What is he thinking?

I wonder how Gov Otter sees the world, sometimes.

Idaho's newly rejuvenated Oil and Gas Commission, composed solely of the same elected officials as the Land Board, just voted to accept a hearing officer's recommendations in their entirety, no changes. They rejected a request by the Idaho Conservation League to include a rule that the developers can't inject fracking fluids that contain carcinogens.

Now, gee, that just seems like the most common-sense, reasonable rule ever, to me. Don't inject carcinogens into the ground where they could end up in a drinking water supply. But no, there is apparently no need for such a rule because

Kim Parsons, Bridge Resources’ explorations manager, said the rules as written and the company’s own practices will ensure its very limited fracking poses no threat to groundwater.

In other words, trust us, we won't do it, there's nothing to see here, move along. And that's good enough for the Commission.

Here's the part that makes me wonder what the Governor is thinking. BSU Radio reported that after the hearing, Otter turned to Justin Hayes of the ICL and said "Keep an eye on 'em." Hayes reportedly replied, "We could use a little help." The Commission totally rejects the ICL's proposals, but then Otter asks them to remain vigilant. I dunno; just seems odd to me. Diss a guy, reject his help, then ask for his help.

It must be said

I see and hear various proposals about how to lower the increasing cost of medical care, and I'd like to take issue with one of them. Because if you think about it, it just doesn't make sense, although it sounds good at first.

Reformers propose that health care move away from a fee for service based system. They say that it causes docs to do unnecessary and expensive procedures. Instead, they prefer to pay for a better outcome.

Well, I'll allow that everything else being equal, if a given dollars worth of treatment results in a better outcome, and thus patients needed less treatment, particularly, less follow up treatment, that could save money. But not likely.

If fewer patients were going to doctors, the doctors would just see more patients and earn the same money. Overall we might have a more healthy population, but that wouldn't necessarily result in lower health care costs.

See, doctors are going to modify their behavior to maintain their incomes. If their incomes stay the same, health care costs stay the same. I think that a hard truth is that health care providers are going to have to be paid less. It doesn't make sense that a doctor can schedule 3, 4, 5 or more procedures (surgery,primarily) every day and charge $5,000 for each. $15,000 to $25,000 a day.

They work hard, their education is expensive and difficult, and they sometimes make people feel better. They deserve a good living. But something has to give. 

The real problem with Medicare, Medicaid, and our growing budget deficit

Via: Medical Billing And Coding

Trickle down? Are you kidding me?

I was listening to a story on NPR yesterday about the recovery of the gulf coast after the BP oil spill. It focused on Panama City in Florida, and explored the effects of the spill on local tourism.  Business owners had been expecting a good year.

For Panama City, the spill and the downturn in tourism came just as the community was completing a makeover — with a bevy of new hotels and condos, the Pier Park complex and a brand new $300 million airport.

It was expected to be a banner year. When the spill hit, Thomas says, he was building a new restaurant. He was forced to put it on hold.

"I mean, we had projected some huge increases because of the airport. And I was in the process of doubling my business. That stopped it. That hurt. That impact will be felt for a long time," Thomas says.

Note that the expected boom was due to the new airport. That is, government spending on infrastructure. A new airport will bring in more travelers, which will increase the demand for hotels and restaurants. Thomas responded to the expected increased demand by building to accommodate it.

Here's how Republicans think it works. You take the same guy, Mr. Thomas, and you don't even look at the demand side of the equation. Only the supply side (that's why it's called supply side economics). You give Mr. Thomas a big tax cut, so he's got more money in his pocket. Republicans think that he'll take that extra money and expand his restaurant, just because he has the money to do it. When he expands he'll hire folks to work in it. And then he'll sit back and hope it draws in a bigger crowd.

That's not the way it actually works. A real business person will either expand to meet a current demand that they can't satisfy, or to meet an expected demand. Like the influx of new tourists that will accompany a new airport. If consumers have money to spend on travel and restaurants, they'll create the demand, which will lead to the expansion and jobs. If consumers have no money and don't travel, there will be no demand, and no expansion, and no new jobs.

Putting money in rich people's pockets doesn't lead to jobs. Putting money in the pockets of people who will spend it, like the middle and lower classes, will lead to jobs. Trickle down doesn't work. (See, Bush tax cuts and Great Recession). And even if it did, who wants just a trickle?

Now they'e just being mean

Governor Otter signed the bill requiring a bond if anyone wants to challenge the shipment of a megaload.  The point of the bill is to make it difficult to challenge those shipments by requiring a petitioner to put up 5% of the load's insured value.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution preserves the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Article I, Sec. 10 of the Idaho Constitution preserves the same right.  So it is a deeply held value that people ought to be able to challenge governmental actions.

The megaload bill goes against that value by making it more difficult to make such a challenge.  Yes, it is still possible to mount a challenge, but 5% can be a significant hurdle, easily thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

Some people object to the megaloads, for various reasons.  Since a test shipment knocked out power to 1,300 people in two towns and blocked traffic for an hour, a challenge might well be appropriate.

But, again, our legislature will tolerate no dissent or questioning of authority.  So they make it difficult for Idaho citizens to have some ability to affect the situation.  A lawsuit is difficult and expensive in the first place.  The bond requirement, which favors the huge corporations, such as ConocoPhillips*, involved in the shipments, clearly shows that the legislature favors corporate interests over those of its citizens.   Pretty clearly ConocoPhillips doesn't need the, to them, pittance represented by the bond.  It's not about helping the company, it's about keeping Idahoans in their place.Why do our legislators hate us?

*ConocoPhillips earned $1.9 billion in the 4th quarter of 2010, and ended the year with $10.4 billion in cash and short term investments.

Emergency bills

Well, our legislature rammed through its education reform over the protests of pretty much everyone involved, except its proponents.  I guess we'll see how it works out.  Seems a bit of a risky experiment with our kids and future workforce, but, what the hell.  You never know.  Maybe it'll be wonderful.  Sure glad my kids are done with K-12 education.

Anyway, now Gov. Otter is signing the bills making the education reform bills "emergencies."  The point being, of course, to stick a shiv in the effort to have a citizen referendum on the bills.  If my understanding is correct, the chief point of these emergency bills is to avoid delaying implementation of the reform bills, in the event that referendum supporters get enough signatures to force a referendum.

This seems pretty heavy-handed and contemptuous of many Idaho citizens.  Win at all costs.  Granted, Republican politicians won on the issue, but a good many citizens did not like it.  What's wrong with giving opponents a fighting chance to at least be heard?  You've heard the old (crude, so stop reading if you don't like it) saying:  You know why a dog licks his b***s?  Because he can.  The same rationale seems to apply to the legislature's passing of the emergency bills.  They really don't care about all Idaho citizens; they're just doing this because they can.

Race to the bottom

We're well on our way to either, depending on your politics, nirvana or Wingnuttistan.  This legislature enacted a hard right wing agenda, squelched dissent, and basically refused to allow any different views to be heard.  And of course, the incredible heartlessness displayed by making deep cuts to social services while refusing to even listen to arguments for raising more revenue.   What a fine bunch of fellows and gals Idahoans have elected. 

It's got to make Republicans proud.  Enacting unconstitutional laws, depriving vulnerable people of help and dignity, taking stupid and embarrassing shots at the federal government, that's our gang of leaders. One of my favorite moves by this anti-federal knot of toads was refusing to accept federal money to start to set up health insurance exchanges.

First, be sure to reject on pure ideological grounds something that will help Idaho citizens get health care (remember, the exchanges were a Republican idea initially).  And for good measure, lock into place a process that will end up having the feds come in and set one up for us.

The reasoning behind some these measures is breathtaking, and would make Socrates look like an ignorant first grader.  Example:  Brent Crane arguing that no exception to abortion restrictions  be allowed for rape and incestfor rape and incest because "the hand of the almighty is greater than ours" and perhaps that baby might turn out to be a good thing for the mother.  One weeps from the sheer beauty and compassion of such an argument, put forth by a mind so brilliant that the Capitol dome glowed every time Crane had a thought.

Enough snark, because it's only going to get worse.  Having been emboldened by this experience, next year will bring out more of the same.  After a closed primary and electing, presumably, even more conservative whack jobs, one can only gasp when contemplating what's to come and where Idaho is going.

I wonder, how bad will it have to get before voters start to reject the nonsense?  Is there any limit to the stupidity of the Idaho voter?  Maybe stupidity is too harsh.  Perhaps apathy is more descriptive.

Update:  Jeez, cleaned up some stupid grammar and typos.

Something's fishy

Something is rotten in Denmark.  Something doesn't add up.  This doesn't pass the sniff test. Whatever cliched phrase you want to use, but it just seems like there is more this story than has been reported.

The Idaho Republican Party sued the Idaho Secretary of State to force a closed primary, and won.  In his order in favor of the IRP, Judge Winmill did not order the state to pay attorney fees.  Nevertheless, the legislature just voted to pay $100,000 of the $120,000-ish in fees and costs claimed by the lawyer for the IRP.  That lawyer, Christ Troupis, says he took the case on a contingency fee basis, so that he'd get paid only if he won.  Since they won, the IRP sought fees.

Well, I've never heard of a contingency fee case that didn't involve a monetary recovery.  You know, 1/3 of any amount awarded for damages sustained, or whatever percentage.  Well, here there was no monetary recovery, just the ruling that the IRP could hold a closed primary.  No number upon which he could figure his fees.  Which is unusual, if not downright weird. 

Also, why would he do this?  Out of the goodness of his heart?  Because he knew the cause was just?  Because he was extremely confident of a win? 

Attorney fees is cases like this are not a gimmee.  They are discretionary.  That is, the judge may or may not award them.  And if they are awarded, they are often reduced.  I haven't seen the pleadings, so I can't say if they asked the judge for attorney fees.  Since the judge didn't award them, either they didn't ask, or they did and the judge refused. 

If they asked and were refused, the state ought not pay.  After all, that would be a ruling that the IRP wasn't entitled to the fees.  If they didn't even ask the judge for the fees, then why should the state pay?  Did they not ask because they thought they might lose?  If so, then this smells a lot like a fix was in.  Don't ask the judge and lose, just wait and we'll see that the good ol' boys in the legislature take care of you.  Is that what happened? 

It's possible that they did ask and the judge just punted on the issue; doesn't seem likely, though.

I smell a rat.

And so it becomes clear

After another year of cutting Idaho schools and aid to the poor and vulnerable, Idaho Republicans now seek to give tax cuts to corporations. Jeez. That's a pretty stark contrast. I'd think that Republicans would be embarrassed about doing this now, but I'm sure they don't think there's anything to be embarrassed about.

Marv Hagedorn says that history shows that the last five tax cuts caused the economy to soar.  I'm sorry Marv, but if you can believe that in this economy, after the huge Bush tax cuts, you're either stupid or so completely removed from reality and woefully ignorant as to be unqualified to be a legislator, or actually even to breath air. 

Marv, what color is the sky in your world?

Government shutdown; one local consequence

If Congress doesn't pass a budget by next Friday, and doesn't pass another Continuing Resolution, the government will "shut down."    Apparently, some of the Teabilly, Teahidist, Tealiban, Teabagger, Teatards, whatever term you prefer, Tea Party aficionados, are actually rooting for such an outcome.

Well, if it does "shut down," here's one local effect.  The Idaho National Guard drills on the weekend of April 9-10.  If the shut down happens, drill is cancelled, and rescheduled for some time after a budget is passed.  Not a huge deal, I guess, unless the soldiers and airmen and Marines have plans for the weekend to which the drill will be moved. 

A bigger deal is the soldiers here going through the training program on Gowen Field.  These guys are from out of town, going through a set program of instruction.  Well, their instructors can't work on the weekend if government is shut down.  So the student will either have to go home, or wait out the shut down.  But, can they wait it out?  They're not in a pay status, either, so they're waiting on their own dime. 

Can they go home?  Not sure.  Doubtful that they can legally incur the cost of a plane ticket, since the spending won't be authorized.

And, since the classes are pretty rigidly programmed, missing a day, and especially a few days, means they won't complete the training, and thus won't get the appropriate certification or credential.  Which means the training already completed is pretty much wasted.  And means they'll have to come back at some other time.  Since the schools are 2-3 weeks, depending, they'll have to work with their civilian employer to get even more time off the job.  And last, a good many of the soldiers require the training before getting promoted.  So advancement will be delayed.

Yep, that'll show us. Refuse to compromise and shut the government down to make a political point.  Exactly the right thing to do.  And if some soldiers get screwed as collateral damage, well, so be it.