Question for the Governor

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?!

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

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?

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:

1. Delaying the implementation of the elections consolidation - $8 million
2. Collecting on unpaid taxes - $30-40 million
3. 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

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?!

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

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.