Your generous contributions make this work possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| published Sunday, February 03, 2008 |
953 Views |
|
 |
Historically, many legislators were family farmers and they stayed in Boise throughout the session. Lots of snow simply reminded them that they should be in no hurry to adjourn and go home to plant their crops. Big conglomerates now own much of Idaho’s farmland and most legislators have other vocations. Today, a majority of legislators who live in north and eastern Idaho travel home each weekend. More than a dozen of them may have questioned the wisdom of that last week as they struggled with snow storms to get back to Boise. Yes, it is a record snow year and on Wednesday the Boise school district cancelled classes for the first time since 1991. Early predictions of a short session now seem naively optimistic.
As the Statehouse construction site fills with snow, some legislators were wringing their hands that the restoration project is taking too long. Rather than admit their own complicity – arising from the conflicts last year between legislative leaders and the governor – they are blaming Idaho workers. They introduced House Bill 445 on Thursday to exempt the Statehouse project from Idaho’s law requiring contractors on public works projects to employ 95% Idaho residents (90% for smaller contractors). With a recession hitting the construction market and many workers in the construction trades out of work, the complaints by contractors that they can’t find enough Idaho workers strikes Idaho’s labor leaders as disingenuous. To add insult to injury, the bill would be made retroactive to July 1, 2007 and precludes prosecution for any violation of the law going back to January 1, 2007!
On December 31, President Bush signed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act which passed Congress unanimously. It reiterated that the brutal murder and dislocation of millions of people in Sudan is genocide and terrorism and asked states to support American foreign policy in Sudan by divesting from companies that are funding genocide. All US companies have pulled out. Yet, many Americans don’t realize that buried in the portfolios of their retirement funds are shares of foreign companies that still fund Sudan’s genocide in exchange for access to that nation’s oil and other minerals. Idaho's own Public Employee Retirement System (PERSI) holds shares in six of those foreign companies. When PERSI was asked by their members last year to divest, PERSI said the legislature does not permit it to look into the morality of its investments, only the financial returns.
Will Idaho? As of Dec. 31, 22 states had passed legislation requiring their public retirement funds to divest as requested by the federal act. Many more will do so over the next several months. On Thursday, the Idaho Legislature introduced Senate Bill 1367 which would have Idaho divest as well. Sounds like another unanimous vote? Think again. Even though PERSI’s holdings in the six foreign companies comprise only 0.22% of its total holdings, and even though there is an enormous national consensus for divestment, PERSI is actually opposing the bill! PERSI wants to remain aloof from the realities how genocide and terrorism are funded through global markets. With thousands of legitimate companies out there to invest retiree funds – PERSI insists that it should not be required to find other comparable investments. Making matters worse, late last year, PERSI insisted that the Idaho Public Employee Association (IPEA) endorse its position. IPEA apparently admits that it did not know about the federal act and seems embarrassed by the position PERSI has put it in. A public hearing is anticipated on Valentines Day. Find out more from the Sudan Divestment Task Force, and then contact your legislator.
There appears to be a consensus in the Legislature that it was wrong for them to increase the cost of food for low-income families when it raised the sales tax in 2006. Most legislators won’t say it that way, but their actions imply it. The first bill to address the problem this year (House Bill 439) was finally introduced last Wednesday and is sponsored by 19 Republicans. House Revenue & Taxation Committee does not want to compare it with other proposals and is racing to hold a hearing on Monday, February 4th. HB 439 gives us a higher grocery credit on our income tax return and allows people who don’t make enough income to file a tax return to apply for a refund. The credit increases in future years. HB 439 reduces the state’s revenue by over $23 million next year and reduces revenue in subsequent years as well. When the sponsors implied that the Governor supported their bill, they were quickly corrected by the Governor’s office. Rather than work out an agreement with the Governor and the Democrats on the committee, the Republicans are doing what they did last year, unilaterally declaring their bill a “compromise” and then racing to push it through.
In the meantime, Democratic legislators are proposing a more direct approach: to take the sales tax off food for all taxpayers at a rate of one cent per year for six years. Idaho is one of seven states that fully applies its sales tax to food. The cost would be $36 million per year, but since this proposal would repeal the grocery tax credit at the outset, the impact in the first year would be only $8.2 million. The total impact over six years is estimated to be about $190 million. Supporters of this approach hope that reduction in sales tax revenue in future years would force the legislature to repeal other tax exemptions. The fear is that after a year or two, the legislature will continue to ignore other exemptions and would either find the funds through budget cuts or repeal the phase-in plan.
This week, the US Congress is working out a final “economic stimulus” package focused on direct assistance to individuals and businesses to soften the impact of the recession. While the House, Senate and President are still ironing out the details, what is NOT under consideration is assistance to the states for anticipated increases in demands for health, education and other services that accompany a recession. As we have seen with spending in Iraq, the federal government is not required to balance its budget. But the states are. And, at this point, there are NO proposals in the Idaho legislature to find the revenue that may be needed to cover the increased demands for services let alone address the long-term fiscal impact of the various grocery tax reforms. As we look to the years ahead, is that Scarlet’s voice I hear saying “Fiddle-dee-dee!”
When Governor Otter’s chief of staff took a job lobbying for Idaho Power, many legislators saw no problem. But when reporter Jared Hopkins with the Twin Falls Times- News broke the story on Friday that the Governor appointed that same ex-staffer/lobbyist to a committee that determines legislator’s pay, there was so much discomfort at the Statehouse that before you could say “conflict of interest,” the ex-staffer/lobbyist said he changed his mind and would not accept the appointment. The statement from the Governor’s office denied there was a conflict of interest and said “We're talking about using expertise from someone who spent many years in government and is very familiar with issues this committee talks about." He has point! The expertise that taxpayers paid to develop probably would benefit a public entity like the compensation commission. That expertise is already starting to benefit Idaho Power. In fact, that statement is an excellent rationale in favor of bill Senate Bill 1303. That’s the bill that requires a one-year “cooling off” period before a government official can start lobbying for a private company. But, sadly, the Times-News also reported that the bill is still “unlikely to receive a hearing this session.” Short term discomfort for legislators: solved. Long-term public interest: ignored.
|
|
|
|
|