Do Democrats Want To Solve Problems?

In the Idaho legislature, the State House voted 31-39 against a bill that would allow local option registration fees.

In the comments, anger was directed (or should I say misdirected) at Rep. Lenore Barrett (R-35) for her vote  against the bill. Anyone who believed Barrett would cast her vote otherwise didn’t know Barrett. But it’s not the fault of Barrett or Republicans that the bill failed.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-14) cobbled together a careful coalition of 30 of the 52 members of the House Republican Caucus to vote for a bill to allow voters to, by a 2/3 vote  to increase car registration fees for transportation projects.

The bill represented a step towards what Idaho Democrats have called for so many years: Home rule. It was not a constitutional Amendment on the issue of local option taxes or fees as local political bosses have chided Majority Leader Mike Moyle (R-14) for introducing in the last session. I even remember Idablue saying that if members wanted a 2/3 provision, they ought to put in the legislation.

So, here we had a bill that ostensibly would take this step forward. Democrats voted against this thing 18-1, including 7-1 among Ada County Democrats with only Grant Burgoyne (D-16) voting in favor of the bill that would open the door to local option voting.

Democrats had a simple choice. Do they want a solution? Do they want a reasonable compromise, or do they just want the issue to talk about? Democrats have decided they would much rather have the issue than have any type of solution or first step forward. It’s a disingenuous style of governing that shows a serious lack of respect for the business of legislating, which means compromise.

The legislature is not opposed to home rule, but our state’s culture is one of taxpayer protection. We require a 2/3 majority to pass special school levies, why should it be any different if we’re talking about vehicle fees or certainly sales taxes, that we require a 2/3 majority in order to achieve the goal. The vast majority of citizens, not just whoever you can drag to the polls to get a majority have to be convinced of the efficacy of a project before everyone’s tax dollars are expended.

Rather it seems supporters of local option come from the Patrick Swayze school of legislating, “It’s my way or the highway.” Maybe, they hope to use this as a wedge issue to take away legislative seats and they hope that demographics will favor them long term with the state becoming more urban over time so they can finally get legislation passed that allows arbitrary geographic areas to be created as Local Option Tax districts and where the tax can be raised by a majority vote in the arbitrary district or if it takes a 2/3 vote, the election can be held at a will, at a time when political bosses and industries that will benefit off the taxpayer’s dime can fund a massive get out the vote campaign where only a small number voters levy taxes on the rest of local citizens in the arbitrary district.

Unfortunately for those concerned about transportation funding, if Idaho does go that direction, it will probably not occur until about the time Rep. Branden Durst and I are drawing our first Social Security checks (if there’s even still such a thing by then.) If people want results sooner, it will require adult leadership that is willing to nod to reality and work towards real solutions that can actually pass. With the exception of Rep. Burgoyne (D), Idaho Democrats showed they are simply not ready to engage in that process.