By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Iona

About this time of year my friends begin to ask when the legislative session will begin. This week my answer has been that we had just met for a day and that we are now organized. One fellow remarked that he didn’t think it was possible for such a body to get organized. But we are, and what that means is that House leadership was elected and committee assignments have been given and we are now ready for the session that will begin on January 12. As for Leadership we still have the same majority leadership team and all committee chairs remain unchanged.

It is no secret that we are looking at revenue shortfalls and lower projections for the coming fiscal year, and because of that I am asked frequently what I think about the situation. And even of bigger concern for those that ask is what all of this means to them as taxpayers. I can’t remember a time when I have had more constituents express more concern abut the prospects of seeing tax increases. And while I don’t have a crystal ball by any means, I think there are some things we can and should do as we begin this legislative session.

I look at things somewhat as the average citizen does when it looks like there is going to be less money to go around. A lot of us need new cars or the sofa is showing its age and there is not going to be enough money in our budget for these items. And down on the farm there is the twenty year old tractor or the irrigation system that needs updating and the hail storm this summer took ninety percent of the corp. What do we do, whether we like it or not? We delay those purchases until we have the resources to acquire them. First and foremost this year as the legislature convenes, we need to not take on new programs and delay some things until our prospects look better. And that means no new state employees, not even one.

The next item on our list should be to revisit and/or at least delay the requirements in law that cause annual increases in our budgets. There are far too many budget items that are on “Automatic Pilot” as it were, and reason would dictate that we at the least suspend some of those items for this next year. There is good reason for some of these mandated increases, but in tight fiscal circumstances we should revisit these matters.

When it comes to Education, particularly Public Education, it will be a more difficult task. While there is no easy answer to this dilemma, what we should be doing is looking at the other two largest budgets, namely Health and Welfare and Corrections to find resources. We made a commitment to Education when we shifted funding from the property tax to the State, a commitment that I and many other legislators take very seriously.

We have been increasing Health and Welfare programs and eligibility for too long. I was challenged by a colleague last week about what ideas I have for controlling this budget. I was watching national news the other day and listened as the governor of Nebraska talked about how they have reduced their Medicaid increases to three percent per year. We need a page out of that book. What we should be doing is what Nebraska has done, change the Medicaid program from an eligibility driven system to a needs based system. As I visit with Medicaid providers I always ask them if they have ideas about how to save money in their programs. They tell me that they see ways to save but regulatory requirements prevent them from implementing changes. Space here does not allow for a thorough discussion of what I would like to see done in this budget. And none of that discussion involves eliminating any essential programs.

I am not one to be pessimistic or for wringing my hands at the first sight of tough times. I tend to regard this not as a crisis but as an opportunity. We have the chance to do some over due evaluating of our spending habits. In light of the national mess in which we find ourselves, and the uncertainty that our taxpayers are facing in their personal situations, how could we even entertain any thoughts of increasing taxes of any kind. After all, as tough as this may all seem, I don’t share the view that our best days are behind us. The sun will rise again.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Not only did Sen. Brad Little get pressure for state GOP leaders to find a way to vote for the marriage amendment in 2006, he got considerable pressure from his own constituents.

Two citizens in District 11, which Little represented, launched independent efforts to circulate fliers throughout his district to inform voters of Little’s opposition to elevating protection for natural marriage to the state constitution.

Consequently, hundreds of voters in Emmett, Middleton, Caldwell and Parma received information with Little’s contact information and an appeal to contact him about the issue.

The senator did eventually, as many politicians do, see the light after he felt the heat and finally – on his sixth try – found a way to vote in support of natural marriage.

Although we can’t quantify the exact impact of this grassroots effort on his final vote, it is hard to imagine that a politician with ambitions for higher office could afford to ignore a flood of communication from voters who hold the power of life and death over his career.

In fact, one of his fellow legislators from District 11, Republican Kathy Skippen, was defeated in the primary that year by current Rep. Steven Thayn after she voted against the marriage amendment. She didn’t get her mind right on the marriage issue and was dumped by voters in favor of a candidate with strong pro-family credentials.

Leftwing bloggers are already openly hoping that Skippen will be selected to replace Little, which tells conservatives everything they need to know about Skippen.

Although Rep. Thayn would be the most appealing replacement for social conservatives, Rep. Carlos Bilbao may have the edge on seniority grounds. If he is elevated to the senate, former Canyon County commissioner Matt Beebe, who lost a primary challenge to Thayn last spring, might be the most likely pick. However, former Rep. Gary Bauer, who also unsucessfully challenged Thayn in the primary, had a decidedly more conservative profile on the Gem State Voter Guide, which you can review here.

(One legislator was asked in 2006 how he intended to vote on the marriage amendment. He simply smiled and said, “Well, if I want to come back here next year…” Such a reaction is hardly principled, but it is pragmatic. And frankly, that should be a goal of pro-family conservatives: to make it as easy and advantageous as possible for politicians to do the right thing.)

Little’s social liberalism will be blunted in his work as the state’s lieutenant governor, a primarily ceremonial position. However, the post is widely – and correctly, in my view – perceived as a stepping stone to the governor’s office, and it’s likely that Gov. Otter appointed him to the post to give him a jump start on the gubernatorial campaign in either 2010 or 2014.

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

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

The Idaho Values Alliance issued a press release earlier this week, raising serious questions about a Planned Parenthood staffer who transferred here after being accused of covering up the sexual abuse of a teenage girl in Ohio.

Ms. Julia Piercey serves as the Director of Education & Training for Boise Planned Parenthood.

She used to have the same job in Ohio until she was named as a defendant in a civil suit for failing to report the abuse of a 16 year old girl at the hands of her father.

Attorneys for the girl presented a note to Ohio staffers, written in the hand of Ms. Piercey, informing them that Planned Parenthood had adopted a policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when confronted with girls seeking abortion or contraceptive services. This note serves as prima facie evidence that Planned Parenthood of Ohio willfully determined to violate Ohio Law – which requires medical personnel to report suspected cases of abuse to law enforcement.

In his Monday press release, Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of IVA, observed “Ms. Piercey evidently teaches Planned Parenthood staff to operate like this with young, pregnant, teenage girls: ‘We won’t ask if you if you’ve been sexually abused by an older male, we hope you won’t tell us if you have, and even if you do, we will do our best to find a way to cover it up.”

Pastor Fischer called on the media and public to demand an accounting from Planned Parenthood of Idaho: Is Ms. Piercey still training staff to cover up the abuse of teenage girls?

But his plea for protection and accountability went ignored by the state’s major media.

Perhaps they had bigger stories; after all, what are a few dozen, or few hundred, victimized girls?

But, more likely, the big TV and newspaper outlets simply don’t want to further damage the reputation of Planned Parenthood. (Don’t forget the fact that the Statesman is a big donor to Planned Parenthood of Idaho).

This brewing scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. All across the country, Planned Parenthood operates largely outside of the law which applies to others. And they are almost never brought to account.

Long before Ms. Piercey arrived in Idaho, there was strong evidence to believe that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers were systematically avoiding their responsibilities under Idaho’s Child Protective Act (IC 16-1619) to report the sexual abuse of Idaho girls.

Research we began several years found a disturbing discrepancy between known cases of teenage pregnancy/abortions and reported cases of teenage girl sexual abuse. In 2000, for example, there were 822 pregnancies among Idaho girls under 17; yet only 106 cases of suspected sexual abuse were reported to Idaho law enforcement. Even more disturbing, we estimated that only 7 of those reports came from medical personnel. (And these figures don’t even begin to touch the number of girls being preyed upon by an adult male, but who did not become pregnant due to contraceptives provided without question by Planned Parenthood).

Granted, these figures are only estimates – the shroud of “privacy” around abortion makes it very difficult for an organization like ours to get to the truth. Officials like Attorney General Lawrence Wasden would have to find the will to use their power to subpoena records and demand accountability from the “missionaries of misery” at Planned Parenthood.

But we DO know from numerous national studies that a large proportion of teenage pregnancies are the result of older sexual predators.

At this point, we can only wonder how long Idaho’s media will serve as co-conspirators in the widespread victimization of Idaho’s vulnerable teenage girls.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

This just in: Sen. Brad Little has been selected by Gov. Butch Otter to serve as Idaho’s next lieutenant governor. Sen. Little is a moderate Republican, who voted against the marriage amendment more than any other Idaho legislator in state history.

Sen. Little voted against the marriage amendment no less than five times, and for it just once – the last time it came to the senate floor, on Valentine’s Day in 2006.

In the third – and successful – effort to get the marriage amendment through the Idaho legislature, Sen. Little voted against it in committee on Friday and for it on the floor on Tuesday.

Well-placed sources told me at the time that he changed his vote when others in legislative leadership took him aside and said he’d better get his mind right over the weekend about his floor vote if he wanted to have a future in Idaho politics. The message apparently was received.

Since Sen. Little represents District 11 (think Emmett), which is considerably more conservative than he is, we can hope that he will be replaced by someone with a more conservative philosophy on social and fiscal matters.

Thus the potential exists that his departure from the legislature will actually strengthen the senate, which far too often has been the place where good, socially conservative bills go to die.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The Idaho Press Tribune did a story on Rep. Steven Thayn’s proposal to strengthen the parent-child relationship and save taxpayer dollars by paying parents who bring their kids to first grade ready to learn.

Thayn’s proposal will reduce by one-half the amount of taxpayer resources currently spent to educate kindergarten children.

The “mixed reviews” cited in the IPT hardly come from an objective source: the objections come from the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children, which is devoted to taxpayer funding for daycare and education starting at age zero.

According to their mission statement, “Idaho AEYC supports quality early care and education for all children, from birth through age eight, and promotes excellence in early childhood education wherever children grow and learn (emphasis mine).”

The AEYC’s executive director is quite specific about this. “[T]he most important years for learning development is between birth and three years. So we need to get them involved a lot earlier than kindergarten (emphasis mine).”

The bottom line here is that the AEYC sees parents as little more than breeders, who should, in a perfect world, surrender their children to the state as soon as they are born for care and education.

The AEYC’s objection to Thayn’s proposal rests on what amounts to an insult of many Idaho parents. “We totally believe that kids learning at home with parents is a good thing, but parents don’t always have the information they need to provide the best learning environment for kids (emphasis mine).”

What is becoming evident is that there is an anti-parent, anti-family bias present in most objections to Thayn’s plan. It would be one thing if taxpayer-funded early education proved clearly superior to what parents at home do, but not only do early education benefits virtually disappear by the end of third grade, Stanford and Berkeley researchers reported that the more time pre-K kids spend in daycare settings, the more stunted their emotional development is, and the more behavioral problems they display in elementary school.

The idea of parents breeding children and then turning them over to the state to raise is hardly original – in fact, it was central to Plato’s Republic. But it was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now, not to mention a horribly expensive and ineffective one.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The education budget, thanks to the foresight of former Gov. Jim Risch, has a rainy day fund of $114 million. This will cushion the blow of a slumping economy to Idaho’s education budget for this fiscal year.

But state superintendent Tom Luna is candidly admitting that schools will get less money next year, and will have to trim their sails to accommodate reduced revenue.

A little known provision in the state constitution might provide a way forward. The constitution requires the state to provide a “general, uniform, and thorough” system of public education (emphasis mine).

“Uniform” means “unchanging, consistent, unvarying in design.” The state is required to offer the same education everywhere to all students, no more, no less.

Quite simply, the state has no constitutional obligation to offer electives, music programs, theater programs or athletic programs.

While the idea is a radical one, and will generate howls of outrage from predictable quarters, huge educational savings could be anticipated almost immediately, particularly at the secondary level, as the state decided what exactly a “uniform” education would look like, and then made sure that every student got that education.

Once it ensures that every student has access to that “uniform” education, the state’s statutory job will have been satisfied. It is not obligated to do more.

The money saved by trimming the system back to its constitutional parameters could then be returned to Idaho families so they can pursue the extra-curricular activities of choice for their children.

What students pursue beyond that “uniform” education, whether in the arts or athletics, would be up to parents and students to decide.

Many parents – as we did – pay for private music lessons for our children. My son also participated in Y-ball, Optimist football, Little League, AAU basketball, and American Legion baseball, none of which were funded by schools with taxpayer dollars. (In fact, his Legion teams played teams from Canada where there are no high school baseball programs. The Legion program provided a suitable alternative.) Athletic programs certainly add pizzazz and school spirit, but are very expensive and nowhere required by the state constitution.

Education consumes by far the greatest percentage of the state budget. If the state is going to cut spending sufficiently to weather the downturn, cuts in education are going to have to be found. Taking a cue from the constitution might show us one way to do it.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Although the drumbeat for higher fuel taxes or registration fees are likely to continue to come from the governor’s office, Gov. Otter is to be commended for proactively directing state agencies to make budget cuts to accommodate lower tax revenues.

He is directing state agencies to prioritize programs for fiscal year 2010 so they can slash a total of $169 million from their budgets. This is on top of the $130 million he has directed them to trim from budgets for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.

Bizarrely, of the 36 states facing deficits, 22 of them are increasing spending anyway, simply digging themselves into deeper holes. New York’s governor is proposing a staggering 88 separate tax increases, affecting everything from iPods to soft drinks to health spas, which will only drive New Yorkers to New Jersey to purchase the same products for less money, and in the end only increase New York’s money woes.

We can be grateful that Idaho’s governor has chosen to do his constitutional duty and pursue the path of fiscal restraint instead.

The governor directed agencies to work on “eliminating entire programs if they are not in furtherance of or required by your statutory mission.”

There are two important observations to make here. The first is that this review is long overdue. Most Idaho taxpayers will be asking themselves why state agencies are spending money not “required by their statutory mission” in the first place, and the directive represents a candid admission by the governor’s office that even in Idaho government has grown in places beyond its proper boundaries.

The second thing is that cuts in government spending can in fact be made if there is sufficient urgency. This has relevance to the governor’s insistence that Idaho needs to spend an additional $240 million a year on transportation needs. Thus far he has suggested only increases in taxes and fees to find that money.

But increasing taxes raises costs to consumers, and elementary economics tells us that if you raise the cost of anything, you reduce consumption. In other words, the surest way to get consumers to spend less money on fuel is to increase its cost, which raising the fuel tax will do. Reducing consumption will of course then reduce revenue generated from fuel taxes.

(As an example of this dynamic, New York’s governor is proposing a draconian 18 percent “obesity” tax on soft drinks explicitly for the purpose of reducing consumption.)

Feature articles in today’s Statesman make precisely that same point. The spike in gasoline prices to $4 a gallon this summer has resulted in fairly dramatic reductions in gasoline purchases as Idahoans modify their driving habits. As the cost of fuel comes down, purchases will inch back up. In other words, if you want to generate more fuel tax revenue, the surest way to do it is to make gasoline less expensive through lowering the tax rather than making it more expensive by raising it.

The governor’s directives to state agencies will almost immediately reduce state spending by $130 million in order to meet the state’s constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced.

Why could not that same approach be used to free up additional dollars for transportation? In other words, if dollars are scarce, money has to be reallocated and spent where it is most needed. Families do this all the time, and as the governor’s recent actions show, government can do it too when it has to.

It admittedly will be difficult to find an additional $240 million in spending reductions in other parts of the state budget, but if $130 million can already be found this year, and $169 million next year, what logical reason is there to believe that another $240 million cannot be found? All that is required is sufficient will and motivation.

I believe most Idahoans are sympathetic to the need for the state to invest more in infrastructure. A well-functioning transportation system benefits all residents, whether they use roads to deliver product or take their kids to soccer practice. But they also would prefer the state to transfer funds from one government pocket to another rather than stick its hands deeper into their pockets.

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

By Richard Larsen

There seems to be a steady trend toward increasing the power of government at the cost of individual liberties. This is not just evident nationally but a trend observable at the statewide and local level as well, and was on display at a School Board meeting last week.

Journal coverage of that meeting reported that Rep. Donna Boe is concerned by the fact that Idaho protects the right of parents to educate their children at home without interference from the state. As it stands currently, there is no state law granting authority to local school districts or to the State Department of Education to provide oversight or to regulate homeschooling, even though other neighboring states have imposed such regulation. California law goes so far to make it a crime to home teach children if the parents are not certified educators.

Patti Mortenson, Director of Elementary Education for District 25, proposed adding a definition for “educational neglect” to Idaho law. That’s very strident language. Could something like this open the way for Child Protective Services and the courts to start forcing their way into the homes of children being taught by their parents? Could it open the way for the state to take children away from parents if their home schooling efforts are subjectively deemed inadequate? While the intent may be noble, the law of unintended consequences could produce significant ignoble side effects.

According to the Journal article, Boe’s concern was to provide a “safety net” for children who may be receiving an inadequate education at home. But I can’t help wonder if the attention should be more on a safety net for our children working their way through our public schools instead.

Neither Boe nor Mortenseon returned my call in my effort to clarify their intent.

I can’t help but suspect the issue is not really about academic aptitude. Idaho children who are home schooled traditionally score in the 82-84 percentile range on the Iowa Tests, according to the Idaho Coalition of Home Educators. Back when Idaho’s public school students took the same tests, they hovered in the 54 percentile level.

In light of that fact, it’s difficult to believe that Rep. Boe’s concern is for the children themselves. They seem to be doing statistically much better than their publically educated counterparts. Perhaps it’s more of a budgetary issue, since for every child being taught at home, the district loses anywhere from $5,500 to $8,000 in funding. Rep. Boe indicated there are about 13,000 home-taught children in Idaho. How many of those are in Pocatello is anyone’s guess.

The fundamental doctrine this manner of thinking is based on is the superiority of the “state,” whether it’s federal, state or local government entities. The “state” is somehow more competent and has a greater aptitude in providing for the welfare of our children, according to this doctrine. The continuing encroachment of government into private lives is symptomatic of this notion, and will undoubtedly be increasing at an accelerated pace over the next few years. But the premise that the “state” somehow knows what’s best for our children over loving, nurturing parents is problematic.

Adding the language “educational neglect” to Idaho Code could be a Pandora’s Box, for it’s statistically much more likely to occur at the public education level than it is at home. I’m not sure that’s a box they would want opened.

Rather than take the pernicious sounding “educational neglect” route, it seems more logical to simply have parents inform the local school district that their children are being taught at home. That way the local district knows where the kids are and can offer assistance and materials, if so desired.

This country was founded on principles of individual liberty and freedom. Each time the government regulates, some of that liberty is eroded. While it seems draconian to think a child could be removed from his home because he failed his math test after being homeschooled, the door is certainly nudged open with a charge of “educational neglect.” If language is added to Idaho Code to that effect, could not the state be charged with the same? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We’re getting to the point where government is telling us what kind of speech we can engage in (politically correct), what kind of thoughts we can and can’t harbor (“hate”), how much energy we can consume (carbon footprint), talking about imposing a tax on “excessive” energy consumption (carbon tax), regulating what we eat (no restaurants using trans fats), whether we really have a second amendment (DC gun ban), even what kind of light bulbs we can and can’t use (illegal 100w incandescent), and attempting to force Judeo-Christian influences out of the public square, etc. ad nauseam.

Intent behind such regulation is probably meritorious, but the net effect of diminished individual freedom is not. The encroachment on personal liberty is accelerating, and at some point, we must collectively stand up and say “enough.” Seems to me, this is a good starting point.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Maximizing parental choice in education is one of the keys to making Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family.

And facilitating the launching of charter schools is part of the solution to increasing family-friendly choices in education.

According to a study done earlier this year by the Friedman Foundation and sponsored by the IVA (which you can access here), while just 12% of Idaho taxpayers would choose conventional public schools if they had a full range of options, 25% would choose a charter school.

Coeur d’Alene Charter Academy shows us why.

U.S. News and World Report this week ranked it as one of the top 100 high schools in the nation, after the school had already been named the National Charter School of the Year in 2007 by the Center for Education Reform and been featured in the award-winning documentary, Flunked.

(The IVA supported a premiere showing of Flunked this past summer which was sponsored by KBOI radio.)

The benchmarks U.S. News uses are rigorous, and include such measures as high performance in reading and math, performance on standardized tests and Advanced Placement exams.

Not only is the CDA Charter Academy producing superior results, it’s doing it with fewer taxpayer dollars. Principal Dan Nicklay confirmed this morning that the school operates on a budget that is only about 70% the size of the budget consumed by regular public schools.

Since charter schools receive no local or federal funding, they make do with less, and as CDA Charter shows, can deliver an excellent educational product while saving taxpayers boatloads of money.

Plus, the absence of hot lunches and busing pulls parents into greater involvement with their children’s education, and this increased level of investment on the part of parents is “really key,” according to Nicklay. It’s a small wonder that the school has a waiting list.

A superior product for less money and with greater parental involvement – what’s not to like?

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

Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

A warning to parents who prefer to educate their children at home: Rep. Donna Boe of Pocatello plans to come after you.

She laments the fact that Idaho protects so carefully the right of parents to educate their children at home without interference from the state. State law gives no authority to local school districts or to the State Department of Education to regulate home education, unlike our neighboring states of Oregon and Washington.

Rep. Boe apparently wants home educators to adopt a suggestion by Patti Mortenson, a Pocatello area director of elementary education, to add a definition for “educational neglect” to Idaho law so that child protective services and the courts can start forcing their way into the homes of home educators, taking children away from parents where possible and prosecuting them where possible.

All of course, in Rep. Boe’s world, of providing a “safety net” for children who don’t receive what she thinks is a quality education at home.

She seems blissfully unconcerned about what the state is doing to provide a “safety net” for students who don’t receive a quality education in its schools, and apparently ignorant of the fact that home schoolers regularly outperform their public school peers on academic achievement tests.

The problem, she says, with granting authority to the state to intrude into the sanctity of home schooling families is the strong state network home schoolers have developed. That network may well be called upon to make its voice heard in 2009, and you can rest assured the IVA will stand with them to protect their right to educate their children as they see fit without state interference.

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