Who wins? The people, or IACI?

To ask the question is to answer it.  Of course it will be IACI.

Testimony heavily in favor of bill that does not let the big property tax payers off the hook.  Mayors, county commissioners, etc., all oppose IACI's bill that lets Pacific Railroad and Idaho Power completely out of paying the personal property tax.

Testimony is that schools are crumbling, if the IACI bill passes the schools will have to go to the local property tax payers. Severe impacts to county budgets.  Idaho already a low tax state, business friendly, and business seeking to locate here don't complain about the business property tax, more worried about infrastructure.

So of course, our legislators will ingore all that and pass the IACI sponsored bill.  Because, like Lola, whatever IACI wants, IACI gets.  Citizens be damned.

How to get extra paid vacation days

Become a Boise policeman or an Ada County Sheriff (or any law enforcement, I think), and then shoot someone.  Presto.  Paid administrative leave.

Astroturf the immigration issue

Astroturf, in the political lexicon as I understand it, is fake grass roots. You know, where some group has an interest in some outcome but disguises its efforts to get that outcome by dressing up as being opposed to that effort. Anyway, that's how I understand it. Here's another definition.

I just read about how John McCain got an earful of anti-immigration reform anger. The Tea Party types and their ilk just hate the idea of giving the Browns a path to citizenship. Some hate "rewarding" people who broke the law. Some think that the Browns will vote Democratic once they gain citizenship, and thus should not be allowed that citizenship. And some are just straight up racist. But whatever the motivation, they don't want any path to citizenship.

Problem is, Republicans have to make some effort toward this, seeings as how the Browns are the fastest growing segment of the population, and they tend to vote Team D. If the Rs keep rejecting and/or pissing off the Browns, they're going to end up on the losing side of demographics. And they know this.

So to defuse the issue, the Rs are trying to talk up reform, and seem somewhat amenable to reform, even to some possible path to citizenship. Which puts them at adds with their base. How to woo the Browns yet not alienate their base, that is the question.

So I say, D activists should go to R town hall meetings, pose as Tea Partiers, and stir up the crowd against reform. Think back to the town hall meetings in which Dems got savaged by idiots thinking that Obamacare included provisions to euthanize seniors. That alone almost killed it. Let's return the favor and harden base sentiment by rabble rousing (respectfully, of course) in the R town hall meetings.
That will work on two levels. One, it will make it harder for the R politician to vote for meaningful reform, and two, reports of the meetings will resonate with the Browns and reinforce their antipathy for the R party. It's a win-win for Democrats.

What are we going to do about this?

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2013/jan/18/idahos-fast-growing-hispanic-population-shows-education-gains/

Given that hispanics favor Democrats by substantial margins nationally, it seems likely that this fast growing sector of Idaho's population is fertile ground of growing Idaho's Democratic Party.  I wonder what the IDP is doing about this.

That's a bummer, man

I see that Governor Otter is proposing  a 0% raise for state employees, and yet he's also proposing a $141 million tax cut for businesses and to stash some dough in the rainy day fund.  That's got to be demoralizing for state workers.  In the last few years they've gotten only one raise, last year's 2%.

On deadly selfishness

I can't add much to the conversation about the massacre in Connecticut, but I've a couple of thoughts about the gun control issue.

First off, it seems obvious that we need to do something to restrict the ability of lunatics to kill people in mass quantities.  Someone suggested that instead of talking about gun control, we need to focus on massacre control.  Things like banning 30 round magazines, and assault rifles, and Teflon-coated bullets, that kind of thing.

Gun ownership in America is, as I understand it, founded on two basic ideas.  One, that hunting is legal, and for some people even necessary, and therefore weapons suitable for hunting should be allowed.  I agree with this.

Two, it is necessary for the populace to be armed in order to prevent a tyrannical government from trampling citizens and enslaving them.  Well, that was important in the revolutionary period, and I think it is a reasonable idea even now, though it seems pretty far fetched.

For point one, it is obvious that you don't need a 30 round clip for a pistol.  Nothing you hunt needs that.  And you don't need an assault weapon for hunting.  The normal rifle is just fine for hunting.

Now I suppose that if you're arming yourself for an armed insurrection then you might need assault weapons and extremely deadly pistols and bullets, but do we really think we ought to let our population gear up for an armed insurrection?  Really?  Isn't it enough to have a populace armed with normal rifles and pistols?  As far as I know, there were no 30 round magazines or assault rifles in the revolutionary war period.

I hear gun nuts say stuff like, "yeah the massacre was horrible, but why blame people who didn't do it and take away their guns."  In other words, lip service tothe tragedy, to the suffering of the victims and their families, then an immediate pivot to me me me me.  Don't even think about something that might affect me me me me.  I didn't do it.  I should get to own all the firepower I want, and be as irresponsible with it as I please.  It's all about me me me me.  Don't make me me me suffer.  I want to contribute NOTHING to a safer society.  There IS NO REASONABLE RESTRICTION if it affects me me me me.

Selfish jerks.

Update:  Oh, and I think the blood of those murdered children is on Wayne LaPierre's hands.

A red letter day

Today is a great day, and I can't wait to get home tonight and watch TV.  Here's why:  the CALM act.

Good job, Guv

Governor Otter made the right decision on the health care exchanges.  Quite sane, indeed.

I'm still uncertain how the legislature plays in here, but I've no doubt that some legislators will engage in mischief on the subject.

Chumming, baiting, whatever

An article in the Statesmen tells how Charles D. Steele of Hagerman, a former volunteer president of the Hagerman chapter of Ducks Unlimited, was caught baiting ducks and geese onto his property by sprinkling corn in his fields.  He has been sentenced to a year of supervised probation, a $2,000 fine and 25 hours of community service in U.S. District Court, and he can't hunt in the US for a year.

Okay.  Seems legit.  And then there's this quote:

However, Idaho Ducks Unlimited leaders said their group condemns Steele's hunting tactics, not only as a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act but also the ethics of fair-chase that govern hunting.

Mond Warren, the group's regional director in Nampa, called corn baiting akin to using salt to lure big game such as elk nearer to hunters' scopes.

Okay, this guy says that baiting violates the ethics of fair-chase that govern hunting.  Agreed.  But here's what I don't get; why is bear-baiting okay?  A hunter puts out food for the bears, gets them used to coming to get it, then lays in wait and shoots the bear when it shows up.  Why doesn't that violate the ethics of fair-chase?

Tick tock

States were supposed to decide whether to set up their own medical insurance exchange by November 14th or thereabouts, but got a last minute extension until December 14th.  And by last minute, I mean they came within a day of the deadline.

Since the deadline was at hand, don't you think that most governors had made a decision?  Now, I can see taking advantage of additional time to learn more information or get politics lined up a bit better, but I have to believe they had made their minds up.

So I'm wondering, what is Governor Otter's reason for withholding his decision?  His advisory panels have completed their work and made their recommendations, so what is he waiting for?  Won't it be more likely to become an issue for the legislature if he waits til the bitter end?  Had he decided in mid November, that's 7 weeks for things to settle out.  If he waits until Dec 14, there will be only 3 weeks until the legislators hit town.

My premise is that he knows what he intends to do, and has known since last month.  The question then becomes, what does he gain by waiting to announce his decision?