Petty politics

Republicans in the Idaho legislature continue to impress.

House Democrats are refusing to consent to waiving reading of various bills, as a protest that a couple of pieces of legislation didn't even get a hearing.  They are hoping that Republican leadership will allow a hearing on increasing the cigarette tax, and one other bill.  To retaliate, Republicans spiked a non-controversial bill on early childhood intervention.

One thing is not like the other.

Dems, who are essentially powerless, and using what little power they have to try and get legislation to at least have a hearing.  And yes, it is obstructionism and probably very annoying to Republicans anxious to end the session.  Rs, on the other hand are killing important legislation designed to help children.

Annoying adults does not equal hurting children.

I don't think Rs really care much about the people of Idaho.  Well, they care about certain people, wealthy adult white males, mostly, but man oh man they don't like kids or women.

And it's kind of disgusting to see how unchecked power in the legislature leads to leadership by bullying.  Ya know, all Dems want is a hearing.  Doesn't seem like that much to ask.  But no, deny them even that and then take it out on kids when Dems don't just roll over for it.

This is refreshing

The legislature is actually doing something to help create jobs in Idaho. Most of their attention is focused on guns and abortions and lawsuits and lawyers, and virtually nothing on figuring a way to help improve lives of Idaho citizens.

Gov. Otter has persuaded the House to pass his "Hire One Act," that gives a tax credit for a new hire. There was opposition from some Republicans, but it passed easily. More of that, please.

Money quote, from Democrat John Rusche:

It's nice to be ranting and be political - every now and then you have to do something that actually helps.

Amen, brother.

You get the government you vote for

Meridian typically elects some pretty conservative Republican politicians, such as Russ Fulcher, Shirley McKague, and Marv Hagedorn.  Those folks, and others representing Meridian and the surrounding area, definitely agree with the no taxes/reduce the size of government line of thinking. They are supporting cuts to the state budget to bring spending in line with revenues. They also support Luna's plan to rejigger the state's educational system. Presumably, the majority of Meridian voters do as well.

I saw a story in the Statesman today about the Meridian School District seeking an $18 million a year, 2 year levy.

The Meridian School Board voted Tuesday to take its case to the voters, one day after district board Chairman Mike Vuittonett warned Idaho lawmakers considering an overhaul of state school finances that Meridian had stepped over a “funding cliff.”

The story gives more detail about how the district is growing while the budget is shrinking, and lists the many steps they've taken to absorb the changes, such as eliminating 1,400 bus stops.

So, parents in the Meridian School District are experiencing the consequences of having a legislature that refuses to look at both sides of the budget equation. By looking only at spending, and not at revenues, budgets get cut, and the effects ripple out into the community. But, Meridian elects folks that agree with the approach.

So, if Meridian voters choose to approve the levy, they've simply shouldered the burden of educating their students themselves, rather than spreading the burden out generally among Idaho sales tax payers. Elections do matter.

As this same circumstance plays out across the state, we might see wealthy communities, like here in the Treasure Valley, vote to send money to schools. More rural communities just don't have the money, so I would expect to see a growing disparity between urban and rural schools. Of course, rural districts are also mostly Republican. So again, elections matter.

Sure glad my kids are out of school. Guess I'll vote against Kuna's supplemental levy scheduled for a May vote. I don't need to help fund K-12; what will I get out of it? That's where we're going, right? A race to the bottom? I got mine, and I'm keeping it.

The Statesman has a story about a water law ruling by the Idaho Supreme Court. The issue has been percolating for a while, and finally came to a conclusion. Two fish farms have been accusing ground water pumpers, i.e., farmers, of over pumping and taking more water from the aquifer than they're entitled to, diminishing the fish farmers' flow of water below what they're allowed. A while back a curtailment order was issued, which threatened to prevent farmers from pumping water for their crops. They faced loss of an entire season's crop. That was avoided, but the issue remained.

So the fish farmers win, and the ground water pumpers will have to limit the amount of water they pump out of the ground.  Perhaps now this water fight might catch the attention of the legislature.

First, as an aside, this issue kind of embodies classic Republican thinking. Idaho's water rule is, first in time = first in right. In other words, I got mine, you can piss off.  (In fairness, Idaho is not alone with this rule.)  Even though 150 farmers growing crops might produce more for the overall economy than two fish farms (maybe, I dunno), the fish farms have the older claim. This priority is in Idaho's constitution, Article XV, Section 5priority in time shall give superiority of right to the use of such water."  So, we're probably stuck with it.  But, the constitution allows for reasonable regulation.

So, I say, tax the extraction.  Give water users some incentive to conserve, and raise some revenue.  I'd even support some offsetting tax break so that suddenly water users (including homes) aren't paying a bunch more in taxes.  But, the tax would be an incentive to conserve.

I'd also like to see the legislature require municipalities to have a water conservation plan in effect, maybe just requiring homeowners and businesses to water only every other day, or perhaps a system of warnings leading to penalties for homeowners and businesses that over water and allow water to run off the sidewalks and into the storm drain.

I admit that I don't know much about the specifics, but I'd just like to see our legislature start to work on the issue.  Maybe now that the politically powerful farmers are getting hurt, they will.

The real story

The news from Japan has been astounding lately.  A monster earthquake, a killer tsunami, and now the leaking nuclear power plants.  The news is dominated about the various radioactive leaks and efforts to cool off the reactors.  I'm seeing diagrams of reactors, and Rachael Maddow gave us a primer of reactors on Monday, and spent most of her program Tuesday on the same topic.

Which brings me to my point.  There was a tsunami that washed away entire towns.  Thousands of bodies have washed up on the beach after having been carried away into the sea.  Its cold over there, and people are suffering.  Electricity is out.  Water is scarce.  And yet it seems that broadcast news focuses solely on the nuclear power plant and its problems.

Yes, that is a worry, but isn't the larger story right now the human suffering and devastation caused by the tsunami?

And, apropos of nothing, do you want to buy some shares in Alternate Energy Holdings?  Bet you can pick some up real cheap these days.

Research and deep thinking

Are two things that don't happen much in the Idaho legislature, especially among Republicans.  Betsy Russell reports on the anti-pornography internet filtering in libraries debate yesterday. 

First, there's this claim:

Rep. Mack Shirley, R-Rexburg, said a group called “Citizens for Decency” brought the idea to him. “As a result, I've done a lot of personal research into this topic,” he told the House.

So, the guy who sponsored the bill has done "a lot" of research. His research revealed this:

At one small library, he [Shirley] said, “Big lumberjacks would come in from out in the timber and get into material they shouldn't, and there'd be youths sitting right next to them.” That small library now has a free Internet filter program, he said, which solved the problem.

I heard Shirley on the radio giving this example of the need for the new law, and he prefaced the remark by saying that a librarian in a small town told him this story.

Let's unpack that a bit. "Get into material they shouldn't." Do we have any idea what the material was? No. Perhaps it was XXX, perhaps it was the Victoria's Secret web site. "They shouldn't." Well, who says so? The small town librarian, I guess. If that librarian was from Rexburg, like Shirley, odds are that he or she is pretty conservative, and most likely LDS. I could see such a person objecting to something that is simply risque or racy, but that does not meet the definition of pornography.

"They shouldn't." Well, why shouldn't they? Because a "youth was sitting next to them?" Or because that librarian simply disapproved of what the lumberjack was looking at? We just don't know.

So we have some anecdote passed off as "research" and on that basis Shirley tries to get a law passed imposing state control over a local librarian. Which takes us to the last sentence of the blurb from Russell. "That small library now has a free Internet filter program, he said, which solved the problem." If so, and it was free, why do we need the law?

At least one thing we'll never hear from that legislator is, "And don't call me Shirley."

Facts, please

Republicans in the Idaho legislature are poised, nay, chomping at the bit, to cut the budget. They are prepared to eliminate 770 teacher jobs. According to testimony yesterday, their proposed cuts to the Medicaid budget will cut another 700* jobs and shutter several businesses. Reason? Of course, it's due to the steep reduction in state tax revenue resulting from the economic downturn.

Well, if revenues are down, raise some new revenue, right? Of course not. See, it's accepted common wisdom that "you can't raise taxes in a recession" because it will impede recovering from the recission. Just makes sense.

Really? That's the basis for losing 1,470 jobs? Won't the loss of that many jobs and the spin off economic activity impede recovering from the recession? Certainly there will be a negative impact from those job losses. But what is it, exactly?

Will the effect of the losses affect the economy more, or less, than raising taxes? If we raise taxes 1%, or 2%, or 5%, at what point does that drain on the economy outweigh the hit taken by losing 1,470 jobs?

The state has economists working for it. I wonder ... Have any legislators asked these questions? If not, they're not serious about helping get through this bidget crisis.

Actually, I think that what they are serious about is not "wasting a crisis." This is their big chance to whack the IEA and to shrink government, citizens and their needs be damned.

*I thought I had read this number somewhere yesterday, but now can't find it to link to it. So I can't say that 700 more jobs will be lost, necessarily, but clearly cutting $120 million will result in some job losses.

Kuna joins the fray

Tonight as I drove home past Kuna High, I saw a long line of students protesting Luna's school reforms. Click to enlarge.