The Cost of Stimulus to Idaho...

There seems to always be a cost for everything, nothing I've found is really free. One of the costs that we here in the Capital just realized is that the stimulus bill will be costing Idaho citizens just to look at it.

A study was done many years ago that broke out what it costs the state for guys like me and all the support staffs to be here to make the decisions of the state. That number was around $30,000.00 per day or about $90k per month. I suspect that number is higher these days, but none the less the timing of the stimulus bill is going to keep the Legislature in session for a longer period. How long no one really knows, but we were on track to finish around the 3rd week of March. I would venture a guess that we've tacked on another 20 days at least with the potential for a special session later in the year. We are very likely to twist in the wind for a few more days while we continue to figure out just what parts of the stimulus we want and don't want. The Gov's direction to his departments is to get him their recommendations for their budgets by March 4th....

The Legislature was ready to start setting budgets this week, the delay in re-looking will delay that process and the staff and Legislators could be here through April and into May depending on what is selected to be put in the budgets and the reactions of the Legislators to those selections.

I'm not saying that we should not stay and do the state's business... but these costs all roll up into a big bill at the end of the year that you and I pay for with our taxes.

Nothing is ever free...

Thoughts?

The Idaho Stimulus...

Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"

We are trying to determine the current revenue rate of the state for 2010 to set our budget. As required by the Idaho Constitution, we are required to have a balanced budget at each year's end. Forecasted revenue for 2010 is down, way down and budget setting was to begin next week. That budget would be reflective of Idaho's economy and would become, as is the 2009 budget, the baseline for budgeting in 2011 and so on.

With the new stimulus package from Washington DC being set up for the Gov's office to request funds in the next 45 days, creates some issues. The Executive branch will have to understand what the 1100 page law now is and how to use those funds to meet the needs of Idaho, while not wrapping Idaho up with federal strings that typically come with "free money". But the Gov can not execute those funds unless they have been authorized by the Legislature (and in the stimulus bill, they kind of forgot to include that process).

We have put the normal budgeting process on hold to better understand just how the Legislative and Executive branches can most effectively and efficiently meld the funds into our process to move forward.

In my humble opinion, we need not knee jerk and do something silly before we truly understand the size of the tiger's tail we are about to grab. It makes sense to me to set our budget on what we know today and follow that up with a "stimulus supplemental" bill to keep the two separate. I don't think we will continue to get "socialist money" forever and need to ensure we are able to keep sight of what our true Idaho revenue and costs are to run our state.

One-time money rolled into our budget will cloud our process and our thinking.

Your thoughts?

The Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap...

In Idaho we have come to depend on hunting, fishing and trapping as a main form of control and management of species that the state is charged with managing. These actives not only provide that management and control opportunity, but provide economic and social benefits as well.

The economic benefit of these activities exceeds $5 billion each year in terms of stimulus of our local economies. Many rural communities are very dependant on those that visit their stores, hotels and cafes while partaking in these various activities.


Socially, our forefathers depended on the land to provide them subsistence and routinely this was a family or community activity that brought people closer together. Families still get together for fishing or hunting vacations that bonds those that are involved forever. Some of the fondest memories of my life were experienced with Moms and Dads, Aunts and Uncles and brothers and sisters while in the field hunting or fishing. These activities are an important cultural event that ties us together as Idahoans and has for generations.


I have worked with many people over the past few years trying to find a way to ensure that these activities will be protected for as long as we call this land Idaho. Hunting, fishing and trapping currently is not a right of the people, it's a privilege that is allowed by our state government.


In Europe and Asia, these privileges are now reserved for only the rich or the select few or not allowed at all. Those countries no longer have the cultural experiences that help to tie them to their lands and to their cultures because their governments have taken these privileges away.


I have introduced a bill, HJR002 (this is the 3rd bill I've been involved with) that will provide for the people of Idaho to vote in November on a state constitutional amendment that will create Hunting, Fishing and Trapping as a right of the people that will be treated like our 2nd amendment rights that can not be taken away except in cases where the individual has violated the trust of the state.


Of course, the state will still have management control over how these activities happen but if we ever experience a "perfect storm" of legislators and a governor that decides that these activities are no longer needed by "the state" we could loose these privileges like those countries that don't have protections.

Your thoughts?...

Local Option Taxes...

Lot's of rumblings around the Capital Annex these days regarding Local Option Taxes for targeted transportation and mass transit needs. We've got a couple of bills floating around that I suspect are or will be heard soon. (You can track or find bills up for adoption here)

I've listened to quite a number of folks about their desire to enable a community to tax themselves to fund infrastructure that the majority of the community feels are needed. I tend to agree with that, however, we need to ensure some pretty stiff sideboards are in place for spending these local community taxes and for the protection of the folks that will be paying them.

Currently, the taxes that are being focused on are local taxes to improve roads and public transportation. I've asked everyone that seems to support this tax what their incentive is for such a tax. By far the most consistent answer is "because our local transportation infrastructure needs fixed and we can do that with a local tax".

I love Idahoans, we don't hesitate to step up and take on issues that just need fixing, but in this instance, I think our focus is short sighted.

We currently provide tax Dollars to the Idaho Department of Transportation through our fuel taxes, registrations and a number of other revenue means that are to be focused on our transportation infrastructure. I've described the Highway Distribution fund in other blogs, and it's this fund that is currently the funding source that is to be used to fix those problems that we all see everyday.

If you were running a company that had a department that was "under performing, not meeting their goals" would you be better off still providing funds for that department while starting another department to fix the problems of the first couldn't seem to handle? Of course not, you would first focus on the under performing department and find the roadblocks keeping that team from meeting their goals.

We have a department that is charged with constructing, managing and maintaining our public transportation systems in Idaho. From airports to highways, ports to public mass transit systems... shouldn't our focus be on the team charged to spend our tax money today on the issues that are of most interest to us? Ensure they are as effiecient as possible before we look at increasing tax Dollars to be spent by that department?

If we decide to go down the road to tax ourselves with a Local Option tax to "fix our roadways or improve our public transportation systems", were do you think that new tax money will go? It will go to the same folks that are currently charged with that task now... what's the real gain?

Putting a band aid on a broken arm will not heal the arm, it will just make you feel better that there is at least something there... the arm is still broken, it will heal, but never be as good as it was. Throwing more tax Dollars at a system that is not efficiently spending those Dollars will do nothing more than continue to empty our pockets while still not making effective use of our hard earned money.

ITD is the third largest department in the state with a huge task of managing all of our transportation needs... the laws governing/restricting how they do that (legislative), policies directing the department (executive) and leadership and management of how they address the issues (The Commission) all need some "tweaking" to ensure our Department can be focused on the needs of the citizens of the State.

One can't blame the department or the legislature or the executive branch as the root cause of our problems, but all of us are part of the roadblocks to getting the department operating at an efficiency where we would not need more tax dollars to allow them to meet the goals that we have set for them. We are so focused at being reactionary to the lack of funding to meet required demands, we are not being proactive in looking at other ways to meet those demands.

I have yet to see a tax in our great State go away once it's enabled. It sure seems to be easier for our government to increase taxes than it is to ensure government is effeciently spending those Dollars in the first place... our first reactions seem to be to throw more money at the problems and hope they go away.

We have a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget at the State level, how would this work with a local taxing district managed by a non-elected board? Who would hold them accountable for the use of the people's money? Shouldn't we focus on how our money is spent today before we just assume throwing more money at an issue will solve our problems and raise more taxes?

Sideboards on Local Option taxes are extremely important if we are going to use them... using them as a band aid covering up larger issues, in my opinion, would we way outside any sideboards we could set.

Your thoughts?

District 20 Legislative Predictions...

If you haven’t already done so, go down and take a look at the old Ada County Courthouse. I think you’ll like what you see.

The historic structure was a mess only a few months ago. But workers cleaned it up, reworked it from the inside and now it’s ready to go for the 2008 and 2009 sessions. It will be the place we call home while he Capitol receives a facelift.

The quarters at the old courthouse will be much tighter; for instance, we don’t have room for a gallery on the House side. But I think it will work out well for the next two years. It’s good to see this wonderful old building come back to life. And it’s good to know that the structure will be useful to state government after the Capitol renovation has been completed.

Although we will be working out of "new" quarters in 2008, we will be facing some of the same "old" issues that surfaced in 2007 -- namely the grocery and personal property taxes. Both should be abolished in my opinion, and there are discussions about ways to accomplish that. One idea I’ve heard is phasing out the taxes over a five year period to avoid any kind of a major hit on the State's budget.

Last year, the House passed some good bills to provide broad-based relief from the grocery tax and took a progressive step toward ending the personal property tax on business operators, but there were disagreements as those bills progressed through the Senate. Hopefully we can come to reasonable compromises and move a strong bill through the Governor's office that will be acceptable to the people of Idaho.

Transportation -- again -- will be a hot issue this session. We have heard talk about raising car-registration fees and/or raising the fuel taxes, nothing is off the table at this point. I invite constituents in District 20 to share your thoughts on this issue. We have a lot of demands for construction, and not enough dollars. I want my votes on this issue to reflect the views of the people of District 20. I am serving on the Transportation and Defense Committee, so I will be in the middle of discussions about all of these issues.

I will be pushing hard to ensure funding for the construction of the 10 mile interchange project. It's currently within the proposed GARVEE ~$135 million bill coming from the Dept of Transportation along with some other smaller projects, it's possible we won't pass this GARVEE bill due to these other projects. I've asked many times for the Department to ensure they have something as a back up for this critical project.

I’m also going to be working with Rep. Tom Trail of Moscow and Sen. Brad Little of Emmett on a bill relating to dog fighting. Although dog fighting is not prevalent in Idaho, we need to send a strong statement that makes it clear the practice is not acceptable in Idaho and allow our state Prosecutors to cross state lines to retrieve offenders that might not get that message.

I’m looking forward to a productive session, and not as short as many are predicting. If you have any comments or concern about any legislative issue, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

And if you visit the old courthouse during the session, please stop by and say hello.