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.


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





Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations

Jerry Sproul, CPA

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

Andi Elliott: Jefferson County Needs New Sheriff

October 29th, 2012 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

As we drove to church in Rigby on Sunday, I noticed a couple of re-elect Blair Olsen for Sheriff signs. It gave me pause to reflect on the accusations surfacing from local newspaper investigations about this long standing Sheriff.

What would be the proper course of action in regards to solving this matter and alleviating citizens’ concerns? The sheriff could continue to ignore the questions asked by taxpayers and the Commissioners could turn a blind eye again to citizens’ requests for transparency. But it seems to me that an honorable course of action that would be appropriate at this point (and we all want to think of our elected officials as honorable men) would be to take or be placed on administrative leave and then allow an independent investigation to be conducted. An impartial inquiry would answer a lot of questions without which the reputations of the sheriff, the county commissioners, and the local prosecutor will remain shrouded in secrecy and mistrust.

When two of our Jefferson County deputies tell me personally that a new Sheriff is needed, it seems to me to be perfectly clear…that a new Sheriff is needed. But let’s step back and look at the evidence and not be swayed by opinion. An investigation would determine the all important facts. Bottom line… “it’s about restoring public trust” and there is no other way around it. It’s simply a matter of honor.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Property Rights, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Students or Special Interests? What’s Our Top Priority?

October 29th, 2012 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

Insanity is often defined as the process of doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. While sanity may not be in question, logic certainly is as it relates to opposition to the education reform Propositions on the ballot in November.

In the latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results, the U.S. came in with an international ranking of 49. Compared against international scores, Massachusetts would be #17, and Idaho would be #71. Education Secretary Arne Duncan exclaimed after seeing the results, “For me, it’s a massive wake-up call.”

And considering how Idaho fared against the rest of the world, or even the other states, our wake-up call should be even greater. In light of this data, maintaining the status quo, just doing the same thing we’ve been doing, is perhaps insanity. What’s frightening is the fact that it’s our children’s educational future and their potential as productive members of society that weighs in the balance.

As a state we’re doing well with a 92% graduation rate from high school. But less than half of those are matriculating to college, and only 38% of those students return for their second year of college. That means of 100 Idaho high school graduates, only 16 are in college just a year after graduation. Of those that do go to college, 41% require remediation. This is woeful preparation for our young people, and research shows we are essentially relegating them to lower income jobs in perpetuity. This is unacceptable.

Idahoans can start addressing this unsatisfactory status quo by voting “Yes” on all three education reform Propositions. The Wall Street Journal called Students Come First “the nation’s most sweeping education reform.”

In 1983 I served on the Commission for Excellence in Public Education. We thought, as a commission, that augmenting core curriculum, increasing credit requirements in core subjects, raising the grading requirements, and setting attendance mandates, that we were paving the way for significant improvement in Idaho. Those changes made a difference, but came nowhere near what the benefits will be if these three Propositions are approved, as I detailed in my column last week.

Most inscrutable was the action taken by our Pocatello School Board this week. Not only did they unanimously refuse to endorse the Propositions, but they offered as justification that Students Come First “does nothing to address cost increases local districts would be forced to absorb…erodes the decision-making duties of locally-elected boards and puts these into the hands of the state’s Department of Education,” and it removes the ability for local school boards to “allocate their resources.” This rationale is fallacious and not supportable by fact.

By contrast, Idaho School Boards Association (ISBA), representing over 560 locally elected school board members and over 250 charter school board members, fully supports and endorses Proposition 1. Their reasons are in direct opposition to those cited by our local school board. The ISBA explains that, “The changes in the education reform law affected by Proposition 1 have restored those local school board responsibilities back where they belong. Idaho school boards are better because of these education reform laws, and we can’t imagine going backwards. Help us do our job effectively. We encourage Idahoans to vote for local governance and vote YES.”

It should be noted as well that the Idaho Education Alliance has endorsed Proposition 2, which is the pay-for-performance component of Students Come First. Proposition 3 reads like it could be straight out of the Secretary of Education’s “Digital Transformation” program.

The Pocatello School Board also claimed the propositions are unfunded from the state. This is factually erroneous. Rep. Mack Shirley, Vice-Chairman of the House Education Committee, who is himself a former teacher, principal, and instructor at the college level points out, “Claims from the opposition that these propositions are unfunded mandates and will raise taxes are false. These laws are in state statutes; the funding sources are already provided without any increased burden upon the taxpayer. The charges that technology will replace teachers are not true. Computers will assist teachers, not replace them. Teachers will remain in the classroom with more instructional tools and improved compensational opportunities over the present system. Voting these propositions down would, in my opinion, be a serious setback.”

Our local school board is intended to represent the interests of the citizens and taxpayers they serve. It would appear, based on the hard facts, that they have rather become a mouthpiece for the special interests opposing the measures, abdicating their primary function of representing district patrons.

The Pocatello School District obviously sees the merits of Proposition 3, for they were one of the first to apply for the mobile technology for students. And if they truly believe they’re giving up local control, they ought to read the actual propositions, rather than the talking points provided by the special interest groups opposing them. With Students Come First, they get more local control than ever before.

Taxpayers have nothing to fear, for the Propositions are fully funded by statute. Good teachers have nothing to fear for the entire educational apparatus is dependent on their talents and dedication, and they will be better compensated for their excellence. School boards have nothing to fear for they are afforded immense new flexibility and control at the local level. And students have everything to gain. The only losers are the unions that are bankrolling the anti-Students Come First propaganda, and they lose power and leverage, which is itself conducive to improved flexibility and educational excellence.

If we put students first, ahead of all other special and self-interests, we defy the status quo, and our vote on the Propositions will be Yes, Yes, and Yes.

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

Posted in Education, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Pocatello Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Democrats Squeal Over Exposure

October 27th, 2012 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Liberal Democrats Betty Richardson and Steve Berch have issued a blistering press release in response to a mailing done by Idaho Chooses Life in Boise’s District 15.

They have accused us of “lying” about their pro-abortion politics. While claiming that she has never supported abortion-on-demand, Betty Richardson does not explain how she came to be endorsed by the nation’s largest abortion merchant – Planned Parenthood – when she ran against Butch Otter for Congress in 2002.

She also offers no rebuttal to our challenge of her party’s radical support for abortion, or the Idaho Democrat Party’s demand that ObamaCare be implemented in Idaho. We have long contended that this abhorrent policy shift, rammed down the throats of unwilling Americans, threatens to produce the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Ms. Richardson further fails to explain why she refused to respond to our questionnaire, sent to her more than a month ago.

Most all of which can also be said of her running mate, Steve Berch.

Without doubt, the true radicals in this district are Betty Richardson and Steve Berch. And she inadvertently confesses as much in her press release:

“My position [on abortion] also happens to be the position that the United States has taken for the last 40 years – a woman’s access to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy should be legal”.

Let us translate, since Betty is attempting to pull another fast one by suggesting that the Supreme Court only allows first trimester abortions:

Richardson admits that she supports Roe v. Wade, the legalization of abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

And that is the entire point of our mailing.

You can read the entire story on Dan Popkey’s blog.

As an interesting – if disturbing aside – we would also recommend that readers take a look at a story now running on the liberal website Politico. This article details the increasing radicalization of the Democrat Party under Barack Obama’s leadership. This is the party with which Betty Richardson and Steve Berch proudly associate; so committed to its radical social agenda that they are both willing to become local standard bearers.

Democrats are pouring a massive amount of money into District 15, a pretty conservative district. Their only hope of winning is to deceive voters into believing the story that Richardson and Berch are somehow “moderates” who share the pro-Life values of most residents.

We are grateful for the chance we’ve been given to expose these two candidates.

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

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues | No Comments »

David Ripley: Planned Parenthood’s “Special” Status

October 27th, 2012 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that Indiana cannot stop taxpayer dollars from flowing into Planned Parenthood. The so-called right to abortion for individual women has somehow morphed into special rights for the nation’s largest abortion merchant.

Indiana became the first state in the country to enact legislation ending its partnership with the Abortion Industry in 2011. Planned Parenthood immediately filed a lawsuit, claiming that it was being discriminated against simply because its core business involved slaughtering millions of innocents. A federal district judge granted an emergency order preventing Indiana’s law from going into effect, agreeing that Indiana’s elected officials were being unreasonable and mean-spirited.

The more one ponders this turn of events, the more outrage attends.

Medicaid assistance is, after all, not a constitutional right. And no private interest group has a “right” to taxpayer funding of its agenda. Those seem to be unassailable truths – at least under a constitutional framework wherein elected legislative bodies have the unmitigated authority to collect taxes and appropriate those dollars to accomplish appropriate policy objectives.

Yet federal judges have assumed the authority to dictate not only the appropriation process for the Indiana Legislature, they have dictated that those monies must be spent on specific private vendors.

How did Planned Parenthood achieve such a lofty and special place in our modern society? In part through its political and media advocacy. Another report today states that Planned Parenthood has spent over $12 million on television advertising hyping the “War on Women” in hopes of helping Obama return for a second term. PPA President Cecile Richards has even taken a leave of absence so she can campaign full-time for Obama in the closing weeks of this election season.

This outrageous ruling by the federal courts is, in addition to other lessons, a glimpse of the future under full-throated ObamaCare. The states will become mere agencies of the federal government’s social policies, powerless to control the direction or impact of the social engineering favored by federal bureaucrats.

Mitt Romney has pledged to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood. His biggest obstacle in doing so will probably not be Congress, but the federal judiciary.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Taxes | No Comments »

David Ripley: Another Obama Lie

October 20th, 2012 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

As the Obama Campaign struggles to revive its desperate “war on women”, the president made a false claim the other night about his bosom pals at Planned Parenthood. In trying to portray Mitt Romney as the cold-hearted “enemy of women”, Obama reiterated a well-established lie.

Romney’s plan to cut federal funds to Planned Parenthood, Obama claimed, would deprive women of access to breast cancer screening.

Of course, Planned Parenthood does not offer breast cancer screening. This whole public relations canard to soften PP’s public image was well established during the brouhaha over Komen funding for America’s largest abortion provider.

But, of course, facts – economic, social or moral – don’t pose a big problem for the president.

(We are reminded of the frustrating incident during the 2011 legislative session, when Sen. Joyce Broadsword – a champion of Planned Parenthood – vehemently denied during a Senate hearing that Planned Parenthood performed abortions in Idaho. Of course, they are the state’s leading agent of death for preborn children).

The unfortunate part of this incident is that Obama is still president. As such, he commands a certain level of attention among American voters who are likely being misled about this crucial fact.

Readers wishing more background information about Planned Parenthood’s actual services should visit the American Life League’s website:

You can also check this story out at Life News.

Let us band together in diligent prayer for the Lord’s intervention in exposing Barack Obama’s deceptions as we head into the crucial weeks of this election.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Legislature, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Bishops Chide Biden

October 18th, 2012 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The U.S. Conference of Bishops issued a public statement contradicting Joe Biden’s claims during his debate that the Obama Mandate on abortion was no problem for Christian institutions.

Those of us who watched Biden proclaim on national television that the Obama Mandate requiring insurance coverage wouldn’t affect religious institutions knew that he was, at best, mistaken. His adamant tone does nothing to change the fact that American employers are now required to provide contraception and the “Morning After Pill” as part of a standard health insurance package.

The Obama Mandate affects more than just the Catholic Church. Any Christian employer who understands that the MAP can destroy a new human life is now forced to submit his or her conscience to the higher law of Obama’s social and political agenda.

The Catholic elders were right to take Biden to task.

But their public statement was disturbing for what it failed to address.

For the first time in history, the two major party nominees for Vice President of the U.S. are Catholic. Both claim to be practicing members of the Church. Yet one is a scandalous champion of abortion rights, using his public power to impose tax-funded death upon thousands, millions of innocents. And the Catholic Bishops say nothing.

Joe Biden proudly proclaims his Catholicism on national television to garner votes, while simultaneously defending his role in the most pro-abortion regime in history … and the Catholic Bishops say nothing.

To make it even more painful, Biden’s opponent, Paul Ryan, is a practicing Catholic who has spent a good many years fighting for the values proclaimed by the Catholic Church. And, yet, the Catholic Bishops say nothing.

Obviously the U.S. Conference of Bishops continues to be bewildered about the profound moral and theological challenge presented by public personalities like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

We welcome the Bishops’ public letter correcting Biden’s misstatements. But their public statement is more remarkable for its timidity and avoidance than it is for its proclamation of truth.

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

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: YES on Idaho’s Innovative Education Reform

October 18th, 2012 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

There are three Propositions on the general election ballot in Idaho. If all three receive a majority vote, the measures, which were originally passed by the Idaho Legislature last year, will remain on the books and will begin the process of innovatively ameliorating the quality of public instruction across the state. The Wall Street Journal called these measures “the nation’s most sweeping education reform.”

The three Propositions are on the ballot because the education establishment, and especially the Idaho teacher union, the Idaho Education Association, opposes the measures and were able to garner sufficient signatures to place them on the ballot for Idaho voter approval. They are more sweeping in nature than any state’s education reform measures, including elimination of tenure, limitation of collective bargaining to salary and pensions only, increased parental involvement, pay-for-performance, technology in the classroom including distance learning and mobile computing devices for Idaho’s high school students, and transparency of the entire education apparatus. With little commentary, let’s examine what each of the measures on the ballot address.

Proposition 1 does primarily three things. It allows for parents to have input on teacher evaluations, phases out tenure for educators, and mandates that contract negotiations be conducted in open meetings.

A supportive and involved parent largely determines the academic success of a student. Including parental involvement in teacher evaluations will foster a more synergistic relationship between the teacher and the parent, with the predictable outcome of additional parental involvement and children who perform better academically.

Teacher tenure is preserved for those who already have it. Tenure is an obstacle for school districts and administrators to work around when faced with reductions in force. Phasing out tenure allows increased flexibility to retain the best teachers, regardless of seniority or tenure. This is clearly in the best interest of students and academic performance, but is also the major objection teachers have to the Students Come First legislation.

Collective bargaining is limited to matters pertaining to salary and benefits. In the past they could negotiate as part of the contract bell schedule, school calendar, teacher evaluations, and grading methods. This gives the local school board more flexibility and latitude in those peripheral issues without jeopardizing salary and benefit negotiations.

Contract negotiations have sailed through with few exceptions, since the open-meeting negotiations law went into effect. Everyone involved in such negotiations behaves more circumspectly when the public eye is on them.

Proposition 2 implements Pay for Performance (PFP) incentives for teachers, allowing for bonuses based on one of three criteria. The minimum teacher salary was raised and a funding mechanism added to increase the minimum salary in the future. The current salary apportionment grid for teachers with longevity and added educational credits is maintained.

PFP provides extra compensation for teachers who serve in hard-to-fill positions, like calculus teachers in small school districts, or leadership roles, like mentoring new teachers or developing curriculum. This comes as a bonus to those teachers on top of their pay grid compensation. The local school board determines hard-to-fill positions and the extra compensation.

PFP also allows for teachers to earn bonuses beyond their base salary for meeting or exceeding student achievement goals at the state and local levels. This will provide for the entire certified staff of a school to receive bonus pay when their school is showing growth in student achievement. Local school boards set local student achievement goals for bonus participation. Bonuses will be paid to nearly 85% of Idaho’s teachers next month, based on last year’s performance.
Proposition 3 allows for high school juniors and seniors to earn up to a years worth of college credit, and provides for technology in the classroom as well as individually to students. In addition, new standards of transparency and public disclosure are required of school districts.

All local school boards and school districts must be totally transparent in fiscal matters, including master contracts and associated information. Further, the State Department of Education will create a web-based fiscal report card and will post financial data and statistics for every school district and public charter school.
For teachers who don’t already have a personal computer in their classroom, they will get one. They will also be trained on how to integrate computer technology into the curriculum and into the classroom to raise student achievement. This school year, high school teachers will be provided mobile computing devices.
High school students will be provided access to similar devices. Local districts will determine how best to utilize these devices on a daily basis and teachers will decide how to incorporate them into the learning process. The local boards will also set student-use policy for the mobile devices.

Starting with the graduating class of 2016, students will have some online curriculum. The State Board of Education has determined that two of the 46 credits required to graduate will be completed online, but local districts will determine the curriculum. And the digital learning component allows students in small districts to enjoy the same curriculum breadth of the larger schools.

As taxpayers, Idahoans will benefit by the increased transparency in the disposition of financial resources. Parents of Idaho’s public schools, will by the increased focus on results and achievement, by rewarding schools and teachers for jobs well done. The incorporation of technology in the classroom and online curriculum prepares students for college and the work force, while increasing efficiency from a cost standpoint. And the Students Come First legislation empowers teachers to earn more based on their performance and grants more flexibility and authority to local school boards to manage resources. Everyone should visit the website to learn more.

There is no doubt that each of these measures brings something to the table to improve Idaho’s public education system. All three Propositions should be approved to realize those benefits, and may well set a precedent for education reform across the nation.

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: 2016, the Movie, and Its Implications

October 11th, 2012 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

What will the United States look like by 2016, if Barack Obama is re-elected in November? Will it look much like it does today, or will it be dramatically different, economically and in world stature? These are the most fundamental questions posed by the blockbuster (by documentary film standards) movie 2016, Obama’s America, based on the 2010 book The Roots of Obama’s Rage researched and written by Dinesh D’Souza, and produced by Gerald R. Molen, who won an Academy Award for Schindler’s List.

Born and raised in Mumbai, India, D’Souza came to the States as an exchange student at Dartmouth College where he graduated with high honors. He became the editor of Policy Review, which caught the attention members of the Reagan administration who recruited him to the White House as a policy analyst. Currently serving as President of King’s College in New York, D’Souza has been a Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Investor’s Business Daily has called D’Souza one of the most influential policy researchers and analysts in the country.

The strength of D’Souza’s research for the 2016 movie is not just in his reliance on primary sources for the book and the movie, but in the close parallels between his background and that of our 44th president. Both were raised in European colonial countries, both immigrated to the U.S., both received Ivy League educations, both became editors of major publications, and both went on to careers in public service. These parallels, laid out with precision at the beginning of the film, establishes a foundation that D’Souza’s research and perceptions place him in a unique position to assess and analyze those early influences that dramatically affected Barack Obama’s worldview, and more precisely, his view of America.

The intent of the movie is well articulated on the movie’s website. “2016 Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world’s most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man’s past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, ‘If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?’”

D’Souza doesn’t engage any of the conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth, religion, Social Security number, or sealed college records. His entire focus is on what he discovers from Obama’s book and from his own primary sources. The movie’s co-producer, Doug Sain, said that Dinesh “walks on solid ground,” with his research and sources.

The movie draws heavily from Barack Obama’s autobiographical narrative attributed to him, published in 1995, Dreams From My Father. References from the book within the movie are exceptionally poignant as they are from the audiobook version, with Obama reading the excerpts D’Souza uses.

The book tells the Obama story from his birth to when he enrolled in college at Harvard. The early narrative relates how his father, Barack Obama, Sr. of Kenya affected the young Barack’s attitudes about life, relationships, and politics, based largely on what his mother, Ann Dunham, told him. Since his parents were separated when he was about two, almost everything the young Barack knew about his father was from what his mother and maternal grandparents told him. Yet those dreams from his father, as related to him, were sufficient to form the philosophical and introspective thread of an autobiography.

Drawing from quotes in Obama’s book, D’Souza illustrates how his mother’s radicalism and his father’s anti-colonialism and self-avowed socialism guided him in his selection of school friends and associates, as well as what he read, and who he idealized.

D’Souza tracks the autobiographical and historical influences in Obama’s life, the people he actively sought out, associated with, and learned from, and refers to them as Obama’s “founding fathers.” They include the self-proclaimed Communist activist Frank Marshall Davis, the alleged anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright, the terrorist and founder of the Weather Underground Bill Ayers, the anti-Israel professor at Columbia, Edward Said, and the radical Harvard professor Roberto Unger who mentored Obama and taught him in a class titled “Reinventing Democracy.”

Based on the evidence D’Souza presents, Obama’s own statements and firsthand interviews, Obama is an anti-colonialist who is heavily influenced by the ideals of socialism. “He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America,” D’Souza explains. From an interview, a friend of Obama Sr. says that “the son and the father are basically the same,” while describing the father’s dream of 100% taxation and a socialist state to take care of everyone’s needs.

From his research, D’Souza shows why Obama rejects American exceptionalism, and why he declared just before the 2008 election that we were days away from “fundamentally transforming America.” He is able to explain why Obama wants to reduce the global influence of the U.S. while increasing the nations that have been “plundered” by U.S. and Western domination.

The body of research is not inclusive, nor does it attempt to be so. D’Souza has an hour and a half of movie time to work with, not a miniseries, so his research that made it into the film is only of supportive evidence.

The film concludes by analyzing the affect of the massive debt and deficits under Obama’s term, nearly as much debt as was amassed under the previous 43 presidents combined. D’Souza interviewed former Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, appointed by President Clinton. He described America as a “sinking ship” in a sea of our own debt. He points out that the country is rapidly heading towards a debt crisis that could collapse the U.S. economy within the next two to three years if we continue on our present course with no correction.

The mainstream media typically goes to great lengths to examine the background of our presidential candidates, but was conspicuously reticent four years ago in its vetting of Obama, and has done little to compensate for their omissions since then. This movie is an attempt to do what the media failed to do. As such, it should be required viewing by all who consider themselves to be informed voters, as the research is meticulous, and the evidentiary conclusions are sobering with far-reaching implications and ramifications.

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

John Grubb: More Questions for Jefferson County

October 9th, 2012 by Halli

By John Grubb, Jefferson County, Idaho

After reading in our local newspaper about the significant increase in the Prosecutor’s budget and learning that Rob Dunn is a part-time prosecutor and that his personal law office doubles as a private practice as well as our county prosecutor, I was prompted to explore further.

So, I obtained a copy of the current and 2013 budget figures and now have a few questions. How is the percentage of time and use of personnel allocated for Dunn’s private practice and county business? It seems that there would be a lot of leeway for “cooking the books”. How do taxpayers ascertain that things are on the up and up? With some of the shenanigans that’s I’ve read about in the paper about financial “misappropriations” by county officials, it raises suspension.

And I see that we taxpayers pay $27,000 for rent/lease of the Dunn Law office building. Shouldn’t the county prosecutor have an office in our new county courthouse complex? That would be quite a savings there and we could fund our senior citizens’ program. I don’t see any explanation on the budget to explain how this figure is derived. Further narrative about this would be appreciated.

Though only amounting to some $4000 or so, the amount that we pay for Dunn and his staffs’ dues/memberships/subscriptions, is this amount prorated or is the county picking up the entire bill for this? The $5,000 taxpayers pay for office supplies…are they used solely for county business?

It would be nice if the county would publicly explain some of these items. From what I’ve been reading, transparency is sorely lacking in our county.

John Grubb

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

Posted in Guest Posts, Politics in General, Property Rights, Taxes | No Comments »

Andi Elliott: The Dawning Light of Day in Jefferson County

October 9th, 2012 by Halli

By Andi Elliott

I shook my head when I learned of the taxpayer funded cell phone for the Sheriff’s wife for I knew from personal experience that this was such a small matter compared to the overall picture in Jefferson County. The “cover-up” was equally telling. It’s clear that County Commissioners refuse to represent the people and, shovel in hand, continuing digging a deeper hole but documents don’t lie. And questions are multiplying exponentially.

And as folks continue to delve into county records (and the county continues to make it more difficult to access public records), indisputable evidence of mismanagement and wrongdoing surfaces much as parts of a dead body eventually rise to the top of a pond.

As I read the Post Register article, You Can Fight City Hall, about former Idaho Falls City Attorney Storer, I find remarkable parallels to our situation here in Jefferson County. And folks are conducting their own “forensic audit” of county documents and are finding that we taxpayers have been played for fools and treated as peasantry.

General elections are less than a month away…some of our officials at the helm of our county government are running unopposed. It is time that “we the servants” exert our power in our county government and at some point we’ll “get a government t?hat accomplishes the many good things” that should be incumbent upon a responsible governing body and exposes those that have sold out to money, power, and greed. Jefferson County, are we ready to reclaim out rightful place, or shall we continue to languish in a cess pool of corruption?

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

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Politics in General, Taxes | No Comments »

« Previous Entries

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