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.

Self help remedy

Idaho grocers are asking the legislature to change the system of handing out food stamp money.  The problem being that folks are so desperate that they all hit the stores almost immediately after the money is distributed (electronically to their cards).  So, bottlenecks ensue, and shoppers get sick of standing in line and abandon carts full of food, which is an especial problem for frozen food.

Grocers have offered to cough up a one-time $100,000, but there's a $220,000 ongoing cost to the State for the fix of spreading out payments over days.

I assume that grocers have tried adding an extra person to just look for abandoned carts, and have tried beefing up the checkout lines.  But, perhaps they could offer some type of discount, say, $10 or something, to food stamp shoppers who shop at a certain date/time, based on their last name.  You know, T-Z shop on the 3rd of the month and they'll get 2% up to a max of $20 (or whatever works for that grocer).  Or, just give the incentive to food stamp recipient shopping on the 3rd, if they don't want to program the computes to give the discount.

Seems like there should be a way for them to address this themselves, instead of shifting the cost to the taxpayer.  Just saying....

Time to spring the trap

Over the last 3 years, Idaho's revenues have declined, and the budget has shrunk with them, on account of the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.  Rather than seek new revenue sources, the legislature and Governor have chosen to simply cut the budget.

Now that revenues are growing again, what will be the choice?  Restore the budget cuts?  Or keep the reduced budgets and lower taxes.  Governor Otter seems to be proposing a bit of both.

For government haters, and in Idaho that means the folks running the government, who get their jobs from the government, who get their health care from the government, who get retirement benefits from the government, the choice is clear.  Keep government small, don't expand anything.  Every contraction in revenues means government must shrink; expansion of revenues means government must stay shrunk. 

And to hell with the people hurt by the cut back in services.  And school kids.  And higher education.  There's a reason Idaho sucks in almost every category of well being for the populace.  See the preceding paragraph.

Tax relief

Gov. Otter has called for, I think, $45 million in tax relief, targeted for business and corporations. And wealthy people. But, he's left the details up to the legislature. It's this last point that leaves me scratching my head.

If there is a need for tax relief for a particular reason, fine, let's target that. But just an across the board cut, from 7.8% to 7.6%* doesn't seem like it changes incentives or business calculations. I mean, .2%? .002? Is that the difference in a business moving here or not?

I'm sorry Governor, but this just sounds to me like you've tossed in "tax relief" just to sound good, to keep up the banner of being a tax cutter.

*I'm going from memory; no time at the moment to add a link. So if I botched the numbers, please correct me in the comments.

Dang it

The unemployment rate just dropped to 8.5%, the lowest in five years.  And all across the country, Republicans said "Damn!"

Plagerism? Subliminal suggestion?

I see interesting similarities between Mitt Romney's campaign logo:

specifically, this part:

and a certain movie advertisement:

Wells Fargo gets with it, I think

I was looking at the Wells Fargo site the other day, and noticed the above picture. Two dudes sitting on a step, one looking kind of dreamily at the other, in an add for home mortgages. Gee, I wonder what demographic this is supposed to appeal to?

I loves me sum gummint regulations

Especially the CALM Act.  I hate it when I'm peacefully trying to watch some program or other, and suddenly a commercial blares onto the screen with the volume loud enough to scare my dog and blow the paper off the coffee table.  The CALM Act authorizes the FCC to do something about that.

I know, I know, nanny state.  Well, if so, I say bring it on.  The flipping free market does not work in that instance.  Me scrambling for the mute button on the remote is completely unknown to the advertiser.  My resolve to note the offender and boycott the product inevitably fades between watching the show and whenever I might be in the market for laundry soap, or whatever.  Plus, lots of the loud commercials are for stuff I don't buy anyway.

You know, some people just can't be trusted to do the right thing.  They will take advantage and exploit and do anything that they perceive in their interest, and yours be damned.  That's why we have prisons.  Disrupting the calm in my household is a tiny thing, but it happens umpteen times a day, so that adds up.  In some cases it causes me to completely turn off the show or the TV, denying me the pleasure of being a total couch potato slug.  A pleasure that's difficult to defend, but neverthless one that should not be someone else's to deny.

Government regulations have their place.  And praise be for the CALM Act.