What would a Sali entry into the primary mean?  Sali’s big in-district supporters have gone over to Labrador for the most part, most of Sali’s biggest out of district backers have gone to Ward. How he would get a campaign together at this point is iffy.

On the other hand, while the political types have committed, many of the people haven’t. And a Sali entry would put us into the same type of six-person field that got him nominated in 2006. (Albeit, this would be a weaker six person field. I could only imagine Sali, Labrador, or Ward winning. Last time around, five of the six candidates were feasible primary winners.)

However, it’d be an incredibly bad play. It’d be doubtful that Sali could win given the lack of political capital. Even if he did, he’d be stepping on some folks, notably Raul Labrador, who has left his state house seat. I don’t think Sali would do that. I think Sali won’t run for Congress.

However, that’s not to say Sali couldn’t run for something else. Governor Sali has a nice ring to it, so does Lieutenant Governor Sali. In the Governor’s race, there’s been a lot of conservative concern about how Governor Otter’s been doing his job, and no big name has come forward to challenge Lieutenant Governor Brad Little. Either of these could be a real opportunity for Sali to catch fire without burning a friend.

If Sali doesn’t run this year, that doesn’t mean that Sali’s gone forever from Idaho politics. Consider that J.D. Hayworth waited 4 years after his congressional defeat to launch his comeback bid. Sali could do the same.  Like Hayworth, Sali faced some absolutely revolting attempts at character assassination and may just need some type to get ready to roll.

On the big issues, Crapo has been where Idahoans needed him.  For me, the watershed moment in recent years in the U.S. Senate was the TARP vote and while John McCain was leading most of the Republicans over the clift, Senator Crapo stood tough, did the right thing, and refused to back a bailout.

In a much smaller but important gesture, Senator Crapo stood up for the Lynn Moses who was prosecuted in a miscarriage of justice by the EPA. I think that what we ought to expect from our public officials is that they stand up for justice.

Crapo boasts an American Conservative Union rating of 92% and his National Taxpayers Union ratings have been solid. This isn’t to say that he’s been perfect.

I’ve disagreed with his backing of Amtrak in Southern Idaho, which while it might be nice, shows a cognitive dissonance about our national debt, his encourage of Bieter’s trolley folly, and his opposition to the DC opportunity scholarships. Yet, in the grand scheme of the issues that come before the U.S. Senate, to borrow a phrase from Humphrey Bogart, my differences with Senator Crapo don’t amount to a hill of beans. At the end of the day with Mike Crapo in the U.S. Senate the past six years, I feel like I’ve been well-represented, and no candidate has emerged that I believe could do a better job.  In addition, conservatives would not be well-advised to expend time and energy trying to knock off someone with as strong a record as Mike Crapo has.

While, I get nervous about giving U.S. Senators a third term, I think if Crapo continues on the path he’s been on during his first twelve years in the Senate, we won’t regret it come 2016, and so I’m pleased to give my support for a third term.

He’s a former U.S. Marine with service in Iraq, a Security guard, and a student at BSU. He formerly worked in the Corrections industry.

He’s pro-life, a fan of idaho Public Television, and ice cold beer. How do I know all this about Mr. Blessinger? His Facebook profile told me so (though the Iraq war service I picked up from his MySpace profile.)

Blessinger is about a year and a half older than me, but hardly the first person from my generation to run for office. Blessinger is the first one I know of with a Facebook profile that provides so much of a feel for who he is from the get go.

There’s nothing I would consider “embarassing” on Blessinger’s profile, but I’ve never actually gotten so much insight into a candidate I’ve never heard of before so easily. Facebook could be a great tool for journalists. I do wonder how long it will be before someone has a “Facebookgate” occur when they leave really embarassing information up on their Facebook page that derails their candidacy.

For Mr. Blessinger, I think it’s much more of a plus. “I’m not an ordinary politician. Don’t believe me? Check out my profile on Facebook!”

However, I’ve just gotten word that Labrador is having an event in the next couple week and a half with  Speaker Lawrence Denney, Majority Leader Moyle, Caucus Chairman Ken Roberts, and several others. I tend to think the value of legislative endorsements is small, but probably larger than a group most Idahoans haven’t heard of.

While Conservatives have been disenchanted with government, in general. There’s not a whole lot of reason to be angry at the State House from a conservative perspective. They’d held the line on taxes and spending, approved pro-life legislation, even took some baby steps forward on education.

In a Republican Primary, it’ll help quite a bit to have so many of them in your corner.

• We have a conservative stepping forward to run for Lieutenant Governor. Steve Pankey is the only filed Republican Candidate for Lieutenant Governor. It appears from this cached website that Pankey was planning on running for Governor but switched to the #2 job. His platform for Governor was kind of general including core values and traditional values, but he sounds far more promising than Brad Little.
• Is Id. Rep. Russ Matthews trying to help Mike Simpson get renominated? Let me be clear. Matthews has a bang up of Conservative record, but I’ve seen very little evidence of any serious support for him while Chick Heilseson has been doing the required organizational work for months. Knocking off Simpson is a tough challenge. It’s made even harder when a candidate who hasn’t done the necessary work is splitting the anti-Simpson vote.
• I think the district of Rep. George Sayler (D-4) is going to flip GOP with Sayler’s retirement.  While former Pocatello Mayor Greg Anderson has got to be favored to help retiring Rep. James Ruchti’s State House Seat, District 29’s other representative is Republican Ken Andrus, so this is a potential loss for the Democrats. The seat of retiring State Rep. Donna Boe (D-30) should be safe for the Democrats.
• If I was an Idaho Democrat, my top priority this year would be getting Anderson elected in District 29. If Anderson is elected to the State House, he instantly becomes the Democratic Gubenatorial frontrunner in 2014 in the incredibly likely event that Keith Allred isn’t elected Governor. Democrats may have a great opportunity in 2014 to retake the Governor’s mansion, but they’ll need a big dog with executive experience. Anderson is it. But if Anderson can’t even win a State House race, it’ll dim his prospects.
• If there’s one Treasure Valley legislator who deserves a primary challenge this year, it’s Senator John Andreason (R-15) who is currently running without opposition. Andreason voted against the Conscience Clause and against the Idaho Health Freedom Act. He’s the most liberal GOP member of the Ada County delegation, and it’s past time for him to be retired. Yet, for some reason, the only primary challenge in that district is directed at Rep. Lynn Luker (R-15) who is really not that bad.
• Speaking of Luker’s district, right now it looks like the Democrats’ best chance for a pick up in what’s going to be a rocky election year. In addition to the primary challenge, Luker faces an Independent and a Libertarian which could drain votes from him in the Fall. As of yet, though, the Democrats haven’t got a challenger to file. It’ll be interesting to see if they can produce one by the end of the filing period. If not, the seat will stay GOP. However, with a strong Democratic challenger, this could be one of the premier races to watch this fall.
• Another great primary match up is in Twin Falls where Vice Mayor Lee Heider is running for the legislature against Senator Chuck Coiner (R-24). Heider says Coiner’s not a conservative. That’s the understatement of the year. This could be a great opportunity for conservatives to move the State Senate to the right by replacing a left of Center Republican with someone more conservative.

However, I believe that I’m doing what I can best for my fellow citizens as I comment on the news and politics. From the sidelines, I’m free to do things that politicians rarely do: be myself and speak the truth.  I also get to report on the news and be one of those few conservatives that write and blog, and help fight back deceitful demogogues and the local press. (I repeat myself.)

I also tend to think that it’s wise to have some means before running for an office like State Senator. Not to be rich, but to be financially independent. I think it’s awfully hard to run for a job when you’re working for corporate America rather than yourself.  

If I were to run seriously for an office, I’d probably run for Senate in District 18. Good news is that there’s already a Republican Candidate out here.

I suppose if I had nothing better to do, I’d run for Lieutenant Governor. Though, if I were going to run, I would have started much sooner. I think it’s a pity. Lieutenant Governor Brad Little (R-Id.) may run without opposition and unless he’s challenged by a supertalented political leader, Little will probably coast in the Primary and General, and thus be able to continue the Batt-Otter-Little gentleman farmer dynasty in the state GOP, which will guarantee that unless Jim Risch returns from Washington in 2014 to run for Governor, that Republicans will have nothing to offer but stagnate leadership for the rest of the decade.

Now, that we’re clear on me. Here are some thoughts on some of the other filings:

• Senator Nicole Lefavour (D-19) is opting to return to the House. I’m happy for her. I read her blog in 2008 and it was a lot happier place. While I find her antics to be undignified for a State Senator, I don’t dislike her. Anyone who can imagine Rep. Lenore Barrett (R-35) as a champion slam poet can’t be all bad. I think she realized she wasn’t happy in the State Senate, and wasn’t terribly effective there. Of course, changing chambers she doesn’t  lose money. She loses prestige and a little office space, but that’s a small price for enjoying your life more.
• As an added note, I find it ironic that LeFavour seems to have enjoyed serving with her more Conservative former House colleagues than her current more liberal Senate colleagues. I guess it goes to show that ideology isn’t everything in where to work.
• The confusion over LeFavour’s replacement in the Senate may give a look inside the Democratic Party. LeFavour had intended to talk to Freshman Rep. Brian Cronin (D-19) running for her State Senate Seat. However, four term Rep. Anne Pasley-Stuart (D-19) jumped in. Said LeFavour.” Don’t expect a Democratic Primary between Pasley-Stuart and Cronin, which might happen with Republicans. This seems to be one of the recent secrets of the Ada County Democrats’ recent success. Most of the Democratic legislative candidates start their active campaigning for re-election in July, while Republicans hold off their efforts until September. However, I’d say that both parties nominees work equally as hard. However, the GOP nominees often have to spend 2 months going through a Republican Primary while the Democrats usually have uncontested primaries that allow them to spend 4 straight months campaigning, while the Republican candidate spends two in the Spring and two in the Fall. I think the Democrats work out their nominees in a very concerted way and avoid expensive or difficult primary fights so they can maximize their time, money, and resources in the Fall. This isn’t even something the GOP can do because there are so many different interests and factions that it’s near night impossible.

The average reader of the Statesman could reasonably ask, “Wait, Charlie Rangel gave Minnick money? When did that happen?” This was news the Idaho Statesman didn’t care to share with its readers.  I covered this extensively in September of 2008. The Statesman reads the blog, but they opted to ignore the story.

Compare this to the media’s attempt to transform Club for Growth into the Illumanati and you see where their bias lies. However, I told you Rangel was bad news and that he’d taken money from Rangel, and he held onto the money while other politicians like Senator Mark Begitch (D-Ak.) returned it. The Statesman had a partisan interest in defeating Congressman Sali that led them to ignore exploring these links, and they claim to be providing fair news coverage. They intentionally hid this information from voters.

And Congressman Minnick has returned money directly from Rangel’s PAC, Minnick doesn’t want to return money that Rangel raised for him. So be it. He can keep that tainted money in his treasury until he cleans out his office this December.

I have no problem with the Statesman defending their copyright from people using whole articles, or long stretches of text. What concerned me was their heavy handed policy of forbidding people from linking to them.  Whether they had a change of heart, or didn’t understand what they were saying in the first place, I don’t know. But,  I’m glad the policy is clarified.

And I’m pleased to lift the “No Sandwiches” for you ban.

“Every story in the Statesman, in print or online, is copyrighted under federal law, either by us or by the organization supplying it to us to use by permission, and none of it may be reproduced without permission. We ask that you please ask permission to link to any Statesman story, and please provide only a brief summary on your site and a link from your site to the story on ours.”

Now, in some ways, their beef with Idaho Conservative Blogger is somewhat legitimate as he’d put up huge portions of their stories, in fact, I think sometimes the whole article, as did Dennis Mansfield. However, their policy is far out and fails to consider something called fair use.  To ask permission to give a summary of the Story? Let me refer the Idaho Statesman to the U.S. Copyright office:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson…”

Now, given that definition, it’s hard to see how linking to an article is NOT fair use as defined by the United States Copyright office.

So from whence comes the policy? It seems to me that it was written by someone who has no understanding of the Internet as a result of corporate dictates. I can see the conversation right now, “You know what’s killing our paper? People linking to it online. If we didn’t allow bloggers to link to our stuff, our traffic would go through the roof.” Because we all know how links absolutely kill traffic, right?

Either that, or it’s possible that the person who wrote the policy doesn’t actually UNDERSTAND what linking is. If I say Drudge Report like that, I’m linking it. If you’re reading this Idaho Statesman, welcome to the 1990s. Maybe, in a few years, you’ll reach the 21st century if your business survives that long.

What makes the Statesman’s “policy” so galling is that it’s hypocritical.  For about two years, the Statesman poached every blogger in the political spectrum and quoted them at length, at times for far greater lengths than fair use required.

As an up and coming blogger, I tolerated the Statesman’s violations because I didn’t want to be  a sore head and hoped that it would help when I had work I actually wanted them to publish. The Statesman was perfectly willing to take pieces of their choosing (both the beginning and the end excerpts) but turned down a couple reader’s views and then accepted two others but failed to run them.

However, the Statesman is trying to impose extra-legal restrictions on the use of their content to restrict the same bloggers whose work the Statesman used without permission for nearly two years.  Folks like me and Dennis Mansfield shouldn’t have to worry about whether we can link a Statesman article after they took the fruits of our intellectual labor for free.

Despite , the injustice, I intend to honor the Statesman’s request. If I find an article of interest on the Statesman, I’ll find another article somewhere else and give them the Google Juice the Statesman was getting.  Failing that, I’ll paraphrase the facts of the case without actually quoting the Statesman. Saying, “Police don’t have any clues in the the killing of Robert Manwill.” is not something I can be sued over.

I would recommend people plan on cancelling their Statesman subscription. It’s going away sooner or later. Kevin Richert might as well be on top of a stagecoach. The Statesman is in love with the buggy whip model of business while other papers like the Spokesman Review and the Idaho Press Tribune are coming to grips with reality. My prediction for the last issue of the Statesman is September 2, 2013.

Also, let me put Statesman reporters on notice that this blog is covered under U.S. Copyright laws as is any other published work after 1978, and since 1989, content creators haven’t had to put a copyright notice on their work.  And none of this blog can be quoted by the Idaho Statesman without permission.

Every other newspaper, blog, and publication, can quote it freely as long as they attribute it.

I know it’s a Nero Wolfe, “No Sandwiches for You” moment, but they asked for it.

UPDATED

Video added:

Also was highlighted today by Huckleberries. DFO hopes this all can work out:

I enjoy a good dust-up in the local or Idaho blosophere. But I hope cool minds prevail here — and the Statesman and sundry blogs go back to their previous relationship. Online newspapers need the blogosphere and vice versa.

I about panicked when I read I needed the Statesman. I was afraid Idaho Reports had gone out of business without telling me.

Then in 2006, Sorenson said Aloha to Hawaii and returned to Idaho to run for Congress, got in trouble when she attended a fundraiser for pro-choice candidates headlined by now-Senator Al Franken (D-Mn.) and then continued to attack Bill Sali in the media after she lost the primary.

On the other hand, Ward also announced that Bay Buchanan (that’s Pat’s little sister) and former Republican Presidential Candidate and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo were backing his campaign. Tancredo and Buchanan bring obvious national conservative street cred in on behalf of Ward.

Thus, the pattern of the Ward campaign continues:  national conservative groups with serious conservative credential back Ward, but Ward’s in-state support comes from establishment types or the opponents of grassroots conservatives (exs: Kempthorne, Sorenson, and Kirk Sullivan.) The strongest statewide conservative to back Ward is Tom Luna, and some conservatives are less happy with Luna than they were when he was first elected. There are some great folks who are somewhat lesser known like Ben Doty who are backing Ward, but as most people dont’ know these folks personally, it doesn’t help much.

If Ward expects these national groups to somehow counterbalance the liberal in-state support, I think he’s in for a rude awakening. Most of these groups and individuals only register with the hardcore political junkie, while names like Sorenson make a lot of conservatives want to take a week off from work and put up Labrador signs all over the state.

If Conservative voters show up mad as heck at the Republican establishment, Ward could be shellshocked on primary day.

Lawmakers on the joint budget committee said they’ve been deluged with calls and emails asking them not to cut out state funding for Idaho Public Television. “Nobody wants us to eliminate funding for public television,” said Sen. Joyce Broadsword, R-Sagle.

Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said her constituents have been asking her “not to cut it – to find someplace else to cut.” Said Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Post Falls, “The only emails I’m getting from my constituents are in support of public TV.”

Sen. Bert Brackett, R-Rogerson, said, “There’s a lot of support out there, but we have to weigh it against the other needs and wants of the state.”

Now, I’d urge opponents of taxpayer funding of Public Television to contact JFAC, if they’ve got a State Senator on the committee, but it looks like IPTV will continue to be funded, even if the State doesn’t have the money.

Is it because nobody wants us to eliminate funding for public televisions as Senator Broadsword insisted. No. Rather, it’s those who want us to keep spending money on the proverbial “buggy whip” of the digital age are much louder.

Tthe base instinct of the politician is to keep as many people not angry at them as possible. So the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  If they get a lot of phone calls telling them that we need state subsidies of IPTV, they’re going to keep spending money on IPTV.

It doesn’t matter that IPTV would have time to transition. It doesn’t matter if it’s not the proper role of government to do IPTV. It doesn ‘t matter if IPTV is mostly an obselete relic of the three station TV era. What matters is that its supporters want it and most opponents aren’t there.

IPTV may be a sacred cow, but all sacred cows have followers, and if conservatives want to take this or other cows out, they need to have some strength to go with their arguments or lawmakers will ignore them.

• Cheers to Senator Joyce Broadsword (R-2) for introducing a bill to double the sentence for felony injury to a child. We need to take crimes against children more seriously.
• Boos to Rep. Carlos Bilbao (R-11) for introducing a bill to make grafiti a felony. Let me be clear. Grafiti is  bad. There was some in the park across the street from our church and its an eye sore to the community. That said, do we have space for felons? Do we really want to make some 19-year old a Felon for grafiti? This is not an issue for the legislature.
• Cheers to the Idaho Meth project which has actually done a good job changing Idahoans minds about meth through education.
• Boos to the Idaho Education Bureaucracy: Two Idaho businessmen testified that our Idaho schools are failing to prepare kids for the jobs of tomorrow. Of course, an argument could be made that the public schools shouldn’t turn out corporate chocolate soldiers. But what do schools turn out consistently? Do they turn out great artists or people who are knowledgable in the great cultural works of the country? Do they turn out people who know history? Do they turn out great artists? Great scientists?  

 Yes, you’ll find some of that number among the graduates of public schools, but these are   exceptions rather than the rules of public education. And the Teacher’s Union knows it. When unions argue against merit pay, they argue that it’s not fair to teachers because whether they get good students or bad is all luck of the draw, and a teacher could be saddled with parents who don’t care or are abusive, or kids in difficult situations. If teachers have so little control over what happens to student performance, it suggests our education system doesn’t work.

What’s required is a fundamental re-examination of how we educate. People act like publicly funded schools that keep kids in class 180 days a year for six hours a day is the ONLY way to do education, and promoting alternatives to public education undermines this wonderful system. Yet this system is less than two centuries old, and in America, it is failing to achieve worldclass results.

I support education, kids aren’t getting it, and they won’t continue to do it as long as we continue to act to please the teacher’s union.

Idaho Conservative Blogger can’t get an interview with Walt Minnick.  If I were seeking an interview with Minnick, I could understand his hesitance.  I wouldn’t insult Minnick’s intelligence with a request.

There’s a difference, though.  The Idaho Conservative Blogger’s criticism is far tamer than mine.  ICB has even interviewed liberal candidates like Boise City Councilman TJ Thomson and has been fair-minded and even-handed.  I seriously doubt that ICB would even think to use the guy in the chicken suit for a Minnick post.

Yet, somehow Walt Minnick is afraid of answering e-mail questions to the level that his staff is ignoring a request from a reasonable local blogger. Why?

Is it technophobia? If so where are all the Democrats who attacked Risch’s lack of tech savvyness in the last election.

I say it’s time for Minnick to stop hiding and to answer some real questions. Hopefully ICB will have the opportunity to ask them.

UPDATE

Walt Minnick’s media team tweeted me:

FYI – Just reached out to Ryan/ICB. Didn’t realize the interview was that pressing or important. Told him we’d be happy to do it.

I appreciate the follow-up from Team Walt. However, it must be said that as ICB had been requesting an interview for six months and being put off.

For media staff, I offer a simple lesson. If a reporter or blogger asks for an interview, they don’t me, “Could I interview you sometime before the end of the current Administration or within the next 9 months.” They mean, “I’d like to talk to you within a few weeks at most.”

A month would be understandable. Putting someone off for six months is definitely not cool.

However, there’s a problem with the tour that Spencer addresses in the comments, and that is the presence of Former Governor Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) for Ward at these events. Spencer writes:

Why on earth would he want Dirk to be seen supporting him? Did he want this kiss of neo-con death hung around his neck or was it forced on him? This is worse than showing up to Republican party events with Kirk Sullivan or Otter. Vaughn, you have assured me you are a conservative, so why are you not surounding yourself only with actual conservatives, instead of career politicos?

There are many reasons why Kempthorne’s support would be desirable, as Kempthorne brings with him fundraising contacts that come from a varied career serving as a U.S. Senator, Governor, and Mayor. On the other hand, as I’ve discussed earlier Ward has a problem with drawing the party establishment like flies in an era when they’ve ticked off the party base.

I have a lot of sympathy with Ward. Ward began working in politics in 1992 by volunteering for Kempthorne’s Senate campaign and then he went off to Washington to work as a legislative aide for Kempthorne. Back in Montana, I knew a great man who while he was fairly high up in state government always found time for talks with me. We didn’t always agree, even back then, but I greatly admire him as a statesman.  I know there are some folks that didn’t think he was conservative enough (I thought he was), but if I were running for office, would I want to accept his help? It’d be an honor.

And for Ward,  the offer of his first boss to come out and campaign for him may be an offer that he can’t refuse that are more important than winning a political campaign.  I know that those rare relationships are valuable, and I knew someone who worked for Kempthorn and thought very highly of him, and I imagine Ward thinks very highly of the Governor.

That said, Ward should take some notes from Scott Brown. If you want to know why Brown won, look at the closing lines of his victory speech:

I’ve got a lot to learn in the Senate, but I know who I am and I know who I serve. I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, I drive a truck, and I am nobody’s senator but yours. Thank you very much.

I’ve met Vaughn Ward, and I then he can be an appealing guy, but his messaging is awful.  If he feels a sense of loyalty or obligation that means campaigning with Kempthorne, I understand. But, what we need to hear by the end of the campaign in Ward’s own words is Vaughn Ward communicating that he knows who he is and that he’ll be nobody’s Congressman but the people of the first district.

The message that Ward’s campaign is sending through its messaging and associations is that he’s going to be part of the political establishment, and it leads people to question if he knows who he is and what he believes. He may get lucky and win this way if this is a horrible year for Democrats, as it very well may be, but I think the campaign is doing some things that are ill-advised and tone deaf.

“It’s absurd for President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to suggest that the key to cutting health care costs is more spending, higher taxes, and expanding the federal government,” Ward said. “Nancy Pelosi’s government run health care plan is wrong for Idaho.”
 
Ward continued, “Walter Minnick has already voted for government run health care and believes that Medicaid and Medicare are doing a “pretty fair job”.  We do not need the same people that ran the Hurricane Katrina cleanup handling our health care.”
 
“Any solution that puts a government bureaucrat between a patient and their doctor is no solution at all.  Reforming healthcare and spending over a trillion dollars that we don’t have will permanently affect every family in Idaho.  My goal is to provide a health care system that allows access to affordable, quality health care for Americans, in a way that ensures medical decisions are made in doctor’s offices, not Washington D.C,” concluded Ward.

It’s a good move and a solid stance on the issue. However, after last night’s vote in Massachusetts, there may be no “it” to repeal if Ward gets to Washington.

H389 proudly delare that in Idaho, our state amphimbian is the Giant Salamander.

That’ll fix the economy.

Linked by Kevin Richert.

Rammel’s position of how to deal with the budget shortfall is to eliminate the personal and corporate income taxes and increase sales tax rates as a way to create jobs. While I’m no fan of income taxes because they encourage a variety of manipulative and economical inefficient tax shelters, it is generally very high marginal rates that create this sort of idiocy. Federal income tax rates can be a real problem, because the marginal rates are high enough to make people do dumb things. But Idaho personal income tax rates (like most states) are pretty low. It is hard to imagine that our 8% state income rate is making much of a difference in how anyone in this state decides what investments to make, how many people to hire, what factories to build.

Even more absurd: because state income taxes are deductible on your Form 1040, Schedule A, those Idahoans in the top marginal state income tax bracket (as I was until last year) were reducing their federal income tax by 35-40% of their highest marginal state income tax rate. Eliminating the Idaho state income tax would put perhaps $5000 in the pocket of the top 5% of the state’s income earners–but probably $2000-$2300 of it would end up paid as federal income tax, instead. The gain for the taxpayers, even for the high end Idaho taxpayers, isn’t as impressive as it first sounds.

The notion that reducing personal and corporate state income taxes is going to be a big win for creating new jobs here, or moving existing jobs from other states, is really hare-brained. Yes, they do probably impair job growth a bit–but it is a minor factor when you consider how low the rates are. (At the federal level, it is a stronger argument, where the marginal rates are much higher.) In a thriving economy, there might be a stronger argument for eliminating these taxes to encourage growth–but the only thing growing in Idaho (and much of the rest of the country), is discouragement about jobs.

There’s a lot here to respond to. First of all, while I don’t think Rammell’s right, I think Rammell is on the right track. Tax environment does have something to do with whether business will operate in a state.

While Idaho’s top marginal income tax rate is lower than Clayton’s former Home State of California, it is the 11th Highest in the Nation. In addition, Idaho’s tax structure is far less friendly to the middle class than other states. Anything about $6,186 in taxable income above your exemptions puts you at the third highest tax bracket of 7.1%.  I ended up there last year and we had a household income of less than $40,000. And I don’t have enough deductions to itemize. 

In addition, you can still claim a deduction for State Sales Tax if you’re not claiming a deduction for state income tax. A little bit of a hassle, but still worth the deduction.

Taxes do matter to people and individuals as to where they live and do business. That’s why so many pro-athletes like Tiger Woods, and media stars like Rush Limbaugh call Florida home-no income tax.

In terms of tax environment, it does play a role in the decision that businesses make on where to do business. According to the National Tax Foundation, Idaho ranks 18th in the nation for Business Tax environment. (Which isn’t as bad as in years past.) However, the State’s neighbors are kicking Idaho’s rear in business tax. Nevada is #4, Wyoming is #2, Montana is #6, Utah is #10. Even Blue Washington (#9) and Oregon (#14) are better places for business tax environment.

One of the big draws of Idaho v. California is that it’s Idaho. There are great recreational opportunities, scenic small towns, and a nice place to raise kids. But when you get the same thing from Montana or Wyoming, and a better tax environment to boot, why would you choose to locate your business in Idaho?

Usually, it’s because state and local leaders have bribed you with a bunch of tax subsidies and special deals that help a few select businesses locate here, rather than creating an open market.

I think Rammell’s proposal needs work, and it needs to come from someone who could seriously be elected Governor.  For one thing, I think Clayton has a point regarding the tax on groceries. It really should be ended. Other states, including Washington have no Sales Tax on food, and the process of collecting the Sales Tax and then refunding a portion of it back to the people a year after they spent it is silly.  And to compensate for this, we should take a serious look at sales tax exemptions. Our sales tax exempts more than it taxes. And removing some of the exemptions to tax pedicures and not food could help us be able to not only cover a grocery tax exemption, but also to be able to have a much lower overall Sales Tax rate than would happen otherwise if we kept the current exemptions.

The idea of eliminating the Income Tax and replacing the revenue with Sales Tax is based on a simple proposition. What you tax you get less of. If you tax production, you will get less production and you’ll discourage productivity. If Idaho becomes a State without an Income Tax, it becomes a good place to get wealth, and to spend it, which will be good for our state’s overall economy.  Rammell’s proposal isn’t Martian, many states have no income tax and finance entirely through Sales Tax: Texas, Florida, Washington, and Nevada. While Florida has been on the skids due to real estate speculation, in general all of these states have had better economies than us. 

If not them, why not Idaho?

To be fair, not of all of Baumbach’s assaults on Ward are reasonable. For example, Baumbach blames Ward for McCain losing Nevada. McCain lost Nevada by 12 points . Could a different state coordinator have made up 12 points? I doubt it. Baumbach also attacks Ward for “taking government jobs” his whole adult life. Given that many of these government jobs were in defense of our country, I’ll more than give Ward a pass on that.

However, where Baumbach hits pay dirt is on Ward’s failure to appreciate the local situation:

Ward’s staff is becoming highly divisive within the local party, refusing to speak to some local groups and proudly touting Washington DC contacts. Despite promising to speak to groups such as the Treasure Valley Pachyderms and Politichiks, Ward has avoided them. One insider said, “Vaughn told me he was going after the voters not the “party” which may be why he hasn’t been courting the statehouse.” Why is Ward running as a Republican then? Ward doesn’t understand how the party works for candidates. Each of the nearly 1000 precinct committeemen in Idaho is a political treasure, with years of political networking in his respective community. Candidates are supposed to campaign TO GOP precinct committeemen. In turn they campaign FOR HIM (for free). Instead Ward has chosen the national, impersonal model of campaign. He has no concept of how to woo and use the party to his advantage…

Walt Minnick panders to Tea Party events, braving the rough waters of town-hall meetings. But, Ward’s jarhead is too thick to understand the significance of tea parties, much less the power of the GOP. Meanwhile, Labrador is seen sailing these waters like a competent captain. Labrador wants the energy of these conservative movements to infuse the GOP. These reformist movements are youthful and vigorously pro-constitution and small government…

Baumbach also criticized Ward’s endorsement from Former GOP Chairman Kirk Sullivan.  I e-mailed the Ward campaign and asked for a comment on Baumbach’s piece. Here’s what I got:

We are continuing to travel the district and talk about bringing jobs to Idaho, limited government, and restoring fiscal discipline to Washington D.C. Idahoans are understandably concerned about the direction our nation is heading and are standing behind my record of service and my commitment to getting our economy back on track.

Nice, but it didn’t actually answer any question Baumbach raised, and suggests that the Ward campaign may be missing something very important.

One thing that Baumbach got wrong is that he stated with certainty that Minnick would lose the election. I don’t think that’s predetermined at all.  I think that Minnick can get re-elected the same way he got elected-a divided Republican Party.

Recently, I was speaking to a well-known Republican. I stated that I thought that regardless of who won, we’d be better off than with Minnick. He expressed doubt that Ward would be better.

Ward’s campaign has taken on a risky task, and has accepted some endorsements that engender a lot of mistrust within the party. Kirk Sullivan comes in at the top of the list. Sullivan’s
chairmanship was marked by an obvious disconnect between the will of the party’s volunteers and regular supporters and the actions of its state chairman. Sullivan is a nice enough gentleman, but to many conservatives he represents an out of touch Republican establishment.

This same GOP establishment, led by the Governor used passive aggressive tactics against former Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID) as the Governor refused to help Sali’s campaign until the very end of the campaign in a fit of pique. It was clear that the Governor was more than happy to accept one term of Democratic control of the congressional district if it’d mean being rid of Bill Sali, who’d crossed Otter in supporting the insurgent candidacy of Norm Semanko over Sullivan, who’d done the Governor’s bidding.

 And these Otter types have been gravitating towards the Ward campaign. For conservatives who refused to submit to Governor Otter, the symbolism couldn’t be more striking.

The same goes with Ward’s support for Congressional leaders that he’s touted.  He’s got the support of John Boehner and the GOP leadership in Congress. Great. 74% of Republican voters say the Republican leadership in Congress is out of touch. The only endorsements that would be less impressive to grassroots Republican voters are that of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, or the anthrax virus.

Given Ward’s background in intelligence, what’s most shocking is that his campaign has failed in the critical area of intelligence gathering. Ward has been embraced by folks who get a very negative reaction out of a large group of party members.

Ward’s campaign reminds me of one I covered back in Montana for County Commissioner. A Mayor defeated an incumbent Republican Commissioner in the primary. The Mayor was a good guy and when he did win, he governed as a conservative. However, his campaign associated with the wrong people and didn’t respond well to the consevative Incumbent’s supporters. The result, a party splitting three way race, that the challenging Mayor won narrowly because the Democrats nominated a fru-fru candidate. 

The situation in Idaho 1st against Blue Dog Walt Minnick is more perilous. If Ward is the GOP nominee and he doesn’t unite Republicans and conservatives have serious doubts whether he’s worth fighting for, he loses.

The tragedy for Ward is that he’s not a liberal. He received contributions from Rep. Mike Pence (R-In.) who is as conservative as they come, and doesn’t support liberals or RINOs. But Ward has chosen his intrastate allies poorly. He has taken money from a political establishment that has divided the Idaho Republican Party and tried to dictate to the grassroots, rather than listening to them.

Ward’s allies strengthen the case of ID. Raul Labrador (R-14), giving Labrador a natural anti-Ward vote. The Idaho Conservative blogger poll (which shows Labrador beating Ward by a 54-39%) is significant even though its unscientific, because it shows some weakness in Ward’s stock, particularly on a site where Ward had done very well and even has purchased top advertising space.

Even if Ward wins the nomination (which seems likely at this point, but two weeks ago it was likely that Marsha Coakley would be elected to the U.S. Senate in a landslide), he faces a task of building bridges within his own party, and if Ward doesn’t realize the mistakes he’s made and win over the grassroots voters, then we will be talking about Congressman Minnick until at least 2013.

Crapo voted to end the DC Opportunity Scholarship program. The program allowed hundreds of students to escape from the drug-ridden failing DC public schools. It created opportunities for children to get ahead in life, so that their taxpayer funded education would be worth something. Yet, the Congress voted to end a successful program. The poor minority children of the District of Columbia were offered as a sacrifice to the special interests such as the teacher’s union.

That Senator Crapo voted to end the program and trap these kids in failing public schools was unconscienable. From the letter I got from his office, it was all about his ideological belief in the sanctity of public schools. And Senator Crapo may have sent his kids to Idaho public schools, but there’s a big difference between Idaho and DC public schools. And I doubt that if Senator Crapo were a single parent living  just slightly above the poverty level that he’d refuse to apply for an opportunity scholarship for his children in hopes that someday DC’s public school system will be fixed.

The vote bothers me immensely because it hurt people, it hurt kids, and it showed that Senator Crapo doesn’t understand this simple concept: competition makes thing better.

It runs contrary to my vision of conservatism, and contrary to popular stereotypes, I’m not a conservative because I don’t care about people. I’m a Conservative, because I do. Liberalism as practiced in the Democratic Party really isn’t about what’s in the best interests of we the people, it’s about what’s in the best interest of they, the bureaucrats and union bosses.

This isn’t to say they don’t have good intentions, but when you take thousands of dollars from teacher’s unions, and you know their support is necessary to win re-election, it blinds you to the reality of what’s actually best for kids, and suddenly, it’s about what’s best for the unions.

I believe in education, but the exultation of government-run schools as the be all and end all of education is wrong. It ignores the success of homeschooling, private schools, and charter schools. The worship of public schools is the worship of a failing false God. I believe in competition in education, because it works everywhere else.

Which brings me back to Mike Crapo. Will I vote for him this Spring and Fall? Yes. But I’d be lying if I said that an issue most Idahoans don’t know anything about haunts me.

• We gave $3,672 in taxpayers dollars to a slam poetry organization which shoves profanity spouting poets onto a stage to recite poems about home decorating using sex toys and the joys of condom use. (Maybe, they’re preparing to be State Senators, but I digress.)
• The number of state employees earning more than the Governor ($108,727 this year) has increased from nearly doubled from 148 to 286.
• The salaries of the heads of State Departments has skyrocketed more than 30% in the past five years.
• State subsidies to Higher Education are growing at an unsustainable rate that’s out of step with enrollment growth.

What’s the lead story across the media.

KLEW TV  in Lewiston screams:

Pork Report slams teacher salary plan as wasteful

 Even the usually professional Betsy Russell, in her piece, writes, “Among the suggestions: Cut health and pension benefits for state employees, though the state long has struggled with below-market salaries for state workers…”

Who elected Russell president of the state Employees Union?  Must have missed the press release, but she’s sure writing like she was. The stories have mostly not questioned government, but more or less shot at the messenger to avoid addressing the contents of the report and the revelations of government waste.

Ultimately, the media and the political establishment of both parties is wed.  The media establishment fears a backlash from reports of government waste and mismanagement will elect the type of people they detest, so it ignores it where it occurs and like a trained parrot for union bosses, they echo:

“Awwk, more money for schools….Awwk we need to spend more money….”

It stereotypes and attacks any enemy of the political establishment be it Hoffman, or Bill Sali,  Bryan Fischer, or Steve Thayn. Rather, than being a vibrant watchdog, the media of our state are  sleeping lapdogs, whose occassional show of tough reporting (almost always at a time when no one is paying attention) is as real as a pro-wrestling match.

Hoffman left the machine and has done a good job bringing us information the media didn’t care enough to report, and I’d encourage every citizen to read Idaho Freedom Foundation’s Report on government waste. Because most of the Idaho media doesn’t do investigative reporting (unless it involves hanging out in gay bars.)

Are their problems with the report? Sure. The inclusion of teacher pay as pork was problematic, because its really seperate from general government waste as reported by Citizens Against Government Waste usually reports and really was such a deep topic that it needed more than one paragraph. Also, I am somewhat sympathetic to the view expressed by Senate President Bob Geddes suggestion that a couple of the smaller items (such as $900 to launder wash cloths v. paying for paper towels at the Idaho Tax Commission) really don’t do much to save taxpayers money or raise ire about government waste .

Still, like Geddes, I welcome the report. It’s nice to have someone keeping an eye on state and local government in Idaho. Lord knows we can’t count on the media to do it.

I also strongly reccomend Martin Johncox’s post at Newwest, suggesting that we focus on the rest of Boise. It’s spot on and a nice reminders for folks who think that there’s nothing outside the North End in Boise that matters.

Hagedorn also said “it’s been proven time and time again” that cutting taxes increases state revenue. No, sorry Marv, just the opposite. You’re offering up supply side economics, just like Reagan and George Bush, and both those guys managed to massively increase the federal deficit without growing the economy. I mean, just look around. Look at the recession we’re in. Bush aggressively cut taxes, and the economy certainly didn’t take off.

The problem that caused the deficits was spending not tax cuts. As to Alan’s statement that the economy didn’t take off because of the tax cuts, um it did. Apparently he’s forgotten that unemployment was under 5% much of President Bush’s second term, the economy enjoyed strong growth until the credit crisis hit.

Alan then goes on to make a doozy of an argument:

I propose a tax on one of our most precious resources; water. Pure and simple, a really tiny tax on each gallon of water consumed that EVERYBODY pays. Those folks making the most money off water, like farmers and industry, would pay the most. Folks like me and you who just drink it and wash with it would pay some, but not a lot.

How about you tax another precious resource, like the air we breathe. Of course, this would have the effect of increasing the cost of doing business in Idaho and make those businesses that remained in the state uncompetitive with a nationwide system and gives those businesses who can leave a good reason to do so.  Love the practical policy from the left. No wonder Keith Allred is running on, “Insert Platform here.”

Idaho Democrats don’t agree with every vote Walt Minnick has cast since his swearing in. We won’t agree with every decision Governor Allred makes either.

Governor Allred? I wrote over at the Idaho Press Tribune that Allred could be our Governor in 2014, but stating it as if its a certainty would be arrogant if Allred were frontrunner or even, but the odds of us having Governor Allred in 2011 are only slighly bettter than the odds of us having President Ron Paul.

I don’t know how many Idahoans are embarassed that we don’t have one. When I examine the arguments for having a Governor’s Mansion, I come up with one big reason: to help the pundits have an original phrase.

In most other states, rather than saying, “Sharon Ullman is running for Governor,” we can say, “Sharon Ullman is trying to win the Governor’s Mansion.” And pundits in other states can talk about a “Race for the Governor’s Mansion.” It’s no fair that we can talk about is a simple race for Governor. And, “Race for the Governor’s Housing Allowance” just isn’t the same,

However, given that this will most likely not garner enough public sympathy, it seems to me that its time to fold.

The only other major argument I can think of for a Governor’s mansion is the benefit of being able to hold parties for big businesses to come to our State, but I doubt the public will be sympathetic to that.

And after we sell the Governor’s house (where the Governor doesn’t live), I would humbly suggest that we bar the door on another acquistion. It’s been a waste of private time and money. The State should be banned from accepting another donation of a “Governor’s house.” There’s simply not the interest in putting our governor up in a mansion, and most of our Governors of late have been the type of guys who don’t need one.

Reading both stories as objectively as I can — even though I’m a Statesman editor, albeit one with no say over news coverage — both stories pass my watchdog test. They expose some questionable public spending that should concern us all.

To Craig’s staffers, these bonuses weren’t exactly chump change — the largest bonus was $36,000. Not big bucks in the Monopoly money world of the Beltway, but a fair chunk of change nonetheless. And the bonuses point to a larger trend on Capitol Hill. Craig isn’t the only retiring lawmaker to award such pay raises, with little fanfare and no form of checks and balances.

That’s why I find the bonuses troubling. This story has nothing to do with the well-documented circumstances surrounding Craig’s retirement. It has to do with how elected officials spend your money while they’re heading out the door.

Do people want watchdogs? Yes.  However, the whole Craig bonus story reminds me of the old Laugh-In line (and yeah, I only saw it in reruns,) “Very interesting, but stupid.”

So Craig paid some staffers a bonus. In and of itself, to quote Garfield, “Big, fat, hairy deal.”  Now, had there been someone come forward and say that they couldn’t stand working for Larry Craig after this and that they would go and blab things to the press that would ruin Craig forever and Craig gave a $30,000 bonus to keep them quiet, that’d be news.

As it is, what do we have. Several staffers were paid a bonus for remaining on staff with an office that was suddenly going out of business. I called for Craig to resign at the time, but I’ve got no quarrel with paying people a little extra to not abandon ship and give Idaho the best constituent service as long as possible.

However, the story reminds people of the fact that bothers many Idahoans: Larry Craig was from Idaho.

However, heretofore the Statesman has ignored several stories around Ada County and the City of Boise. You want to know what’s really going on at City Hall, read the Boise Guardian. Save the Idaho Statesman for when you run out of liner for the bottom of your cat’s litter box. At the national level, they’ve shown a total lack of interest in the links between the contributions of a powerful member of Congress who is under investigation by the House Ethics committee. They’ve shown a total lack of interest with anything having to do with Minnick’s fundraising, no matter how legitimate the story.

The Idaho Statesman isn’t a good watchdog, it’s a dumb dog, that often only reports important stories after blogs have broken them and they become too big to ignore. 

A dumb dog will do things like bark at your neighbor whose lived next door for 40 years and then remain absolutely silent while a stranger burgles the house. This is a good picture of the Idaho Statesman.

We need a Governor, who’ll bring needed reforms to our state and tackle tough issues in education, and bring some real reform, and put our state on the road to economic growth.

We need a Governor, who is shown the good judgment, and common sense one would expect of a Governor, and who will not embarass our state.

And we need a candidate who respects the rights of all citizens, particularly the most innocent among us, the unborn. Those who think we can safeguard our own liberty while disregarding the right to life of the innocent children don’t understand how liberty works.

So, given these realities where do I stand on the Governor’s race? In a Republican Primary where Governor Otter wil almost certainly win, no matter how I vote, I don’t see a candidate that I could even give a protest vote for in good conscience at this point. Maybe, another candidate will emerge or maybe something will come to light that will make one of these candidates seem worth my assent, but currently, my stance on the Governor’s race is the same as Monty Brewster’s, None of the Above.

Well, Simpson is so confident, he’s done the political equivalent of walking out on the battlefield in t-shirt and gym shorts. When he’s back in his district, he doesn’t hold town hall meetings where his constituents can ask him questions. He doesn’t have representatives show up at Central Committee meetings, which is a good thing as his staff makes the downtown DMV look like the Missionaries of Charity. I’ve gotten more polite service at a Subway near BSU. That says something.”

“Simpson has taken his position for granted. Even Simpson’s fundraising numbers are weak. They’re the numbers of a man whose political career has become a never-ending victory lap. Now, he faces a challenge. Not two unknown challengers throwing in their hats at the last minute before the filing deadline, but one challenger who is raising money and building an organization in a year when incumbency will offer less advantage than any year since 1994.”

Simpson answered my charges, sorta:

Simpson: Adam is entitled to his own opinion. I have never taken any race in my life for granted and will not take this one for granted either. I believe competition is a good thing and that voters deserve choices in elections, which they will certainly have in the primary next year. I am proud of my record of service to my constituents and of my voting record in Congress, which is one of a pragmatic conservative who has opposed over $4.5 TRILLION in spending this year alone as well as efforts to expand the definition of hate crimes, the Democrats’ Health Care Entitlement Plan, the Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade proposal, and myriad other cornerstones of the liberal agenda. In addition, I am strongly supporting a number of other fiscally-conservative bills this Congress including the Balanced Budget Amendment, legislation to sunset all federal agencies and require their reauthorization, and legislation to repeal the Obama-Pelosi stimulus bill. I am proudly pro-life, and I strongly oppose illegal immigration, gun control and the efforts of Democrats to institute a secret ballot in union elections. As I said, I am proud of my conservative record and confident that I have voted in the best interests of Idaho throughout my nearly 11 years in Congress.

Other than claiming to be conservative, by opposing bills that nearly every other Republican in Congress opposes, Simpson does little to answer the charges that he’s complacent other than insisting that he’s not. He doesn’t hold townhall meetings and he doesn’t challenge the assertion that his staff is surly and unresponsive to the public. Nor other than stating he wasn’t taking the election granted did he actually refute my evidence that suggested he was.

In addition, does Simpson really deserve plaudits for opposing legislation that most Republicans opposed. Simpson voted against Health Care, the Stimulus, and Cap and Trade.  That means that Simpson voted with 99.43%, 100%, and 95.48% of the Republican Caucus. When does Mr. Simpson want us to schedule the ticker tape parade?

As for the Balanced Budget Amendment, given Mr. Simpson’s deplorable record of supporting government waste, this paints the picture of an alcoholic supporting prohibition. It’s as if Simpson is saying, “Stop me before I spend again!” Never mind that in this congress, the Balanced Budget Amendment has as much chance of being approved as a Constitutional Amendment banning music videos praising politicians.

Simpson does deliver a reasonable answer to why he supported an expansion of Cash for Clunkers:

Simpson: I did NOT support the Cash for Clunkers program. I voted against the creation of the program and would do so again today if another vote occurred. I will be the first to acknowledge that I did vote for the release of an additional $2 billion for the program, but it was not a vote in support of the program. Please let me explain. The release of the additional $2 billion for the program was offset by a reduction of $2 billion from the Obama Stimulus Bill. If that $2 billion would have remained in the stimulus bill, it would have been spent, like most of the other $785 billion in the stimulus bill, to grow government agencies and government programs that will live on for decades into the future. By voting to move that $2 billion out of stimulus and into Cash for Clunkers, I felt the money at least would be sent back to the American people where they would spend it far more wisely than the government would. As I said, I did NOT support the Cash for Clunkers program and do NOT support it now. In fact, I oppose it. My vote on the additional $2 billion was not a choice of supporting or not supporting the program. It was a choice between $2 billion for Clunkers or $2 billion for stimulus and I made the decision that $2 billion for clunkers was the lesser of two evils.

Fair enough, I thing Congressman Simpson gave a reasonable explanation. In fact, I think he gave one twice.  However, Simpson’s response to his opponent Chick  Heileson’s more mild criticism was worthy of consideration:

“”I want to see the Constitution followed, I think Mike Simpson believes he is a Constitutionalist, but if you look at the document and compare it with his voting record, he’s not following it the way he should.”

Simpson responds:

Like Adam Graham, Mr. Heileson is entitled to his own opinion. However, I am a strong supporter of the Constitution and look to its guidance often in the efforts I undertake as a Congressman.

Really?  Perhaps this calls for a letter:

Dear Congressman Simpson,

I was overjoyed and surprised to hear that you look to the Constitution for guidance on your votes.

I did have a couple question, though. What specific clause in the Constitution led you to vote to send $700 billion in tax dollars to private corporations with your vote for the TARP bill? Secondly, what section did you find that led you to vote for the expansion of SCHIP while our country faces a deficit more than a trillion? Please send the appropriate section of the Constitution where Congress’ action was justified.

Also, if you just couldn’t find your copy of the Constitution on the day the vote occurred and just winged it, please let me know as well.

Your Constituent,
Adam Graham

I’ll let you know when I get a response.

*For those who don’t know me, I have a beard, and I couldn’t be a jockey because I’m too-uh-tall.

The way Stanton raises money to a great extent is through baby bottle fundraisers. They go to a local church and give willing members a bottle to take home. Then, over the course of the next few weeks, loose change is collected as they receive it and they put it in the baby bottle. They bring back the bottles full of change and with enough baby bottles, Stanton will collect thousands of dollars to help women in crisis pregnancy situations.  They provide pr

One of those baby bottle fundraisers was cancelled, and Stanton had expected to raise $10-$12,000 from it. I pulled some money out of savings to make a special contribution in addition to my regular payroll deduction. I’m not saying that brag, but rather to raise a challenge. If you’re concerned about the tragic loss of life through abortion and you have the resources, please consider a donation of what you’re able to provide to help Stanton Health Care out

We become increasingly aware of the misdeeds of Planned Parenthood. Lila Rose’s investigations have shown Planned Parenthood willing to cover up statuatory rape:

A former Planned Parenthood Director came on Huckabee this past weekend, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson came on and explained that in a tough economy, Planned Parenthood is pushing abortion as its own stimulus package, without regards to the lives of young women:

There needs to be alternatives to women in crisis pregnancies and Stanton provides a great service to the Women of our Community with compassion caring counselling that has changed lives by offering life-affirming alternatives to women who are considering abortions, and helping pick up the pieces of those women who were led astray by death merchants like Planned Parenthood.

However, Stanton needs us to partner with them and I would urge you to please donate a little to help Stanton through this rough spot and also to consider becoming a regular donor. When you give to Stanton is spent on saving and restoring lives, and extending love and compassion to women in crisis pregnancy situations and their babies. I can think of no more worthy cause.

Chick Heileson has more than 200 people in Facebook Group.

Mike Simpson-um-uh-doesn’t seem to have a Facebook Group.

I guess you don’t need a Facebook group if you believe you hold your office by divine right and only raise money in order to write checks to other congressional candidate.

At the beginning of his talk, O’Toole gave some history of the Old Spaghetti Factory, where the meeting was being held. He’d worked at one in restoring a Street Car and every original Old Spaghetti Factory has an old street car in it. The one in Boise is a newer one so it only has a rhetoric.

Most of the audience agreed with O’Toole that should be the only street car in Boise.

Some other highlights from the talk:

• Street cars don’t succeed in driving transit. The number of people taking transit to work fell in Portland from 10% to 6.5% when they put in the first light rail line back in the 1980s. Then it went up to about to 7.5% before they decided to add more light rail which drove it back down to around six and a half percent. The Boise Street Car would just be a traffic mess.
• The initial cost of the Street Car or any light rail will not be the final cost. There will be subsidies for development surrounding a rail line which will benefit the areas around the rail line. This will not create new economic development, it will draw economic development from other areas of the city at taxpayer expense.
• Even in Europe which is well-know for its use of buses, the automobile reigns supreme with79% of trips being done by car v. 85% in the U.S. The European train system has succeeded mostly in reducing the use of airlines

Mr. O’Toole had some critics there including a recently migrated Portlander in his 20s who pointed to the downtown revitalization and said that he and his friends had not complained when they’d been riding the Max Train.

O’Toole pointed out they wouldn’t be riding the Max train if they had to pick up the cost of the subsidies, and that every major city in America has had their downtown revitalized over the past few decades, with or without rail. Portland has driven out married people with families, with schools closing, and restaurants opening to satisfy the needs of single folks who don’t like to cook. Surrounding communities have grown at a rapid rate as people have gotten out of Portland.

O’Toole was also challenged to explain what we were going to do when gas reached $5.00-$10.00 a gallon. His answer was that we would continue to drive. In Europe, where gas taxes are around $2 a gallon, keeping gas higher than it is in America, people continue to drive. We may drive more fuel efficient cars, but we’ll continue to drive.

The biggest take-away from O’Toole’s talk is an understanding of what drives most of these conversations. It’s about government trying to control the lives of people and to make them live in ways they’d never choose to live.

The goal of this is to push people into mass transit (if they don’t ride a bicycle to work) and to live in high density housing close to the center of the city, which is the drive of many efforts to build livable communities which are supposed to cut down on fuel consumption. It’s viewed as an ideal for how everyone ought to live, rather than taking up single family homes that may be far flung from the bus line and actually lead to people to drive to work.

 The problem is that most people don’t want to do it and if they’re able, they’ll avoid doing it at great expense if they can. A condo on the 7th floor in an apartment house is simply how most people would choose to live. And when you try to force people to live in a manner which they would never choose to themselves, you’re infringing on their freedom. It’s a soft form of tyranny.

I detect a little bit of hypocrisy here.  The drive of herding us all into high rise condominiums and packing us like cattle into public transit is a liberal Utopian dream for how the world ought to be. Yet, how many politicians practice what they preach? Certainly, Mayor Bieter and Senator Elliot Werk bicycle to work. But do they live in high density housing. I’ve spoken to several people who’ve been to Senator Werk’s house. Yes, his house, his single family home, not his eighth floor apartment or condo. The rich and powerful who push this way of life that people in a free society will always reject will live in single family homes, and they’ll not be heading down to the Greyhound Station to reduce their carbon footprint.

Mr. O’Toole maintains a very good blog that I’d encourage everyone to follow.  Thanks to the Cato Institute, I’ve embedded Mr. O’Toole’s Report, “Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn’t Work.” for your information and to save you a click.

Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn’t Work, Cato Policy Analysis No. 596

Also Id. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-14) is saying he’ll make a formal announcement for the seat to run against Vaughn Ward. Randy Stapilus doesn’t get the appeal or the potential appeal of Raul Labrador:

Won’t be easy at this point. It’s not as if Ward is running or could be positioned as a moderate in this race, and it’s hard to see what advantages Labrador, starting quite a few months later than Roberts, would bring that his fellow legislator did not. “Monumental” is a reasonable adjective. 

Well, let me explain the appeal of Labrador and the real challenge that Ward faces. It’s not so much that Ward can be defined as a moderate, but rather that he can be defined as a candidate of the establishment. Consider this: 73% of Republican voters say that Republicans in Congress are out of touch. Endorsements like that which came from the ACU PAC aren’t going to help him out in Idaho.

If voters come to the conclusion that Vaughn Ward will be as good as an average Republican member of Congress, I think he could lose this primary. To be honest, I’ve heard both side regarding Ward and how he’s viewed.

Labrador has got several things going him for that Roberts didn’t. When it came to all the happenings leading up last year’s State Convention, Roberts was a non-entity. Labrador really was a key player. In Ada County, he took the lead in preparing a proposal that set the stage for newly elected folks to go to the State Republican Convention, and on the floor, it was his parliamentary maneuvers that allowed people to have a secret ballot in the vote for Chairman despite the then-party establishments attempt to have a public vote, which could have put a lot of folks in very uncomfortable situations. Labrador took on the establishment to do what those of us on the prevailing side viewed to be the right thing and to, in the process protect the privacy and security of folks to cast their ballot. That’s the type of thing people remember and engenders a sense of loyalty.

Ward, to his credit has taken on some of the profligacy of the Bush Administration on spending and he disagrees with the TARP bailouts. That helps, but the question that Ward has said people ask him often is how he’s going to avoid being changed by Washington.

It’s one thing to take a stand on the campaign trail. It’s another thing altogether when Majority Whip Eric Cantor comes out and tells you that he needs your vote for something, like TARP, that you know is bad for the country. Do you cast the right vote and lose some prestige with the party leader, making it less likely you advance in your congressional career or do you cast a vote that you know will be bad for the country’s future. In theory, most people would say no. In practice, a leader like Cantor is going to be a colleague, a co-worker. How do you handle that pressure?

There are other dynamics obviously. The match-up between a lawyer and a veteran of the military and CIA certainly favors Ward from an occupational standpoint. And the early start favors Ward. He has extended his time and made positive impressions with a lot of folks. The question for many voters is going to be who can we trust to actually live out their conservative values? How much traction the upcoming Labrador campaign can get  will ultimately be a test of how well Ward has succeeded in convincing folks that he can be trusted.