Fruit is Ripe, but...

... the market just won't support the picking.

Many times we refer to legislation as being like fruit, it's either ripe and ready to harvest (pass) or it's just "not ripe" (good idea, but not quite ready yet). We have a very different case this legislative session, the "fruit is ripe, but the economic conditions don't warrant or support the picking."

I believe most House members feel a good case has been made for more funding of some type to ensure proper maintenance and preservation of our transportation investment needs to be done. The issue, is and has been, that we are in a recession (close to depression) where raising taxes is just not a prudent move for the folks trying to make ends meet and recover. We must consider the residents of Idaho before we consider increasing funding state government with their money.

The House has respected each and every VETO the Governor has presented us on bills that we (both the House and Senate) thought were in the best interest of the State. We would expect the same respect for our votes, based on the input from our constituents on new gas taxes.

We all know that the need is there, we also know that our folks are telling us that now is just not the time. We have done our best to reflect the desires of the majority of the folks we represent, now it's time to finish the business of the State and quit spending the people's money for no reason other than political posturing. We see no reason to continue down a road with no end, as the Governor has spoken with his stamp, so has the House with their votes on fuel taxes. It's time to move on and consider alternatives.

We worked hard and long today to ensure we provided the Senate and the Governor with everything they need to wrap up this session. We have provided alternatives, some in the bills we've sent to the Senate that are either still pending or that we sent today for transportation. Does it reach the bar the Governor set? No, and we all know that... sometimes you just have to accept the fact that even though you believe the fruit is ripe, it just might not be a good season to pick.

The House has completed the work required for operation of the State during the worst economy since WWII. We believe spending anymore of the people's money to keep us here for taxes that we all just can't agree upon would be a waste of their hard earned money. We've decided it's time to move on instead of trying to pick fruit that just won't sell.

Your thoughts?

Roads and Your $$$$...

I've talked before about how our Highway Distribution Account (HDA) works and the taxes we pay that go into it, fuel and registration taxes. The Federal fuel taxes also flow into our HDA that we use to take care of our road, air and rail transportation infrastructure.

I used to believe that all taxes went into a big bucket and were doled out by the politicians based on their power and who they needed to get votes from... I've had a lot of tax education from those days and know that's not the case. In Idaho, most taxes are user fees related to the use of the infrastructure involved in that activity.

There are no general fund taxes used for transportation. General funds come from sales tax, individual income tax (these two alone comprise about 90% of state general funds), corporate tax and other misc fees. These General funds are then spread out over Health and Welfare, Education (K-12 and Higher Ed), Corrections, Veterans Services... the list goes on. They are not used for the Department of Fish and Game or the Department of Transportation, these two departments use only what are called "dedicated funds" that come from user fees or taxes and federal funds based upon user fees or taxes.

Because of the reduction in sales taxes and personal income, revenue for the General fund is down, thus funds available for those departments will also be down, their budgets reduced.

The Department of Transportation has experienced inflation costs with building materials over many years without us addressing their revenue stream (fuel taxes and registration fees). We requested a Performance Audit last year that revealed some things that the department and the legislature needed to do in order to ensure we got the biggest bang for the buck in the future.

We do need to make some adjustments in the revenue provided to ITD so that they can better plan maintenance and preservation activities as well as do those activities. They are currently in the mode of fixing "worst first" and not doing preventive maintenance due to the lack of funding available. They do not have a preventive maintenance planning program for our roads that went by the wayside when getting a new financial software system. They need some new software tools to be able to better schedule and perform preventive work instead of being reactive only to work as our infrastructure fails.

Now the big question: How much do they need? There are quite a few numbers being kicked around and how to create that revenue from various forms of increased fees and taxes. Some of those forms take 5 years to implement, some only 1 year. We have heard from a number of lobbyist's, the Governor's office and, of course ITD on the issue, but we've only heard from one... yes just one citizen on the issue in committee. Mr Hart, a precinct chairman in District 19 took the time yesterday to testify before the committee about what he is hearing from the folks in his precinct. That was refreshing and needed.

Of course we get emails and phone calls from citizens saying to invest in the infrastructure and to raise no taxes at all...

I would love to hear from you as would all of the members of the Transportation and Defense Committee in the House. Let us know your thoughts and how you feel we should best proceed. This infrastructure belongs to you, you pay for it's upkeep and for the people that do that upkeep... how would you proceed?

Let us hear from you.

Are Taxes Based on a Real Need?...

We had an interesting briefing today with ITD and the Governor's office requesting an increase of $200M for additional needs for "transportation" and $134M for additional (to the$450M already approved) GARVEE funding. This is a hard pill to swallow (as I've written about in previous posts) without understanding the real need and where these funds will and are going towards.

Let's just consider the $200M of "New Money" requested (and by the way, that means additional taxes or fees of $143 per man, woman and child of our state). Some of us are asking how this need was determined. Was it vetted through a public comment process where the public would understand the project and the costs to them of the highways, overpasses or public transport systems being recommended to them?

I'm wondering if we are now in an era where we can use communication tools like the Internet and other tools where the public could be better educated about the costs associated to their choices. If a pollster were to ask me if I would like to have a really nice 6 lane highway, I would likely say "sure!"... but if asked that same question while also telling me that it will cost me another $143 per year for every member of my family for the rest of our lives, I would have to reconsider and ask for other options...

There was some polling of citizens was done prior to the Legislative session asking our folks if they would approve of increased registration fees to add money to our transportation funding, 52% approved of that. I suspect that had they known that the bill they were looking at funding was $200M and their share was $143/person... the results would have come out just a bit differently. I wonder why that wasn't part of the question asked in the poll?...

I don't disagree that ITD needs more funding to meet it's current commitments, I just have to ask if those commitments are really meeting the needs of the people and if the people understand the costs of what they are now signed up for... are those commitments really the requirements?

Your thoughts?

A Road Less Traveled....

As I was returning to my office this morning from the Urban Land Institute meeting in the Grove Hotel I noticed something. After a full morning of discussions regarding how we are going to fund more transportation infrastructure (i.e. raising this tax or that fee) I suddenly realised that I seemed to be going almost twice as fast going back to the office at 11:00 am than when I came to the meeting at 7:30 am...

We discussed local option sales tax increases of up to 1 cent, increasing registrations, increasing fuel taxes, increasing property taxes... the "increasing" discussions seemed to be never ending. Everyone seemed to have a plan to fix our woes with some sort of increased taxes. We know that we have issues that need to be funded, but it was not until Gov. Otter's Chief of Staff (Jeff Malman) got up and mentioned that we are now also working on how we can better spend the dollars we do have... I know it's easier to just raise a tax here or there and throw money at the issue, but if we are not spending the money we have wisely, aren't we putting a band aid on the real problems?

Getting back to my drive back to the office... why was it that I had a much easier commute back to Meridian later in the day than I had to Boise in the Morning? Well anyone and everyone knows it's because we all need to get to work in the morning and then come home at night at about the same time.

This lead me to think that we might also have "social engineering" issue that compounds our infrastructure issue. Why do we all (repeat... ALL) need to use our roads at the same time? Typically it's due to local business desires to have their folks change shift or start their work day all about the same time.

We do have infrastructure issues that need funding and we are going to have to find those dollars somehwere. Within the mix of "increased tax solutions" that are on the table, shouldn't we consider some "social engineering solutions" as well? Just how much would it cost the state to provide incentives to business encouraging/requiring "flex" hours or a change their shift schedules to times outside of the standard morning and evening commutes? Can we compare this cost of influencing our social behavior to the millions we are talking about spending for (in the Treasure Valley) 4 to 5 hour period each day that our roads are jammed with traffic... ?

As an example, how many people at Micron alone are beside us in traffic the mornings trying to get to work? What if a company the size of Micron were to move their shift change from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm to say... 9:00 am to 9:00 pm? And what if they were to encourage their normal "8 - 5'rs" into a more flexible schedule? That single action alone could take thousands of cars out of the early morning and evening commutes and spread the higher utilization of the roadways over a larger period of time. Less time commuting means less impact on our air quality, better fuel economy and happier drivers.

Employers aren't going to resolve our lack of funding issues, but do play a major role in why we have traffic issues at certain times of every day. I hate to see us pay for and build a huge infrastructure that will only be flexed 4 to 5 hours of every day because we choose to be inflexable in our travel requirements.

We need to put some "social engineering" options on that table to resolve our transportation issues... it's going to take a package of things, this needs to be one that's considered.

Thoughts?

Sen. Larry Craig made a bad call...

I hate to say it, but it's true and he is totally aware of that now... and thanks to a tremendous amount of media coverage, so are we.

Here is an Idahoan that has dedicated over 27 years of his life to public service... and he made a "bad call" in the airport when he plead guilty to ridiculous charges in the hopes that the issue would not be blown out of proportion and would go away.



I only spent 20 years in public service in the Navy where I too made a few "bad calls". Calls I wish I would not have made in hindsight, but calls that I still had to live with and recover from while still doing my best at my job.

It always seemed at the time "one bad call" wiped out all those "atta-boys" that were so seldom recognized as it was... Until there was another issue for my peers to focus on, when the "bad call spotlight" would turn and focus on someone else, all the "brew-ha-ha" just seemed not so important to them anymore.

Have we have become a nation of living for what's important only in the next second?...

I can tell you that in my 20 years I moved 21 times and when I retired, I came back home to Idaho $20,000.00 in debt, only with a 1972 Chevy pickup & camper to my name. I spent what most believe are one's "most productive business" years in public service, but I wasn't poor... no, I can't think of a better place to serve, make such a difference, gain life long friends and get such great training for only $1,000.00 per year...

Larry Craig's has not dedicated his "most productive business years" serving the public interest to get rich. I appreciate his initiative and his families sacrifice, even more so now. One doesn't stay that long in public office in Idaho or Washington D.C. without being effective at what he does.

I'm sure he is not a monetarily rich man, he sacrificed that in lieu of other "riches". He has enriched not only his life by his accomplishments, but the lives of all Idahoans through the huge differences he's made in shaping our state and our nation governments over those 27 years. Have we always agreed? No, but I am very grateful for his dedicated service, he stepped up and always did what he thought was best, regardless of the criticism.

I hope he finishes his "tour" and continues to make the best "calls" he can for our state. I am sure that history will treat him well... He is deserving of that, despite "one bad call"...

Thoughts?