Idaho State Representative Janice McGeachin, R-32, was Halli’s guest on the Halli & Friends radio show Thursday, July 29. Be sure to listen on demand, if you missed it live. The interview will be available on this page for a few days, or permanently at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk.

Rep. McGeachin discussed the effort nationwide to do away with the Electoral College, and select presidents by the popular vote. On a related topic, Rep. McGeachin also discusses the need to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for the popular election of senators. The two issues are related – both the Electoral College and the selection of senators by state legislatures were placed in the Constitution to preserve states’ rights and keep the balance of power between the states and the federal government.

Rep. McGeachin also discusses Idaho State budgets and tax revenues, resulting from the 22% drop in revenues in the last two years.

Don’t miss this interview with one of Idaho’s standout legislators.

By Washington State Representative Matt Shea

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from “any civil process” while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho’s Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases…shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof…

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase “any civil process.” An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart’s allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, “any civil process.”

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: “That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.” 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)…

Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people’s voice was protected and uninhibited:

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. “In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence.” Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary “Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial… [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House’s office received a subpoena for one of the speaker’s administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist’s tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be “subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature….” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

“…the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public’s right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote.” [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same “any civil process” language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

“This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator’s paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. “It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature.” Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.

The use of the words “subject to” means that the member is not “liable to” the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties….” Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads “A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session.” The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator’s personal affairs. …such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session.” Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of “any civil process” should be granted during the constitutional described time periods… When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right… Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. “Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators.” Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart’s side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon(1) and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.(2)

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of “income,”(3) to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions(4) and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session…is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama’s request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?

Not only are Rep. Hart’s accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place…to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon\’s_Enemies_List
2. archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml
3. www.constitutionalincome.com
4. It has been reported in the press that the IRS’s denial of 100% of Rep. Hart’s business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart’s refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.

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

In today’s Halli & Friends radio program, Halli outlines the upcoming tax increases resulting from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and Obamacare. Are you ready for this?

Plus, the numbers are in and Governor Butch Otter and the Idaho Legislature were right when they cut spending in both the 2010 and 2011 budgets. Halli discusses the details.

And finally, the Idaho Republican party has come under fire for a new plank in their platform calling for candidates in the Republican Primary to reveal whether or not they agree with the platform. The mainstream media call this a “loyalty oath”. Learn the truth in today’s program.

Listen on this website, or at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk.

By Robert L. Webster

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people of a nation to demand a return to the fundamental principles of liberty which were established by their founding fathers, and to eliminate the changes which have weakened and deformed it from the intent of the original charter, a decent respect to the opinions of its citizens, civilized nations and of all mankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to this action.

We, the people of the United States of America, hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born free, in that they are endowed at birth by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty, property and the freedom of choice – that to secure these rights, men may institute a government, delegating to it those specifically enumerated and limited powers necessary to the security and felicity of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it, and in its place to either restore the original, or institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as shall seem to them most likely to secure their national safety and happiness.

Prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and history has shown that men are naturally inclined to suffer abuses of government, while abuses are tolerable, than to correct them by abolishing the traditional form of government to which they are accustomed. But when a long and significant string of abuses has been experienced, and appears to be designed to destroy the Constitutional form and revert back to the despotic forms of history, this people reasserts its God-given right and duty to throw off such abuses, and to restore again the principles and safeguards provided by the Founders in the inspired original system, the Constitution of the United States of America.

The citizens of this Democratic Republic have suffered enough abuses of government power over its brief bi-centennial existence. The history of the second century in particular is replete with injuries and usurpations, in an apparent design to convert and subjugate this land of abundant resources, industrious people and “common-law” liberty back under the control of the ancient systems of “rulers law.” As testimony, let the sobering facts be submitted openly before God, and to a candid world of witnesses:

Religious persecution has been allowed to persist without just redress or protection by the national or State governments, at times occurring even under government orders.

The issue of “separation of church and state” has been grossly distorted to the point of separation of religion from government and from everyday life. This is a national disgrace, and a reversal of the wholesome relationship intended by the Founders as essential to national well being.

The sixteenth amendment of 1913 has violated the Founder’s principles by authorizing the federal government to collect direct income taxes from the people. It has been a primary cause of centralization of power to the central government, and must be repealed.

The seventeenth amendment of 1913 has helped to destroy States’ rights and the delicate checks and balances system by making the election of US Senators by popular vote, instead of by the State Legislatures, thus increasing the influence of

The twenty third amendment attempts to create a State out of a city – Washinton DC – in violation of the Founders wisdom. It must be repealed, allowing the residents to vote as citizens of the State of Maryland.

The twenty fifth amendment violates the Founders’ principles by allowing a President to appoint a Vice President, which, under manipulated conditions of sedition and murder could result in a president never elected to office; it must be repealed.

The twenty sixth amendment dangerously advanced “democracy” beyond a healthy balance by allowing eighteen-year-olds to vote. They lack maturity; it should be repealed.

MONEY IS POWER, and the enemies of America have taken control of America’s wealth. The Federal Reserve System of 1913 is unconstitutional and must be replaced immediately by the Constitutional Monetary System as prescribed by the Founders – the economic system of prosperity which has never yet been instituted!

America’s Constitutionally prescribed gold and silver money standard has been unconstitutionally removed, and must be restored, under Congressional control. With the value of the dollar and the money supply tied to within 5% of the measured Gross National Product, and limiting all interest rates to a maximum of 10%, for no longer than ten years credit; prosperity would be unprecedented and secured.

The Congress has consistently spent beyond its budget; a balanced biennial budget must be required, under penalty of automatic dismissal from office for all who vote to cause budget excesses.

The Congress has voted to increase its pay while still in its current term of office; these current increases must be repealed and all future increases outlawed; each one voting for it should be recalled by their respective States. The States alone must decide Congressional salaries.

The Congressional seniority system has stagnated progress and corrupted the legislature. Amend the constitution to limit all federal elected legislative, executive and judicial terms to a lifetime total of twelve years in any one office or position.

The total tax burden of the people, including federal, State, local, sales and hidden taxes, is now 50% or more of the average individual wage earner’s income, a level so oppressive that it approaches complete subjugation. It is destroying the lives of America’s people! Not even Almighty God taxes beyond 10%! Amend the Constitution to limit the TOTAL maximum individual taxable burden to 10%, with the States to collect it and apportion revenues to various levels of government – State, Local, and Federal – for only constitutionally authorized activities. Exclude all churches, inheritances and all people under age 21 from any form of taxation. The people must be free to profit and prosper from their own enterprise and initiative, and free to keep and use their earnings as they choose. The result will be a more prosperous nation and government.

Property ownership has been eliminated unconstitutionally by property taxation. Reestablish property ownership to include all surface and subsurface rights, and never may be forfeited or lost due to failure to pay taxes of any kind, and that property may be inherited or granted free from any inheritance tax.

The Congress has violated the individual freedom and income of the people with the oppressive and ineffective Social Security System. Phase it out in ten years and replace it with voluntary, private, annuity-type savings and investment programs for retirement. Leave welfare to the generosity of the local people, who (when not over-taxed by government) will provide for the needy directly.

There is no Constitutional authority for federal involvement to be in business enterprises of any kind. Liquidate all federal businesses and properties into private enterprise hands in ten years.

There is no Constitutional authority for federal ownership or management of lands and resources beyond the constitutional prescription, viz. Washington DC, ports and arsenals, needful government buildings and legitimate US territories; yet the federal has withheld lands and resources within state boundaries, rightfully belonging to those States created out of public domain. Restore all lands and resources immediately to the respective States.

There is no Constitutional authority for federal involvement in education, except to encourage it within the States, as explained in the Northwest Ordinance of 1897, viz. the teaching of religion, morality and knowledge. Promote education of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founders, but cease all direct involvement in education. It is exclusively a State issue.

There is no Constitutional authority for any level of government to give away (grant) any of the people’s property (money) as AID to anyone for any purpose; this includes aid to education, welfare and foreign banks or interests. Cease all grants. Leave the solution of all such matters to the States and the people. Experience has clearly demonstrated that such aid does not buy friends, but is counterproductive. Export American constitutional freedom and prosperity by example, not by financial grants.

The Supreme Court has usurped legislative power: Congress must strike out all decisions which conflict with the Founders’ intent. Limit federal court jurisdiction to matters of life, liberty and national citizenship. No person born in the USA of non-citizen parents has a right to US citizenship. No foreigner or criminal has US citizen rights beyond liberty and life, while staying here.

The court system has obstructed justice and has not provided the right to a speedy and just trial. Eliminate plea bargaining. Require capital punishment within six months for capital crimes.

Inadequate checks exist to prevent or correct constitutional abuses of power by the Supreme Court. Authorize by amendment an elected Regional Court of Constitutional Appeal, which can judge and overturn or reverse any decisions of the Supreme Court which may be judged by the elected Regional Court of Constitutional Appeal to be unconstitutional.

The federal government has entangled America in foreign alliances contrary to the Founders’ intent. Through NATO, the UN, Nafta, Gatt and other “alliances,” the federal has combined with other unelected entities to subject America to jurisdictions foreign to our Constitution and not acknowledged by our laws, giving unauthorized consent to their acts of pretended legislation and concepts of so-called “international law.” No unelected body has power to make any law binding on any people! Cancel US involvement in the United Nations Charter; we are not bound by it. Cancel US funding of the UN, and restrict UN activity to a discussion forum of only those nations operating as constitutional republics.

There is no constitutional authority for the Executive branch to create law, yet the President issues Executive Orders having the effect and force of law, and the executive branches issue regulations which have the force of law but not passed by the legislature. Repeal all such, and establish a paid ten-member Federal/ State/ Citizen Checks and Balances Committee to watchdog all Federal and State branches for usurpations of power.

The federal has involved the nation in undeclared “no win” wars in violation of the constitution, transporting large armies to many foreign places in defense of international power schemes aimed at one-world government dominion. Amend the constitution to provide that 2/3 of the States legislatures may override any Congressional declaration of war. No so-called “police action” or international “peacekeeping” military force will be permitted. Any deployment of US military forces must be committed to protect America’s constitutional values, and to WIN – to end the conflict and restore peace as quickly as possible.

National leaders often have had no constitutional training prior to office; require all elected and appointed officials to pass a national constitutional examination in the intent of the Founders, based on the Constitution itself and the Federalist Papers, as a pre-requisite for federal elective offices and judgeships. Publish a semi-annual constitutional voting and decisionmaking index for all such federal officers.

The executive branch has created a multitude of new offices, and has sent forth a swarm of agents who harass the people. Not the least of these is the IRS, which has been unconstitutionally empowered to function as all three branches of government combined – creating laws, administering them, judging their compliance, prescribing the penalties and enforcing them, often unjustly. This is tyranny!

Repeated petitions for redress of grievances have been ignored or become cause for REPEATED INJURIES TO THE PEACE AND CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE. The federal seems deaf to the voice of constitutional principles, continually seeking to expand its jurisdiction and power, increasing it’s inequitable system of taxes, increasing its spending without prudent budget limitations, seeking primarily for re-election and party status, while subjugating the States, local governments and the people.

The Founders’ worst fears of concentration of power into political parties (Faction) have become realized. The system of political parties has entrenched itself by gradual tradition into the very fabric of all levels of government to control legislation, positions of power, and even provide government-financed primary elections of private political parties, which exclude independents and new parties. Require that no person may be a candidate for or hold any public office, federal or state, who is sponsored by any political party, and that no position in any level of government may be held by anyone who is a member of a political party.

Therefore, WE THE PEOPLE have determined that we as citizens, deprived of our liberties under our current government, much as were our Founders under the hands of an oppressive king, unitedly denounce the above-noted offending actions of our government as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL, employing first those constitutional means at our disposal to remove the offenders and the offences, restoring the Constitution to the original intent of the Framers. In those cases when peaceful means have proven inadequate, we reserve the right of liberty under God, as stated in the original Declaration of Independence, to effect the necessary restorations by force – political, economic or military.

It is left to us of this generation of Americans to preserve, defend and restore the greatest charter of human liberty in history, for ourselves and for all mankind, the original Constitution of the United States of America.

With a firm reliance on the guidance and protection of the Almighty, who inspired our Founders to create the establishment of the original Constitution, we the undersigned herein do mutually pledge to God, to each other and to our posterity, our fortunes, our sacred honor and even our very lives if necessary, to the restoration of the Constitution of The United States of America.

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

Idaho State Rep. Phil Hart

After fighting what I believed was an unconstitutional federal income tax, six years ago I capitulated, filed returns, and have since then, paid $120,054 in combined state and federal income taxes (including the interest and penalties). At the time, I was also working toward a settlement with the IRS. What derailed this settlement process was becoming a target for an audit. My experiences provide a case study of why we need to get rid of the income tax on wages and salaries.

Years ago I became interested in the income tax and wanted to understand how it worked. I had read a lot of the literature on the subject. In doing so, I noticed there was a big gapping hole in the literature. No one had written about the intent of the Income Tax Amendment when it was debated and finally ratified on February 25, 1913. Plus I thought it would be easier to research the purpose and intent of the income tax rather than study the Internal Revenue Code. I focused my research on the years 1908 to 1913, as this was when the income tax amendment was debated. Because I discovered so much new information in doing this research, I wrote a book about it.

The genesis of the modern income tax was the Democrat Party’s Presidential Platform of 1908. The income tax plank read,

“We favor as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes to the end that wealth might bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government.”

At the time there were no entitlement programs, and the greatest beneficiary of government was the wealthy. But with only consumption taxes, the wealthy were not paying for the benefits they received. The income tax did not start out as a “soak the rich” scheme, but only as an attempt to be fair in distributing the burdens of the cost of government. It was not a tax on people, but only a tax on what was called at the time “accumulated wealth.”

In 1909, the author of the Income Tax Amendment, Senator Brown from Nebraska said “It is the theory of the friends of the income tax proposition that property should be taxed and not individuals.” 44 Congressional Record, 1570 (1909).

I litigated the issue with the government, challenging its constitutionality. My challenge to the income tax included petitioning the United States Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court would not hear my case. The late Mr. Paul Chappell, a former attorney with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel for the District of Columbia said of my Petition “Reading Phil Hart’s work is like returning to law school. After decades of practice as a tax attorney, Phil makes me feel as if I’m a student again.” And after reading my Petition for the eighth time, another tax attorney, Mr. Arch McColl wrote me, “What you did was brilliant legal work in your Petition for Certiorari….”

In 2004, after my judicial remedy had been exhausted, I filed 1040 returns to get caught up. Suddenly I found myself in an IRS audit. I had to sue the IRS to avoid turning over the names and addresses of those who purchased my book, Constitutional Income. I was represented by the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington D.C. public interest freedom of speech law firm. As far as CIR can figure out, I was the first author in American history to have the government demand I turn over such names and addresses.

The Center for Individual Rights won these lawsuits for me. There were actually two lawsuits, and each lawsuit took a year. However, four years later when the IRS issued their final audit report, the IRS denied all my business deductions for eight years. The amount of denied deductions totaled $300,000. Why? An IRS employee told me “When you don’t give us
everything we ask for, you get all of your deductions denied.” For them, this isn’t about the liens or the money; it is about getting the names.

I believe I have a First Amendment right to protect the identities of my readers, just as a journalist has a First Amendment right to protect their sources. I also believe in protecting my readers’ Forth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. These are principles worth defending!

During this four year audit, I provided the IRS with all my canceled checks, receipts, invoices and so on. Boxes worth. Yet all these deductions were denied solely for political reasons. Losing $300,000 worth of deductions inflated my now purported “taxable income” and the tax imposed thereon. My expenses for engineering and drafting personnel were denied, office rent expenses denied, office supply expenses denied, book publishing expenses including editors, artists and printing expenses denied. All of my business deductions were denied, all of them. What small business can operate with $0 in business expenses over an eight year period?

Protecting my readers from having big government snooping into their lives has increased my state and federal tax liability by about $125,000.

When the Idaho State Tax Commission got their hands on this IRS audit report that reflected the $300,000 in denied business deductions, they wanted their cut of the inflated “taxable income” too. This is the main issue currently being contested in my litigation with them.

After the Supreme Court declining to hear my case, I began making tax payments. But of the $120,054 I have paid since then, not a single dollar of these payments has been used to offset any of the lien amounts. It’s a nightmare. I would happily trade places with any of my detractors who somehow think I’ve gotten a “good deal.”

Regardless of whether or not the income tax on wages and salaries is constitutional, most agree on one thing: it is an inefficient and privacy invading tax. On the private side, it takes 22 cents for its bookkeeping, reporting, accounting fees, and legal fees for every $1 collected. Whereas a consumption tax takes only one cent for compliance on the private side for every $1 collected.

The income tax places a huge tax on wages and salaries. We all know you get less of what you tax. And guess what? We now have fewer jobs. The income tax on wages and salaries is a job killer. And such a complicated system provides many opportunities for abuse on both the private side and the government side.

These circumstances of mine have created a lot of controversy. But how can it be wrong for me to fight for my legitimate deductions and to stand on my principals?

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

Today’s Halli & Friends program features excellent interviews with two great men.

The first is Bryan Fischer, former director of the Idaho Values Alliance, and now director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at American Family Association. He discusses nationalized health care and its dangers, potential conservative presidential candidates, and Idaho issues.

Representative Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, gives an excellent summary of the 2010 Idaho Legislature and offers predictions for the state’s revenues and future.

Both interviews are must-hear radio! Listen on demand with the player on this page, or at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk.

Don’t forget to tune in live from 8-9am MDT, Monday through Friday.

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

As I write what one of my colleagues calls “musings” each week, I try to find something that is a little off the beaten track that would not otherwise be reported. There is a lot happening and at this stage of the session it happens fast. Our incentives to get the session ended are different than ever before because of the budget problems.

I was visiting with one member that told me we should hurry and get the budget set before things get any worse. That reminds me of people who drive really fast on their way to the gas station to avoid running out of gas. It just doesn’t work that way. More of the smaller budgets have been passed now and we are yet to see the biggest ones. There is less wrangling over the budgets than before and as we get to what are known as the big three, Education, Health and Welfare, and Corrections, there will be a lot of discussion.

That discussion will not center on the amounts in the budgets as much as it will be about how the legislature directs the money is to be spent. Some call it micromanaging while others are calling it extreme measures to make the money last through the year. This budget is challenging but not impossible, we will get through this process. I was told a long time ago that the only way out of a crisis is through it and I think that is where we stand this year.

For a long time I have thought that if faced with a challenge like this, we would instinctively look at what we do and eliminate what we deemed unnecessary. In this arena it is a bit more complicated than that because what I may view as not needed is the favorite of someone else. Sort of like it is at home when your wife cleans off your messy desk and that piece of paper you needed (or wanted) now resides in a place destined to find its way to the landfill. It was so very important at the time but now that it is irretrievable we somehow muddle through.

One of the traditions around here on St. Patrick’s day is a wearin’ of the green. The ladies around this place do a better job than the men by far. The best some of us can do is to produce obnoxiously green ties. Those around here with Irish ancestors are the ones who really get with the program. On that day we had some very lively debates on legislation but I am happy to report there were no fist fights. Thankfully, our other traditions and rules don’t allow us to go that far.

I hope that I am not so far off the beaten track that you think we have nothing serious to do. Things like state sovereignty issues (several of them), Idaho coins to mint for payment of Idaho Taxes, and conscience legislation for health care providers cleared the House this week. But you already probably read about some of that elsewhere.

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

By Representative Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

George Bernard Shaw said that youth is wasted on the young, but as I looked over the large group of 4-H youth at the annual Know Your Government breakfast I’m not sure his thesis is valid. These kids, especially those from our area, are sharp, eager to learn and determined to achieve. Mr. Shaw must not have known many young people like these.

I receive a little magazine from John Deere called The Furrow. There are some really interesting articles and each issue contains what they call Fun & Philosophy. One little item this issue is from Winston Churchill, “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. It you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”

Our first big debate of the session took place this week over whether or not to allow the Cost of Living Allowance granted by the board governing the state retirement fund to take affect. These are tough times and I don’t know many folks that couldn’t use a little more money. The debate, after clearing all of the emotional issues aside, centers around one simple fact. The gap between what is earned and contributed and what is being paid in benefits is widening. This is known as the unfunded liability. Even though there is a healthy balance on hand, we are headed for a wreck if each year more is paid out than is coming in. As unpleasant as it may be, meeting the danger of putting the fund in jeopardy promptly will ultimately reduce the danger and insure the soundness of the fund.

The pace has also picked up in most committees, with longer meetings and more legislation being deliberated. Two proposed constitutional amendments have cleared State Affairs and will be debated by the full House early this next week. There is one yet to come for the cities that have power generating facilities so that they can enter into long term power purchasing agreements.

Also in The Furrow this time is an article about precision farming. Imagine that, precision in farming. Coupled with the article is an ad with a picture of the cab of a brand new tractor with two electronic monitors, one to watch multiple tractor functions and the other to run the GPS guidance system. It’s not as crazy as it sounds because putting seed, chemicals and fertilizers at precise spacing actually saves, big time. I couldn’t help but think of our budgets this year and how they are going to need more precision than ever before, watching every penny. And as odd as it may seem, that precision is going to have to take place in the field more than around these halls. We’ll just provide the incentives and the flexibility.

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

By Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

One of the unusual things about this session of the legislature is that we have now come through five full weeks and JFAC, at the end of the week, has finally set a target number for the budget. On normal years this happens in the first or second week at the latest. It was thought prudent to wait until the January revenues were in. It is down even more and the adjustment to the current fiscal year’s budget will be bigger as well.

The Director of the Department of Health and Welfare came before the House committee explaining how the shortfall and reductions have affected them. One bright spot in all of this is that the providers are assisting in finding ways to cut expenses.

The discussion about the Katie Beckett program (help for severely disabled kids) continues to be a focus of discussions with Health and Welfare. After the rules failed in the committee for proposed premium payments, I asked the Department to collect some data to see what could be saved under their proposal. I met with two of the head people in Medicaid and they have put together some data that at least gives the members of the committee information on which to make an informed decision. I don’t agree with the method they used to come up with payments, which is based on a percentage of gross income. The Federal Government doesn’t even tax on gross income.

I keep my ears open while at home each weekend and it is interesting to hear the comments about our situation. One idea that came up was to look into how anesthesiologists are reimbursed for their services under Medicaid for dental services. It seems that they are paid much more for dental services than for any other procedure, even in the O.R. That is a bit strange and I will be looking into that. It makes me wonder just how many other areas like this we can find if we just try.

It is a whole new game this year and it provides us with the opportunity to reevaluate everything we do in State Government. While speaking with the folks from Medicaid, I couldn’t help myself but to remind them about how we got to this spot. When times are good and we have a lot of your money, it has been easy to become lax in how we determine eligibility. A few years ago we had an “any door policy”, which was used to sign people up for every service they qualify for, even though they may have only needed one specific thing. In those days an application for Food Stamps would get you a Medicaid card even though you might not have needed it. And then we wonder why Medicaid has grown so much over the years.

Another question that came up this weekend was, “What is the mood in Boise these days?” My response was that there a lot of long faces around this place, some from legislators and more in the agencies. It seems to be more fun for some around here to spend a lot of other people’s money than it is to say “no.” As for me, I think of the people’s money with great respect. We should have been much more careful all along. Heaven only knows that I have been saying it often enough at the Statehouse.

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

By Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

There is an old Irish saying, “Count your joys instead of your woes, Count your friends instead of your foes.” Our friend The Farm Bureau was in town for their annual meeting and the evening spent with them was very enjoyable and a reminder to deal with our problems the way we do down on the farm. After the conversation at my table went on for some time, Mrs. Priestly looked at me and asked if in the middle of all of our problems, if there is anything good to report?

A few good things are happening and a short list follows. We have turned down some not so good rules from some of the agencies. That’s a good thing. When rules are so burdensome or lie outside what the law intends, they need eliminating. In State affairs we have found some extra cash by implementing electronic publishing for the rules themselves.

In the elections arena we are looking at legislation to allow for online filing of campaign reports that will help save some money as well. We have forwarded a bill to the full house that asserts our state’s rights when it comes to health care. It authorizes our Attorney General to seek relief should the Congress pass health care laws that would cause increases in Idaho’s costs and would impose penalties on our people for not purchasing insurance. We will soon see legislation to implement photo voter identification. There are some changes to the redistricting law, in addition to what we did last year, that should help our rural areas. And even better news is that everyone around this place is committed to getting this done and out of town (I’m shooting for March 26 or sooner).

We have put some deadlines in place for bills to be printed. Anything beyond that point will have to pass the following test: Will the republic endure without this measure? In a year like this, it has become difficult to find the joys, but we do have them. I’ll do my best to count them.

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