TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

House Highlights, January 30

January 30th, 2008 by Halli

By Idaho State Representative Tom Loertscher

Every session of the Legislature takes on its unique character. What is out of the ordinary for this time around is that in the House after three full weeks there have been fewer than a dozen bills passed. That’s not a bad thing, just a little unusual. Those that have gone through so far are the ones that are annual updates, but not much of substance. If you listen to the talk and business behind the scenes that is about to change.

I find it helpful to talk to other legislators to see what they are thinking and try to get a feel for items they are involved with. For instance I was visiting with a couple of members of JFAC trying to see what they see for this up-coming budget.

One thing that deserves attention is that over the years the Legislature has put so many statutory requirements into our budget process, that it is beginning to come back to haunt us. If we do just those things that are mandated by our own laws, we need about a four percent growth rate just to maintain current levels of commitment. That number is without any increase for state employees or school teachers and also does not look at starting anything new. Auto pilot for airplanes is a good thing, but not for budgets. At least that is not how it works in the real world.

Another issue that is getting a lot of attention in conversations is a tax credit for conservation easements. The idea being floated is for land owners to sell their ability to development for a period of time or permanently as a means of maintaining open space. The State has never been involved in these before, at least on the funding end as it is being proposed this time. Now what was that about starting something new?

An issue that has not been talked about much by the media has been the naturopathic rules that are before the Health and Welfare Committees. These rules have been two years in the making and have caused a huge divide between two different groups of Naturopaths. Confusion has led to controversy and the Senate Committee has rejected the rules. I would have liked to have had a hearing in the House Committee, but that is not going to occur for the time being at least. Now what? My feeling is that these folks all need to be locked in a room until they produce results.

Two new election bills have been introduced in the House, one for permanent absentee status and the other is all out vote by mail at the discretion of County Commissioners. Both are vote by mail proposals, one that the voter chooses and the other Commissioners choose for the voters.

The House and Senate Education Committees spent four days this week going over School Superintendent Tom Luna’s ISTARS and the IEA We Teach proposals with passionate discussion from both sides, so I am told. From the tone of the conversations, neither idea has much chance of success this year.

As we now start week four it looks like we have been in the lull before the storm. It is interesting to me to see all of the hand wringing that goes on around this place. I have never been one to dread tough decisions. To me they are opportunities and challenges. It is never easy but is worth the effort.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Politics in General, Property Rights, Rep. Tom Loertscher, Taxes | 2 Comments »

2 Responses

  1. Calvin Leman Says:

    Tom,

    Another election bill is S1292, the Fair Elections Act. The Senate State Affairs Committe has the bill. Curt McKenzie has not scheduled a hearing. The bill last year was S1037. Seven Senators voted against the bill.

    74% of voters nationwide want the money out of politics. In 2006, a bipartisan survey of voters nationwide by Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Research shows Eighty percent of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans support public financed elections. Maine approved Fair Elections in the nineties and they have health care for everybody now, like each of the Democratic candidates proposes.

    Why would anybody vote against Fair Elections? The seven Senators, who voted No for Fair Elections in 2007, get about 93% of their money from business institutions, not from individuals. From their three highest donors they get about 20% of the total money for their candidacy. If these Senators talk with their electors, it is not because they get their support money from their electors.

    These Senators can run in 2008, using the same donors they have been using. These Senators may not like Fair Elections because candidates who do run on Fair Elections can get just as money as the Senators do by talking with at least 150 electors and getting a $5 donation from each. Then the Fair Elections candidate can apply for matching funds to compete with the other candidates.

    The Fair Elections candidate must talk with the people. The candidates who use the current system need to talk with none of their electors. They do need to talk with business institution persons to get their money.

    Details are at http://fp1.centurytel.net/democracy/

  2. Calvin Leman Says:

    The State Affairs Committee and Sponsors Have Similar Sources of Money for Election, shown at http://fp1.centurytel.net/democracy/how_fair_elections_works_for_sen.htm

    Because all 7 of the Republicans, who are on the committee, voted No for Fair Elections Act in 2007,and because all the sponsors of the Fair Elections Act are Democrats, what does that tell us about the vote? It was likely a partisan party-line vote unrelated to the intent of the Fair Elections Act. Both the Republican committee members and the Democrat sponsors have similar campaign contributions. Is it reasonable to conclude that partisan attitudes prevented an objective vote on the Fair Elections Act?

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting