The Statesman reports that BSU gets only 2/3s the funding that U of I gets. In the back and forth between proponents of the two universities, the UI folks tout their alleged academic superiority. Well, to the extent that's accurate, perhaps that extra 33% funding is a part of the reason.
I just think that the State Board has a UI tilt, and the legislature has an anti-Boise tilt, and put together, BSU suffers. As I've written before, I think over time the UI tilt will lessen.
The upcoming reapportionment should help move in the right direction by shifting legislators away from the sticks (Ha!) to Metropolis.
I'm kidding about the sticks; I was raised in a small SE Idaho town. I remember even then an anti-Boise feeling was widely shared around the state.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
It's a trick
As pointed out by Eric in a comment to my previous post, when Bill Clinton left office we were paying down the debt and would have had it paid off on a couple of years. But, the Bush tax cuts and wars exploded the deficit. And now it's allegedly the big issue. But it's a trick.
See, as soon as the Democrats get the economy and budget in good enough shape to generate some surplus to pay on the debt, Republicans wills squeal for tax cuts saying the government is taking too much of taxpayer money. Given the Republican political philosophy we will never pay down the debt. The ONLY way it will reduce will be a a percent of GDP. When Democrats grow the economy (and we know Republicans won't; look at history) it will make the current level of debt smaller in proportion to the whole.
Complaining about reducing the debt/deficit is really just code language for cutting government spending. Cutting spending might reduce annual deficits, but it won't reduce the level of debt. It could help slow the level of the debt increase.
Anyway, it's a trick. Republicans will never stand for paying down the debt. To them that's just stealing taxpayer money.
See, as soon as the Democrats get the economy and budget in good enough shape to generate some surplus to pay on the debt, Republicans wills squeal for tax cuts saying the government is taking too much of taxpayer money. Given the Republican political philosophy we will never pay down the debt. The ONLY way it will reduce will be a a percent of GDP. When Democrats grow the economy (and we know Republicans won't; look at history) it will make the current level of debt smaller in proportion to the whole.
Complaining about reducing the debt/deficit is really just code language for cutting government spending. Cutting spending might reduce annual deficits, but it won't reduce the level of debt. It could help slow the level of the debt increase.
Anyway, it's a trick. Republicans will never stand for paying down the debt. To them that's just stealing taxpayer money.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
They’re not serious, part 2
Republicans at both the state and federals are really riding the “no taxes – the deficit is just too damn high” horse these days. I think they over-interpreted the last election as constituting an electoral primal scream of hatred against government, and taxes = government.
This makes me a bit crazy. Because it’s disingenuous. Here’s how.
Rs are really pushing cutting government spending, but absolutely refuse to even discuss revenue measures, or if you like, raising taxes. To get the national debt down we’ve just got to cut spending. That’s pretty much the extent of their thinking.
But what did George Bush do the last time we were actually paying down the national debt? He cut taxes for the rich and destroyed the revenue source that was repaying the debt. And that’s the problem. Even if Obama managed to cut enough spending to free up enough revenue to pay down the debt (probably impossible), as soon as that happened Republicans would clamor for tax cuts, just like they did last time. They will never allow us to pay down the debt. It’s too useful a tool for them. As long as we have the national debt, Republicans will use it as an excuse to cut programs for the middle and lower classes.
Jim Risch did pretty much the same thing as Gov. Passed tax cuts, destroyed reliable revenue sources, and now the state government is withering on the vine.
It’s all just a smokescreen to enable Republicans to wage war on the middle class in favor of corporations and wealthy people.
This makes me a bit crazy. Because it’s disingenuous. Here’s how.
Rs are really pushing cutting government spending, but absolutely refuse to even discuss revenue measures, or if you like, raising taxes. To get the national debt down we’ve just got to cut spending. That’s pretty much the extent of their thinking.
But what did George Bush do the last time we were actually paying down the national debt? He cut taxes for the rich and destroyed the revenue source that was repaying the debt. And that’s the problem. Even if Obama managed to cut enough spending to free up enough revenue to pay down the debt (probably impossible), as soon as that happened Republicans would clamor for tax cuts, just like they did last time. They will never allow us to pay down the debt. It’s too useful a tool for them. As long as we have the national debt, Republicans will use it as an excuse to cut programs for the middle and lower classes.
Jim Risch did pretty much the same thing as Gov. Passed tax cuts, destroyed reliable revenue sources, and now the state government is withering on the vine.
It’s all just a smokescreen to enable Republicans to wage war on the middle class in favor of corporations and wealthy people.
I don't think they're serious
Recently the geniuses in the legislature turned down a $1.50 increase on fees assessed toward folks who plead to, or are found guilty of, a crime or misdemeanor. The fee was to help fund the Idaho State Police. Big objection? No new taxes.
There is much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in the legislature about trying to shrink government to get it in line with revenues, but they refuse to really look at any number of reasonable measures to save money. Example; privatize the liquor business and get the state out of it.
Here's the oversight that's currently bugging me; Dept. of Corrections. That is a huge chunk of the budget, and yet no effort is being made to reduce the number of folks behind bars. How about they reduce the penalties on victimless crimes, like drug possession? Perhaps impose ankle monitoring and let the non-violent offenders stay home. How about lowering the prison aspect of the penalty for DUI in cases where there is no accident and no one is hurt?
The crime rate is as low as it's been in 20 years, slowly dropping. So why isn't there any discussion of easing up on some of these severe penalties? They really aren't serious about solving our budget problem, is why.
There is much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in the legislature about trying to shrink government to get it in line with revenues, but they refuse to really look at any number of reasonable measures to save money. Example; privatize the liquor business and get the state out of it.
Here's the oversight that's currently bugging me; Dept. of Corrections. That is a huge chunk of the budget, and yet no effort is being made to reduce the number of folks behind bars. How about they reduce the penalties on victimless crimes, like drug possession? Perhaps impose ankle monitoring and let the non-violent offenders stay home. How about lowering the prison aspect of the penalty for DUI in cases where there is no accident and no one is hurt?
The crime rate is as low as it's been in 20 years, slowly dropping. So why isn't there any discussion of easing up on some of these severe penalties? They really aren't serious about solving our budget problem, is why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)