From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The Club for Growth each year conducts a comprehensive examination of every lawmaker’s voting record on economic matters and pro-growth policies.

In Idaho’s congressional delegation, Rep. Bill Sali received the “Defender of Economic Freedom” award from CFG for a voting record of 98 out of 100, and ranked 9th in the House of Representatives overall.

Said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, of the six Senators and 49 Representatives who received the award for a score of 90 or more, “These top-scoring members of Congress are staunch defenders of American taxpayers. Their votes are critical to lowering taxes, cutting wasteful spending, and promoting economic growth for all Americans.

Sen. Larry Craig and Sen. Mike Crapo graded out in the 70s, with Craig’s 76 ranking him 22nd among all senators and Crapo’s score of 70 putting him in 26th place.

Rep. Mike Simpson brought up the rear, with a grade of just 47, placing him in 162nd place among members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The ratings are based on congressional votes on key economic issues, such as making the Bush tax cuts permanent, repealing the death tax, cutting government spending, entitlement reform, free trade, tort reform, replacing the current tax code, school choice and reforming government regulation.

The Club For Growth - Congressional Scorecard

The Club For Growth - Senate Scorecard

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Michigan passed a marriage amendment in 2004 co-authored by our good friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan.

As Idaho’s 2006 marriage amendment does, it prohibits government recognition of homosexual relationships for the purpose of employment benefits.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the amendment does not allow for the extension of taxpayer-funded benefits to the unmarried “domestic partners” of state and municipal employers.

The Idaho Attorney General’s office has already concluded that the Moscow City Council’s recently enacted policy of granting health insurance benefits to “domestic partnerships” - widely heralded in the national gay press as a triumph for the homosexual agenda - is contrary to the Idaho constitution, and said that the city would lose if its policy were challenged in court.

The Moscow City Council defiantly reaffirmed its policy after the AG’s office issued its findings, essentially daring the Attorney General to take the city to court. If Attorney General Lawrence Wasden does not initiate legal action against Moscow, the city is likely to get away with this flagrant disregard for the constitution, and it will not be long before other state entities - the University of Idaho, Boise State University, the city of Boise - follow suit.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

Idaho has a contested race for the Supreme Court this month – but the lack of attention this very important race has received is more than surprising: It is actually part of the plan.

Many in Idaho’s “ruling class” prefer to be in charge of the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the Idaho Constitution provides us, the People, with sole authority for deciding who should sit on the state’s highest court. The last thing these elites want is a high-profile election contest in which candidates are fully scrutinized by the public.

Justice Joel Horton is the pseudo-incumbent in this race. He was appointed by Governor Otter after the duly-elected incumbent resigned early in order to manipulate the choices presented to the public at the May 27th Primary. A select panel chose Horton. The masses were left to wonder who this guy was – and whether he would prove a blessing or curse.

We can thank John Bradbury, his challenger, for at least forcing the issue, for getting some information out to voters.

Both candidates responded to the Gem State Voter Guide – organized by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance and co-sponsored by this organization — and we can now offer you some idea as to who these people are.

The two candidates are separated by their identification with U.S. Supreme Court justices. Both were asked which current Justice “most reflects your judicial philosophy”. Incumbent Justice Joel Horton named Antonin Scalia.

The challenger, Lewiston Judge John Bradbury, identified (former) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. No person in modern times has done more damage to families and preborn children than former justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has concocted more bizarre case law to defend legalized abortion than any member of the court. Presumably candidate Bradbury is well familiar with her activism and finds her elitist notions of the judiciary to be quite appealing.

This may not be much information, but it might be all we get.

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has not made a formal endorsement in this race – but it seems clear that John Bradbury should be disqualified by Idaho voters in the May 27th Primary.

There are other interesting responses by these gentlemen that are worth your scrutiny: Gemstate Voter Guide

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Congressman Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali voted today for lower gas prices by promoting domestic oil production and energy independence.

The vote occurred during a House Natural Resource Committee hearing in which Sali supported an amendment that would have promoted development of American crude oil and allowed drilling on about 2,000 acres of “Section 1002″ lands in Alaska. The area was originally set aside for energy development by President Carter. The lands are near, but separate from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“Americans are paying, on average, $3.62 a gallon at the pump, and by early summer, we’re going to be at $4.00 per gallon. The time for Congress to act is far past due. My vote today for increasing American production reflects a commitment to my constituents to lower the price of their gas,” said Sali.

The amendment to H.R. 3094 offered by Congressman Young (R-AK) failed in committee by a vote of 18-12.

“This is Economics 101. We have higher demand than our crude oil supply can meet. That is why crude oil prices are at record levels. To lower the price at the pump and to break our addiction to foreign energy, we must increase production of American crude oil, not stifle it. Today the Democrats chose to stifle it by voting to continue the ban on development of this American oil source,” said Sali.

“More than 2 years ago, Nancy Pelosi claimed, ‘Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices…’ Unfortunately, the Democrats have apparently chosen to keep their plan a secret. Gas will likely be $4.00 per gallon soon. Unfortunately the Democrats continue to vote against efforts to increase supplies and relieve the gas prices.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Congressman Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – During today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, Congressman Bill Sali asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff key questions about the relationship between immigration and national security.

“Keeping Idaho and our country safe is one of my most fundamental concerns, and my dialog with Sec. Chertoff was about how our immigration policy is affecting the security of our nation,” Sali said. “Americans deserve the assurance that the travel documents used to enter our country are secure and have not been compromised. I wanted a firsthand, public report from our Homeland Security Secretary.”

Sali also questioned the Secretary on issues concerning illegal immigrants.

“There are concerns that the ‘Matricular Consular’ cards issued by the Mexican government could be used by illegal aliens within our borders to obtain benefits that should only be available to our citizens or legal residents,” said the Congressman. “This is unacceptable and an abuse of the generosity of taxpayers in the Gem State and throughout the country.”

Specifically, Sali asked Chertoff, “Do you have any security concerns specifically with the use of the Matricula Consular card, Passport card, and the Nexus, Sentri, and FAST card? If so, what specific security concerns do you have and what is the Department of Homeland Security doing to rectify your concerns with these travel identification cards?”

Chertoff responded today that he can’t vouch for the security of the Matricula Consular card but agreed to respond to Sali’s other questions in writing.

Sali raised these questions in light of recent news of a Mexican Consulate being located in Boise and the recent focus on the security of American travel documents. Sali recently introduced H.R. 5752, a bill to require that key components of American Passports and Passport cards be made and assembled within the United States. Cosponsors of the measure include former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and current Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Colin Peterson (D-MN).

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The Idaho constitution provides that the justices who sit on the Idaho Supreme Court are to be elected, not appointed.

A disturbing trend has developed in recent years in which sitting justices retire early so that their successors are selected by the Idaho Judicial Council (IJC) rather than the voters, thus circumventing the very constitution these justices have sworn to uphold.

The IJC interviews the applicants and forwards between two and four names to the governor, who appoints one from that short list. Noticeably absent from this cluster of decision-makers are the voters who are supposed to be entrusted with this choice.

Thus when a newly appointed justice stands for re-election, he does so as an incumbent, which is an enormous advantage at the ballot box. In general, the re-election rate of incumbents is extremely high; in Congress, for example, incumbents are re-elected well over 90% of the time.

In Idaho, elections for judicial offices are held in conjunction with the primary election, which means Idahoans will be voting for two seats on the Idaho Supreme Court on May 27 rather than in November.

Warren Jones and Joel Horton were both appointed last summer in place of early retirees Gerald Schroeder and Linda Copple Trout.

Jones is running unopposed for re-election, but Justice Horton has drawn an election challenge from John Bradbury.

Both Horton and Bradbury were kind enough to return the Gem State Voter Guide questionnaire, and we have posted their answers to the first section of the questionnaire, which pertains to the important issue of judicial philosophy.

(Technical problems have delayed posting the second section of the questionnaire, which deals with specific provisions in the state constitution. It will be posted once the technical problems have been resolved.)

Their answers on judicial philosophy are illuminating, and we urge you to forward this Daily Update to as many friends as possible for that reason. Voters often fly blind when voting for justices, but these candidates’ have shown a commendable willingness to let voters know the kind of approach they will bring to the bench if elected.

It turns out that voters will have a clear choice of judicial philosophy between Horton and Bradbury.

Both agree with the sentiments of Idaho’s founders, who were “grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.” The words in quotes are found verbatim in the very first sentence of Idaho’s state constitution, and it’s gratifying to see that both justices are willing to publicly acknowledge God and to recognize him as the source of the great gift of liberty that citizens of Idaho enjoy.

But on the critical issue of whether the state constitution is to be approached as a “living document” or whether a judge ought to bring a “strict constructionist” view to it, voters face distinct alternatives here. On a scale of 1-10, with “1″ being “living document” and “10″ being “strict constructionist,” Horton gives himself a “10,” while Bradbury circled both “5″ and “6,” putting himself right in the middle of that sliding scale.

We asked the candidates, on a scale of 1-5, to rate their agreement with the following statement: “A judge’s role is to interpret and apply the law, not make it.” Horton circled “1,” indicating the strongest possible agreement with a limited role for judges, while Bradbury circled “2,” giving himself some latitude to legislate from the bench.

These differences in philosophy were confirmed in their choice of a favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Horton selected Antonin Scalia, who is renowned as an opponent of judicial activism and a proponent of strict construction, while Bradbury picked Sandra Day O’Connor, who developed a well-deserved reputation as a swing vote on the court, occasionally siding with the originalists on the Court and at other times with the “living document” and activist crowd.

(On the choice of a U.S. president who “best represents your political philosophy,” Bradbury chose Harry Truman while Horton declined to answer on the grounds that his role as a judge is an apolitical one.)

So the bottom line is that voters on May 27 will have a clear choice when it comes to this particular seat on the Idaho Supreme Court. If they vote for Justice Horton, they will be casting a vote for an originalist view of the constitution and a strict construction of its intent, with the role of a judge limited to applying the plain meaning of the constitution and the law.

If, on the other hand, they vote for Mr. Bradbury, they will be casting a vote for a view of the constitution that tends to see it as a “living document” whose meaning must change and adapt to changes in society, a view which gives more latitude to a justice to use the power of his position to rewrite legislation that he finds out of harmony with the times.

Gem State Voter Guide: Idaho Supreme Court - Horton v. Bradbury

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Last week in celebrating Earth Day, I mentioned that many of the tenets of the environmental movement make sense. Recycling and conservation of nature are logical activities that we should all be engaged in. Moreover, reducing our dependence upon foreign sources of carbon-based fuels is consistent with our national security interests.
Since we have no viable option now available to supplant our dependence on oil, all we can hope to do is reduce our consumption, and do all we can to expand supply by accessing the resource everywhere it is feasibly possible. If we don’t, the amount we pay for gas every month may soon rival our mortgage as our largest monthly budgetary outlay.

Energy independence and finding alternative means to quench our thirst for energy to maintain our high standard of living is prudent. But to mistake such individual or collective prudence for “saving the planet” is a non sequitur. There is no scientific basis for equating riding bikes to saving the polar bears.

If “going green” were less a matter of politics and religious zeal and were based more fully on science and economics we could all collaborate more effectively. Instead, it seems to be more founded in a “feel good” mentality that makes people who drive hybrid cars think they are saving the planet, or that by banishing the incandescent light bulb people are staving off the destruction of the planet due to global warming.

Our energy challenges are actually exacerbated by those who sensationalize the issue of global warming. They are compounded by a nearly universal effort on the part of media to make an illogical connection between proper and wise use of natural resources, and saving the planet from the global warming threat. By making that connection, the discussion of wise use of such resources is corrupted, as well as solutions to real problems that we can address.

Climate change has always existed, and will always be here, whether we’re here or not, or whether we’re emitting 34 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere or not. But when the cadre of global warming alarmists claims the debate is closed, and threatens us with cataclysmic events if we don’t change our consumption habits, the issue passes from the realm of possibilities to the realm of the absurd. Those who claim we have to limit our “carbon footprint” to save the polar bears fall into the same illogic of absurdity. We exhale CO2 for heavens sake! If they are so worried about their carbon footprint they should make the ultimate commitment to save the earth and just stop exhaling.

As if the missing scientific proof wasn’t enough, the cacophony of media reports ascribing natural anomalies to global warming is enough to turn daily news reports into funny papers. I recently came upon a website that includes hundreds of links to media stories blaming everything under the sun to global warming. It’s as if the mainstream media has finally realized the George Bush is not going to be on the ballot in November, so they’ve decided to blame everything on natural global temperature fluctuation instead of him.

Following is an abbreviated list of such anomalies and natural conditions that have recently been blamed on global warming: acne, end of the American dream, amphibians breeding earlier, amphibians breeding later, anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, animals head for the hills, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, anxiety treatment, Atlantic ocean less salty, Atlantic ocean more salty, Atlantic ocean cooler, Atlantic ocean warmer, attack of killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, bananas growing larger, bananas growing smaller, beer shortage, better beer, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds confused, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, brains shrink, bridge collapse in Minneapolis, buildings collapse. The list goes on and on.

In short, it’s very hard to take seriously a movement that ascribes every anomaly, aberrant behavior, global crisis, and unique occurrence to one cause, namely, global warming. But even the name had to be changed since the earth has cooled over the past 10 years. Now they call it climate change, even though it’s all still blamed on global warming. Those who buy in don’t seem to care whether their explanations are logical or not, but it fits the narrative for a sense of self-importance to “save the planet.”

A reality based discussion of energy usage is critical in our time. To cloud this discussion with nonviable emotional and unscientific theories does nothing to lower the cost of gas or the cost to heat our homes. Our strategy for future energy usage must be based on economic realities of current available energy sources not on nonviable or hypothetical non-existent technology. A healthy dose of reality must be infused into the discussion if we’re going to make it through this together.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali successfully fought Wednesday to protect the private property rights of Americans.

Sali, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, offered an amendment during a committee markup on H.R. 3667, the Missisquoi and Trout Rivers Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2007.

Mr. Sali’s amendment would require that a study for a Wild and Scenic River designation take into account the impacts the designation would have on private property. These findings would then be reported to Congress.

“It is unacceptable when government action lowers private property values without compensation. Congress must make every effort to recognize and protect private property rights,” said Sali

“Whether these federal restrictions and zoning mandates restrict private property rights in Vermont or Idaho, Congress must make the greatest effort possible to protect these inherent rights. While this amendment does not go far enough to protect property owners along the river, the Park Service will not be able to deny our intent to see that property rights are considered. It is my hope that this directs them in the course of their study to engage and consult with property owners.”

The amendment was unanimously adopted.

“Wild and Scenic River designations often lead to down-zoning and loss of property value. This amendment gives the study committee direction and puts them on notice that property rights will not be taken lightly in this committee.”

H.R. 3667 will next be considered on the House floor.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

We often hear that divorce and unwed childbirths are nobody’s business, and especially that the government should just keep its nose out of such matters.

And perhaps those who make such an argument would have a point if family fragmentation imposed no impact on society at large, and if public resources did not have to be allocated to mitigate that impact.

But, as a recent report produced by the Institute for American Values reveals, family fragmentation most definitely is the government’s business, since it costs government at all levels $112 billion a year (over $1 trillion each decade) to deal with the severe consequences of marital breakups and out-of-wedlock births.

(Currently, more than 25% of white babies are born out of wedlock, as are 46 percent of Hispanic babies and an astonishing 69 percent of African-American babies. Divorce rates remain high today compared to rates prior to 1970, and Idaho’s divorce rate is more than 40% higher than the national average.)

These costs arise as lawmakers are forced to spend taxpayer funds to cope with poverty, crime, and educational challenges linked to the breakdown in the nuclear family. Further, government loses revenue because of lower levels of taxes paid by individuals who earn less as adults because they have grown up in poverty.

When parents divorce or fail to marry in the first place, their children suffer from an increased risk of poverty, mental illness, juvenile delinquency (due to loss of family stability and parental supervision), sexual abuse, substance abuse, educational failure and teen pregnancy.

The social costs of divorce and unwed childbearing are enormous, as lawmakers must grapple with higher rates of crime, drug abuse, illness, welfare expenditures, remedial education programs, day-care subsidies, child-support collection costs, and the increased cost of foster care and child protection services.

We must not think Idaho is immune from these pressures. The study indicates that Idaho taxpayers must spend $127 million a year to deal with family fragmentation right here in the Gem State, including an impact of $60 million on the criminal justice system alone.

Foregone revenue, Medicaid, SCHIP and child welfare costs make up the other $57 million.

A single-parent household headed by a female is the greatest single predictor of poverty, while at the same time, marriage has been proven to be the greatest single poverty-reducing mechanism in society.

In fact, almost all of the increase in poverty observed among divorced mothers is traceable directly to the divorce. Less than one percent of women and children live in poverty if their first marriage is intact, while 24 percent of divorced women with children are living in poverty.

This study estimates that if marriage would reduce the poverty rate among female-headed households by a reasonably expected amount, we could reduce the number of Idaho children living in poverty by almost 33 percent, and reduce the overall poverty rate in the state by 30 percent. (Some estimates in the literature suggest reductions of 65-80 percent.)

In other words, the most compassionate thing we can do for Idaho’s women and children is to strengthen the institution of marriage.

Eliminating unilateral “no-fault” divorce in favor of “mutual consent” divorce would be one step in this direction. It would raise the bar for the institution of marriage in Idaho, as it would send the message to Idahoans that we take marriage seriously in this state, and we will expect you to honor the sacred commitment you make in marriage just as we expect you to honor much lesser commitments, such as the commitment you make when you take out a mortgage on your house or lease a car.

“Mutual consent” divorce would also give “innocent” victims of an unwanted divorce some legal protection and bargaining power in the dissolution process, whereas currently they have none. And it would minimize government intrusion into family breakups, since, in a mutual consent divorce, these matters would be worked out between the couple before they ever come into court.

When “no fault” divorce was added to Idaho code (in 1970), marriage became the only social contract in which the state guarantees a legal victory to the individual who wants to break a contract without cause. Certainly we can and must do better.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter sent today, Congressman Bill Sali asked Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to delay opening a Mexican consulate in Boise until the government can assure Idahoans that a consulate will not foster the continued presence of illegal aliens in Idaho. The letter follows a meeting Sali had with senior State Department officials in which the Department’s bureaucrats expressed considerably more concern about whether the consular office would follow local zoning laws than whether it would aid people in breaking federal immigration laws.

“Our government has the moral and constitutional duty to take into consideration how foreign consulates affect our fellow citizens here in our own country,” said Sali. “While I appreciate the important role that the Mexican and other foreign consulates play in facilitating trade and assisting their citizens in distress, just as our foreign consulates do, that is not the issue at stake. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of State seems unconcerned with the controversy surrounding the issuance of certain forms of identification that may be useful to illegal aliens in hiding their illegal status. It makes sense to me to put on the brakes on approving a new consulate until these concerns are fully addressed.

“Zoning is important, but immigration is a matter of national security. It is up to the State Department to start assuring Idahoans that a Mexican consulate will not be used to provide aid and comfort to people who are here in willful violation of our nation’s laws,” said Sali. “The request for a consulate office in Boise should be delayed until the Department can provide those assurances.”

In his letter to Rice, Sali expressed disappointment that so far State Department officials have expressed little interest in assuring Idahoans that the consular office will not be used to aid illegal immigration. Reports from other states indicate Mexican consulate offices have been used to help illegal aliens receive identification cards. Even though the cards are issued by a foreign government, reports indicate theses cards are accepted as legitimate ID by some public agencies and businesses across the county. Consulates across the country have distributed more than 1.5 million such cards in a span of two years.

“Idahoans deserve verification that Mexican consulate offices do not help illegal aliens receive identification cards which are then used to obtain the same benefits as those who are legally in our great country, including banking,” said the Congressman.

Sali asked Rice to answer the questions previously posed to her offices on assurances that a consulate office will not be used to foster illegal immigration and help illegal aliens “gain illicit ‘legal’ standing in Idaho by taking advantage of the good offices of a consulate in Idaho.”

“The people of Idaho are generous and compassionate, but they do not wish to have the good offices of a foreign consulate exploited by persons in our state illegally,” wrote Sali. “Considering the seriousness of the issues reprinted above, I ask that the Department of State delay any approval of a Mexican consulate in Idaho until we may be assured that a consulate would not foster the continued presence of illegal aliens in Idaho. Additionally, I ask for your personal response to this matter.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.