It's never enough

I heard Lenore Barrett (R-Custer) explain* why she voted against taxing Internet sales. Now, personally, I dig being able to avoid paying sales tax on stuff I buy over the intertoobs, though it's probably not good tax policy. Not sure about that without some more thought.

Anyway, Barrett said she thinks it's not important and that the legislature ought to be focusing on important stuff like cutting taxes and spending. So, agreed that our fine representatives ought to focus on important stuff, lord knows there's little enough of that, what with anti-contraception bills and anti-Occupy Boise bills and what not taking up their time and attention.

Jeebus, after three years of shrinking budgets spending cuts, one might figure that particular itch had been scratched. But, no, I again fail to grok the Republican mind. There is never enough cutting, until there is no government, apparently.

Gee, I always figured government was something we do together to help us all improve our station. Part of it is to referee, part of it is to provide a hand up, but to do those two functions it takes resources, and for Lenore and her ilk, government resources are bad resources.

*If you call that an explanation. It doesn't really say anything substantive about the bill under consideration.

More things I don't understand about Republicans

Why do Republicans hate the Post Office?  And Amtrak? Getting mail is a pretty cool thing, and it seems like a real public good.  It seems to be like something the government just ought to ensure gets done for its citizens.  Like roads, and airfields, and other public infrastructure.  Why do Republicans object to it so?

Especially in a state like Idaho that has folks living remote areas, it seems like subsidizing mail pickup and delivery is just a good use of taxpayer money.  I mean, really, does it seem right that people living in Murphy or Grasmere ought to have to bear the full cost of their mail delivery, as if they were to get a FedEx package 5 days a week?

Yes, it does cost taxpayer money, yes it does subsidize rural folks, and yes, increasingly electronics are doing away with the need for mail pickup and delivery.  But in the past mail was the only means to exchange documents, and for many people in many places it still is.  Hating on the Post Office seems so, petty, and chintzy.

Kinda the same with Amtrak.  Why do Republicans think it must stand on its own with no taxpayer help?  Again, it is a public infrastructure good.  Why can't we help it out?

I kind of can't believe it

I could go on and on (and on and on and on and on) about the idiocy, bigotry, and cronyism in the Idaho legislature, but why belabor the obvious.  Rather, I'd like to applaud something they're doing.

The Senate Transportation Committee approved a bill that would allow Idaho drivers to show proof of insurance using images on a smart phone.  Brilliant!  

Per the blurb in the Statesman, Idaho would be the first state to do so, but only if it beats other state to the punch.  It appears this industry sponsored bill is being considered in California, Arizona, and Maryland, and probably elsewhere.

A sad (disgusting) common thread

First, the county commissioners in Washington County passed an ordnance ordinance regulating natural gas production activity, which is popular with Washington County residents but not so much in the Idaho legislature.  A number of those residents testified in favor of local regulation at a recent hearing.  Ignoring them, the committee voted 16-0* in favor of the state bigfooting the matter and taking the counties out of the picture.

Rocky Barker wrote of the disillusionment of the residents.

Amanda Buchanan, a Weiser activist, said most of the people who spoke at the hearing also attended the House Resources and Conservation Committee hearing Thursday.

The committee’s 16-0 vote to give the state final authority over where and how oil and gas are developed, after strong public opposition to the legislation, angered many, Buchanan said.

“The most common comment was ‘I have never in my life felt so poorly represented as a citizen by my government as I did at the House Resource Committee,’” Buchanan said.

Second, all the Republicans in the Joint Finance and Appropriations committee voted to give the Idaho Secretary of State $200,000 to educate voters about the new Republican closed primary process.  All the Democrats voted against the giveaway.  The Republicans voted to give taxpayer money to help the Republican Party successfully close its primary, which was an effort to drive the ideology of the party to the right.  Well played, Republicans.  Taxpayers are now funding your ideology.

The common thread?  Well, it's the arrogance and total lack of accountability on Idaho's heavily Republican legislature.  They never have to worry about citizens and taxpayers, because they are so safely in the majority.  So, I guess voters are just getting what they voted for.  Maybe their legislators are arrogant (they definitely aren't accountable, though). Except, judging by Ms. Buchanan, maybe they're not so happy.

Which makes we wonder, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WAKE UP?!!? 

You see, Washington County voted 75% Republican and 25% Democratic in the last election. Rep. Boyle ran unopposed, understandable given the 75/25 split.  Dems are dead in the water there.

So, I guess I'm savoring the irony.   People of Washington County, too bad about that natural gas development.  You get what you voted for.  Oh, and Ms. Buchanan, don't blame "my government."  Blame yourself.

*Yes, the three Democrats voted with the Rep on this issue, and why not?  The Dems are from Garden City, Pocatello and Gooding.  Washington County keeps returning Boss Lawerence Denny to the legislature, since at least 2000, and in that time have not elected a single Democrat.  So Democrats are beholden to Washington County just exactly zilch.

Women in combat

The Army is loosening up its rules preventing women from being placed in combat arms units.  They've been allowed at the brigade level, and now they'll be allowed in at the battalion level.  The company and platoon levels are where combat action takes place, mostly, so women won't be directly in Army combat jobs.

But, women have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan for years.  There is no front line in those wars, so women can find themselves in a sort of combat.  As far as I know, though, no women are employed as part of the infantry-style teams that break down doors or take and hold territory.  In their limited role, they've done well.  Women helicopter pilots do well.

But those roles are not direct combat.  Based on my personal experience, I'm against women in combat roles (with one caveat).  Here are two examples, both from mixed-gender training.  My squad had to ford a freezing cold river.  One guy, our strongest swimmer, grabbed a rope, swam across the swift river, and affixed the rope to a tree.  The other end was likewise tied to a tree.  The rest of us, in our combat gear (and taking the swimmer's), then pulled ourselves hand over hand across the river with the rope.

Ever done that?  Well, the river pulls at you, and you're mostly underwater, cause the rope stretches and you're packing a lot of weight.  So you're in that icy water, trying to stay above water, and trying to get across.  To keep from bogging down, we left at intervals, one a minute or something.  Well, the female in our squad was really struggling.  She didn't have the upper body strength to pull herself across very quickly.  So she went slowly.  Unfortunately, she was in the middle of the pack.

Understandably, the guys behind her quickly caught up (you can't really see ahead very well, until you run into the person in front of you, plus you're hurrying because it fricking freezing).  So before long we had 2 then 3 people at the same point on the rope, increasing the drag and stretch, and going slowly.  I was one of those guys stuck behind the gal.  I thought I wouldn't make it, and since I'm a poor swimmer, that would have been the end of me. 

Another example.  We dropped into a "hot" landing zone (again, training).  One of the females had been assigned to carry the radio, and as I recall, she had volunteered for that duty.  Well, back then (the 80s) that backpack radio (PRC-77) was heavy.  So, we jumped out of the helicopter and took off running to get out of the fire zone.  The radio gal didn't make it; the radio and her gear was just too heavy.  She collapsed before even 100 yards.  Two guys had to run back, one to take over the radio, one to help pack her out of harms way.  Again, just not enough strength to perform combat duty

Now the caveat.  The females seemed to have sufficient heart and courage, just insufficient strength.  In case you're not familiar with the Army Physical Fitness Test, it has substantially easier standards for women.  Example; a minimum running time for a man is the max score for a women.  For 22 years olds, men have to do 40 pushups to get a passing score, women have to do 17.  Women get the max points for 46 pushups, men need to do 75 to get the max.

So, if the Army uses the exact same physical standards for both men and women, then women who pass that test should be allowed into combat units.

Bullies

Apparently the "Boot Occupy Boise Bill" has returned to the floor and is up for a vote, and it still has the vile emergency clause.

Okay, fine, exercise your Republican muscle and boot those lefty-leaning f-ing hippies off the lawn.  But ya know, trumping up an "emergency" because a few poor sods are shivering in tents on the lawn is just wrong.  I mean, really, what's the emergency?  Of course, there isn't one.  Everybody knows that.  The ragged bunch camped out on their Occupy Boise vigil aren't hurting anybody.  Well, maybe they're hurting our legislators' tender sensibilities by actually making a statement in opposition to, uh, to, uh, jeez, guess I'm not really sure.  But it's got to be really irritating, whatever it is.

It's just our legislators doing it because they can.  They're just being bullies because they can get away with it.

A bit of evidence, please

IACI President Alex LaBeau is again trying to get the corporate personal property tax repealed. He cites all sorts of facts and statistics, such and the number of jobs it kills by itsodious presence, and the number of jobs that will be created by its happy demise. He also calls it “businesses’ most hated tax.” Says its onerous, and not transparent, and burdensome, and all that.

Will someone please challenge him on this stuff? Please? Of course, I’m not privy to what he’s handing out so maybe he’s supplying written justification, but I doubt it. How do you document that the tax is “hated?”

First off, if no one challenges him, tax breaks could be given just because he asked, not because of any showing of need or positive effect.

And, don’t you know, don’t you just know as surely as the sun comes up, that if the corporate personal property tax goes away, LaBeau will be back with some new “most hated,” asking for yet another tax break. That’s his job. His bare-naked claims should have zero credibility on their own. They should have credibility only insofar as he proves them up.

Now, on that point, I offer some actual evidence; my personal experience. For about 6 years, I was the GM of a small ($10 mil in annual sales) manufacturing company, and in that role was responsible for the annual property tax submission. Yes, we did have to report the number of staplers and all that, but here’s the deal.

The first year it did take some time to do a decent survey. We sent a property survey out to various department heads, and they sent it down to their mangers. As it rolled back up the line, we added it all up and prepared the report. 22 staplers @ $1.00 ea (how much do you think a used stapler is worth?), and on and on. For the big, expensive stuff (autos, machinery) there weren’t so many to count (how hard is it to count the number of cars a company owns?).

Two key points why this wasn’t such a big deal. One, after year one we had the data, and it was only a matter of adding in all the new staplers we bought, and maybe adjusting the value down a bit. Easy peasy. Two, no one ever came around and challenged our estimates of the worth of that stuff. Thus, it didn’t take lots of time to substantiate the value. Our mangers just winged it, and that was fine.

So, no, it was not onerous. A bit of a PITA, but not “oooonerous!! Oh, God!!! The humanity!!!!,” as you’d think from listening to LaBeau. And no, we didn’t particularly hate it, more than any other reporting requirement, such as the payroll break-outs our work comp insurer (a private company, BTW, so government doesn’t have monopoly on PITA requirements) demanded of us in order to figure our premium.

Although I have no experience or proof, I suspect that had the company only been able on avoid that tax on those 22 staplers, or had been able to avoid the 5-6 person-hours to do the report, it would not have affected its hiring decisions one whit.

Witch hunt

Well, here we go.  Fire up the torches. Betsy Russell is reporting that Rep. Julie Ellsworth*, R-Boise, introduced a bill to amend House rules to say that any member of leadership who is convicted of a DUI or drug offense would lose his or her leadership post.

As Lynn Luker asked, by pick out just DUIs?  Why not any of the other various misdemeanors?  I'll tell you why, because "drinking" is considered by many in this state to be morally wrong.  When you get caught inappropriately drinking, you lose the moral right to be a leader, goes the thinking.

There are folks all around the country who view this as a moral issue.  They think it is a moral failing to drink at all, and especially to excess.  But, there are more of them in these parts, and they're known as Mormons.  No, not all Mormons think this way, and no, the church doesn't instigate legislative jihads against drinkers (preferring, I guess, to leave that up to MADD).

But, it's pretty easy to connect an effort to punish immoral drinking with the beliefs of many LDS Idahoans, and conclude that Ellsworth is attempting to institutionalize that belief.  I mean after all, how many good Mormons in our legislature are going to get zinged by this new rule?  Zero, would be a pretty good guess.  So not only does it codify that belief, it is not likely to affect those holding the belief.

My argument admittedly falls down when you include drugs, because Mormons don't seem to have included that in their guidance about what not to consume if you what to be a good member of the church.  But then, I'm not saying this is an LDS thing, specifically. 

I just don't like the idea of taking a value judgment held by a good number of Idahoans, though not a majority, and making it a litmus test for political leadership.  People convicted of DUI will pay whatever price our legal system exacts; they shouldn't have to pay a higher price just because they're a legislative leader.

Last point.  At some point, a DUI is no longer a reflection of getting too drunk and screwing up, it's evidence of poor judgment.  One DUI can be a screw up; more than one, bad judgment, because you didn't learn your lesson.  That could be a DUI related reason to remove a leader, but it would be due to judgment, not morality.

*I have no idea of Ellsworths religious beliefs, and don't think it matters.

Principled Republicans, and then some not so much

I'm loving watching the odd fight pitting House Speaker Lawerence Denney and Idaho Republican Party Chairman Norm Semanko against AG Lawrence Wasden and redistricting commissioners Delores Crow and Randy Hansen.  The wingers in the R party in Idaho will stop at nothing, it seems, to accomplish their political goals and vision.

On one hand you've got to marvel at the single-mindedness and commitment to the goal.  On the other, you shake your head in, well, I guess in wonderment and disgust . 

You know, Denney and Semanko appoint their homies to the commission, and wonder of wonder, their homies are actually independent and are trying to follow the constitutional mandate.  And seeing that, Denney and Semanko exclaim "off with their heads."  Then before they take a swing, AG Wasden (actually, his deputy Brian Kane) gives an opinion that Hansen and Crow can't be removed.  BTW, that's Republican AG Wasden.

Not liking Wasden's/Kane's opinion, Denney and Semanko turn to the wingnut go-to lawyer, Christ Troupis who, lo and behold, gives an opinion contrary to the AG's and says, go for it.  Off with their heads.

Then the Idaho Supreme Court weighs in on the AG's side, and says, "stay that swinging ax." 

It seems this is just a taste of things to come.  I wonder how much of this Idaho voters will tolerate.  I wonder how far to the right voters are wiling to let the state drift.  I wonder what wackiness will ensure.  And, sadly, I wonder how much damage to the state has to happen first, and how many people have to suffer, before things change.  Already mental health commitment proceedings are up 151%.  Real people, real problems, real pain.  Real effects of the right wing agenda.

Ideologues

When a group governs according to their ideology, that is to be expected. Voters elect representatives who reflect their values and concerns (okay, maybe not the last part so much). Once elected, those representative can promote the values and address the concerns, or they can just flail away at the ideology. Guess which path our legislators routinely choose.

Here's a clue. Some clown has introduced legislation aimed at kicking the wet, frozen Occupy Boise souls off the state land where they're encamped. Hmmm, I don't recall "keeping our state land free from freeloading bums" as an election issue. I don't see how this will improve the lives of Idahoans. It's not like there's a line waiting to camp in the park but can't because Occupy Boise is hogging all the space.

No, this is just another example of our legislators trying to piss off the liberals. Promote ideology over everything. Okay, genius, go cash your per diem check, check the balance of your PERSI retirement account, pay a health care bill with your gummint sponsored health care, then give a speech about how big gummint is taking away all personal liberty, and after that, but before you figure a way out of Idaho's low wage trap, work on right all that's wrong with democracy by clearing out the park. Perfect. Kisses.