that soap box for now.

I do think that we'll see a big push to shrink state government, but the budget woes will just be a handy scapegoat. It'll be curious to see if Congress sends us anything we need to take action on from Health Care Reform. My guess is yes, but I'm not sure what. In terms of the budget cuts, I am particularly concerned about the budgets for Education (including if not especially higher education) and Health & Wealth. Seeing as how I am on both of the germane committees, I tend to care more about the issues of those departments than those that serve on other committees. My interest was piqued today when I visited the Westgate H&W office and saw a sight that nearly made me cry (literally). There were at minimum 75 people waiting to apply for a litany of social services. Many of the people had looks of despair on their faces and some of shame in their eyes. These aren't the deadbeats people think about that live off the system, these are hardworking folks that have been dealt a bad hand and need help getting back on their feet. It's just not right and contrary to what some people may say, I believe that helping others in a time of need is a proper role of government (but the government shouldn't be the only one helping, more on that later!).

In terms of my work this upcoming session, as I just indicated I'll do everything I can to help others in their time of need. Frankly, that is exactly why I ran in the first place. One of the best things we can do to help others is help them help themselves. That is why I am working on a couple of bills that are intended to create jobs, which I'll elaborate more on in the coming weeks. One of them I am really excited about would help create a fund to provide capital for small startups at no expense to the state. How? Wait and see!

I will also be leading a coalition of Idaho homeless shelters in their pursuit of a two-year temporary sales tax exemption. Before you get too far down the anti exemption expressway, hear me out. The fiscal note is about $15,000 statewide (that's peanuts), but the impact is huge. Considering the fact that a lot of people (if not all) that visit homeless shelters would otherwise probably be accessing state services, I think that this is a no-brainer. Also, philosophically speaking, I believe it is important that state government not be the only one providing social services. To that end empowering the faith based and community organizations like this is a step in the right direction in my perspective.

I also have a couple of education bills that I'll be working to get through. One of them, the Mastery Advancement Pilot Project is likely to cause some discomfort, but I believe that figuring out new ways of doing things in education is past due. The idea has received some press already and hopefully will get more momentum in the next few weeks.

There are a few others that I am working on as well, including local option authority, but in the name of brevity I'll address them in the near future.

Finally in terms of length of the session, I keep hearing that the Session may be over by the first week of April. Of course, I've heard similar predictions before, but maybe they mean it this time. My prediction for an end date is April 9 (calling all bets). While this may indeed be one of the most difficult sessions in a long time, I still believe that difficult is no match for perseverance.

Three ways to help the budget

2009-11-04T14:34:00.004-07:00

I think that the criticism that being unwilling to vote to cut programs without another solution is right on. After all, as a state legislator, I along with the rest of the legislature have the constitutional requirement to balance the budget. Last year I was more than just a little hesitant about cutting programs, especially in education (at all levels) and Medicaid. This year, those cuts are looking like they may be even more draconian than ever before. In order show that I am serious about finding solutions, I have come up with the following three ideas to help trim the state budget, so that cuts to vital programs can be minimized.

Modify the property tax legislation from the 2006 Extraordinary Session to only apply to owner occupied residences,
Institute a new program for paroling and otherwise taking non-violent offenders out of our expensive prisons and into other forms of corrections (e.g. house arrest, work release, etc.), and
Restructuring of state government by combining some state agencies, where doing so makes sense both fiscally and from an operations standpoint.

While there are many other solutions, and these three ideas aren't the panacea for our budget woes, they certainly would make a significant dent in the budget shortfall. In the upcoming days and weeks, I'll provide more details and data about my ideas and explain why I think that they are superior to simply cutting state programs that serve Idahoans. Stay tuned.

Off Topic Post - BCS Mess, Again.

2009-10-27T13:47:00.004-06:00

Well, its that time of year again. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is out ranking collegiate football teams and Boise State is at the center of the controversy just as as it was last year. At issue is whether or not an undefeated BSU team deserves to go to a so-called BCS Bowl Game where the riches and exposure are that of some mythical treasure island.

In the first week of the BCS rankings BSU was ranked a regular season best fourth place, but that all changed this week. BSU got moved back to seventh place and now sits behind Texas Christian, the other non-BCS conference school that is looking to be this year's BCS Buster. As you might recall, the same thing happened last year when BSU and Utah were fighting for a similar distinction. However, this year is different.

This year is different because the spotlight has been shined ever brighter upon the BCS and its uppity elitist conferences by not only Congress, but also President Obama. In Congress, claims have been made that the BCS may be in violation of anti-trust laws. Of course, the BCS conspirators have lifted their nose and tried to laugh off such accusations as nonsense. Well, frankly, if BSU and TCU end up in the top eight at the end of the year, but one of the is left out, it won't be nonsense it will be because of cents (and millions of dollars).

That is why, as big of BSU football fan as I might be (I've gone to games since before there was a blue field and have the schedule poster to prove it), I am hoping that both BSU and TCU end the seasons undefeated and ranked in the top 8. I am also hoping that one of them gets left out because if they do, then the claim that the BCS is nothing more than an anti-competitive money passing scheme will be proved accurate. You see, if BSU and TCU are both in the top 8 or higher and if it really is about placing the best teams in college football against one another, then there will not be a logical basis in which to exclude either team. That is, of course, unless its not about placing the best teams each against each other.

Now, you can bet that BCS conference officials are talking and trying to figure out how to weasel their way out of this one. Perhaps they made some calls to the SEC officiating crews and are trying to figure out the going rate is to throw football games. Either way, they'll be ready with some pigheaded press release that tries to pacify the populace, but we can't let it happen. The BCS is bigger than just some stupid college football games. It is about doing the right thing and giving everyone a fair shot. After all, fighting for the little guy and making things is equal, is something that all of us, football fans and non-fans alike, can agree on

What's next?

2009-10-19T08:51:00.004-06:00

On Sunday, October 11, The Idaho Statesman ran my op-ed dealing with what I view as a real disconnect between Governor Otter and regular Idahoans. In the print edition, the Statesman placed my piece right next to one by House Assistant Majority Leader Scott Bedke. Representative Bedke asserted that now wasn't the time for rash measures and insinuated that he and his majority team in the House would protect the taxpayer. The phrase, "starve the beast," comes to mind. At the same time, the Statesman's Editorial Board also ran a piece discussing the issue and proclaiming that, "Lawmakers must defend Medicaid, higher education."

The three opinion pieces generated a fair amount of comments, some of which related to a question of how to protect programs, without raising taxes. I'd like to respond.

First, I have no appetite whatsoever to raise taxes on hard working Idahoans, that option is off the table.

Second, I'd like to clear up some of the misinformation Rep. Bedke disseminated. I, and no one in the legislature that I know of, has advocated for depleting ALL of the rainy day funds. I agree that some cuts will be required. Efficiencies, as the Guv suggests, should help, some. For example, it would be wise to combine some agencies together to reduce administrative costs (e.g. Ag and Water Resources, or Lands and Parks and Rec and Fish and Game). Washington State is doing so and I believe we can too.

I also think we could revamp our corrections systems, which would yield some significant savings. For example, I would move certain non-violent offenders out of prison and into work release. We are doing this some right now, but I think more could be done.

We also need to partner more intentionally with faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs). I attempted last year to put this idea into action with HCR 11, which ultimately stalled in Senate State Affairs Committee because Senators were concerned that it wasn't the Guv's idea and didn't want to "go over him." By investing in FBCOs, we reduce the burden to the State and subsequently taxpayers. In many cases FBCOs can do more with less because of partnerships they leverage within their communities. Plus, unlike state government, they know their communities better because they are in their communities. This has the potential to save a lot of money.

Lastly, not spending rainy day funds has the same practical outcome of slowing the economic recovery. State government, whether the Governor or Rep. Bedke like it, is a very important part of Idaho's gross state product. By unnecessarily cutting state government you are cutting jobs. Jobs that families rely upon. Families, that without those jobs, will end up tapping our already strained social services. That will lengthen the recession for regular Idahoans. Economist forecast a mostly full recovery including job creation by December 2010 at the latest. That is good news for Idahoans, regular Idahoans.

Charter Schools and the Bible

2009-06-29T15:35:00.005-06:00

An AP report today about the Nampa Classical Academy has shined a blaring light on a major philosophical divide in our society. On one side, the pro-Separation of Church and State crowd is essentially saying that anything that even remotely smells of religion should stay out of public schools. They point to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the so-called Establishment Clause as their primary argument. On the other side, the pro-Bible crowd extols the Judeo Christian origins of our society and their immediate relevancy on understanding contemporary western philosophy. Whatsmore, the proliferation of charter schools flows as a secondary undercurrent to this heated debate.

Perhaps predictably, I find myself somewhere in the middle. I certainly disagree that First Amendment was intended to spawn the sort of anti-religious overtures that it has become synonymous with. I also don't believe that the State should be in the primary role of informing our spiritual needs. Instead, I believe that understanding religion in our society is critical, but I believe it should be a cognitive understanding not a spiritual or moralistic one. In my view, the latter should be kept in our houses of worship and out of the public education system.

In terms of the public charter school debate, I tend to believe that charter schools are a double edged sword. They can, and have proven to fill a very real need. The problem comes when, in the competitive process, they over-compete and subsequently hurt the traditional public school to the point where the traditional public school can no longer serve its core mission. In this particular case, a strong argument could be made that in the charter application process the school should been more forthright about its intentions to utilize the Bible. Not doing so has been a disservice to all involved.

Ultimately, I don't believe that there is a problem using the Bible in addition to other texts for the study of literature or history. I for one read the Bible (the Book of Genesis specifically) in my senior year English course at Boise High School. Surely there is a lot to be learned by understanding the belief systems that have had a significant impact on the development of western thought. In fact, I would argue not understanding these belief systems puts any scholar, student, or citizen at a strategic disadvantage. That said, I don't think that the Bible, by itself, should be the subject of an entire class in the public education system, whether it be at a traditional or charter school. The debate will continue and hopefully everyone will be quick to listen and slow to speak.

Reading between the lanes

2009-06-23T20:39:00.002-06:00

I could be wrong, but my guess is that the announcement that the Guv's new Transportation Tax Force (mispelling by design) will not report until 2011, it means John McGee won't be running for CD1. Why else would McGee be engaged so heavily in a process that wasn't going to bear fruit until after the election? Just a hunch.

More about the Tax Force later.

I wish I had thought of that...

2009-06-18T16:52:00.001-06:00

Today the Statesman is reporting that the a group calling itself Idaho Vote by Mail is planning on pushing a citizen initiative to allow permanent absentee voting. That sounds like a great idea, I wish I had thought of it first. Wait a minute, I did. In both 2008 (HB 413) and 2009 (HB 26) I have pushed permanent absentee voting, but didn't get anywhere.

My impetus behind becoming involved in the issue predates my being elected to the legislator. In fact, it came in the HOT summer of 2006 when I was campaigning door-to-door. During that experience, while walking in Old Lakewood (as natives of SE Boise would refer to it), I came across an elderly couple with a fantastic life story. The gentleman of the house was (as I recall) a WWII vet and former mayor of a small town in Montana. He, with his wife by his side, spent his entire life serving our country and protecting our democracy. Unfortunately, due to his ailing health, he was no longer able to leave his home and neither was his wife because like many of that generation, she never learned to drive. Subsequently we had two people that served our Country that would likely never get to vote again. That, I believed, was a sham and patently unfair. I gave them absentee ballot request forms and picked them up and personally delivered them to Ada County Clerk a couple of weeks later. After some time thinking (and being elected), I concluded that something had to be done. Someone wasn't always going to be there to make sure they had the absentee ballot form to fill out. That's when I decided that permanent absentee was the perfect solution to this problem.

In 2008 when I attempted to push legislation I found an enthusiastic partner in the Idaho Association of Counties and the Clerks Association. After much work, we moved forward with having the legislation introduced. Unfortunately, that's far as it would go. It met a wall known as the chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, Tom Loertscher. While we had counted our votes in committee and they looked like enough to pass, we never had the support of the chair.

In 2009 the Clerks Association decided it wasn't worth the effort and so I was stuck carrying the mantel. After a very brief discussion with the chair it was clear that a hearing was out of the question and so was a print hearing. I decided to just run it as a personal bill and it went to die in House Ways and Mean-spirited.

Finally, I applaud the effort to move forward with a citizens initiative. I believe the group has accurately surmised that with an obstructionist chairman, this issue is DOA. Some of the critics will try scare folks into believing the system is inherently circumspect with voter fraud. They, frankly, don't know what they are talking about. The Secretary of State and the Clerks all feel that absentee voting is as secure (if not more so) than voting in the polling booth. These are the experts, if they are wrong about this, then we have a lot bigger problems on our hands. Some opponents will try to talk voters into thinking that permanent absentee gets rid of polling booths all together, again, they are wrong. In fact, the continued existence of polling booths is why I support permanent absentee over other forms of vote by mail, which do eliminate traditional polling locations. Ultimately, I hope the politics of fear misinformation is unsuccessful and Idahoans, just like at Burger King, can have it their way.

Debate Tonight

2009-05-27T19:30:00.004-06:00

Tonight I will be participating in a debate regarding Liberty University's decision to remove a College Democrats Club from the campus. Link to the event will be forthcoming.

UPDATE: Click HERE to play the debate (it should load in Windows Media Player).

Green Jobs = Good Jobs

2009-05-13T12:01:00.003-06:00

As I stated in an early post, The TwiLIGHT Zone, my kind of corporate welfare, using stimulus money to fund long-term green collar jobs was just what the doctor ordered. Today the Idaho Statesman reported that Micron is back at it again trying to find some financial assistance to fund an LED plant development. While scale of the proposal is pretty small, in the near term it would employ less than 200, it is the long term potential that is the most exciting.

The bottom line is that Idaho has to begin to develop the infrastructure and expertise to compete in the Green Economy. As a state we already have several competitive advantages over other places in the United States, namely relatively inexpensive electric rates and an abundance of open space.

As a state legislator, I have committed myself to identifying ways that the State of Idaho can assist in this regard. Certainly industry supporters always clamor for tax incentives, but we must be more creative. First and foremost we must invest in ourselves. If we don't invest in the people of Idaho, then there will be little reason to move here. Second, we need to identify ways to maximize on our competitive advantages.

Unlike the old natural resource based economy of the past, Green Economy jobs are here to stay for a long time. They will require a new type of worker and require an innovative spirit. I believe Idahoans are up to the challenge. The only question is if Idaho's leaders are ready to make the leap.

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

2009-04-22T09:36:00.004-06:00

After having reviewed Governor Otter's "explanation" as to why he vetoed HB 245, all I can think to say is, "Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

See it for yourself, here.

Say it ain't so

2009-04-20T16:29:00.005-06:00

The Governor decided to veto HB 245, aka the Voluntary Parents as Teacher Support Program. I could go on and on about how ridiculous this is, but I won't. Really, I am somewhat in disbelief that the Guv would play politics with kids. Say it ain't so...

End of the road?

2009-04-19T20:55:00.004-06:00

Well, tomorrow will be the 99th day of the 2009 legislative session. That's right, 99, as in only one a way from triple digits. As has been widely reported, there are essentially two issues preventing us from going home. First is the mainstay going home issue, the budget. The second issue, transportation funding, has held the same position for two years. The question is, will this week be the end of the road?

I think its pretty clear that the budget will be taken care of early this week, save perhaps the public education budgets. The latter is being delayed due to some impending legislation that seeks to change the statutory responsibility for funding public education. The bills, HB 256, HB 262, and HB 303 are all major shifts in education policy. But I'll save the education discussion for another day.

Transportation is a whole different issue. After having read the Idaho Statesman editorial on the issue today, I took pause. I thought long and hard about the role I have played in this debate. In their words:

CENTER? WHAT CENTER? Coming into the session, Otter's best chance of getting road repair money rested in bipartisanship - and forging a centrist coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats. But from those bygone early days of the session, Democrats have ripped Otter for putting potholes before people, and Otter has made it far too easy for Boise Democrats to criticize needed repairs to an aging road system.
Blame all around. Democrats have demagogued the issue. Otter has been unable to reach across party lines.

Demagoguery? Seriously? Perhaps the Statesman forgot to read Otter's response to the House's decision to decline raising taxes on fuel or to some of the debate in favor. But that's not my point here. The point is that my position on the issue has been crystal clear from the beginning. Consider this response from the 2008 Idaho Statesman Voter Guide as proof:

Gov. Butch Otter says Idaho needs hundreds of millions of dollars in highway improvements it cannot pay for with existing revenues. What, if anything, should the state do to improve transportation? How would you pay for these improvements?
Branden J. Durst: As I have stated on my blog (idaho18.blogspot.com) funding doesn't occur in a vacuum. Do roads need to be improved? Absolutely. Is there enough money to do it? Probably not. Unfortunately, advocating for highway funding and not mass transit doesn't make sense. The solution to the transportation problem, especially in the Treasure Valley, must include local-option authority without an unnecessary and capricious constitutional amendment.

I guess if being up front about your position during a campaign and then advocating for your position as you had stated it is demagoguery, I suppose I am guilty as charged. But I have a different word for it, honesty. If people in District 18 wanted to elect someone that would write a blank check to Governor Otter and ITD for transportation without any other considerations, they should have elected someone else. I don't take my position in order to achieve some sort of visceral emotional response. I have taken my position to protect the taxpayers of District 18 and ensure the long term strategic interest of the State of Idaho.

Anyway, while I do suspect that end of the road is near my position won't change. Transportation funding is needed, but a comprehensive approach must be the solution. Without it, we will continue to kick the can down the street and delay the inevitable.

For the Children

2009-04-17T11:43:00.005-06:00

Last week the Senate voted 28-6 in favor of HB 245, the Parents as Teachers (PAT) Support Program. Now, its on its way to the Governor where its future is unknown.

As background, PAT is a nationally recognized program that uses the home visit model for early childhood education. Unlike programs that take the child out of the home, PAT seeks to teach parents to be the teachers. The program is very low cost compared to other early childhood programs. While it certainly isn't the perfect solution for early childhood education, it is definitely 500 times better than nothing at all. It is tough to compare the effectiveness of PAT with other types of programs, but for what it is, it is a good program. For more information about it, check out the National Parents as Teachers website here.

In Idaho, PAT operated under executive order of former Governor Dirk Kempthorne. The program was a huge success and found an ally in former First Lady Patricia Kempthorne. The program operated throughout the State by funding through federal TANF funds. In 2007, when Governor Otter was elected, he questioned whether or not TANF funds were allowed to be used for PAT. He concluded that they were not and by executive order ended the program.

Late in the 2008 legislative session I was approached by some community members to reconstitute of PAT in Idaho. I put together an RS and submitted it to House Education Committee Chairman Bob Nonini. Due to the lateness of the RS, however, it was decided that the legislation should wait another year before being introduced.

After I was successfully re-elected in November 2008 (thank goodness), I again began to attempt to drum up support for PAT. I immediately found an ally in newly elected Representative Brian Cronin from Boise's north end. We continued to refine the language of the legislation and I will say that Brian helped make my good bill a great bill. Through some negotiation and good fortune, we also were able to secure sponsorship of Rep. Nonini as well as House Education Committee vice-chair Mack Shirley. The bill sailed through the House.

Now we are back to now. Having been signed by the Speaker and sent to the Governor the ball is in his court. The Governor has three options at his disposal. He can either sign the bill, let the bill go into law without his signature, or veto the bill. For the sake of the families of Idaho, I hope he doesn't do the latter. If the Governor attempts to use PAT as a political football against myself or anyone else, he will be doing so at the disadvantage of Idaho's families. The fact is that if he does so and uses the funding piece and excuse, it is exactly that, an excuse. The billl does not authorize the expenditure of any funds, including TANF funds. PAT is a positive step for Idaho.

Governor, for the children, sign HB 245.

Budget Denied

2009-04-16T11:23:00.004-06:00

So why do I keep voting no on all those appropriation bills? Well, some of the budgets are better than others, but they nearly all have the same fatal flaw. The flaw is an across the board five percent cut on state employee salaries. Now, intelligent people may disagree as to whether or not state employees should be asked to hold the bag in the economic down turn. However, it is undeniable that reducing state employee pay will have a direct and negative impact on Idaho's economy.

State employees, generally speaking, are middle income earners. Due to this, as a group, their savings rate is relatively low. This low savings rate, justified or not, means that they spend what they make. It also means they would find it very difficult to absorb any cut. It is likely that the cuts will result in increased debt and potentially loss of homes. More certainly, this cut will have a direct and negative impact on the multiplier effect within our economy. This impact will only prolong our recession.

In addition to the negative economic impact, there is a question of control. That is, who should decide how state agencies are managed? Is it the proper role of the legislature to manage state agencies? I don't think so. Some may say, "But negotiations are in the works right now. The across the board component may go away." Well, frankly, may doesn't mean shall. Given the history of the legislature, I am not comforted that the negotiations will conclude in anything that will resolve these harms.

As a lawmaker, I am asked to "vote on the bill before me." The bills before me don't allow managers to manage. The bills before also will have a substantial negative impact on our economy. I will continue to vote no.

With all due respect, Mr. Governor

2009-04-09T12:09:00.004-06:00

Who is irresponsible? First this comment by Governor Otter on the decision by the House to defeat a two cent gas tax increase:

First let me thank the 32 House members who showed today that they understand the issue and the stakes," he said in a statement issued by his office. "I appreciate their patience, leadership, and commitment to doing the right thing. That being said, I am very disappointed by the outcome of today’s vote. Employers, local leaders and other concerned citizens from throughout Idaho have helped me assemble a mountain of information to make the case over the past year. A legislative audit confirmed the need. For months now we have made every compromise, addressed every legitimate concern and provided every alternative that opponents wanted. Instead of working in the best interest of Idaho, 37 members of the House continue finding new excuses to do nothing. That is irresponsible. I have done and will continue doing everything I can. It is the responsibility of all of us — including those 37 House members — to act on the real needs of the people we serve. This is a serious and immediate issue of safety, of economic recovery and future prosperity, and of whether we are going to be responsible stewards of a $16 billion investment that generations of Idaho taxpayers have left in our care or passive witnesses to, and victims of, its continuing deterioration. We must not and I will not ignore reality. I will continue working with those legislators who understand the problem and are willing to provide leadership and solutions to meet our responsibilities.

With all due respect, Mr. Governor, your statement is irresponsible. You state, "For months now we have made every compromise, addressed every legitimate concern and provided every alternative that opponents wanted." With all due respect, Mr. Governor, but that is categorically false. As my debate against HB135 indicated you haven't even attempted to address every legitimate concern. You also haven't provided every alternative that opponents wanted. Are you saying that concerns about improving access and funding to alternative modes of transportation aren't legitimate? At what point did you invite members of the House Democratic Caucus from the Treasure Valley (who nearly all voted against your plans) to the table? At what did you ask us, "What do you need to get on board?" To my knowledge the answer is obviously never. Even last week during the amending order, we tried as hard as we could to amend the bill so that it would address our concerns. You offered no leadership in supporting those issues that the people of my district care about. With all due respect, Mr. Governor, please don't suggest that you tried to meet us half way and certainly don't suggest that I am being irresponsible. I understand the problem, but will not be bullied or shamed into do something that I know is not in the strategic long term interests of the state of Idaho.

Annual We Hate Idaho's Children Week

2009-03-27T16:31:00.002-06:00

In what has become an annual tradition in the Idaho Legislature, this week can officially be anointed the 2009 We Hate Idaho's Children Week.

So what set this week apart from all the others? Drum roll maestro...

Majority party budget writers embrace the fallacy that unprecedented cuts to the public education budget are necessary (totalling over $100 million) despite having over $150 million in rainy day funds in the bank.
Majority party members of the House Health and Welfare Committee all but close the door on the passage of a statewide daycare licensing bill intended to keep pedophiles out of the child care business for the fifth year in a row.
Despite opposition from nearly all education experts, the Majority members of the House approve passage of HB256, which, according to the experts, will likely lead to unsafe transportation conditions for school children.
Majority party budget writers cut funding for treatment to children with Cystic Fibrosis, likely leading to increase hospitalization and probably much worse.

While my tone is in jest, the truth is that none of these misdeeds are a laughing matter. My question is, when will the Idaho Legislature stop doing things to hurt Idaho children? As a parent I know it can't be soon enough.

Got one through!

2009-03-21T09:15:00.003-06:00

I am pleased to announce that my joint effort, HB 84, with Rep. Donna Pence (D-25B) was passed out of the House 0n Friday by a vote of 57 to 7, with 6 legislators absent.

The bill, for those of you that don't know, will allow parents of children that turn five years old after September 1st and attend a private kindergarten, to continue on to 1st grade so long as they can pass an assessment that is approved by the State Department of Education. It also provides a new safeguard for children that attend an out-of-state kindergarten that turned five after September 1st by requiring them to also take the assessment to demonstrate they are prepared to enter first grade.

Really, this is a pretty small change that will impact less than a few dozen students a year. The most classic example is one that I coincidentally heard of yesterday while visiting my doctor. He has a son that was born on September 2nd, one day too late. Under the current law his son has to wait another year or commute to an out-of-state private kindergarten if he wants to start first grade next year with the rest of his peer group. Whats worse is his son is very big for his age and will likely dwarf the other children when he starts kindergarten in the fall. Anyway, this is a good change and hopefully parents will feel more empowered to do the right thing for their children.

The next stop for the bill is the Senate Education Committee. I will be contact the chair of that committee first thing Monday to get a hearing scheduled. Updates will be provided as they are available.

Transportation Showdown

2009-03-18T14:42:00.003-06:00

Governor Otter gets his proverbial day in court tomorrow. The court of public opinion in the Idaho House of Representatives. The Guv is still pushing hard to raise taxes to fund transportation and tomorrow will be a showdown.

While I don't know for certain as to what will happen, I will say that no matter what happens tomorrow, this won't be the last draw. In reality, I feel for the Guv on this one. He is between a rock and a hard place. Mechanically, to get support from Group X he must use Solution A. By choosing Solution A, he has lost support of Group Y. If he were to go with Solution B, he'd likely lose support of Group X. The problem in this particular situation is that there are multiple groups and solutions.

The question is what solution gives us the right mix of groups to get something done. That seems to be as elusive as a good paying job in today's economy. While I personally believe that,
"now is no time to be raising taxes on Idaho families," I also believe that Idahoans need to invest in its transportation infrastructure. The problem I have with the Guv's proposal is it lacks creativity and long-term thinking. Rather than try to do something innovative, the Guv has relied on a 1950s solution to fund a 21st century problem.

The Guv's proposal is essentially to increase the gas use tax and registration fees. Let's look at the gas use tax more closely. First, everyone, including the Guv and his staff, will concede that there are diminishing returns with the gas tax. As vehicles get more and more fuel efficient or use other sources of energy, the gas tax becomes less and less useful.

What isn't being well publicized with this tax is that truckers, who I think even they would admit cause a significant amount of wear and tear to our roads, get refunds for any gas they don't use in Idaho that they buy from here. In other words, if a trucker fills up in Mountain Home and goes down to Nevada, he gets to be reimbursed for any amount of tax on the fuel he has remaining. If he has 15 gallons remaining, he gets the tax he paid on that 15 gallons back.

More importantly, the fuel use tax can only be used for roads. That may seem a bit self-explanatory, but it is something I have a real fundamental problem with. You see, the Guv wants to make it more expensive to drive a vehicle, but his tax doesn't provide citizens a natural alternative mode of transportation. This means that you can't, for all intents and purposes, opt-out.

Now, I still don't think its a good idea to be raising taxes, but if that's what we must do, shouldn't we also provide an alternative? I think so. Okay so you may be asking yourself, "Fine, do you have any better ideas?" Oh, I am so glad you asked!!! Please allow me to elaborate.

First, if it were up to me, I'd scrap the registration fees the way it is being proposed with exception to the commercial and farm vehicles. With personal cars, rather than base the registration rate on year of the car, I would make it by weight. The heavier your car, the more damage you do to the road, the more you pay. I used to think it was a good idea to set the rate by value of the vehicle. Perhaps there is a way to give those that are especially low income a waiver or reduced rate. That way you aren't pricing poor people with "old clunkers" out of the market. I wouldn't change the rate for truckers, but don't worry, they aren't going to get off Scott-free.

Next, I'd also scrap the fuel use tax. In its place, I'd use a tax on fuel. The difference between the two is that tax on fuel is a tax on the transaction. That means that truckers don't get to apply for a refund and the State gets more revenue. The fact is that truckers can choose not to register in Idaho, but they can't choose not to drive in Idaho. I would increase the standard rate by five cents. This first five cents would be distributed in the traditional manner 2/3 to ITD, 1/3 to the local highway district. I would include a second five cents and dedicate it to a regional transit authority (like Valley Regional Transit). In the absence of an RTA, I would use the regular distribution model. By doing so, we would be providing an alternative to driving and offer a solution for tomorrow instead of a solution for yesterday.

Do I expect my idea to ever be given consideration? No. But don't say I didn't come to the transportation gun-fight showdown without a gun.

The TwiLIGHT Zone, my kind of corporate welfare

2009-03-17T21:16:00.004-06:00

Happy Saint Patrick's Day! But in actuality, this is more like Friday the 13th or the TwiLIGHT Zone. This is a strange world where I am going to advocate for spending stimulus money on what some might call corporate welfare.

As has already been widely reported, many groups and individuals requested a piece of the stimulus pie. Governor Otter decided that roads, roads, and more roads should be the top priority of nearly all of the discretionary funds in the stimulus package. You may be surprised to find out that I think the Governor didn't even come close to getting this one right.

Specifically there was one proposal that I found particularly valuable. The request, by Micron Technology, was for $25 million to begin manufacturing solar panels and high efficiency lighting components right here in Idaho. Obviously this would have created jobs, but that's not it even the tip of the iceberg. The real benefit to this investment is that while only a one time expenditure, the benefit will continue to accrue year after year. The development of these new technologies would likely spur more development in the elusive green economy, which will position Idaho as a leader in this emerging economy. That means more jobs requiring high skill workers.

As if that wasn't already enough the State also benefits by becoming more environmentally friendly. This new green outlook could prove quite useful if a cap and trade system becomes a reality some time in the near to mid-term. Not only would Idaho businesses potentially be poised to benefit by having carbon credits to trade, but now we would also have the capacity to produce carbon reducing products that would be in high demand. Pretty cool, huh?

Welcome to the TwiLIGHT Zone, my kind of corporate welfare.

My Credo

2009-03-05T20:19:00.004-07:00

Sometimes people misunderstand what I do, but let me show you something that explains who I am as a legislator and a person. This is my credo.

House Bill 26 - Permanent Absentee Voting

2009-02-18T11:21:00.002-07:00

The next legislation I'd like to talk about is something I've worked on for all three years I've been elected, permanent absentee voting (H0026).

The bill is pretty self-explanatory. Currently, Idahoans are permitted to vote absentee with no restrictions. That is a good thing, I believe. However, Idaho law requires that a voter request an absentee ballot for every election in which they would like to participate. That, it seems to me, is inefficient and unnecessary. To correct this issue, I have proposed that voters be given the option to simply check a box that indicates that they would like to vote absentee from then on. (or until they don't want to anymore).

So what about potential voter fraud? There are several safeguards such as:

In the case that a voter moves the absentee ballots will stop,
A signature on the submitted ballot is compared with signature used to register,
If a voter becomes ineligible (dies, commits a felony, etc.) the absentee ballots will stop.

Given the clear demand for absentee voting (over 70,000 absentee voters in Ada County alone in the last general election) government should be responsive and assist citizens. Oh and I should also mention that this legislation is supported by the Idaho Association of Commissioners and Clerks as well as the Secretary of State.

You can check out the legislation here.

So what do you think?

HCR 11 - Faith Based and Community Organizations Partnership Act

2009-02-16T09:37:00.005-07:00

The first piece of legislation I'd like to talk about is HCR 11 - Faith Based and Community Organizations (FBCO) Partnership Act.

This concurrent resolution does essentially four things:

Ask Idaho State Government to identify barriers to partnerships with FBCOs
Ask Idaho State Government to identify current partnerships with FBCOs
Ask Idaho State Government to report findings to the Legislature and Governor
Ask Idaho State Government to convene a conference with FBCOs to discuss ways to partnership

My rationale for this legislation is fairly straightforward. Times are tough. The State's social service infrastructure is being pressed to the max (and beyond). FBCOs offer fantastic alternatives for deploying services to the public. Put two and two together and we get more efficient government and more people served. Win-win.

If you've got feedback on this one, I'd love to hear it.

UPDATE - HCR 11 will be heard on Wednesday, February 18 at 9:30 AM in the House State Affairs Committee (room 145).

UPDATE 2 - HCR 11 was passed out of the House State Affairs Committee today with only one dissention. A vote of the full house should be forthcoming within the next few days.

This weeks series

2009-02-16T09:37:00.000-07:00

This week (and potentially part of next week) I am going to be blogging about the legislation that I have introduced for consideration. I'd really like your feedback if you are inclined to share it!

Stimulate this...

2009-02-13T19:43:00.003-07:00

So, first sorry for the long delay in posts. Actually, I have written several posts, but decided against publishing them because I was waiting on information each time. Okay, so on to the post...

I have consistently and ardently advocated for the Idaho Legislature to position itself as well as possible to take advantage of any economic stimulus package that could potentially be approved by Congress. My position has never been one based upon the politics of the stimulus, but rather the reality of what it could mean for Idaho. Said another way, the Idaho Legislature isn't going to keep the bill from passing, but we sure do benefit if it does and need to be prepared when it comes our way.

Now to be fair the co-chairs of JFAC, Representative Maxine Bell and Senator Dean Cameron, have also been consistent. They have stated, repeatedly, that they will act as if the stimulus package is the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Due to their claim of an absence of any leprechauns sightings, no gold was to be found. What I don't understand, however, is if they are watching the same news that I do how they could come to this conclusion.

It seems to me that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made it pretty clear last week that the Senate wasn't going home until the stimulus package was signed by President Obama. While I understand that none of us have known exactly what was going to be in the package, it has been pretty clear, at least to me, that the package would do a lot to hold-off our budget crisis.

This gets me back to my original point. As a state lawmaker, what I care about is helping Idahoans and putting the Idaho Legislature in the best position to deliver the services that they expect while fulfilling our constitutionally required obligation of balancing the budget. I am totally perplexed by the philosophy that rejects out of hand the assistance from the federal government because its coming from the federal government. Furthermore, do we not understand that those dollars are Idahoans money too? Why wouldn't we want to be as strategic as possible and use the money in such a way to alleviate the headaches and problems that can come from budget cuts, especially more unemployment?

To continue to ignore the leprechaun and call him a puppet with strings attached is both unwise and unnecessary. The stimulus package may be a fluid thing, but so is our economy. We must be more agile and less rigid. We must be ready take what we can get and maximize its use.

Compassion in Action or Compassion Inaction?

2009-01-17T19:41:00.003-07:00

A lot of rhetoric and discourse has occurred in the first week of the 2009 Idaho Legislative Session, but none more critical than how to respond to the current cuts in the Health and Welfare budget. The decision that legislators must make is whether or not their compassion will result in action or inaction.

First, let me state the obvious (from where I sit): The Department of Health and Welfare has never had enough money to really effectively meet all the demands that are asked of it. Folks that work for DHW tend to get burned out pretty fast because the workload and the emotional toll is so overwhelming. This current situation certainly cannot help matters.

In Gov. Otter's recent State of the State address he went "off-script" and commented upon a critique by an individual that those of us in state government don't really care what happens to those that are being hurt by the budget cuts. The Guv made an impassioned argument that he as well as legislators understood the difficult circumstances and cared about those being hurt. I don't question his sincerity one iota.

Still, something hasn't sat right with me when cutbacks are going forward regardless. I finally realized that this situation reminds me of something I have read many times in the Bible and remember spending a lot of time praying about due to my own struggles in the past. The verse comes from James 1:22-25 which states:

²²Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. ²³Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror ²⁴and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. ²⁵But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

When considering the fact that considerable amount of the New Testament is devoted to instructing believers to help those in need it hard to ignore a plea for help. Matthew 27:45 puts a finer tip on it when Jesus proclaims, "He will reply to them, Solemnly I declare to you, in so far as you failed to do it for the least of these, you failed to do it for Me." The message is clear: inaction is not option for a believer.

In his first invocation of the 2009 Session, House Chaplain Tom Dougherty (pastor at Cloverdale Church of God) quoted one of my favorite chapters of the Bible, Romans 13. The chapter is traditionally known as one that talks about the authority that God has given government and its role. It states (13:8-10):

⁸Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. ⁹The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." ¹⁰Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

All of this to say that if we truly hear the plea, how can I or any other legislator ignore it? I understand times are tough and that money is tight. However, it is these exact situations where I believe we have not only a civic responsibility, but more importantly moral commandment to help. Inaction, no matter how heartfelt, is not compassionate. Compassion requires action.

People vs. Potholes

2009-01-13T11:08:00.002-07:00

So what do we mean when we (Democrats in the Idaho Legislature) say, "people versus potholes"? Simply stated, we mean that in a time economic downturn it doesn't make sense to us to raise taxes on already hurting Idahoans to build roads while cutting critical services like education and professional technical programs.

Oh, but Senate Transportation Committee Chairman John McGee says, "People AND Potholes" so maybe there isn't any conflict. Well, lets consider his reasoning. According to Mcgee, potholes represents job creation. He is right it does, but not for Idahoans. You see, Idahoans aren't required to get the contracts for road jobs and there is quite a bit of very recent precedent to suggest they won't. I for one don't want to advocate for a tax increase on my constituents so that we can employ people that aren't going to help stimulate our economy.

Let's not miss something. Do roads need improving? Yes, yes, and yes. Unfortunately, as I stated above, without any certainties that Idahoans would be employed, this isn't the BEST use of or money. Idahoans will see more benefit and for a longer period by building up the workforce (more on this later). We need to stop looking at the short-term and start thinking about future.

Spencer

2009-01-12T15:44:00.002-07:00

Gov. talks about Spencer, a child with autism, and a face for who is actually being hurt by cuts. The thing I have the hardest time with is that the Gov. brings up Spencer as an example of what is hard, but also is cutting the H&W budget. Do we care? Is it showing that we care when we cut the H&W budget for the least amongst us? This is a tight budget year, but I just can't see the compassion in cutting budgets for people that actually need us to lead.

Healthcare

2009-01-12T15:37:00.002-07:00

Gov. teases us that he will release results of the Healthcare Summit:

Healthy Idaho Program - Intended to help uninsured with low copays and premiums. The question is if this actually good insurance or just window dressing. More to come I am sure.

Health Data Exchange - This is just a smart idea... Allows patient information to be distributed more efficiently. Good call.

Idaho Health Profession Education Council - Reports directly to the Gov to figure out what Idaho needs and propose ideas. Having an LSCS person in charge essentially takes it out of the turf fight between U of I and ISU. Diplomatic, but if its effective, thats another question. Let's wait and see. I am hoping this works because we need more doctors in Idaho.

Education Reorganization

2009-01-12T15:33:00.003-07:00

Basically the Govenor is suggesting that SBE needs to give Idaho Dept. of Ed the responsibilities it had prior to Marilyn Howards tenure as Superintendent. Of course, now that Tom Luna has that role, the conflict has gone away. This is the right move, but shouldn't have ever taken place in the first place.

Transportation

2009-01-12T15:21:00.002-07:00

The Plan:

1 - Accountability and Efficiency: Must be able to see measurable goals. Asked for 10% administrative cost cut. Will also have an annual accountability report. The report will say what revenue was generated and how it was spent. These are good ideas and should have happened a while ago.

2- Generating Revenue:

2 cents fuel tax for the next 5 years. $88 milllion in 5 years. Does this make sense in light of the fact that vehicles are becoming more fuel efficient?

Increase in vehicle registration fees, by age of vehicles and make (or at least thats what I thought I heard) $51 per year. If this is really what he wants to do, it could be promising. The devil will be in the details.

6% excise tax on rentals. Does that encourage tourism? I'm not sure about this, maybe its a good idea. Gonna have to think about this one...

Eliminate ethanol exemption. Well, I don't know how much this helps, but if he can get it through, that would be a coup.

Shift money from ISP. I need more info on this to be able to speak about it intelligently.

3 - Create Task Force to Review Trucker Registration: Wants to find out if trucker registration is fair and what we would need to do. Notice he isn't proposing any increased burden for truck registration and expecting the taxpayer to pay for it all. Curious if nothing else.

Project 60

2009-01-12T15:18:00.002-07:00

The Gov. touts Project 60 as a way to add value to Idaho's economy including workforce development and job creation. The question I have is: How does this jive with his decision to cut higher ed and workforce development funds.

The Budget Proposal

2009-01-12T15:14:00.003-07:00

Reduction of 7% for FY10.

Unfair to holdback for schools in the middle of academic school year, so Gov. will hold off for the current year. However, education will not be held harmless in 2010, reduction by 5.3%. What does this tell us about the priorities of the Gov.? Gov. not willing to use any more than 35% of rainy day funds... this is particularly difficult.

H&W will also be hurt, by 7.5%, when demand for services will be at an all time high.

Is this the way we prioritize our budget?

Hold-backs

2009-01-12T15:10:00.002-07:00

The Gov. talks about how he has asked agencies to holdback and says, "it will change the way we do business".

Talks about how some services have had to be cut or reduced. Also mentioned programs that don't have "statutory authority". This despite the fact that they provide important services, this to me, is the real problem. The argument is couched in the old argument of, "the proper role of government."

Budget Situation

2009-01-12T14:59:00.005-07:00

Gov. briefly mentions the current economic climate and the high level of unemployment. Recognizes that times are tough.

Goes on to mention that Idaho Dept. of Finance has done a good job of keeping Idaho out of the financial crisis.

Gov. says that this recession will make us stronger, as those that came out of the Great Depression.

State of the State Live Blog

2009-01-12T14:06:00.002-07:00

Well, I managed to get online and will be able to live blog Governor Otter's State of the State Address from BSU. My intention is to simply provide an off-the-cuff response to any major issues presented during the speech. I will likely go back and provide a more thorough response at a time in the future.

Opening Day

2009-01-12T13:32:00.001-07:00

Today is the first day of the Idaho's 2009 Legislative Session. As in previous sessions, I will use this blog to communicate directly with the public. Today, in about one and a half hours, the Governor will be providing his State of the State address. My intention is to "blog" the speech live from BSU, but if techinical problems prevent me from doing so, I'll respond as soon as I can afterwards.

Let's get to work

2008-11-06T12:52:00.002-07:00

After a long campaign, the time to get to work is upon us.

Residents throughout the Treasure Valley and Idaho are struggling. Now is not the time for partisanship. We must work across the aisles to ensure a brighter future.

In the upcoming weeks I'll write more in depth about my priorities, but wanted to give you a quick glimpse of where my energy will be focused.

Workforce development programs
Quality Rating System for childcare facilities
Streamlining the impact fee statute
Small Business Health Insurance Pool
High-tech infrastructure (broadband)
Local-option authority for all uses
Sunset provision on all current exemptions

As always, I would love to have your feedback.

Regards,

Rep. Branden J. Durst

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

2008-04-01T10:41:00.003-06:00

Just a few minutes ago the Speaker of the House ruled a motion made by Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet out of order. The motion was to have the House concur in Senate amendments to H599AA,As (the personal property tax bill). The amendments placed a cap of $75,000 on the taxable value of property owned by businesses. In so doing, 86% of all Idaho businesses wouldn't have to pay this tax at a cost of about $15 million. As importantly, local units of government would be held harmless.

The fact is that the motion wasn't out of order. This was a case of the Speaker thinking he is, "above the law." Rep. Jaquet objected and appealed to his ruling, but the appeal failed on a party line vote. This is what happens when there is no balance in the partisan make up of the Legislature. This is what happens when someone perceives that they have absolute power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

PS - I'll write more about the bill itself later.

Buildin' Roads, Burnin' Bridges

2008-03-26T10:28:00.003-06:00

Well, I suppose that each legislative session would be incomplete if it didn't have a major conflict. This year, the biggest conflict, as all of you probably already know, is funding for transportation.

Transportation funding has to be considered in three categories.

Maintenance of existing roads and bridges
State funding of new road construction
Local funding of new roads and public transportation

Within each category, the potential solution differs. In the past few years, State funding for new road construction has revolved around GARVEE bonding. GARVEE bonding is essentially the process of receiving future federal road funding today. The State pays interest on the advancement of the money. This year the Legislature approved an addition $134 million through this funding mechanism.

The funding mechanism regularly considered for local funding of new roads and public transportation is the local option tax. Local option taxes can take a variety of forms, but are usually in the form of a sales tax. Because I've written about this before, I will skip it for now.

Now, as for the maintenance of currently existing roads and bridges, this is where things get complicated and political. Lets get a couple things out of the way from the outset. First, no one wants to pay more taxes. Second, maintenance is way past due. These two conditions are seemingly juxtaposed. The real problem surrounding this issue is the fact that everyone has a different solution. Some folks, like the Governor, want to rely solely upon increases in vehicle registration fees to get new revenue. Others want to have a more balanced approach by raising vehicle registration fees, semi truck fees, license plate fees (like the one I am debating against right now), and of course taxes on gasoline. I for one do not like the idea of putting all the eggs in one basket. That being said, I also don't think it is appropriate to charge those that drive little the same as those that drive more. I also have a fundamental problem charging someone that has 2006 Ford Focus the same as someone with an 2006 Audi A4.

More than this, it is incredibly frustrating when those that advocate for more funding (which is absolutely necessary) fail to recognize that funding doesn't occur in a vacuum. What I am saying is that when the Legislature passes a huge tax break for businesses worth $120 million (H 599) it exacerbates the problem. This $120 million will have to be made up someplace and that will likely be to the individual taxpayer. Now, we are going to ask you to dig deeper. When does it stop?

So, what should we do? In my opinion, I'd do the following:

Increase fees on registration based upon value of the vehicle rather than the current practice of looking at the age. I think that this is better because as I demonstrated model year is not indicative of actual value. Yes, it may be more indicative of miles driven, but this is also an issue of fairness.
Increase fees on semi trucks. I'm not sure how much this should be, but it should be valued at the amount of damage that semi trucks cause to our roads.
Add a small sales tax on the sale of fuel. This would be a better proxy to the use of the roads. This would be beneficial to our community members, especially the elderly, that tend to take short trips.

One solution that I didn't mention, but I think needs serious consideration is the use of toll roads. This wouldn't be necessary in most places in the State, but it could provide some additional revenue in stretches of interstate that need the help.

To conclude, I don't like the idea of putting more of the burden on individual taxpayers when the tax burden is already so heavily on their shoulders. Ultimately, a total review of the tax system must be conducted.

Grocery tax not a done deal

2008-03-20T22:10:00.002-06:00

While it is true that the Senate just concurred with the House on a bill to increase the income tax credit for groceries, I sincerely hope that this doesn't stifle the discussion in the future. While some may disagree, I can not justify taxing something as necessary as food. If the legislation has the impact of making the tax on groceries a non-issue, then the Legislature has failed the people of Idaho.

For the purposes of transparency you should know that I supported the legislation, albeit reluctantly. Still, I hold out hope that future legislatures will have the political conviction to put individual taxpayers above political wrangling. What you may not know, however, is that the proposal that I (along with the rest of the House minority caucus) put forth was never given a hearing. The proposal called for the repeal of the sales tax on specific grocery items at a rate of one cent per year until such time as the tax were no longer around. At the same time, the grocery tax credit would be phased out. This solution was fiscally responsible and represented a real solution, but alas politics won.

I have been asked by some where the money would come from to make up the loss of revenue. This is a very legitimate question and I would like address it in this public forum, so here it goes.

First, lets identify the underlying assumptions. Number one, food is a necessity. Number two, revenue neutrality is preferable. Number three, everyone pays sales tax. Number four, money now is nearly always preferable to money later.

Okay, now that we have those out of the way, lets get to the options for funding. In order to fund a repeal of the tax on groceries, or as my colleague Rep. Liz Chavez (D-7) insists the tax on food, I believe we should attempt to address each of the underlying assumptions. The inverse of a necessity is a luxury and this, I believe, is the key to our solution. As was noted, everyone pays sales tax, that is not the case for income tax, however. This, along with the fourth assumption explains why the tax credit doesn't make as much sense. While it true that most everyone will get access to the new grocery tax credit, regardless of income tax filing status, it is also true that those that those really need the break will find it difficult to wait for the day when the check comes in the mail (assuming that they submit a request for it). This time lag is not advantageous in budgeting for any organization including a family (why do you think that banks get so up in a tizzy when you try to spend money you don't have?!).

Now, we know that everyone pays the sales tax on groceries regardless of their income. Unlike some, I disagree that wealthy folks should still have to pay. After all, if the first assumption is true, it applies equally to everyone. That means if you say that you can discriminate based upon income, I believe that you lose the ground of the argument that you shouldn't be taxing something that is necessary. Instead, I believe you should consider taxing something that isn't necessary. Luxury taxes would be ideal because the consumer would have to opt-in. Unlike food, where opting-out isn't really feasible, a luxury tax gives the consumer plenty of leeway. I am not sure what the luxury tax would look like, but presumably it would apply to things that are big ticket items that are nice to have. However, I would never advocate putting more taxes on housing because shelter is a need. Conversely, a new Beamer, while attractive and seemingly difficult to live without, would not result in significant trauma.

It seems to me that an important component of deciding what is and is not a luxury is related to marginal utility of a dollar. That is, the marginal utility of $50 is much lower on a purchase of a new Beamer compared to other items. I would also contend that price elasticity has something to do with this, but I don't want to get into the economic theory so I'll leave it there. Anyway, this is just one potential approach. Either way, the discussion can't end because unlike what some may say, the mission is not accomplished.

A guide to writing policy through the Idaho Constitution

2008-03-14T10:03:00.004-06:00

If members of the House Majority Leadership were to write a book, it should be titled, "A Guide to Writing Policy Through the Idaho Constitution."

Today, in the House Revenue Taxation Committee, majority members pushed through a Constitutional Amendment (HJR4) regarding local-option taxing. HJR4 would modify the State Constitution to dictate the parameters of future policy regarding sales and use tax proposals . It clarifies that local-option taxing must occur in a traditional jurisdiction (county or city). It also clarifies that any local-option tax must pass by a 2/3 vote. Finally, it mandates that enabling legislation must still be passed by the Legislature prior to any local-option tax is proposed.

This made me think of three questions:

Is this the proper role of the Constitution?
What is the value of this proposal?
What impact would this have on future proposals?

Admittedly, the first question is much more philosophical and less practical, but I believe it deserves to be addressed. When our State Constitution was written, I am unsure if the intention was for the document to be regularly rewritten as if it were an extent ion of the Idaho Code. While it is true that bar for amending the constitutional is set higher than other policy, given our current imbalance in the Legislature this not nearly as difficult as it probably should be. This is relevant because by placing something in the State Constitution, it makes it nearly impossible to reverse in future years. I do not believe that it is appropriate to use the State Constitution to write policy that is better suited for the Idaho Code.

The value of the HJR4 is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. In my view, and the view of Bose Metro Chamber of Commerce (amongst many others), there is no value to the proposal. This legislation has been written in order to thwart local communities and their right to self determination by setting the bar so high that it will be unachievable. This is wrong plain and simple.

The actual impact of this legislation is not completely known, but there are some pretty likely consequences. If this amendment were to pass, it would likely cripple the ability of Treasure Valley residents from being able to address its transportation concerns from a regional perspective. This is because it would mandate that the vote for local-option would be voted on at the jurisdiction level, in this case the county. The regional transportation authority (RTA), in the Treasure Valley know as Valley Regional Transit (VRT) transcends the county boundaries. Rather thank taking one vote and reaching the threshold in the RTA, each county would be considered separately. This just doesn't make sense.

HJR4 is headed to the House floor, but I will vocally oppose it. I will urge other lawmakers to do the same.

Growth Management

2008-03-03T10:40:00.007-07:00

The mantra, "growth should pay for itself" is continually proclaimed and then quickly ignored. But why? This is probably one of the most important issues facing Idaho families and so I'll try to shed some light.

When a legislator or anyone else says that growth should pay for itself it is important to understand what that actually means. The problem is that I am not sure that everyone is in agreement on that point. Due to this, fracturing occurs and a unified voice is lost. Without this unity the issue dies out and that gets us to where we are today. That is the Reader's Digest version.

Then there is the story behind the story. Namely, it is that the powers that be are vociferously opposed to any changes and work the system to maintain the status quo. As a citizen legislature, we are particularly disadvantaged in being able to weigh the arguments and come to an independent conclusion. We rely heavily upon the information from those with an agenda to push. They are committed to their agenda and they are equally committed to us embracing their perspective. This is due to the fact that most public policy is a zero-sum game. That is, there are winners and there are losers. The vested interest that would pay the freight for the new growth management policies are very clear losers. They act predictably and oppose the changes. From my observations, they are agents of disunity. They pit those that would otherwise agree against one another in an attempt to fracture the cause and put pettiness above practicality. This cripples the process and ta-da, no change in the status quo, mission accomplished. This is harmful for the public policy making process, but more harmful on the lives of Idahoans.

To be clear, I support growth management, but this is not a profund statement. In fact, I would content that there is not a single legislator that would say differently. Growth management can come in many shapes and sizes. There are those that would advocate for a no-growth policy. On the other end of the spectrum there some that insist the market is the growth management mechanism. Ostensibly, there is a middle ground. Unfortunately, it is those in the middle that have the least to gain or lose and thus are the least well organized. A lack of organization is the Achilles heel of moderation. Think about it... When was the last time you heard someone get all pumped up for a moderate policy? It doesn't happen. In a world where the squeaky wheel gets the oil, moderation is well calibrated machine that should be listened to more often.

In the same way, it is the middle ground that is the best solution to the growth management issue. I certainly would not advocate ending growth. I would also contend that the market has been unsuccessful in regulating itself due to failures (asymmetry of information, externalities). I support streamlining the impact fee process so that it is easier to utilize. I also support expanding the right to administer impact fees to school districts and local highway districts. On this last point, lets remember that the executors of these organizations are elected by you and me. That means that they are accountable to the public and if they are acting outside of our will, they can and should be replaced.

I could go on for ever, but like growth, I have to know when to stop. To conclude in the words of Paul Harvey, "Now you know the rest of the story."

why milk?

2008-02-20T13:19:00.002-07:00

In the last couple of days I have received some heat from a few individuals regarding my legislation that would make milk the offiical beverage of Idaho. Given that, I thought you all would like an explanation as to why I decided to introduce this legislation.

To begin, I should be clear that it was never my intention to make a mockery of the legislative process. As someone who has studied the policymaking process and has a graduate level degree in the area, I am particularly sensitive to anything that is detrimenal to the process. I have devoted my professional life to the policymaking process and subsequently I have always and will always take my responsibility as a policymaker seriously and professional. My committement to the process is second-to-none. This is why I regularly vote in opposition to motions on the floor to "suspend rules." The legislative process is sacrosanct and no policy is above the process.

Now on to milk...

Some have hypothesized that I proposed this legislation because I am beholden to the dairy industry. Based upon the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I don't know how this hypothesis could hold true. If this were true, then I would likey not have been as consistently critical of the industry regarding confinded animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and the environmental impacts of the industry.

Some have said that this legislation is a waste of time. To those, I would make a couple of points. To begin, my motivation for this legislation has always been about finding a way to reduce childhood obesity. The IdahoPTA has identified childhood obesity as one of its primary legislative objectives. They state on their website:

Childhood Obesity 11/05 (R) Idaho PTA will promote the healthy eating habits among children and youth and will support the inclusion of parents and other in determining the use and products of vending machines.

As a parent of three young children, I am particularly concerned with this issue. I don't find anything about childhood obesity laughable and I certainly don't be believe that it is in anyway a waste of time. In addtion to the IdahoPTA, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, an organization supported by the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association, has identified beverage consumption as a major area of concern, but one that is frequently overlooked. From their website:

Beverages are often overlooked, but they are a source of many hidden calories in people’s diets.
Too Much Sugar: The USDA recommends eating no more than 10 teaspoons of added sugar per day. One can of soda is over one and a half times that!
Taking Bigger Gulps: Boys today drink, on average, over two 12 ounce sodas a day, with girls averaging almost two a day.
Two Sodas a Day: A child who drinks two cans of soda per day consumes about eighteen teaspoons of sugar per day just from soda.

Ultimately, the question becomes, "How does making milk the official state beverage impact childhood obesity?" As I have stated on many occassions and in numerous forums, I believe that the State has a role to play in influencing the habits of children. This role, I believe, includes being a proponent of healthy decision making, like drinking milk rather soda pop or certain juices that are loaded with sugar. Are their others things we can do to impact childhood obesity? Yes, there are and we should be doing them, but many of them have the potential to cost the State significantly. Due to the current economic picture, now may not be the time to add an additional expense to the State. This bill has a very limited impact on State funds and can do no harm. I hope this clears up some of the confusion. Please feel free to leave comments if you have them.

My legislative update #1

2008-02-12T11:21:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of the session I gave you all a preview of the legislation I was going to be working on this year. We are five weeks into the session so I thought now was as good of a time as any to let you know where things were at. Without any further delay, here we go:

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
SB1404 - Purpose of this legislation is to provide that children of four years or older may attend prekindergarten in the public schools and to provide that Idaho public schools may offer prekindergarten programs if a majority of voters approve such a program in an election and to provide that the voters may approve a levy to pay for the program.

STATUS - I am very happy to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation. The bill is currently in the Senate Education Committee. Read the bill here.

RS17860 - The purpose of this legislation is to establish and implement a voluntary child-care rating system designed to provide assistance to parents and promote high quality family centered child care. Ratings will be based upon national health and safety standards (environment), parental involvement, staff-to-child ratios, planned curriculum, and professional development. By offering rating information to parents, they will be better equipped to make an informed child-care choice. Participating providers will be assisted in developing plans and practices that increase their ratings. The goal is to improve early childhood learning and increase school readiness. This legislation requires that those administering the program measure, analyze, and report outcomes to the legislature annually over a three year period for the purpose of evaluating its effectiveness. At the end of this time period, results and recommendations will be made as to the continuation, modification, or termination of the Idaho STARS Quality Rating System.

STATUS - This legislation has been "put in the drawer" by Senate Health and Welfare Chairwoman Patti Anne Lodge prior to a print hearing despite its bipartisan support. Unfortunately, no further action is expected this session.

ELECTION REFORM
HB413 - The purpose of this legislation is to give absentee voters the option of applying for status as a permanent absentee voter in all elections for which they are qualified. The current procedure for making application as an absentee voter will not be altered, except for an additional box on the application that can be marked indicating the voter's desire to seek permanent absentee voting status. The county clerk will inform all applicable taxing districts as to the voter's status to ensure they receive the proper ballots. All returned ballots will be processed in the same manner as absentee ballots are today. The voter loses his status as a permanent absentee voter upon his request, death, disqualification, cancellation of voter registration, or when a ballot is returned as undeliverable. In addition, the legislation also codifies access to absentee ballots by military servicemen and women. Exercising this option is voter driven and initiated. The voter request an application and return it to the county clerk before receiving any ballots. This measure will better serve those voters who must or choose to always vote absentee.

STATUS - The bill was printed with near unanimous support in the House State Affairs Committee, but has not yet had a full hearing. Updates will be provided as the become available. Read the bill here.

HEALTH INSURANCE
HCR35 - Directs the Legislative Council to create an interim committee to study and recommend solutions to assist small business owners pay for health insurance for themselves and their employees.

STATUS - The House Business Committee will begin hearing printed bills in the upcoming weeks. Details to come. Read the bill here.

HB497 - This legislation amends the public works contractor licensing requirements to include contractor provided comprehensive health insurance as an additional condition.

STATUS - The House Commerce and Human Resources voted unanimously to print this bill and is expected to have a hearing in the upcoming weeks. Read the bill here.

CONSUMER PROTECTION
SB1380 - The purpose of this bill is to allow consumers to "freeze" access to their credit reports, as a means to help prevent fraud and identity theft. A "freeze" means that anyone attempting to obtain a credit report on a consumer will be unable to get one, and will simply be told that the credit report is frozen. Because most creditors and merchants won't extend significant credit without reviewing the consumer's credit report first, it will be more difficult for fraudsters to obtain credit using someone else's stolen identity. If, having frozen his credit report, the consumer himself needs to obtain credit, he can temporarily lift, or permanently remove, the freeze on his own account. The bill specifies how a consumer can place a freeze with a credit reporting agency, how the consumer can temporarily lift the freeze so that the consumer may engage in a credit transaction, and how a consumer can permanently remove a freeze. It also sets out a number of exceptions to the freeze, to allow creditors to use credit reports to monitor, service and collect their existing credit accounts, to allow the credit reporting agency to comply with subpoenas and court orders, to allow screening by potential landlords and employers, and to allow other legitimate non-credit related uses of credit reports. In order to defray the costs associated with placing and lifting a freeze, the bill allows a credit reporting agency to charge a fee of up to $6 to place a freeze or to temporarily lift a freeze. No fee may be charged for permanently removing a freeze. A consumer who has been a victim of identity theft may not be charged a fee for placing or removing a freeze. Credit reporting agencies who fail to comply with this bill's requirements are subject to suit for damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief by consumers and by the Attorney General.

STATUS - It was determined by Senator Bart Davis that this legislation should not be sponsored by any legislators and simply run as a neutral bill under the guide of the organizations that assisted in its composition. Provided that the bill makes it to the House Business Committee I will be in full support and hope to be able to carry it on the floor.

OTHER
HB485 - This legislation will make, "Milk: the Official Drink of Idaho!" This is a step in symbolizing Idaho's position in favor of healthy decision making especially given the alarming rise of obesity rates amongst our school-aged children.

STATUS - The bill will be heard next Monday in the House Agricultural Affairs Committee. Read the bill here.

If you have any questions about any of these pieces of legislation please let me know!

Whatever happened to iSTARS?

2008-02-09T23:39:00.000-07:00

For those of you that followed the debate surrounding Superintendent Tom Luna's iSTARS proposal, but find yourselves at a loss for any closure I think we may have it. On Friday, in the House Education Committee, Chairman Bob Nonini enlightened all of us as to his information about the status of teacher pay discussions. Given the substantial impact of the proposals (the IEA also has one named weTEACH) it was vitally important that we know what we were up against before making a decision. As you may have already guessed, iSTARS as it was proposed is no more. Members of the Senate Education Committee were diligent in their consideration and ultimately concluded that it wasn't a prudent move, just as I did the first time I heard about it.

In the last couple of weeks a few things that I predicted have happened and they were daggers in iSTARS. My first contention was that iSTARS would collapse under its own weight. The economy has clearly slowed down and with several sectors underperforming revenues would certainly not be what were projected. Without the money to pay for the plan, it was not likely that the State would commit itself to such a huge financial liability in the face of so much uncertainty, nor should it.

My second contention, as I told a group of teachers (at a Boise Education Association meeting in the Media Center at Timberline High School) more than 3 months ago, it was clear to me that there were at least a couple of illegal or unconstitutional components to iSTARS. I specifically pointed to restrictions regarding the newly proposed Category IV contract, which removes a teachers continuing contract and replaces it with a one to three year contract. As I told the audience, I had serious questions of the legality of requiring a school district to accept a teacher’s contract status when the teacher moves from one district to another. By way of example, consider a teacher with a Category IV contract in the Meridian School District that moves to the Boise School District. Under iSTARS the Boise School District is obligated to maintain the Category IV contract. This immediately raised a red flag for me because it is the local school district, not the State of Idaho, which is the contractually obligated employer. The Attorney Generals opinion spoke specifically to this concern, agreeing with my contention.

I also questioned the suggestion by Supt. Luna that once a teacher opted into a Category IV contract he/she could revert back to a Category III contract should the funding for iSTARS cease. I questioned Supt. Luna directly about this matter and he had his budget director Jason Hancock, attempt to identify where it was within the language of the legislation that stipulated that this was the case. Needless to say, I never got a good answer and the Attorney Generals opinion concluded, as I contended, that this non existent and futhermore the concept was lacking legal grounding.

The irony, it seems to me, is that the Category IV contract turned out to be limestone around the neck of iSTARS rather than the life jacket it was proposed to be. That is, Supt. Luna insisted on several occasions that without the Category IV contract, iSTARS would be sunk because it wouldn't have the necessary buoyancy to keep it afloat throughout the legislative process. Ultimately, however, it was the Category IV contract that took iSTARS to it's watery grave.

Taxes, taxes, taxes!

2008-01-19T13:39:00.001-07:00

In response to some complaints that I heard from residents at a recent District 18 Legislative Forum, I would like to provide the following historical review of Idaho tax policy.

Before the 2006 Special Session here is what Jim Risch had to say (link here):
“The net result of my proposal is a $50 million dollar tax cut that will take affect this year and every year. The maintenance and operations levy is the driver of property tax increases and this will remove the cause of the enormous increase in property taxes when values escalate. Idahoans should not have to worry about being driven out of their homes by property tax increases just because they had a huge rise in the value of their home. The primary beneficiary of this property tax relief is middle-income Idahoans.”
After the 2006 Special Session here is what Jim Risch had to say (link here):

“I am overwhelmed by the two-thirds vote by both the House and the Senate for property tax relief. Difficult issues usually result in a close vote, but Idahoans saw that this plan provides immediate and permanent property tax relief while substantially helping education."

Last summer, here is what House Republican Leadership had to say about tax exemptions:

"I'm going to work through it, you bet," [House Tax Chairman Dennis Lake] said. "There are issues on the list that obviously I don't agree with, but still, we'll work through them." (link here)

"Most of these exemptions have a strong constituency politically so the ability to go and do a massive overhaul - don't hold your breath," said Rep. Scott Bedke, R-Oakley. (link here)

Here is what was said this week by those same folks (link here):

"What's broken? We have a tax system that is bringing in more money than we are spending," [House Assistant Majority Leader Scott Bedke] said.
"What I have heard from this committee is, once an exemption is established it should stay established," Lake said.

And finally, lets consider the thoughts of these same lawmakers last year during a debate on a bill that would have given a huge tax break to business (link here):

Rep. Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, sounded a similar note. “You need to ask yourself who is demanding the services” that impact county budgets, he said. “Is it ag? Is it mining and timber? I don’t think so. It is residential.”
"Yes, for this year, we do shift some taxes,” said House Tax Chairman Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot.

First, let me make a few observations:

The beneficiaries of the 2006 Special Session property tax bill has not been "middle-income Idahoans."
The 2006 Special Session property tax bill has not provided "immediate and permanent property tax relief ."
Attempts to reign in the dozens of business tax exemptions were half hearted.
There has been a systematic and calculated agenda to continue to shift more of the tax burden on to homeowners.
Current House Majority Leadership is more interested in offering tax relief to businesses than they are to working families.

Let's be clear, the only way that homeowners will see real tax relief is if the tax burden is shared more equitably. This means that we need to eliminate some of the sales tax exemptions that are in reality nothing more than corporate welfare. It is undeniable that this will not occur as long the Idaho Legislature continues to be led by the current leadership team which takes its marching orders from the likes of IACI and the Idaho Association of Realtors. This is not political rhetoric, but rather a simple observation of quotations made by these legislators. I've said it before and I will say it again, I will not support legislation that will have the intended consequence (whether expressed or implied), of shifting more of the burden to Idaho families. I am committed to ensuring that Idaho is best place to do business, but doing so on the backs of Idahoans isn't good for anyone in the long-run. The approach must be worker-centric and business-centric, not one or the other. Workforce development and training must be our aim, not more tax cuts. If there are highly qualified individuals, there will be an employer ready to offer them a good job. This helps workers and it helps business.

Will Public Transit Work?

2008-01-15T21:29:00.000-07:00

In response to a comment I received from a previous post, let me attempt to address the issue of the practicality of public transportation in the Treasure Valley.

To begin, lets get a few things out of the way. Number one, the solution that the Treasure Valley should be seeking is not like anything else we have seen. Number two, the issue of "transit not paying for itself" is a strawman argument (as Sen. David Langhorst rightly pointed out in his recent Readers View). Number three, whether or not a specific individual would use transit is not the extent to its utility.

Okay, now if you accept my premises the answer to the question of IF a transit system would work is able to be answered. To be concise, yes, I do believe it would work, provided the aforementioned premises exist, which I believe they do. There are several reasons for this that I will outline henceforth.

Culture - While I would agree with some of my colleagues from Canyon County that suggest that culturally the transit approach is unfamiliar to native 2Cers and thus it would be difficult to accept, I would submit that the enormous boom in population in the Treasure Valley is more than just a heightened appetite for procreation. Indeed the birth rate in the Treasure Valley is presumably (and I say presumably because I don't have the data to back up this statement) higher than most other parts of the country. That leads us to the logical conclusion that there is a degree of importation of citizenry from elsewhere. Most of these new Idahoans have come from places with transit and they know how it works and they will use it if it works. I should point out that I am singling out 2Cers because back in the late 80s and 90s Boise had a thriving bus system cleverly named The BUS (Boise Urban Stages). This, it seems to me, mitigates the cultural barrier.

Time - Perhaps this is just conjecture, but I don't really think that people in the Treasure Valley like sitting in traffic. Obviously. What makes this different, I think, is that even the folks that have moved to Idaho, who, "are used to really long commutes" find themselves getting agitated with there trek from Nampa to Boise even in comparison to the time they probably spent commuting from the Inland Empire to downtown LA was three times as long when they didn't use the transit. Ironically, something seems to grind on the slow paced nature of Idahoans with just sitting in traffic. I think it is a matter of people being slow paced by their own volition and certainly not wanting the pace dictated by someone else. All of this is to say that I believe that time is precious enough to folks that if they can be shown to save time by using transit, they will do it.

Cost - The money issue is a big one. Nothing is going to change the predilection of many Idahoans to buy a truck. So to say that transit will replace the car as it has done in other places is just dumb. What is true, however, is that people will become more sensitive to gas prices as they increase. In so doing, they will seek alternatives to balance out their need for their truck (or other vehicle) and their need to get to work. I really believe that if put together the right way, transit will fill that void.

These are the three major issues, as I see them facing acceptation of transit in the Treasure Valley. What I should also point out, is that to expect that transit, once built, will be at capacity, is unreasonable. As I've mentioned, people will have to see it work. They will have to hear from neighbors that indeed, it does save them time and money. They will have to take it for a test drive just like they did when they bought their new car.

As a bonus, let me tell you what I think we should be doing. Assuming the funding mechanism exists (and I grant that is a big IF), we should do three things immediately. First, we should begin negotiations with Union Pacific with the intention of purchasing rail corridors throughout Ada, Canyon, and Gem Counties. Second, we should identify options for parking lots that could be used for park ‘n ride lots (especially in Canyon and Gem Counties) and then build out our fixed bus line services from these lots. Lastly, we should provide incentives to the private sector for participating in getting their employees “the last mile.” My rationale behind this is that we don’t have the population density to support the immediate use of light rail. To be clear, light rail does have a future in the Treasure Valley; its time is just not now. Waiting to begin addressing the future need for light rail would be costly and detrimental so the initial steps in that direction must be a part of the current solution. The solution I outlined addresses both the near term and long term needs of the Treasure Valley.

I’ll stop there for now… I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Why do I blog?

2008-01-13T14:28:00.000-07:00

When Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenburg Church, it was the beginning of religious reformation. Today, with the proliferation of blogs, especially by elected officials, we are seeing a new sort of reformation, a political reformation.

Most theologians mark the Protestant Reformation as the time in which the masses were able to have access to the Bible in a way that they could understand it. The Bible, which is referred to by Christians as "the Truth" has many parallels with blogging. Consider the change of mainstream media in the United States, which has unmistakably and undeniably trended toward sensationalism. In the process, much the truth has been lost. Many politicians have adapted to this trend and sought to guard their own intentions and perspectives in the hope to appeal to the superficialism that has captured American media.

This lack of authenticity, I believe, has also been a major cause of dissatisfaction with government and politicians. People yearn for authenticity, they want to know that when a politician says something it is hasn't gone through hundreds of edits and screened by a public relations firm. Blogging by virtue of its rawness can serve as the direct link between constituents and their elected officials. With a blog, you get to hear it from the horse's mouth. Sometimes what you read on a blog may rub you the wrong way. This, ultimately is the double-edged sword of blogging. However, for a blog to maintain its value, it must be unscripted, unrehearsed and real. This "realness" is what makes a blog, a blog. It is the new horizon in which the truth, from the perspective of the author is only a few keystrokes a way. In short, blogging is the political reformation.

Short Session?

2008-01-08T17:46:00.000-07:00

There have been a number of legislators (I won't point any fingers) that would like to see the 2008 Legislative Session be one of the shortest in Idaho history. Well, to be blunt, I hope it isn't. Right now our State is facing too many urgent issues to simply walk away because we are uncomfortable in the close quarters. To be sure, there are some that say that I have my position because, "You get to go home every night." Hogwash. Actually, being one of only a handful of legislators who have the responsibility of juggling a young family, full-time job, and the legislature, if anyone should be clamoring for a shortened session it should be me. I'm not, however, because I know that the people of Idaho expect us to do our jobs and make the State a better place to live. I would never advocate for wasting taxpayer dollars on unnecessary session length, but my failing to address the issues facing our State would do just that. Let's be clear, Idahoans deserve our legislature to be committed to this process. Suspending rules, avoiding issues, or any other tactics is a disservice to our State. This is public service and we must be fully committed to serving.

2008 Legislative Preview

2008-01-05T16:09:00.000-07:00

In preparation of the 2008 Legislative Session, I’ve put together the following legislative preview. In this preview you will find the issues that I plan to work on as well as other major issues facing the Idaho Legislature.

Legislation I will be sponsoring:
Early Childhood Education – As an extension of HCR18 from last year’s session, I will be working with a bipartisan coalition to move forward on establishing a Quality Rating System for Idaho child care settings. This is a crucial step in improving early learning and safety for children throughout Idaho. By passing this legislation, parents will be better equipped with more information to choose the right child care provider for them and their children.

Permanent Absentee Ballots – In conjunction with the Idaho Association of County Recorders and Clerks (affiliate of the Idaho Association of Counties) and bipartisan co-sponsors, I will continue to work on allowing Idaho voters to opt-in to getting permanent absentee ballots. By opting-in, Idaho voters would be able request that in all future elections (or until they move or become ineligible to vote) they receive an absentee ballot in all elections. This will cut bureaucracy, improve access to voting (especially for elderly), and increase efficiencies in our democracy.

Credit Report Freeze – In an attempt to protect consumers I will be joining a bipartisan group of legislators seeking to give consumers the option to freeze their credit reports in the event of identity theft.

Major issues for the legislature:
Alternative Teacher Compensation – Both Superintendent Luna and the Idaho Education Association will present legislation that would change the way public school teachers in Idaho are compensated. The cost of doing so and the potential impacts upon the teaching profession and children’s education will be paramount.

Local Option Tax/Road Funding – Once again the Coalition for Regional Public Transportation will be bringing legislation that will permit local communities to tax themselves for public transportation. This year’s bill, however, will also include a provision which would permit taxpayers to choose to fund road projects as well. By bundling road and mass transit into this bill, the hope is to expand the number stakeholders and improve the chances of seeing this bill finally pass the House Revenue and Taxation Committee and subsequently the legislature.

Water – While admittedly my understanding of the water debate is limited to a rudimentary issue of supply and demand (and senior versus junior water rights), this is issue will once again rise to the surface. Stay tuned.

Personal Property Tax – Once again the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI) will attempt to eliminate the personal property tax. Personal property tax is a tax paid by businesses for property used in the production or operation of the business. This proposal comes with a hefty price tag. The fundamental question facing this proposal is whether or not legislators want to give businesses another tax break at the expense of the individual taxpayers. A secondary proposal may be offered limiting the scope of the elimination with the goal of targeting small businesses.

Sales Tax on Groceries – There will be myriad of proposals again this session looking to either eliminate the sales tax on groceries and/or increase the grocery tax credit.

Property Tax – Governor Otter will likely propose a change to Idaho’s law with regard to the assessment of property taxes. A constitutional amendment may be necessary.

Growth - Impact fees and other tools to limit or change the way growth is managed are top priorities in the Treasure Valley and other parts of the State. Keep an eye on this one.

Health Insurance - With healthcare costs skyrocketing and more families without insurance, lets hope the legislature steps up and addresses this issue. I will be sure to support any responsible proposal that helps with the cost of healthcare.

Closed Primaries - As with the lawsuit filed last year, it is highly likely that the legislature will hear another bill that would close primaries. More on this later in the session.

There are many other big issues, but in the interest of time, I’ll stop there for now. Stay tuned to this blog for more information and updates throughout the session! As always, if you have questions or comments, please let me know.

Off-topic Commentary: The BCS Solution

2007-12-02T11:34:00.001-07:00

I know that this blog in the past has been reserved for Idaho politics, but consider this my diversification plan.

As nearly any college football fan will tell you, there always seems to be more BS in the BCS than is acceptable. For years, the folks at the BCS have tried to fix problems as they have arisen. The band aids have almost become tradition in the college football world. Except this is the sort of tradition like your creepy uncle getting drunk and hitting on your mom. Not the sort of tradition that you'd like to continue. So, why continue it?

The BCS is to certain interests in college football as the farm bill has been to agribusiness. The BCS is a cash cow. As a result those interests, which are a very powerful, have been reluctant to let go of their golden egg. Really, you can't blame them. Asking the BCS powers-that-be to relinquish control is like asking OPEC to give up its control of crude oil markets.

Being that as it may, it doesn't justify the status quo. If I were the king of the college football kingdom, here is what I would do:

12 Team Playoff

Automatic qualifiers:

BCS and non-BCS conference champions ranked in the top 16

Independents ranked in top 12

Automatic qualifier tiebreak (if necessary):

Top independent within top 12 (if multiple qualify)

Conference champions in order of rank until all slots are full

At large selection (if necessary):

Highest ranked non-BCS conference champion if all other non-BCS conference champions failed to qualify automatically (must be top 25)

Any teams within top twelve that failed to qualify automatically to be filled based upon order of ranking

Playoff procedures:

Top four conference champions OR top three conference champion and top independent if top independent is ranked higher than any of the top four conference champions receive by for first round

Match pairing for first round based upon random selection

Teams from same conference may not be paired against each other in first round

Teams that played previously during the regular season may not be paired against each other in the first round unless impossible to do otherwise

Playoff game location to be neutral site (bowl game location to be decided by bowl commissioners)

Final four games play in current BCS bowls (selection for which match-up plays where to be decided by BCS)

Championship game to be played at neutral site decided by BCS

FYI - The bowls I used in the image are just examples not necessarily what would be done.

Let me know your thoughts!

Community College HECK YES!

2007-05-08T10:25:00.001-06:00

Okay, so I have blogged on this before, but given the proximity to the vote on community colleges I thought doing so again might be useful. Seeing as how I have already outlined all the reasons why you should support the community college, I'd like to explore why not.

Some obstructionist points-of-view:

1) The "We Already Have A Community College" Camp
2) The "Don't Raise My Property Taxes" Camp
3) The "Change Is Bad, Mmmkay" Camp

I'll address them in order.

The first obstructionists feel as though the satellite branch of Treasure Valley Community College (TVCC) in Caldwell is already satisfactorily fulfilling the demand for a community college. While it is true that TVCC is doing well to offer some entry level curriculum, it is not in a position to offer capital intensive programs (i.e. nursing, mechanists programs, etc.). These are programs in very high demand. Consider this one point: If TVCC were prepared to offer capital intensive programs in Caldwell, then why did MotivePower (a major employer located in District 18) have to open it's second plant in Ontario for training purposes? TVCC didn't seem inclined to offer the welding and other industrial arts programs at that time (a couple of years ago) and the same is likely true. This is because the financial support for TVCC Caldwell comes from solely from tuition. Capital intensive programs are expensive, thus making them cost prohibitive to offer with only tuition financial support. Ultimately, both TVCC and the so-called College of Western Idaho can coexist. This isn't really a reason to vote no.

The second obstructionist position is the Jim Auld type (no slander intended or implied). These are the folks that see any increase in any tax as undesirable, no matter how worthy the cause. To most of them tax is evil and should be avoided, always. Unfortunately, that is not the way this government is intended to work. Taxes are the way of sharing the burden and giving what we can afford to give for the collective betterment. That doesn't mean we tax ourselves into poverty that is counterintuitive. A new community college would be an economic stimulus to the Treasure Valley and it would pay for itself many times over, just like its counterparts NIC and CSI have done. The property tax cost for the community college would be something like $11.50 per $100,000 of taxable property. That is a blue light special on aisle You.

Finally, you could take the curmudgeon approach. The reality is that there are people in this world that see any change as a bad thing. I am willing to guess that they don’t know what a blog is, so I don’t have to worry about too much backlash from them reading this post. Their position is pretty simple, which why it doesn’t hold water. The idea that we should freeze time (like freezing your credit report after you’ve discovered you were the victim of identity theft, see my legislation next session allowing you to do so) and leave things like they were is neither feasible or desirable. Change can be a good thing, leading to innovation and improvement in the way things are done. A new community college would be a positive development. The simplicity of the argument, as I mention, leads to its downfall. The world is a complex place (on a side note it could probably stand get a bit more simplified) and solutions to compete with the complexity mustn’t be ignored. In some cases, complex solutions can lead to simplified results. That’s what I think the community college does, by making it easier for people to get trained and find work, which makes it easier for them to provide for their families. Everybody wins!

The debate will continue and I hope to hear your feedback if you have any. In case you were wondering, I fully support the development of a community college and will be voting YES on May 22nd. If you still have doubts, let me know what they are, I’d love to speak with you about them. If you are planning on voting yes, I’d like to know that too!

Ironic, isn't it (H246)

2007-03-10T15:52:00.000-07:00

Ironic, isn't it? When the House Revenue and Taxation Committee rejected H246, better known as the bill to allow for local option taxes for mass transit, it actually made a decision counter intuitive to everything that it claimed to be fighting for. Let me explain.

The so-called "Tax Hawks" on the Committee regularly say they want to do virtually anything they can to lower the taxes their constituents (or major corporate donors) pay. So given the fact that local option taxes would reduce the amount of transportation dollars needed by the Treasure Valley (assuming it were to pass), thus resulting in less tax burden, its curious at a minimum that they would reject this proposal. You see, as access to mass transit increases, then the need to continuing expanding lanes on I-84 and other road infrastructure decreases. This isn't just some liberal-hippie construct, its a fact of life that has played itself out throughout the country (even in our neighboring state of Utah who have embraced mass transit in major way).

The next irony is the anti-local control component. Throughout campaigns we hear how local control is important and how elected officials will give the power back to the people. These words even come out of the mouths of the members of the Committee, although they fail repeatedly to live that out. All I am saying is that if you really believe in local control then legislate like it.

Finally, there is the issue of air quality. Now, I know you are probably scratching your head on how this could possibly be an irony. Well, it follows similar logic as the first example. The folks that opposed the local option tax, also tend to really love their corporate donors. Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't said that virtually everyone benefits from corporate donation. Although I never really have, most legislators do. So how do corporate donors and air quality tie together? Simple. If the Treasure Valley continues its streak of poor air quality it will go in to what the EPA calls non-attainment, which could be avoided if we had better access to mass transit. Non-attainment will result in the Feds coming down hard and implementing a multitude of very restrictive environmental policies. These policies are sure to cramp everyone's style and pocketbooks, including the corporate donors. As a result, the margins will get smaller and they will have less money to donate to reelect the obstructionist that claimed to be legislating in their interests. Ironic, isn't it?

Pre-k? Forget about it...

2007-03-07T16:09:00.000-07:00

On Monday I experienced my first defeat on the floor of the House, but really it was the children of Idaho that lost out. Rep. Donna Pence and I tried our best to get our resolution, HCR18, through but it was opposed by the Keep Mom Home Coalition (KMHC). As you may recall, the KMHC first flexed its muscles when it said, "heck no" to mandating even limited requirements for Idaho childcare providers. Only in Idaho can you be a convicted sexual predator, meth addict, or just about anything else and still be permitted to get paid to watch someone else's children.

In regards to HCR18, it tried to do a few simple things. First, it would have had the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and Department of Education work together to develop some standards for early childhood education. Second, it would have had DHW create a quality rating system for daycares so that parents would know what they were getting themselves into. Last, it would have tied the reimbursement rates for the Idaho Child Care Program (child care subsidy for low income families) to the programs with higher ratings. This one was a no brainer, just ask Idaho Statesman Editorial Board master Kevin Ritchert: http://www.idahostatesman.com/392/story/74380.html

This isn't the last fight on this issue this legislative session, however. Yesterday the Senate narrowly passed another bill aimed at helping young children (S1079) by permitting school districts to offer services to 4 year olds, so long as no state resources were used in the process. Again, this bill looks pretty harmless, but that doesn't mean that KMHC won't do its darndest to fight against this bill.

I'll try to keep you all up-to-date as changes become available.

Score one for Captain Obvious (H113)

2007-02-24T08:38:00.000-07:00

Well, again I am amazed at the legislative process. Yesterday, we (Idaho State Representatives) spent a good deal of our time "debating" a bill that accomplishes virtually nothing. The bill, H113, was couched by Republican leadership as minimum wage bill, but that is probably an overly generous title. The bill had two basic provisions, they were:

Set the minimum wage rate in Idaho to the Federal rate
Freeze the tipped credit amount at $3.35

Okay, so Captain Obvious might say, "Doesn't Idaho have to match the Federal rate anyway?" YES! And that's the point as to why this bill was so worthless. By passing H113, which I voted against (along with 17 Dems and 1 Republican) we accomplish nothing other than ensuring that tipped employees get less money and Idaho's low wage earners (more than just teenagers) will always be the lowest paid in the country.

As many of you already know, I am not the sort of partisan hack that will bash on the other party just to make myself feel good. I find value in ideas not party caucus positions. That is, if a legislator comes out with a plan, I judge it on the merits of the plan, not the person or party responsible. All this to say that I am not writing this to bash on Republican House Leadership. I am merely pointing out the obvious flaw in the plan, it doesn't do anything!

Let me give you an example. Let's say the Feds gave us a law requiring we all eat one Idaho potato per day. What we accomplished with H113 would be like Idaho passing a law saying that we would require people to eat one Idaho potato per day. The bill wouldn't do anything, because the Feds would have already been requiring us to do it.

The tipped credit issue is a bit more complicated and I don't really want to address it at this point, but in short, it means tipped employees will be worse off by being required to earn more tips to get the compensation that would have.

I have been a proponent for raising the minimum wage for some time. I think it is unfortunate that Idaho always lags behind in wages, and the minimum wage is no different. A lot of us see H113 as a political maneuver that was meant to make Democrats look anti-minimum wage. So, if in the next election you get a piece of mail or a robocall that says I am against the minimum wage, you'll know where I really stand.

I won't back down...

2007-02-17T17:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday on the House floor I stood up for the people of District 18 and tried one last ditch effort to get a comprehensive approach to community colleges before the full body. Did I know it was a long shot? Of course, but that wasn’t the point. The point was that I believe being leader means leading even when it may be unpopular. In the process I ruffled some feathers and was the first legislator this session to be called out of order. Why would I do that? Simple, I wanted to make good on the three promises I made to my constituents during the campaign, which were: 1) I would be fully committed to serving them, 2) I would be responsive to their needs, and 3) I would be a catalyst for change in the State Legislature. The last point may result in some people getting a little upset, but I have found in my life those in control never like the idea of change. That doesn't mean it is not worth seeking out, however. To that end, I honestly don't believe I was voted in to office to maintain the status quo. The residents of District 18 that I met, regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof), demanded a fresh start. I am giving them that. I will continue to fight for what I believe is right. Will I make the same "mistake" twice and not follow the decorum of the House? No. I will respect the proces and work within it, but that doesn't preclude me from standing up for the people that sent me to the Statehouse. To quote Tom Petty, “I won’t back down.”

Local option taxes for mass transit

2007-02-05T21:05:00.000-07:00

As the Treasure Valley continues to grow the infrastructure must do the same in order to avoid significant expense in the future. To reduce these long term costs, I personally support allowing local governments to ask voters to tax themselves for certain projects, in this case specifically transportation solutions. This concept is referred to as local option taxes and widely used throughout the United States. Giving local governments more control seems to be no-brainer in a state like Idaho, but not in the case of tax policy. In fact, Idaho is one of the most restrictive states upon local governments in the country when it comes to tax policy. I believe in the people, and thus, if they are willing enter in to an agreement to tax themselves, I say so be it. I truly believe that people in the local area know best in many cases, especially when it comes to transportation.

But why local option taxes now? First, there is vicious storm on the horizon and if we don't act now the citizens of the Treasure Valley will lose out in a major way. This storm is the worsening air quality that will inevitably lead the Treasure Valley to falling into something known as non-attainment. To be brief, non-attainment is condition assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when a community's air shed reaches substandard levels for a period of three years. Once this happens, the EPA is required to force the offending community to make a plan to fix the problem and get back to attainment status. This is a costly venture and can cause significant negative economic impacts. Not good. Increased access to mass transit, which can help be made possible by local option taxes, will take cars off the road resulting in better air quality.

The second reason I believe the Legislature needs to approve local option taxes ASAP is the long-term nature of capital improvement projects like mass transit. In other words, if we want to have a functioning mass transit system in 2015 we need to start planning and funding it right away. If we are content to plan for today's needs, we will always be a decade behind (have you driven on Eagle Road recently?). It is decisions where the payoff is in the distant future that are always the most difficult for elected officials, but that doesn't make it unworthy of our attention. In fact, I would contend it makes equally if not more necessary. Leaders have to have vision and this is a prime example as to why.

I won't go in to my personal views as to what mass transit system should look like at this point, but I will make sure to do so at some point in the future. I hope this is a compelling argument, but if not, let me know why. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Community Colleges

2007-01-28T07:12:00.000-07:00

Well, it’s been ten days since my last post so I thought I should write something -- I tried to make up for the delay with length!

I have chosen to discuss community colleges in this post because it is germane for two reasons. First, this past week was "Higher Education Week" at the Statehouse, which resulted in a lot of discussion on the issue. Second, in the upcoming weeks the House Education Committee will be faced with the important task of helping decide the fate of a potential community college in the Treasure Valley.

As I said, community colleges was one of the main topics of this past week with all of the public post-secondary institution presidents converging on the Statehouse to testify in JFAC and House Committees. What became clear, as the week progressed (I already knew, but it was reinforced) was critical role that community colleges play in education system. The main selling points, if you have yet to be converted, are low cost and high flexibility. These are benefits that can not be attained by what BSU President Bob Kustra referred to as, "senior institutions" for good, bad, or indifferent.

There has been some dissent, however, by certain legislators that a public community college is unnecessary. They first point to the existence of the Treasure Valley Community College in Caldwell -- it is an institution ran by the State of Oregon. Yes, that’s right, OREGON figured out what we needed in the Valley before we did. That is sad. The problem remains however, that as an institution of Oregon, we have no more right to change it than we would a private institution. That's called oversight, and that's one of the primary benefits to a public education system.

The next point that was made was that there are private firms offering education-like courses and they could easily be utilized. There are several things wrong with this beyond the lack of oversight, such as:

Quality (ITT and Steven Henagar aren't known for their academic prowess)
Cost (these places are much more expensive than a community college)
Financial Aid (most of them don't offer it, and if they do, its very restricted)
Transferability (because they lack quality, a respectable four year institution will not transfer the credits earned at these places)
Leakage (because they don't transfer, their is no incentive to stay in Idaho)

The point is, no solution outside of a community college will work (I am not going to address the “community college services” argument made by ISU President Vailas). So what is the solution, or rather, how do we get there? Well, in my mind a potential solution needs to incorporate at least a few things.

Reduce the majority needed to pass the community college taxing district from 66% to at most 60% (originally the threshold was only a simple majority).
Ensure local control to allow the institution to be flexible and responsive.
Provide state, local, and private funding to get “buy-in” from all that will benefit from the community college.
State funding must also be set as a scale to the so-called “full-time equivalent headcount.” This ensures that as the college grows (or shrinks) the state funding will do the same.

I could go on forever on this, but I’d rather have you read the whole thing so I’ll stop here. Please let me know what you think!

High School Redesign & Luna's Budget

2007-01-18T20:18:00.000-07:00

High School Redesign
On Tuesday the House Education Committee (of which I am a member), voted to approve new rules increasing the math and science requirements for high school students. Initially, I was skeptical about the requirements as I was unsure if they were in the best interest of our students. As I listened, I concluded that the changes made from last year were significant and put at ease most of my concerns.

Specifically, Dwight Johnson (Board of Education Director), made it clear that a cross disciplinary approach was integral to the new standards. As a major proponent of financial education, I was happy to hear that this course might be one of many that could be included as a math course. Also, I was happy to hear that these alternative math courses (my language not his) would reflect the needs of students, including non-college bound students. My remaining concern, requiring all students to take a math course their final year, was trumped by all the other benefits that I saw in this rule change.

Luna's Budget
Today I heard Tom Luna's budget proposal. As a caveat, I haven't had a chance to go through and analyze it, so this is only my initial take. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised about what I heard. Some highlights include:

Dual enrollment for high school students (sorta like Running Start)
Salary floor raised for teachers ($31,000)
Classroom supply stipend ($350)

The dual enrollment proposal is something I have been talking up for a while. Running Start, as it is referred to in Washington, is the perfect model of the dual enrollment concept. By taking students out of high school classroom (for at least part of the day) and into the college setting we are both saving money and better educating our students. It's a real win-win (provided the Legislature steps up and takes care of the community college issue).

Increased teacher pay is (almost) always a good thing and so of course I am happy to see it (not to mention the fact that my family will be a direct beneficiary of it). The only downside is that teacher in smaller school districts will most likely have to go even longer now without a raise. The stipend will also be helpful as teacher are routinely required to use their own money to buy supplies. Would you ask someone that works in an office to buy their own calculator or paper clips?

There were other items presented (more money for textbooks, increased discretionary spending, more money for technology, etc.), but these three were the ones that really stood out for me. I'll keep the blog posted as I learn more and as always, your comments are welcome.

(Delayed) Response to Otter's State of the State

2007-01-13T15:52:00.000-07:00

Well, I have had a few days to think about it and I am ready to give my thoughts on the Governor's speech. This may be a bit off-the-cuff, so please give me a little leeway. To organize this response, I am going to go through the subjects addressed by Otter and then address the subjects he failed to mention. As always, your comments are welcome.

1) Community Colleges - Otter's recommendation to lower the vote necessary to create a community college district from 66% to 60% is not new, but still good to hear. I am a bit disappointed he placed restriction on his support by requiring the vote to occur in conjunction with a General Election. In regards to funding, the five million dollars he mentioned is a good place to START. I do feel, however, that funding levels and enrollment levels should have a positive relationship. That is, if enrollment is high, funding should be high and if enrollment is low, funding should be low.

2) State Employee Compensation - This is another example of "fuzzy math." After listening to "Friday Focus" on KBSU (NPR), which also reviewed the Governor's speech, I heard something very interesting. Otter said he wanted to move away from the low pay, high benefits model. I guess he meant it. Otter's proposal is actually a net loss for state employees. To call this a raise is like calling a wildfire responsible forest management. The numbers are easy, if, as a state employee the most your base income and increase is 5% (the merit pay bonus proposed by Otter) and your health insurance benefit premiums are to increase by at least 6.5% (based upon the current projections), then you are looking at least a net loss of -1.5%. I suppose Otter wants to move to the low pay, low benefits model. Didn't he say he wanted to retain good state employees?

3) Grocery Tax - Well, I am torn. To be honest, I didn't expect the Governor to come out with such a fair solution. Notice, I used the word fair, not superior. Otter's proposal smells of egalitarianism, and that, in this case is a good thing I think. While I still think that there are other better ways to address this issue, this is the best I think we can expect from a Republican. The question is whether or not the Republicans that actually make the decisions (legislators) will take him up on it. I am hoping so.

4) Organizational Restructuring - I don't really have a lot to say about this... Eliminating the Dept. of Administration was probably just a step Otter had to take in order to separate the Department of Commerce and Labor. To bad for Keith Johnson, that guy just can't catch a break. Debbie Field was also nominated to be Drug Czar, I bet no one saw that coming (that's internet sarcasm). Honestly, I wish Debbie all the best and I hope she can be successful in her new position.

5) GARVEE Bonding - If this wasn't the most political stunt of the day. It was also perfect example of the Governors lack of leadership skills, or at minimum his willingness to step on limb and stand up for something. To say he supports GARVEE but won't provide input as to how its spent he is simply giving a non-answer. That's like saying I support hiring a good football coach, but not saying who that might be. The fact of the matter is that the Governor was elected to give his opinion. On a side note, I hope he remembers his reluctance to instruct on this issue when he faces other issues he really doesn't know anything about, for consistency purposes of course.

6) Pre-K Education - The Governor missed a chance to lead on this important issue. Pre-K education can substantially and significantly improve student performance throughout his or hers academic career. Too bad.

7) Treasure Valley Air Quality - Again, nothing was said. I hope the voters in Treasure Valley noticed.

8) Local Option Taxes - Alright, no this isn't "Bash and Butch Day" but seriously, this is a big issue! Not only is this a "local control" issue but also one that "increases customer service." Weren't those major tenets to Otter's speech (at least the latter). I would like to see the Governor to show some leadership on this issue.

9) Health insurance - Not a word. This only one of the single most important issues facing our State.

Alright, there is probably more I could say, but this should suffice. I look forward to hearing your feedback.

Things I'll be listening for during Otter's first State of the State Address

2007-01-08T10:06:00.000-07:00

Well, this is the first OFFICIAL blog to be posted by an elected official on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives. I hope that you all find this blog useful and provide questions or comment should you have any.

Now, on to the purpose of this post: Otter's State of the State Address.

I am eagerly anticipating the State of the State Address by newly elected Governor C.L. Butch Otter. I am hopeful that the Governor is able to answer questions relating to:

Air Quality in the Treasure Valley
Community Colleges, including funding recommendations
Pre-K education
Repeal of the unfair Grocery Tax
Minimum Wage
Health Insurance needs

I'll provide my own personal response after the official Democratic response tomorrow. To be sure, I am excited about this Legislative Session and will work my hardest to ensure that the issues facing District 18 are resolved.

Happy New Years from Glendale!!!

2007-01-01T11:49:00.000-07:00

As my first official duty as a state representative, I will be attending the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl! If it works for the governor, it should work for me, right? The game will be an amazing opportunity for Boise State to showcase the University, Boise, and Idaho on a national stage.

As a side note, I hope BSU wins not just because they are my team, but also because what it might mean to the BCS. To be sure, the BCS powers-that-be should be weary of a 13-0 BSU team. How do you tell them they don't have a right be Nat'l Champs? Anyway, this all conjecture... BSU has to get it done on the field. My prediction... A good game!

GO BRONCOS!

President Ford

2006-12-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent passing of President Gerald Ford, I thought it might be useful to sit and reflect on his legacy and what it teaches us. Please feel free to add your thoughts on the matter.

For me, President Ford exemplified the Ambassador, especially after his presidency. His desire and action to serve others was clear and should be an example to anyone. Whats more, his intentional nature of working across the aisle, namely his great friendship with President Jimmy Carter (one of my personal role models), showed what could be done when differences were put aside and the greater good was put to the front. I pray that I will have the fortitude and strength to put party pressures aside when they serve no purpose but to divide. Indeed, President Ford and I were elected to do the people's work and that's just what he did and that's what I plan to do.

The Blog Begins!

2006-12-12T00:27:00.000-07:00

And so, the technorevolution is on! Please check regularly for updates!