The Hart of the Matter

The more I study the case of Rep. Phil Hart, the more that I think that there really is nothing to the ethics case against him.

Has Rep. Hart used his position in the legislature to avoid paying tax debts? No, legislative immunity is necessary for legislators to avoid becoming legal pinatas. If Democrats want to complain about Hart’s use of legislative immunity, I suggest the entire Democratic Caucus publicly documents renouncing their rights to legislative immunity. I think it would probably be like their “principled” stand against closed caucus sessions.

If the full truth is known, Phil Hart’s service in the legislature has really had the effect of extenuating the length of the process while limiting his ability to pay if the settlement goes against him. While I can only speculate what Mr. Hart might be able to break in the private sector, it’s safe to say that it’s a far sight more than his legislative pay.

The charges of conflict of interest against Hart are absurd. This isn’t the Jack Noble case, as none other than that rabid right winger Dan Popkey made clear:

Most importantly, Idaho’s ethics law specifically exempts actions on tax measures from conflict-of-interest charges “when similarly situated members of the general public are affected by the outcome of the action in a substantially similar manner and degree.”
 

If you’re on the left and you’ve lost Dan Popkey, I’m hard-pressed to see how you get a Legislative  Committee to agree with you. 

Hart’s tax debt, both at the Federal and State level is based on denial of all business exemptions over an eight year period with the IRS taking the absurd stand that his expenses were $0. This is the source of both state and federal tax debt, not some misfeasance on the part of Rep. Hart.

This ”ethics case” is nothing more than politically motivated partisan witch hunt set in motion by the Minority Leader in hopes of scoring political points against conservatives, and fueled by a media that seeks the same end. The only good thing about this case is that before the Christmas movie season, we can hand out a Best Actor Oscar for Democrats pretending to be outraged about Hart’s ethics while rubbing their hands together hoping to nail down an arch-conservative and score some political points for the Fall.  

For my part, I think the Idaho Legislature is fortunate to have Rep. Hart. I’ve heard of many people who have protested the income tax, lost their case, and gone off somewhere to whine about it and complain how the country is going to Hell in a handbasket.

Rep. Hart has worked through our American system, even though the system has kicked him in the teeth a few times. He lost his challenge to the collection of income taxes on wages and salaries. And so he has been paying those back taxes. And working through this mess with the IRS through the cumbersome nightmare he has to go through.

In the midst of all this, he not only runs for the legislature but convinces his constituents that he deserves to represent them multiple times. And despite the heavy fire, he continues to go into the breach to fight for his vision of a better Idaho.  He remains undefeated despite the government’s efforts.

I don’t always agree with Rep. Hart, but I have to respect him. He has stood for principle, not the path of political gain walked by so many yes-men around the Capital who are angling to head up a state bureaucracy. Hart has acted ethically and ought to be exonerated.