by Andi Elliott, Jefferson County

I’ve seen the poster of the 9 bridges of Jefferson County that have been determined by the Idaho Transportation Department to be structurally deficient. And these bridges need to have diminished speed limits and weight limits and immediate repairs. I’m reminded of the nursery rhyme, London Bridge is Broken Down.

“London Bridge is broken down…How shall we build it up again?”

“We’ll build it up with gravel and stone,” or we can prop it up with railroad ties and plywood, as has been done in Jefferson County.

“Gravel and stone will be washed away….” or the railroad ties and plywood can slip and rot.

“We’ll build it up with iron and stone….” which probably would be prudent if we’re planning for long time structurally sound bridges and public safety.

One of my neighbors, upon hearing about the public safety hazards posed by the county bridge system, lamented about what would happen if a potato truck passed over such a bridge and brought it down. I’m thinking about what would happen if one of our school buses loaded with children were to result in “London Bridge came falling down”. Perish the thought and the law suits that would ensue. Am I the only one thinking that safe and reliable bridges are more important than a new high school?

Andi Elliott

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

By Richard Larsen

One of the most specious and inane arguments in politics today is that the Constitution is an arcane, anachronistic document created by imperfect men, and that it is therefore illogical to interpret it literally. They assert that the founding fathers didn’t have a “crystal ball” and couldn’t have foreseen issues like privacy in the 21st century, and so those of us who believe the Constitution to be a social contract limiting the powers of government must be “out of our minds.”

The first of those arguments is a logical fallacy. The tu quoque fallacy asserts that since the founders were imperfect, whatever they may say or do is equally imperfect or questionable. That would be tantamount to saying that because a certain physics instructor is specious, illogical, and misinformed about history and our system of governance, that he’s equally inept and tenuous in physics. Such a conclusion is obviously faulty logic, and based on a false premise.

The second argument is equally misguided. The founders didn’t need a “crystal ball” to foresee 21st century challenges. A constitution is by definition, “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state is to be governed.” Consequently, the founding fathers didn’t need to be aware of “privacy” issues, or the internet, or any historically contextual development that may prove intellectually taxing to those who presuppose in their unwarranted arrogance, that they should have.

The structure established by the Constitution created legislative bodies that could adapt to changing times, by passing laws to deal with such vicissitudes, while the foundation, or fundamental principles, could endure, protecting the individual over the presumed and evolutionary expansion of the “rights” of the state. Plus, provision for changing the text of that social contract was made through the amendment process, which has been done 27 times to date.

Our Constitution established a system of governance that could stand the test of time, as long as citizens valued freedom more than tyranny. A system that, if held fast to, would assure that no one person, or oligarchical self-anointed leaders, could become totalitarians in a republic so structured. And it included guaranteed rights and privileges, for the first time in history, not granted by a monarch, ruler, magistrate, or benevolent dictator, but acknowledged to have originated from deity for all men. This is perfectly illustrated by our current president’s admission that, “I am constrained by a system that our Founders put in place,” although there’s precious little evidence of such constraint.

Is it a perfect system? Obviously not, especially in light of our contemporary crony-capitalism, that corrupts government and capitalism. The founding fathers maintained that for the republic to endure, we must have a moral people, which is the only real anachronism from our founding era, casting the most ominous clouds of doubt over the perpetuity of the republic.

When it is argued that the Constitution is a “living” document, implication is made that the precepts and principles of the Constitution are not applicable to today and provides an excuse for all types of scurrilous and specious assertions for expanded government largesse at the expense of our freedom and our money. To say that the Constitution is a “living document,” hence, not to be taken literally, is akin to asserting that the Ten Commandments are really just “Ten Suggestions.” It also affords proponents of the “living document” theory latitude to pick and choose cafeteria-style, which rights established by the Constitution are legitimate or applicable today. Some like freedom of speech for themselves but not for those they disagree with, for example. And some absolutely detest the freedom to bear arms.

Judicial precedent and daily judicial decisions are judged against the basic principles and rights specified by the Constitution and statute to provide applicability to today’s milieu. In that way alone is it a “living document.” Statute is how the fundamental principles of the Constitution are codified in a changing social structure, but the Constitution provides the baseline.

James Madison, regarded as the Father to the Constitution, said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” We have witnessed this over the generations since the founding of the country, and we see that process of “silent encroachment” of government on the freedom of the people accelerated over the past few years in a way never before witnessed. We see government dictating terms of property ownership, dictating terms of access to health care, and dictating terms of energy use and private consumption, for starters.

The Constitution is not a “living” document. The Founders were specific in their language and did not mince words. They meant what they said. It was written precisely to prevent the incursion of government into our lives to the extent that we see it occurring today proving it is not an anachronism. It is a social contract to assure and guarantee fundamental freedom and liberty for all generations of Americans, and its relevance is reasserted every time a new official is sworn into office, vowing to “uphold and defend the Constitution.”

The survivability of our republic is dependent upon a knowledgeable and informed electorate, committed to liberty. We need to be intimately familiar with our founding documents, especially the Constitution, and hold those accountable who seek to subvert the freedoms of those who are intended to have ultimate power in this republic: We the People!

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

By Andi Elliott, Idaho State Tea Party Patriots Coordinator

I used to hate Wednesdays. It was the day my music teacher would come to our home and I despised my piano lessons. But now I can hardly wait for Wednesdays to arrive and with it my next edition of the Jefferson Star. The investigative journalism is awe inspiring. It’s as if I am reading a serial thriller and don’t want to put it down.

Our elected prosecutor, Rob Dunn, is being portrayed as a multi-headed Hydra wearing many hats resulting in multiple conflicts of interest. And this week’s edition talks of secret council meetings and improper use of the legal technique of “quiet title” in order to acquire property for the city. And it gets better. The resignation of a City Councilman (too bad, we need a “good guy” in there) because he cannot continue to work under the circumstances in which he feels people are being deceived heightens the suspense even further.

Then to top it all off, a councilman comes forward with a recording about Dunn’s threat towards him. And to think, all this in our little Jefferson County where weeks go by with nothing more exciting than a trespassing citation being issued. I’d better check to see that my Star subscription isn’t due to expire soon. I’d hate to miss the next exciting issue.

Andi Elliott
Hamer

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

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

When I was a younger man, I once heard a speaker tell our group that the best way to kill time is to work it to death. I don’t want to give anyone the impression that we just kill time in the legislature, however, this last week we certainly did work a lot of it to death.

It may be ancient history for most now, but the floor debate on setting up an insurance exchange was a history making event on several fronts. I suppose the House felt the necessity of outdoing the Senate by debating the issue for an hour longer than they did. Last Wednesday was a very long day and the debate on the bill took exactly 7 hours. I guess I am as guilty as the next guy and did spend just a couple of minutes describing what I think the basic issues revolving around the exchange issue are. After all of the long faces during that whole process I thought I might try to put a smile on those faces with a lighter comment. I said, “If you laid all of the members of this body end to end that had drifted off to sleep during this debate, they sure would be a lot more comfortable.” My plan worked.

I still remain skeptical as to whether this is the right approach for us to take. Two of the overriding issues for me have been, (1) what is the benefit of having an insurance exchange and how would it help all concerned, health insurance companies, their customers, health care providers and the state, and (2) what will be the added cost of the exchange that will be borne by the taxpayers? In all of the discussions that I have had with regard to this issue, those two questions have yet to answered. After weighing all of the evidence on both sides of the issue, I voted no. I do think that expanding our health insurance markets would be a good thing. But I don’t think this plan provides that when there is no ability to shop for insurance across state lines.

Several weeks ago, I had two bills drafted that have turned out to be the talk of the town after they were introduced (printed). The first is the one that’s nearest and dearest to my heart, the repeal of the county medically indigent law along with the repeal of the Catastrophic Program. The other that has caused the most interest, at least in some circles, is the expansion of the Medicaid program in the State of Idaho. Both of these issues would of necessity need to be considered together, because if Idaho decides to expand Medicaid, the catastrophic fund and the county responsibility for the medically indigent would have to end. There is no way Idaho taxpayers could sustain both programs. The Department of Health and Welfare has compiled cost estimates in consultation with the Medicaid actuary they use for projecting the cost of programs. It looks like we would not save a great deal of money, but it would not increase our general fund expenditures either. The real benefit comes when you consider that property taxes statewide would be decreased by an estimated $478 million over the next decade if the counties are no longer in the business.

So, as a result, I will be spending quite a bit of my time this next week evaluating these two bills and their cost, and determining if the legislature desires to move forward. I was asked by one reporter why I had waited so long to introduce these two bills. The short answer is that I was asked to hold off until the exchange legislation was voted on in the House. My agenda for this next week will be extremely full and I intend on working a lot of hours to death.

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

By Andi Elliott, Idaho State Tea Party Patriots Coordinator

Seldom do I go to town that I don’t find myself talking with someone, friend or stranger, and to a person they are lamenting the sad situation of America. And I’m often asked, “What can we do?”

My suggestion: continue doing what you are doing. Continue to fail to contact your legislators and county/city representatives about issues important to you. Continue to sit in front of the television when you should be voicing your opinion at a public meeting. Continue sitting in the coffee shop with like-minded folks who have the same complaints as you. Continue to ignore what is being taught to your children in the public schools.

Continue to sit idly by rather than attend rallies and protests against issues affecting our lives. Continue to fail to hold our elected representatives accountable or to thank those deserving such. Continue to be too busy to be involved. Continue not to “make waves.” Continue to allow our Constitutional freedoms to be usurped piecemeal. And especially, continue to fail to speak up. And we will continue to get the type of government we deserve.

If you want things to change, then change what you are doing for that’s the only way we won’t continue to get the same failed policies and the mistrust of our government will continue to build. All you have to do is to continue exactly what you’re doing now for things to continue as they are. And by all means, continue your silence which implies your consent.

Andi Elliott
Hamer

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

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

This week I have been reminded a great deal about the comic strip “Pogo”, and if there is anything that can date you, remembering Pogo is it. In my younger years I really didn’t think it was that great, but I found some things in there that made my day from time to time. “We have met the enemy and he is us” is probably the most quoted of his lines. It looks a lot like that around here sometimes.

The pace his picked up and the issues are coming at us from all directions. The School Boards Association came to town last week, and there was opportunity to visit about their concerns. One comment I heard around the lunch table was that if the personal property tax repeal were to take place without replacement dollars they would just hand over the keys. Other discussions were about tech in the classroom, No Child Left Behind and seemingly useless reports required by the Department of Education. The ISEE report (I have no idea what that is, but will find out) takes a lot of time and personnel, and is not of any use for the districts. My take-home assignment is to track that down at the Department.

The Mining Association was also in Boise last week. In our group we talked about how vital mining is to our economy and the products that come about because of these resources. For example, there is about one pound of molybdenum in two ton of ore, which is a lot of material to move. Moly is used for lubricants and is one of the necessary ingredients of stainless steel. Imagine all of the things stainless is used for and it becomes clear how important our Idaho resource is. And you can make the same case for our silver mines in the North, and our phosphate and pumice mines in our area.

Another thing that Pogo talked about from time to time was Friday the thirteenth. It may not be a direct quote, but “Friday the thirteenth came on Wednesday this month.” Some around here were feeling that way as some of the Freshman Class got out in front on the Heath Insurance Exchange legislation. You have to admire their initiative in doing so. However, declaring a position on an issue before the details are fleshed out can come back to haunt you.

The Saga goes on in State Affairs and last week we had what one member of the committee termed The Big Four, elections, alcohol, gambling and guns. Another committee member, who is new to the committee this year, remarked that it is never boring to be on State Affairs. And that is pretty much how it is. The variety of things we work on is a good lesson on the inner workings of state government.

I was cornered up by a TV station at home, questioning the integrity of the members of State Affairs. It is my pleasure to defend them. They work hard and I am proud to be associated with them. And as for Walt Kelly, maybe the enemy is us, but sometimes it feels like it is someone else.

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

By Andi Elliott

How many of us have expressed dissatisfaction with the US involvement in the United Nations but our country continues with our membership and paying tremendous sums of money for the privilege to do so? And the UN has relentlessly continued to advance their agenda of one world governance. Most noticeably, it has reared its ugly head in a program titled AGENDA 21. Sounds harmless enough…unless you object to more government control over your life.

Currently in Idaho Falls, authorities are installing SMART METERS which are devices that transmits energy consumption data to your local utility company replacing the hard-wired meters we’re accustomed to having. Sounds harmless enough until one delves into the research. The amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by one of these devices is phenomenal and I’m sitting here with a stack of documentation citing a myriad of health problems associated with these SM’s…persistent headaches, nausea, insomnia, lack of concentration, increased cancer risks, heart problems, and studies even report ties with Alzheimers. These symptoms can begin within hours of installation. Cities are banning SM’s for a variety of reasons including health and safety concerns, skyrocketing electric bills, privacy issues (control of your energy usage), electrical fires and electronic interference.

SMART METERS are coming soon to a neighborhood near you so take time to educate yourself and then take the time to let your officials know your opinion. Also, check your credit cards for Radio Frequency transmitters and your new appliances for sensor devices monitoring your energy usage and allowing further invasion of privacy.

Andi Elliott
Hamer

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

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.

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.

Hundreds of concerned Jefferson County taxpayers have signed a petition demanding a full scale, independent, forensic audit of their Sheriff’s office. These signatures and this demand will be presented at the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners meeting, Monday, August 13th at 4:00PM as a scheduled agenda item.

Disturbing rumors have been circulating for months now regarding suspected financial improprieties. Exacerbating mounting community concern has been what may be characterized as the run, hide and dodge treatment from local government.

And why shouldn’t taxpayers be concerned? It took the Board of County Commissioners about four months to even acknowledge that Sheriff Blair Olsen’s wife has had a county issued cell phone. Incredulously, their Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners July 27, 2012 Statement feebly justified it as a “back-up cell phone for the Sheriff.” Their spurious claim that “Commissioners, both past and present, have authorized…” this expenditure was quickly refuted by former Commissioner Darwin Casper who stated publicly that he was never aware of such policy. It is difficult for those paying attention to imagine a more incriminating, outrageous official statement. The recent revelation that receipts were not required for expense report reimbursement prior to 2010, only adds fuel to the fire of public mistrust. A license to steal? Anyone willing to try that one in the private sector or with the IRS?

It is anticipated that there will be a major surprise at or immediately after the meeting. A common refrain comes to mind, “when memories fade, follow the documents.”

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