By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-31

The usual way for a session of the legislature to start resembles a big
class reunion more than anything else. Old acquaintances are renewed and
we try to get settled into our quarters. And while every year seems to
take on a mood of its own, this one is the most unusual to be sure.

Governor Otter’s State of The State and budget address were combined
again this year and is the first of its kind that I have witnessed
around this place. Revenue projections being what they are, there was
not a lot of applauding going on. For the first time in memory there was
not any mention of how well the state is doing. Nor was there mention
made of how bad things might be, even though it was on the minds of all
who were present. He is calling for a reduction from last year’s
original budget, before the holdbacks, of seven and a half percent.
Interestingly enough his numbers look very optimistic compared to the
legislative revenue projectors.

As the week wore on it was hard to tell who had the longest faces, the
members of JFAC (Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee), or the
heads of agencies. Agencies don’t like to see budget reductions and
legislators, in general, just like having more money to spend. Maybe
that is a little harsh but in reality it will be difficult at best to
make ends meet as we try to hit a moving revenue target. It shouldn’t
be too big of a surprise that December income figures were down
substantially, and according to the Tax Commission January is not
looking great either.

As I talk with colleagues there are two distinct groups, those who are
in despair and those who regard this as an opportunity. Every great
challenge in life does have a great opportunity attached to it. Let me
explain.

The Department of Agriculture put on a breakfast at their headquarters
and showed us some of the programs they administer. As part of their
budget preparation the Governor has required them to submit a zero-based
budget, or one that is built from the ground up. Director Gould had the
staff research all of the statutory requirements of the agency. With
what we are experiencing now we will be able to look at just exactly
what has been mandated, and if we do this right we will be able to weed
out those things that are not necessary.

After our first Health and Welfare meeting last week Representative
McGeachin and I met with a group of providers for the developmentally
disabled and they have come up with some ways to save dollars in those
programs. And that is the way it is with other agencies as well. One of
the first things we should be doing is evaluating mandates that we have
in law and take some of the budgets off autopilot. We have been rolling
all of these automatic increases in our budgets for years, and now we
have the golden opportunity to revisit these matters.

Over the weekend I met with a group of educators and the conversation
there was not one of despair, it was concern, but not despair. They too
have ideas about how to make the money go farther. First on the list was
testing, next was making textbooks last longer and third they see on a
day to day basis how money could be saved on administration.

Over the years I have noticed agencies don’t have the best ideas on
how to be efficient. Some of the best ideas come from the hands on folks
who actually deliver the services, and even recipients have great ideas
for improvements. And as for me, I think this is going to be the
opportunity of a life time. I’ll keep my sleeves rolled up.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

More disturbing information is slowly trickling out regarding voting irregularities in Ada County in November. Over 33,000 voters registered to vote in Ada County alone on Election Day, but the public has no way to find out who these newly registered voters are – and county election officials claim they won’t be able to make the list available until March.

This is a staggering number, and may include any number of fraudulently registered voters. The numbers are obviously high enough for these voters to have had a material effect on any number of races. It turns out that producing a fraudulent copy of a power bill, for instance, is so easy a caveman could do it, and poll workers are certainly not trained to serve as document examiners.

It turns out that a disturbing number of voters who registered before Election Day turn out not even to live at the addresses under which they registered, and the folks who do live at these addresses have never even heard of them. There is evidence that some out-of-staters may have registered by mail, requested an absentee ballot, and voted by mail, never having lived or possibly even set foot in Idaho.

A federal panel yesterday upheld a Georgia law that requires voters to present government-issued photo identification before they cast their ballots, and surely Idaho must move in the same direction to prevent voter fraud.

Vote by mail has been specifically rejected by the legislature, but Ada County election officials neatly sidestepped this restriction by sending an absentee ballot request to every voter in the county. Such massive vote-by-mail practices create an exponential opportunity for voter fraud and must not be repeated.

Let’s hope the Idaho legislature tightens up registration and voting procedures to close the loopholes that wind up disenfranchising legitimate voters. Perhaps we should do away with early voting and absentee voting, except for those with a legitimate reason, and move back toward Election Day truly being a day of decision when all voters turn out together at their respective polling places to make the decisions that are central to a functioning republic.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Pro-family Idahoans got some great news yesterday when Sen. Russ Fulcher was chosen to replace socially moderate Brad Little as Senate Republican caucus chairman. The vote was taken by secret ballot, and is an indication of Fulcher’s growing stature and respect among his colleagues.

Fulcher now occupies the fourth spot on the leadership ladder in the Senate, and will serve as the spokesman for the 28-member Republican caucus.

This is a significant trade-up for the conservative movement in Idaho, and gives conservatives another reliable, principled vote on the powerful Senate State Affairs committee.

Fulcher sponsored a critical pro-life parental-consent bill two years ago, and was the co-sponsor of last year’s grocery-tax credit bill, which will represent the largest tax cut in Idaho history when fully implemented. The governor yesterday pledged hi

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

From David Ripley, Idaho Chooses Life

In our last posting we strongly criticized Idaho’s “corporate media” for failing to pick up on an important story from Byran Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance. That criticism is more than justified – but it is not deserved in the case of KIDO’s Doug McConaughey. He conducted an on-air interview with ICL’s David Ripley on Saturday morning about Planned Parenthood’s role in protecting sexual predators.

Granted, the hour was early – but it was still a respectful and important exploration of a crucial issue. In fact, it may be the first such public discussion in Idaho.

For years we have run across tell-tale evidence strongly suggesting that Planned Parenthood has adopted a policy of ignoring evidence of sexual abuse when dealing with teenage girls – the not-famous-enough “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” policy used by PP affiliates across the country. Some law enforcement officials over the years have taken note of the strange gaps in the data between the number of sexually active girls and reports coming from Planned Parenthood to law enforcement. Officials in Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, California and Ohio have conducted investigations. The Abortion Lobby has fought them tooth-and-claw under the guise of “protecting the privacy” of girls – i.e., the victim. (We’ve often speculated that the Abortion Lobby views these victimized girls as just so much “collateral damage” in their war to establish abortion rights in America, but surely some employees are deeply troubled by the industry’s role in facilitating the abuse of teenage girls).

The Idaho Department of Health & Welfare reports on its website that 1-in-4 Idaho girls can expect to be the victim of sexual abuse by the time they reach 18.

Here is part of the reason so many victimizations occur:

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that some 12,000 Idaho girls were receiving “Family Planning Services” from Planned Parenthood and other agencies in 2005. How many of these girls were being victimized by a predator? Manipulated or coerced into getting birth control or abortion so that the abuse could continue?

Our estimate is that less than 600 reports of teenage sexual abuse were filed in 2005; that is only 5% of cases encountered by Planned Parenthood and their cohorts. Most disturbing, less than 60 of those reports were filed by ‘medical personnel’.

Those figures may give you a better idea as to why we are so concerned to learn that Boise Planned Parenthood has given safe harbor to a staffer from Ohio who is accused of enforcing a “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” policy when subordinates encountered evidence of incest or other sexual abuse.

We applaud McConaughey for the courage to use his public forum as a vehicle to educate the public about the serious potential threat to Idaho’s daughters. But our criticism of his media pals at the Statesman, KTVB, Press Tribune and the rest stands.

More than ironically, when visiting that same Idaho Health & Welfare website, we ran across this admonition:

“Silence protects the Abuser. Silence allows the victimization to continue.”

Perhaps the editors at the Statesman should ponder these words and their role in protecting Planned Parenthood from public accountability.

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

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.