Why "Cross-over" voting in a primary is a legitimate practice

One of the candidates who recently sent in his response to our questionnaire added a note at the bottom that says this: "Your Vol. 47 No. 2 Page 1 [IPEA's newsletter] was very offensive to any person who is running for office.  People must stand for correct principles and vote accordingly. Cross-over voting should be made illegal!!!" 

Its ironic that in this case he would benefit if people follow our advice and vote in the primary based on issues that are important to IPEA.  He is running as a Republican, and his positions are much more favorable to IPEA than his incumbent rival, and there is no opponent to the Republican in the general.  Those people who would like to vote for a Democrat will not have that choice in the general, so they need to vote for the Republican who supports more of their issues in the primary election.  And in this case, he's it! 

This "cross-over" voting argument has apparently disturbed some candidates.  In fact, I will be doing an interview on right-leaning talk radio in eastern Idaho on Wednesday at noon because this radio host saw the newsletter.  He thinks "cross-over" voting is unethical. That candidate and radio host are both wrong.  

What they think of as "cross-over" voting is when you vote in the primary of the other party (the one you don't like) in order to sabotage an election.  That's not what we were advocating.  But even if we were, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  IPEA was encouraging "strategic" voting. For instance, if you normally vote Republican but you live in a Democrat leaning District, and there is a contested primary in the Democratic party, you could "cross over" and vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate you feel would best address your issues if that candidate is elected in the general election.  Then you can still vote for the Republican in the general election, but if your guy loses, at least you have the Democrat that most closely fits your views.  

Neither strategic voting OR cross-over voting are unethical and should not be illegal, and here is why:

Each of us has one vote.  The purpose of our vote is to influence the outcome of an election in order to elect the person we want for the job.  That vote is ours to use as we see fit.  If you want to use your vote to influence a primary, then you should absolutely use your vote in that way.  It's all you have.  It's not only NOT unethical or illegal, it is your PATRIOTIC DUTY.  So don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  

And here's a note to the Republican party in Idaho.  There is a move in the party to close the primary.  This would mean that you would have to register as either a Republican or a Democrat to vote in the primary.  They seem to think this would stop "cross-over" or "strategic" voting.  They are wrong.  Even in a closed primary, all you have to do is register for the party so you can vote in their primary, then you can still vote for the other party in the general if you want.

The Republican party would hurt itself by closing the primary because this will disenfranchise the independent voters who are not afraid to cross party lines to elect the right candidate for the job. And the number of independent voters is growing in Idaho as well as everywhere else in the country, and the last thing either party should do is discourage them from participating in the primary process. If you consider yourself to be an Independent, this move from the Republican party should offend you.

IPEA's Political Action

I received a letter in the mail criticizing IPEA's recent newsletter, but the writer didn't sign it so I can't reply directly.  I don't know if this letter was from a member or someone else who read our newsletter. I sent a copy to all candidates for the Idaho legislature.  For that reason, I'm addressing the letter here.    

The letter said "I find it somewhat disturbing that you would ... criticize the Republicans in the Idaho Legislature".  Here's a link to IPEA's  Political Action Statement.  Please make a special note of #5. IPEA focuses on issues, not parties. The letter accuses us of "bashing" Republicans, but it is a reality that the Republicans in the Idaho House of Representatives moved in lockstep to kill the PERSI retiree's COLA in the last session.  We criticized them because of their actions on this issue, not because they are Republicans. We sang the praises of Sen. Andreason for stopping the legislation.  Sen. Andreason is a Republican.

The letter asks "Have you been told that the Republicans force them to vote the party line?"  Yes.  Republicans are often strong-armed by the majority party leadership to vote the party line.  Some of them lean towards supporting our issues, only to withdraw support after the majority party leadership puts the screws to them. That doesn't mean we should give them a pass. We wish more Republican legislators had the courage to stand up to party leadership. When Sen. Cameron, a Republican, stood up to Mr. Gwartney, we sang his praises as well. 

The letter said we "add fuel to the argument for Republicans to close the primary election".  That may be true.  But even if that happened, it wouldn't stop someone from registering and voting as a Republican in the primary and then voting differently in the general election.

The letter says "It appears that you only contact Democrats, except for Rep. Trail and Sen. Andreason, to carry your legislation.  Have you tried working with any Republicans on any legislation?"  The answer to that is an emphatic "YES!"  IPEA staff and volunteers spend far more time lobbying Republicans than we do Democrats.  We know that in a legislature controlled by one party, that's what we need to do.   

So here's a challenge to the writer of that letter and to all of you:  If you are a member, please attend IPEA's General Council on May 8 in Boise.  You can voice your opinion on how we should move forward.  This is a much more effective way to influence IPEA's policy than an anonymous letter.  Here's a registration form:  http://www.ipeaonline.org/Registration.pdf

How did we get in this mess, anyway? It's not just the recession.

There's a article in Friday's Idaho Statesman about the sorry state of affairs for Health and Welfare .  This comes on the heels of the many stories about the sorry state of affairs for public schools.  I was asked by an IPEA member yesterday whether this budget crisis is real or if the legislators are lying to us.  And, she went on, if it is real, whose fault is it?  


The budget crisis is truly real.  Revenues are way down.  But whose fault is it, anyway? First, its not the fault of the feds.  In fact, if it weren't for the federal government, our state budget would be in far worse shape than it is due to the federal stimulus money that we have received.  


So let's blame Governor Otter.  Well, he surely deserves some blame.  And let's blame the state legislators.  Many of them also deserve some of the blame. 


But, I'm sorry to say, a large share of the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the Idaho voters, and yes, that means you.  I say that because this crisis was years in the making.  Had we elected Governors and legislators who were interested in a reasonable and fair system of taxation, Idaho would be in a much different position as we faced this recession, and public employees wouldn't be in so much danger of losing their jobs and Idaho citizens wouldn't be at such risk of losing services.  


Instead we have elected people to represent us who have consistently increased the share of the tax burden of the working class and middle class people in Idaho and shifted it off the wealthy people, big business and large landowners.  That's just the way it is.  This didn't happen overnight.  This has been the trend for decades now.  


So those of us who just go to work everyday and get a regular paycheck keep paying property taxes on our modest homes (unless we've lost them), sales tax on everything we buy (including food) and as much state income tax as a person making four or five times what we make.   But when the recession hit, we couldn't handle the entire burden of financing state government by ourselves.  Too many of us have been laid off.  Many of us have our homes in foreclosure and are no longer paying property taxes.  And most of us simply don't have the money to engage in any discretionary spending, so sales tax revenue is way down.  


The only way out of this terrible recession is to revamp our entire tax system to make it more fair.  If the burden were distributed more fairly, we wouldn't be in this mess, and the only way out is to fix it.  But the only way that's going to happen is if the Idaho middle class voters push the legislators to do it and elect others if they won't.  


This year's legislators are nibbling around the edges of the problem, but no one seems willing to take a big bite. For instance, legislation came forward that would require a review of all of the millions of dollars of tax exemptions every five years.  Excuse me, we can't wait five years.  They should just throw them all out, and then make everyone who wants a tax exemption apply again and make their case.  There would be an immediate increase in tax revenue as all those people who were exempted started paying taxes.  The revenue would gradually balance out as legitimate exemptions were awarded again, but it would give us some breathing room and we would end up with a more equitable system in the long run.  


Rep. Shirley Ringo (D) Moscow, had the courage to suggest a temporary surtax for people who made more than $250,000 a year, but most of the legislators wouldn't take that seriously.  And why not?  Excuse me, if you make that much money, you certainly should pay more income tax than someone making $25,000 a year.  


And how about those people with cabins in our most pristine wilderness areas who pay next to nothing in leases for the property that we own?  Why not increase those leases to market value? There is some consideration of this idea.  Let's see where it goes.  


These are just a few examples of what could be done if our elected Idaho lawmakers would get serious and start worrying more about us, the middle class voters, instead of getting reelected.  Hey, maybe if we would stop being complacent and push them a little harder, they would start to realize that the path to reelection may just involve doing what's right for the middle class Idahoan.   

Mr. Gwartney should resign

The issue of PERSI retiree's COLA sure stirred up some interesting stuff at the Idaho legislature.  I hope you have been keeping up on all of the newspaper articles and I hope you're considering finding someone else to send to the legislature in place of a few of the current Republicans in the House of Representatives.  I'll be submitting a "Reader's View" to the Statesman in the next few days in rebuttal to the last justification made by the Republican House leadership.  I'll post the article here when it's written.  Every time we were able to neutralize one of the arguments of the proponents of the bill, they came up with a new one.  This last one is the old standby : "unfunded liability."  I'll disprove that argument as well.  Don't let them fool you.  You are the voters and you have a right to expect your legislators to explain their positions with the truth and not with scare tactics. 


Here's a link to an article in the Idaho Statesman about Mr. Gwartney.  IPEA has long been asking the Governor to do something about Mr. Gwartney, and it's nice to see someone else bring up some concerns.  This article, while lengthy, is worth the read.  IPEA has been complaining to our legislators and to the Governor about Mr. Gwartney for some time, but, for the most part, our complaints have fallen on deaf ears.  Maybe now that the general public can see how costly Mr. Gwartney really is to the state and to the state's taxpayers, Governor Otter will do something about him.  Mr. Gwartney only receives $1 a year from the state for his service, but we contend that firing him and paying a decent salary to a real professional would save the state a lot of money in lawsuits alone, and things in general would operate a lot better. And, as they say, "you get what you pay for."  

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/02/28/1098575/a-cost-cutter-or-kingdom-builder.html

A couple of legislators went on record as to their displeasure with Mr. Gwartney in the article. The article quotes Senator Dean Cameron (R) Rupert, as saying "It is the imperialistic attitude Mr. Gwartney brings to a lot of the projects he does."  But Senator Cameron draws the line at linking the problem with Mr. Gwartney to the Governor.  He said, "I do not lay this blame on the governor. I do not blame him. I lay the blame at Mike Gwartney's feet."  I think he's wrong in that aspect.  Mr. Gwartney is Governor Otter's right hand man.  He appointed him and he supposedly oversees him. If the Governor really doesn't know what Mr. Gwartney is up to, well, he darn well should, and that's a problem in itself.

Senator Kate Kelly, (D) Boise said, "Having worked with a number of directors of the Department of Administration during the years that I have served in state government, it is my observation that the current director manages the agency with less transparency, less stakeholder and public involvement in decision-making, and less respect for legislators and public employees." We agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

Senator Elliott Werk (D) Boise, said, "Mr. Gwartney led the charge to basically disembowel the benefits of the state employees, which aren't as generous as people think they are."  Senator Werk cited Gwartney's cuts to part-time employee benefits that he said "devastated" colleges and universities and Gwartney's "mishandled" attempt to cut retiree medical benefits two years ago.

It's nice to see some of these legislators go on record with their concerns about Mr. Gwartney.  We hope more of them will, and we hope they will all collectively demand Mr. Gwartney's resignation.

Now we know just what Representatives Moyle and Loertscher think of PERSI retirees AND active public employees, BEWARE!

There's an article in the Statesman today that is so illuminating about the way things work at the Capitol during the legislative session.  The article is written by Dan Popkey and it concerns the relationship between the majority party leadership of the Senate and the House, who are apparently at odds now because the Senate chose to stop the action of the House to block PERSI retiree's COLA.  


This validates IPEA's position that we need to replace a few of the Representatives in the upcoming election and it gives more urgency to our call to find good candidates to run against these guys.  IPEA would like to see retired or laid off public employees run for these offices because you know how government works, and when these guys bring up really bad ideas, you would have the arguments to stop them and protect not only public employees, but the Idaho taxpayers.  


To quote Popkey's article, "Moyle [Mike Moyle, Majority Leader] was so mad he wouldn't speak. . .His beef: The Senate caved to state and local government retirees and didn't have the spine to follow through on a leadership plan to kill a 1 percent cost-of-living increase in their pensions."  


Really, Representative Moyle?  That's how you're spinning this?  The Senate "caved" to the 33,000 plus retirees that now will not vote for you and your colleagues in this fall's election?  I wouldn't call that "caving", I'd call that "listening", or maybe "responding" to your constituents.  


Representative Loertscher said the same thing.  Here's a quote from him in Popkey's article:  "You have a few retirees show up out here on the steps of the Capitol and all of a sudden they get their way.  It sends a signal that the way you ply the Legislature is go stand on the steps and holler a little bit and we'll fold up."   Well, IPEA organized that press conference (even though the Statesman keeps saying it was organized by AARP), and we think that's exactly the signal we want to send.  Representative Loertscher, you are a public servant, and its important that you listen to your public, even though it may cause you a little inconvenience or challenge your preconceived idea of the way things should be done.


This cavalier attitude of Representatives Moyle and Loertscher should cause all PERSI members, whether retired or still actively employed, very great concern.  It shows that they simply don't care about public retirees once they have gotten all they can out of them during their years of service.  And if you're an active public employee, you'd better think twice about voting for either of these guys this fall.  


Here's a link to the full article: Idaho Statesman article by Dan Popkey

Our Hero!

Well, we all have our heroes, but today my hero is Senator John Andreason (R) Boise.  Senator Andreason is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee, and he was responsible for killing the legislation to stop the PERSI Cola for retirees.  I know he had some help from a couple of the other Republicans and from the Democrats on the committee, but since the hearing was cancelled and we didn't see a vote, I can't give them credit here even though I'd like to. THANK YOU Senator Andreason! 

Thanks to all of our members and the members of the other organizations who helped by contacting the Senators on the committee.  Your voices were heard!  I know some of them received hundreds of emails and telephone calls.  

This just shows the importance of speaking in a collective voice when we talk to state legislators and when we vote for state legislators.  Having said that, we need more members so we can have an even stronger voice in the future.  I'm pretty sure there are some that will be trying to attack our PERSI plan again next year, but this time they will be trying to change it from a Defined Benefit plan to a Defined Contribution plan.  This is a terrible idea for many different reasons, not the least is that changing the plan over would actually cost the taxpayer more money.  If you want to know more about why that would be a bad idea, contact me donnayule.ipea@gmail.com  

While the majority of our members are state employees, we represent public employees in any sector, so if you work for a county, city, or any other entity that is a PERSI employer, you need to join with us.  Contact IPEA's office if you'd like to have a presentation at your workplace.

Let's use the momentum of our success now to guarantee success in the future

We helped save the COLA for PERSI retirees this time around, but here at IPEA we are concerned that our retirement system will come under attack next year by the House Republicans who voted to pass Representative Lake's legislation in this session. 

IPEA is a nonpartisan organization, but this issue clearly demonstrated to us that the majority of the House Republicans are not going to be friendly to Idaho public employees any time soon.  There are clear exceptions to that rule, though, and there are some who, while not yet voting the way we think they should on all public employee issues, we believe will come around to our way of thinking.  

So I'm encouraging all of you to consider running for local office or helping us to find someone you feel would be a good candidate for local office.  There are enough public employees and public employee retirees in every single district in Idaho to have a strong, determining effect on local elections.  We can either fight these same battles year after year, or we can begin to elect candidates to public office who will have our best interests at heart.  If you or someone you know would make a good state legislator, please contact our office (donnayule.ipea@gmail.com or 800.632.6679) and I'll put you in touch with someone who can help you through the process. Come on now, don't be shy.  I know you're out there.  Let's start being part of the solution! 

But we can't wait long!  The filing period for candidates is March 8 through 19.  Let's find some good candidates (retired public employees, you would make great state legislators!) and get them elected!  

Now I know the task is great, there are 43 out of 70  Representatives we would like to see challenged.  But let's do the math:  We need 36 Representatives on the floor to vote FOR public employee issues.  We now have 27 Representatives who either already vote in favor of our issues, or who we think we can sway in the future.  That means we really only need to replace NINE of the legislators in the following list.  When you think of it that way, it's entirely doable.  

Now, part of the problem is the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.  I believe they pressured the Representatives who voted for us before they voted against us, to change their votes.  Replacing these people should be our highest priority.  They are:

Speaker of the House: Lawerence Denney, Midvale   District 9

Majority Leader: Mike Moyle, Star                           District 14

Asst Majority Leader: Scott Bedke, Oakley              District 27

Majority Caucus Chair: Ken Roberts, Donnelly          District 8

But we should also find someone to run against at least some of these Representatives:

Eric Anderson, Priest Lake            District 1

George Eskridge, Dover                 District 1

Dick Harwood, St. Maries              District 2

Jim Clark, Hayden                         District 3

Phil Hart, Hayden                          District 3

Marge Chadderdon, Coeur d'Alene  District 4

Frank Henderson, Post Falls          District 5

Bob Nonini, Coeur d'Alene              District 5

Paul Shepherd, Riggins                 District 8

Judy Boyle, Midvale                      District 9

Darrell Bolz, Caldwell                    District 10

Carlos Bilbao, Emmett                  District 11

Steven Thayne, Emmett                District 11

Gary Collins, Nampa                     District 12

Steve Kren, Nampa                       District 13

Brent Crane, Nampa                     District 13

Lynn Luker, Boise                        District 15

Marv Hagedorn, Meridian             District 20

Joe Palmer, Meridian                    District 20

Clifford Bayer, Boise                     District 21

Richard Jarvis, Meridian                District 21

Pete Nielsen, Mountain Home       District 22

Rich Wills, Glenns Ferry               District 22

Stephen Hartgen, Twin Falls          District 23

Jim Patrick, Twin Falls                  District 23

Sharon Block, Twin Falls               District 24

Bert Stevenson, Rupert                  District 26

Fred Wood, Burley                        District 27

Jim Marriott, Blackfoot                   District 28

Dennis Lake, Blackfoot                  District 28

Ken Andrus, Lava Hot Springs        District 29

Marc Gibbs, Grace                        District 31

Thomas Loertscher, Iona                District 31

Janice McGeachin, Idaho Falls       District 32

Russ Mathews, Idaho Falls            District 33

Jeff Thompson, Idaho Falls             District 33

Dell Raybould, Rexburg                 District 34

Mack Shirley, Rexburg                  District 34

Lenore Barrett, Challis                   District 35

If we are not able to get people elected to these offices, we can expect more dirty dealing in the future when it comes to public employee issues.  Let's deal with this problem in the election this fall.  

Ambushed!

Well, guess what.  The House State Affairs committee overturned their vote yesterday and they have decided to pass Rep. Lake's legislation to do away with retiree's COLA and send it with a recommendation to pass to the House floor.  So I'm giving you my opinion of what happened today in that committee.  

It was really ugly.  The item wasn't put on the agenda, and Chairman Leorstscher (R) kept it to the very end of the meeting.  He even admitted to reporters afterwards that the decision to keep the issue off the agenda was intentional so nobody could come to testify.  

All of the Republicans who voted in our favor changed their votes. 

Here's what I think happened.  When the legislation first came up, all of the Democrats and about half of the Republicans voted their conscience and rejected the bill.  They made the decision based on solid information given to them by the PERSI Board members and several of us who testified against the bill.  But sometime after the meeting, Rep. Lake (R), who sponsored the bill, put his head together with Republican leadership and the Governor's office and they decided that this action simply couldn't stand.  

Sometime last night Wayne Hoffman (a right-wing blogger who used to work for Bill Sali, R) sent an email out to all of the members of the committee with some actuarial tables saying how big the "unfunded liability" will grow if we don't take this little bit of money away from our retirees.  The people who changed their votes used that table to "hang their hat on", and several of them spoke of how angry they were at the PERSI Board because they hadn't given them all of the information.  

The first point is that all of these Representatives should have considered the source of the material they were getting.  Wayne Hoffman is hardly an expert on investments.  Secondly, even if the material they received from Wayne Hoffman raised some questions in their minds, they should have given the PERSI Board members an opportunity to explain the information and to tell them why it was not applicable to this situation.  But they didn't.  

The fact that they would take information provided by a right wing-nut (my opinion) of the conservative movement over the wise and considered advice of the PERSI Board should be frightening to every voter in Idaho.  Frankly, I think many of these Representatives are smart enough to know this, which leads me to believe that they were given the information simply to have an excuse to change their votes to keep the Republican leadership and the Governor happy.  

Although these Representatives said that this information given to them by Wayne Hoffman was intentionally kept from them by the PERSI Board, that simply isn't true.  Unfunded liabilities were discussed in the first hearing, and all of the Representatives had an opportunity to express their concern.  Yet, they didn't. So all this drama and sudden concern about this unfunded liability looks to me to be pure theatrics.  

One very telling point was that Representative Raul Labrador, who voted in favor of the COLA yesterday, was conspicuously absent from today's committee hearing.  Of course, he's running for a statewide office, and he was certainly smart enough to know he didn't want to go on record as voting against a COLA for more than 33,000 PERSI retirees!  I just wish he had the courage of his convictions to come and stand up to the rest of the Republicans, who apparently are willing to sell out due to some pressure from above.  

The Dems were really angry.  They all testified and all of them said how this action was reprehensible and they all complained that the Chair did not put this on the agenda and how they did not give PERSI a chance to address this concern by not informing them of the hearing.  

It will go to the floor quickly, probably tomorrow, and then it will go to the Senate.  They are advancing this very quickly because they only have until next Wednesday to get it passed because at that time the COLA will have taken effect.  

Please contact all of your state Representatives and urge them to vote against this bill.  And, if you sent a "thank you" to any of these Republicans who were for the COLA before they were against it, please send them an email right now and let them know how you feel.  Here's a link to the state house membership website: http://legislature.idaho.gov/house/membership.cfm

  

Rep. Lynn Luker (R)

Rep. Eric Anderson (R)

Rep. Max Black (R)

Rep. Carlos Bilbao (R)

Rep. Raul Labrador (R) 

Rep. Russ Mathews (R)

Rep. Steve Kren (R)

Rep. Erik Simpson (R)

  

Success on HCR 42!

Well, we had a real success this morning.  The House State Affairs Committee voted to hold HCR 42 this morning.  Quite a surprise!  And yet, why should we be surprised when our legislators do the right thing?  We should expect it, am I right?  What this means is that, unless Rep. Lake (R) Blackfoot, the sponsor of the bill, finds a way to bring it back or slip it through in some other fashion, we should be okay on this and the PERSI retirees will get the 2.48% COLA that was recommended by the PERSI board.  

What bothered me most about this legislation was that the justification for the legislation was touted to be "fairness" and "equity".  By this they meant that we shouldn't give PERSI retirees a COLA because active public employees are suffering from furloughs and layoffs.  As active public employees and as retired public employees, we all need to band together to stand up for each other.  To me this looked like a way to further attack the morale of our state workers and divide us as a group. 

It is true that active state employees are suffering from furloughs, layoffs and a lack of raises.  But visiting that suffering on our retirees, who just last year were forced off state health insurance, won't do anything to ease the suffering of active public employees.  

Here is the truth about the COLA:  

• If it were eliminated, there would be NO SAVINGS of state money.  The money in the PERSI fund comes from contributions of retirees in the years they were working, contributions of active employees, contributions of employers, and investment income.  
• Part of the COLA will be to make up for deferred COLAs from previous years
• Contribution changes for active employees are determined by many factors, but will NOT BE AFFECTED by this COLA. 
• The PERSI Board recommended this COLA, and the legislature, to our knowledge, has NEVER over-ridden their recommendation.
• PERSI retirees are not just retired state employees, but are retired teachers, firefighters, ditch riders, police officers, and many others. 

Here are the people who voted to support public employees and retirees and who have confidence in the PERSI Board of Directors.  Please call or email them to say "thank you".   

Rep. Elfreda Higgins (D)

Rep. Anne Pasley-Stuart (D)

Rep. Lynn Luker (R)

Rep. Elaine Smith (D)

Rep. Eric Anderson (R)

Rep. Max Black (R)

Rep. Carlos Bilbao (R)

Rep. Raul Labrador (R) 

Rep. Russ Mathews (R)

Rep. Steve Kren (R)

Rep. Erik Simpson (R)

Rep. Mary Lou Shepherd (D)

Rep. Phylis King (D)  

Here are the people who voted against public employees and retirees and who apparently do not have confidence in the PERSI Board of Directors.  Please contact them to find out why they are not supporting public employees and retirees.   

Rep. Thomas Loertscher (R)

Rep. Bert Stevenson (R)

Rep. Ken Andrus (R)

Rep. Brent Crane (R)

Rep. Joe Palmer (R)  

Here's a link to a page with all of their contact information: http://legislature.idaho.gov/about/contactbycommitteePrinterFriendly.htm?searchText=22&house=House

Cut your wasteful spending, Governor Otter!

Governor Otter continues to advocate trimming government spending which not only costs the jobs of state employees, but also costs services to other Idahoans who are in desperate need of those services.  Families are going hungry at an alarming rate, and yet the current administration and most of our Idaho legislators still refuse to look at raising taxes on the wealthy or even cutting sales tax exemptions for large corporations.  There are many ways the state could raise the revenue side of the budget equation without raising taxes on low and middle income Idahoans, but for some reason, the powers that be simply refuse to even consider taking these actions.  

But what is even more frustrating is Governor Otter's unwillingness to look at his own contributions to wasteful spending.  "Big spending amid cuts" in the Statesman is an article about how ITD used almost $70,000 of taxpayers money on groundbreaking or dedication ceremonies since last June.  The article said "Otter's office wanted [these ceremonies] to be the 'governor's signature events.'"  In this time of recession and state employee lay offs, this doesn't seem like a good use of my tax money.  The article is interesting (and long), but the most interesting part of the story to me is that no one seems to be responsible.  At least no one is claiming responsibility.  I'd like to see whose name is on the contract and who approved the signing of the contract.  And I'd like a Governor who is responsible enough to question whether this expense was justified, rather than just claiming he didn't know how much the ceremonies cost or which budget was paying for it.  Certainly he's smart enough to know someone was paying for the events, and he should be responsible enough to make the call to cancel this type of event at least until we've climbed out of this recession hole.  

We have to give kudos to Representative JoAn Wood (R), Rigby.  She seems to be the only one who is outraged by this expense.  "I am appalled. I am appalled," she told the Statesman.  So are we, Representative Wood.  So are we.  To spend almost $70,000 of our taxpayer money to give the Governor a nice photo op is unacceptable in this economy.  Here's the link to the whole story: http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/1062582.html

Oregonians are acting like grown-ups!

The results of Oregon's special election to actually raise taxes on those people who can most afford to pay them is a breath of fresh air!  Here's a link to a story in the Oregonian: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/voters_pass_tax_measures_by_bi.html


This shows us that a growing number of people are finally waking up to the fact that you can't have good services provided by your state government unless you're willing to pay for them.  And the truth is, many Americans are willing to pay for them, they just think that others should help shoulder the burden.  For too many years the low and middle income earners in Idaho have been paying far more than their fair share of taxes, and big business, big landowners (farmers), and wealthy people get all the breaks.  


While there's no doubt that Idaho voters are different than Oregon voters, and passing any kind of a tax hike in Idaho could be fatal for legislators in an election year when so many of them are up for re-election, here's hoping they will at least act like grown-ups.  Is it too much to hope that all of our state legislators will do what's best not only for state employees, but for the citizens themselves?  There is a bigger demand for state services now than there ever has been.  More Idahoans are unemployed and need retraining.  Is this the time to keep cutting funds for our colleges and universities?  More unemployed Idahoans than ever are applying for food stamps and other assistance.  Is this the time to cut Health and Welfare?  More young families than ever will rely on state parks for their family's camping vacations.  Is this the time to cut Parks and Rec?  


Here's hoping our own state legislators will realize that they MUST start looking at the revenue side of the budget equation.  We can't meet the needs of Idahoans by spending cuts alone.  We MUST find a way to bring in more money.  Here's for passing Rep. Shirley Ringo's temporary surtax on those Idahoans who make more than $125,000.  Here's for eliminating some of the big tax exemptions given to large companies like Micron.  Do we need to keep giving companies like Micron tax exemptions when they continue to ship jobs overseas and lay off more Idahoans?  


Here's for state legislators who are willing to make the hard decisions even if they do face difficult reelection campaigns.  It would be nice to see more idealism (working for the greater good) rather than more ideology in our state legislature.  

This week in the legislature

Nothing much has happened on our issues in the legislature yet, but I think things will start to bust loose next week.  I've told you about the legislation IPEA is supporting concerning the change in Human Resources to put authority back under the Personnel Commission.  Well, nothing has been introduced on that issue yet, but we're definitely working behind the scenes.  IPEA has a great legislative committee that is lobbying members of the germane committees as I write this.  The same can be said of our efforts to amend Title 18 (bribery statute) so we can conduct a statewide employee recognition program.  

There is a least one thing coming up that I think IPEA will be supporting, although I haven't run this through the legislative committee yet, so I am now speaking for myself. I have heard a rumor that a legislator may introduce a bill to require part time legislators to be treated the same as part time classified state employees when it comes to health insurance.  Remember when Mr. Gwartney upped the premiums that part timers have to pay for insurance?  Well, you should know that state legislators are exempt from that ruling and are considered the same as full time state employees when it comes to health insurance.  Here's an article by Dan Popkey in today's Statesman about this issue:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/1306/story/1051139.html

I am meeting with the legislator who may be proposing this legislation next week. If you will remember when this issue came up previously that the universities, at least BSU, was fighting the change in premiums for part timers as well.  Since that time a deal was struck and now part time faculty at BSU have also been given the same status as the part time legislators.  This leaves only about a hundred BSU classified employees that have been hung out to dry.  I think this is unfair.  I think the only fair way to deal with this issue is to consider all part time employees to be the same, whether they are classified employees, adjunct faculty, or legislators.  Of course, my preference is that they would just eliminate the change Mr. Gwartney put in place last year, but if they are going to increase health insurance premiums for part time employees, they should do it for all of them, or better yet, in my opinion, for none of them.  If they pass legislation that requires them all to be treated the same, I think the issue could go away entirely.  

Call for fairness in taxation

There certainly is a lot of activity at the new and improved statehouse, but none of our issues have surfaced yet.  That doesn't mean we're not working on them, though.  IPEA has been working all summer and fall to get two important pieces of legislation written: One would change the position of "Administrator" of Human Resources to "Director" of Human Resources; one would place that Director under the authority of the Idaho Personnel Commission.  The legislation has been written, and we have a couple of sponsors. We are still assisting the Representative who is carrying the bill to find cosponsors, and we think we may be making progress here.  Why is this important?  There are two main reasons:  This change would increase the professionalism of the management of Human Resources.  This change would also depoliticize the state workforce.  This change would also take Mr. Gwartney, and any of his predecessors in future administrations, out of Human Resource management.  We'll be asking for your support when this bill is introduced.  

We're also concerned about budget cuts.  For some time we have been advocating for our legislators to look at the revenue side of the budget, and now, with the long recession, there is some support for this.  Unfortunately, there isn't enough.  We will support legislator's efforts to do something about the existing tax code so all of us pay our fair share, including the wealthy, large corporations, and the large landowners.  For too long the burden of supporting state services has rested on the low and middle income Idahoans and the small business people.  We think that should change. Did you know that the ceiling for state income tax is about $25,000?  That means, if you make $25,000, you're paying the same amount of state income tax as someone who makes $100,000.   

Here's an installment of Boise Weekly's "Unda' the Rotunda" column about the state legislature from this week.  Now, keep in mind, the Boise Weekly is the city's alternative newspaper, so it doesn't just "lean" left, it is unabashedly left, so keep that in mind if you read some of the other articles.  But, lately, this column has really been right on the mark concerning the state legislature.  

Here's this week's column which is about collecting taxes from the "scofflaws".

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/leaving-cash-on-the-table/Content?oid=1445646

Now read this column from two years ago.  Isn't it about time something is done about this stuff?  

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/unda-the-rotunda/Content?oid=935462

Governor's State of the State address

State employees should be concerned after listening to Governor Otter's State of the State speech yesterday.  In fact, all residents of the Great State of Idaho should be concerned.  As the speech progressed, it became increasingly obvious that Governor Otter simply isn't learning the lessons he should be when it comes to the "new normal" in the state's budget.  


Governor Otter explained his philosophy of Idaho government as one that respects its revenue as "the people's money".  Yet he apparently doesn't believe in spending that revenue on services to the very people he is talking about.  It was obvious that this is an election year speech because he still is still unwilling to address the problems around revenue.  I'm not talking about increasing taxes here, I'm just talking about making the existing tax structure fair to ALL of the people of Idaho, and not just wealthy landowners, corporate agribusiness, and big business in general.  Why is Governor Otter apparently unwilling to address these issues?  Because those groups are his biggest campaign donors.  


If this is "the people's money," then let's spend it on the people!  For instance, his suggestion to eliminate Parks and Recreation.  Holdbacks may already cause the closing of some Idaho state parks, and this is a terrible outcome.  Some legislators, and apparently, Governor Otter, believe parks should charge higher fees.  Yet I know that many Idahoans raising families use the parks because a camping vacation is pretty much the only family vacation they can afford.  I know that was definitely my situation when my sons were little boys. Think of all "the people" that this will affect.


Idaho working people have very little recourse when they are fired from a job in this "Right to Work" state, but at least they have the Human Rights Commission as a resource when they are fired for blatantly discriminatory reasons.  "The people" won't have that resource if Governor Otter gets his way.  


And phasing out funding for IPTV?  That's just crazy talk!  IPTV has just expanded its coverage of the legislature to include live coverage of JFAC.  In fact, I watched the Governor's speech by the internet streaming service provided by IPTV.  It's important for "the people" to be able to keep an eye on their legislators. Not to mention all the great programming IPTV provides.  In fact, I watched a program just this week about the history of the Idaho Capitol building.  


In fact, every commission and agency Governor Otter is considering phasing out is important to "the people", and the savings he cites for closing these commissions and agencies could be made up for if the legislature will close the tax loopholes for wealthy Idahoans.  


One last thing bears pointing out concerning the Governor's philosophy of Government.  Governor Otter and many of the Idaho legislators seem to think that the way to bring business to Idaho is by giving corporations tons of tax breaks and incentives.  But that myopic view of the way to entice businesses to Idaho will not serve us well in the end.  Businesses locate to states that have a well-trained and well-educated workforce (how will we get that with cuts to education and universities and community colleges?), and a great quality of life (how will we achieve that with fewer parks?).  Governor Otter, please wake up and smell the coffee.  Your philosophy of Government is out-dated and no longer serves our state well.  

Correction!

Ooops.  I meant "Human Resources", not "Human Relations".  

Legislature opens today

Idaho's legislative session opens today with Governor Otter's State of the State speech at 1:00 pm.  I am encouraging everyone to watch it if you're in a place where it's possible.  You can link to it here: http://www.idahoptv.org/leglive/  I know its difficult for Idaho state employees to keep up on what happens in the legislature, after all, you are at work, but IPEA is determined to give you the information you need to keep up on things.  We have this blog, and I'll try to update it frequently during the session.  You can also follow IPEA on Twitter @idahopublic.   I'll let you know if we need you to shoot off an email to your legislator or make a call.  

The committees to watch are State Affairs and Commerce and Human Relations. This is where most of the legislation concerning state employees comes in.  But this year its also important to keep a close watch on the budget process and tax legislation.  A couple of our legislators are actually proposing tax cuts for corporations.  At IPEA we think this is disastrous.  We think those legislators proposing this are using it as a campaign tactic.  Its important to know that every state elected official is up for reelection this year, so everything they do is worth a second look.  Look at all of these proposals with a critical eye, because there is absolutely no evidence that cutting taxes on corporations will bring more jobs into the state, as they contend.  Look at all the tax breaks and benefits we have given corporations such as Micron in the last several years.  And also take a look at how many workers they have laid off as they have taken more of their work overseas.  You can also take a look at the economies of neighboring states.  Some of those with no income tax at all are in far worse shape than Idaho.  As Dr. Phil would say, "And how's that been working for you?"

At IPEA we believe a far better option is to tighten up our tax revenues.  This means looking at the exemptions we already allow and eliminating some of them.  The middle income worker in Idaho (and this includes nearly all state employees) are already paying far more than their fair share in the current tax structure.  Let's do what we can to make sure big business, including big agribusiness, and wealthy large landowners pay their fair share.  

Its important to pay attention to what happens in your local statehouse, and we're going to do everything we can to help you stay on top of it.  

Getting ready for the session

Next week the 2010 Legislative Session opens and there is every indication it will be a tough one.  We have a proactive agenda this year, and our most important effort will be an attempt to help pass legislation that will remove the authority over the Department of Human Resources from the Governor and Mr. Gwartney.  The legislation, if passed, will change the position of "Human Resources Administrator" to "Human Resources Director".  The new position will report directly to the Personnel Commission which will also have the authority to hire and fire the new Director.  IPEA believes it is important for the state workforce to have a true professional Human Resources specialist at its helm.