A place for the writings and the ideas of the people in and around (and coming to the attention of) the Ridenbaugh Press.
Index isn’t a conservative standard
Published May 10, 2016 by

Index isn’t a conservative standard

A guest opinion by Richard Larsen, president of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) would have us believe that their “Freedom Index” is the benchmark by which conservative legislators should be judged. In reality, it is of marginal use in identifying fealty to conservative values, and is being used as a bully tactic against select legislators whom the Foundation has targeted as dispensable.

The foundational principles for conservatives are those articulated in our founding documents. Primary among these are the classical-liberal, inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” or property. To accurately gauge or measure the conviction of legislators to our ideological roots, some means of quantifying and indexing votes against this tripartite value system would need to be created. To my knowledge, there is no such system. Indeed, any kind of objective methodology behind such an index would likely be impossible to create and measure.

In spite of their impressive list of items considered in their “Freedom Index Rating Matrix,” every rating boils down to one factor; does a bill expand or constrict the growth of government. Indeed, in an online discussion with Wayne Hoffman, the President of the IFF, Hoffman conceded, “The Freedom Index measures growth of government.” This is wholly inadequate as the foundation for what is peddled as the ultimate statewide canon for measuring conservative orthodoxy.

Here is where the heretofore broadly applied “conservative” appellation for the index collapses. I have yet to find “measure growth of government” or even “growth of government” as a founding principle of the nation or for conservatives. No evidence of it in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.

Granted, as a general rule, when government expands, individual liberty is impeded and infringed upon. But expansion, or non-expansion, of government, is not the only definer of liberty. Nor is it the barometer to measure conviction to all of our founding principles. If that were the case, all conservatives would be anarchists, for they prefer no government. And since the Index only measures “growth of government,” by that definition, absence of government, anarchism, would be the ideal. If “life, liberty, and property, are the core principles of conservatism (classical-liberalism) the Index is NOT a canon for conservative orthodoxy.

One simple example can illustrate the deficiency of the “expansion of government” basis for measuring conservatism. Based on that model, a statute that limits abortions would of necessity, be classified as an expansion of governmental power, and a restriction of personal liberty. But to conservatives who are constitutionally oriented, life, and the protection and preservation thereof, as a core value, is preeminent to concerns over expansion of government to protect life. Especially life that is most innocent and vulnerable to the political machinations of a predominately immoral society.

Here’s another simple example from the 2016 legislative docket. H0331 was a bill that sought to regulate the possession, sale, purchase and use of powdered alcohol. The IFF had this bill rated a -2. It seems inconceivable to me that a decision to protect children, and prevent abuse of powdered alcohol by underage kids dumping it into their Pepsi, could be classified by anyone as an ideological issue. Such a preposterous methodology plays directly into the hands of the left who think that “for the children” is their exclusive domain.

We see time and time again through the entire list of bills rated by the IFF where, based on their matrix, “expansion of government” assumes superiority over all other conservative core values. In short, just because a legislator voted against the Index preferences doesn’t mean they’re a “liberal.” It most likely means other core values were at play. Such prioritization of values, as subjective as it can be for individual legislators, is, I believe, impossible to quantify on a measurable index, and is clearly ignored with the “Freedom Index.”

Other firms take an approach based on more broad-based core conservative values, not just “growth of government.” For example, the American Conservative Union (ACU) rates Idaho legislators on a much more broad matrix. As explained by the Chairman, Matt Schlapp, “The Idaho legislators with the strongest scores voted most consistently with the ideals articulated in the US Constitution: limited and transparent government, individual rights, personal responsibility, and a healthy culture.”

But even their index is imperfect, as it only rates a dozen bills for the House and Senate respectively. But their results seem more substantively viable as many of those Republican legislators who were graded “D” and “F” by the Idaho Freedom Foundation Index, were scored “A” and “B” with the ACU.

As much as the IFF would like to tout their Index as the standard by which conservative orthodoxy is legislatively defined, it simply is not. Government growth is only one component, and only one aspect of governance. To place it in a position of preeminence over all other core values only diminishes what it means to be a conservative, based on our classical-liberal founding principles.

And to further illustrate the absurdity of their methodology, any spending increase would have to be considered an expansion of government. In other words, technically, any increase in spending for education, for healthcare, for law enforcement, for infrastructure improvement or expansion, or the mentally ill, would have to be considered an “expansion of government.” What an irresponsible way to govern that would be! No wonder the IFF intentionally doesn’t rate appropriation bills, since it would unmask their libertarian/anarchist agenda as quantified by their illegitimate Index!

Ronald Reagan’s insights provide the proper conservative perspective toward governance. He said, “Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work–work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.” That’s clearly at odds with the objectives of the IFF and their Index.

Gratefully, and to the Freedom Foundation’s credit, they seem to acknowledge their indices’ limitations. Their website contains the disclaimer, “The Idaho Freedom Index is not intended to serve as either an express or an implied endorsement or rejection of any candidate for public office. Idaho Freedom Foundation recognizes that there are inherent limitations in judging the qualifications of any legislator on the basis of a selected number of votes, and legislative activities such as performance on committees and constituent services are not reflected in the scores of the Idaho Freedom Index.” Yet still they use it to bully, intimidate, and harass, in spite of their acknowledged deficiencies.

Clearly, the Idaho Freedom Index is not a measurement of how “conservative” legislators are, as it only measures “growth of government.” If that’s all that matters, their index is of value. Otherwise, it’s merely another quantitatively challenged and disingenuous tool with which to browbeat and intimidate legislators. Gratefully, most Idaho legislators have higher values, and don’t kowtow to their rankings.

Share on Facebook

Reading

Published May 9, 2016 by

Let’s just chill out

rainey

All right. Let’s just calm down here. Take some deep breaths. Count to a hundred or two or five. Take a couple of sips of whatever soothes your nerves. Let’s sit quietly for a few minutes and get our heads straight.

Donald Trump is NOT going to be the next President of these United States. Not gonna happen. No way. No how. Just not gonna happen. I promise. Period.

Since The Donald appeared to sew up the nomination of the GOP a few days back, politicians – and wanna be politicians – of every stripe have been quivering in their patent leather slip-ons. Aided by a willing and equally as frenetic media, they’ve been loudly bemoaning the fate of their own careers, the fate of their beloved Republican Party and, yes, even an occasional thought now and then to the fate of our country – if allowed to rant long enough. Terrible thing for grown ups to hear.

Trying to find a voice of common sense in the aural maelstrom has been difficult. Damned few out there. But those few experienced prognosticators as can be found all seem to agree Mr. Trump will eventually end up in the ash can of discarded egos.

One other point these low key sages agree on. Donald will do it to himself – that he’ll eventually be a victim of his own mouth, a lack of acceptable qualifications, racist/sexist beliefs and pronouncements and a wearing-on-the-nerves demeanor that’ll find him ultimately insulting and degrading just about every human being within the sound of his voice. With his penchant for publicity, coupled with a bad case of overexposure at the hands of the ratings hungry media, give him four or five months and the Trump “luster” will likely become the Trump “rust.”

I tend to agree. That’s not to say “ignore him and he’ll go away.” No, not at all. The stakes are too high to just dismiss him. He truly is the worst candidate either of the two major national parties could put forth. Except that idiot Palin floozy. He’s dangerous for many reasons. But he’s not mythical with special powers. He’s not infallible. Fact is, he’s very fallible.

The political earth is shaking under our national feet. Politicians are running this way and that – either trying to get on Trump’s loud bandwagon or out of the way so as not to be rolled over by its gaudy wheels. Alarm bells are going off all over Washington and beyond as vote chasers try to figure out if Trump is the voter catnip they’ve been seeking or the Hemlock that’ll make them go out and look for honest work come November. Like chickens who’ve seen the fox, there’s more sound and fury than sensible evaluation.

It’s going to take some time for things to settle down and some level-headed plans developed. I’d bet there are dozens and dozens of private meetings going on all over the place as some of the few realists left in the national GOP hierarchy try to come to grips with the scary situation created by their far right brethren. Some of those wiser heads will likely realize hope of retaking the White House is almost nil. The real problem, they’ll decide, lies in Congress and the statehouses where their majority rule is very, very vulnerable.

Keep in mind statehouses have become as important – if not more so – than Congress. The far right billionaires have been scoring victory after victory in state-level legislation. They’ve been successful accomplishing their goals for everything from blocking minority voters at the polls to preserving plastic grocery bags to usurping powers of local governments to act on various issues. They don’t want to lose those state capitol GOP majorities just because primary voters have given them a political vagrant at the top of the national ticket. There’s too much at stake in the 50 states.

Also, many in the national party have investments and links to foreign operations around the globe. Feedback they’re getting on Trump from leaders of other countries – plus bosses of those overseas businesses – is uniformly upsetting at the moment. They’ve got to head the guy off. If not for our national good, then for their own bank accounts..

Sixty or so days from now, we’ll probably look back on today’s rampant political scurrying as the exercise in futility it is. The sneaker waves rocking the national Republican boat today will have become more placid and some of the wiser heads will have laid out some more realistic plans for GOP survival. Maybe with some losses. But survival nonetheless.

One other thing keeps rattling around in my head. I’ve thought for some time, while Trump might want to be President, deep down I don’t think he really wants the job that goes with the title. He’s already got an international “empire” to run – an empire that seems to exist mainly because of his recognized heavy-handed, personal control. What would happen to his millions if he had to spend most of his waking hours trying to head off World War III? Or starting World War III?

But, maybe that’s changed. Now that he’s locked up the nomination, maybe his lunar-sized ego is totally involved and he really wants the prize. Maybe – like so many other campaigners in our national history – maybe he’s hooked.

Well, whatever the case, let’s all take a few deep breaths, read a good book, turn to whatever calms your nerves and let today’s political dogs chase their own tails for awhile. I think there’s still some Jack Daniels in the cupboard. Always works for me.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Published May 7, 2016 by

41%

stapiluslogo1

Because the land sales happened over a long stretch of time, and there were so many of them, and so many involved tracts of land moderate in size, they tended not to attract a lot of attention, and their accumulated amount largely escaped notice.

That end result should and may, though, stick in the memory of more than a few Idahoans, because it’s reducible to one startling number: 41%.

That’s the portion of the 4.2 million acres of land the state of Idaho had at statehood, granted from the federal government, which has been sold off since – 1.8 million acres.

That number was the result of research and mathematics undertaken by The Wilderness Society, a conservation group which researched land sales through the state’s history.

The research was prompted by efforts in recent years to press for transfer to state control (read “ownership”), of the lands managed by federal agencies. (The nation has seen more of that discussion prompted by this year’s debate and standoff around Burns, Oregon.) The feds’ control of lands that amount to most of the land area of Idaho can seem, and sometimes be, remote and bureaucratic. Their policy decisions are always subject for debate, especially among ranchers, timber and mining concerns, and anyone involved in outdoor recreation.

Occasionally small pieces of federal lands are traded out or sold, and in the homesteading era significant portions were. But the federal lands dispensed with over more recent years have been small, and the holdings stable. Federal land ownership in Idaho in 1990, which amounted to 32.6 million acres, actually grew very slightly, by two-tenths of one percent, as of 2013 (the most recent report I could find). The wisdom of that can be debated too.

But the Wilderness Society’s report offers some serious cautions about the consequences of state takeover.

The argument for state control is that more local people could manage the lands with greater awareness of local conditions, and with more flexibility. But the awareness involved sometimes reaches mostly to the people and interests most politically connected, and the flexibility can have negative consequences as well as positive.

The Society’s report said that Idaho state government has sold on average 13,500 acres annually, and “often put state lands in the hands of an elite few and Idaho’s biggest industries: the Simplot Corp., Potlatch, Boise-Cascade, cattle companies and law firms. Under these private ownerships, the new owners can lock out the public altogether or charge a trespass fee.”

It called out several specific cases:

“Bunker Hill Mining, the mining company with a long history and lead pollution legacy in the Silver Valley, purchased 715 acres of state land. The Bunker Hill mine area has been a Superfund cleanup site since 1983, when toxic levels of lead were discovered, including on school playgrounds. . . .

“The Flat Rock Club, a private fly fishing club that sits on 150 acres of beautiful forested land in Macks, Idaho, along the banks of the Henry’s Fork of the Snake River, purchased 41 acres of state land, denying public access to fishermen. . . .

“Potlatch Corp., purchased 17, 889 acres of state land between 1986 and 1997. To use this land now, recreationists must pay an annual fee, and access can be shut-off at any time by Potlatch Corp.”

41% sold so far. How much more, and for what purposes? And if federal lands are eventually moved over to state management, will their ownership follow similar patterns?

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

Published May 6, 2016 by

POTUS changing parties

harris

The Secretary of State has issued press releases about the number of voters switching their registratoins to the Democratic or Republican Parties presumably to participate in their contested primaries. Here are the changes in party registration from August, 2015 to the primary election of May 2016.

Democratic 818,399 to 932,892 (change) 114,493 + 14%
Republican 643,928 to 679,889 (change) 35,961 + 5.6%
Non Affiliated 530,061 to 679,889 (change) (46,795) (8.8%)
Ind. Party 109,681 to 103,353 (change) (6,328) (5.8%)

While it seems like an unusual wave of voters to the Democratic and Republican parties, compare these changes to the changes from August 2007 to May 2008 the last time Oregon had a contested primary, though it was only the Democratic Primary that was contested, unlike this year when both Democratic and Republican Primaries appeared to the contested until just yesterday.

(Notes: The IPO was a nascent party in 2007 so it’s number is irrelevant. In 2008 some members of the Pacific Green Party split and formed the Progressive Party of Oregon. I noted the Pacific Green Party in this table as Progressive+ Green so that the historical comparisons are more informative)

Observations:

The Democratic Party’s increase in membership is consistent with contested primary POTUS years. The GOP membership increased when there was a contested primary (2016) but decreased when there was no contested primary (2008)

The left leaning minor parties are losing more members in 2016 than they did in 2018. Factors may include the fact that Sanders is a more attractive candidate than Obama was in 2008 to the far left, as well as the fact that motor voter is taking a heavy toll on party membership across the board. And these two factors are taking a heavy toll on the left leaning minor parties.

The Libertarian Party seems to regularly have about 10% of it’s members re-register (as Republican I assume) to participate in the POTUS primary, then those voters re-register as Libertarians later. They appear to have a solid loyal party base.

If you assume approximately 60% of NAV’s lean left and 40% lean right, then you can infer that Non affiliated voters are re-registering with a major party in about the same numbers for 2016 (with a contested GOP primary) as they did in 2008 (when only the Democratic primary was contested)

Though not reflected in this table, the IPO announced this week that over 20,000 NAV’s had requested an IPO ballot. So, even though the IPO lost over 6,000 registered member, it will have 20,000 more voters who will be participating in it’s primary election. If you added those 20,000 voters into the IPO’s May registration totals, the IPO will have an actual increase of 13,000 voters, or about 12%.

Share on Facebook

Harris

Published May 5, 2016 by

This is the news media?

carlson

There’s a fond dream of mine that I awake the morning after the next president’s inauguration, regardless of who it is, and the media is in a state of shock. Why? Because the the new president’s first official action has been to announce he or she has no plans ever to attend another White House Correspondent’s dinner.

This exercise in mass narcissism has morphed from a simple evening dinner between the president and the D.C. media that was “off the record” into a three-day orgy of self-congratulatory excess, televised live and very much “on the record.”

The humor is biting but the president has the last word. President Obama could probably make it as a comedian in his next incarnation.

The event though has devolved into a cross between the Oscars and the inauguration – a three day festival of parties and excessive drinking.

This is the Fourth Estate at its worst – pompous, arrogant, demanding its due, pretentious and petty.

No longer is it just the correspondents and writers sitting at the table. Now the various media companies compete to see which can be a news maker by having the most powerful guest, say the vice president or the Speaker or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Or which company will have the current “in” starlet with the most revealing dress as a guest. No longer either is it enough to score a ticket to the main event. Nope. There are pre-dinner parties and post-dinner parties that one must attend, and of course it must be the correct one. You know how important appearance is in the surreal, make believe world inside the “Beltway.”

This past weekend another one of these travesties was held. Of course the news was that creature of the media, that presidential candidate almost entirely created by the media, that ingrate, Donald Trump, did not attend. In a word he “dissed” the very people who think they had a hand in his creation.

Of course he did. What did the sponsors think he would do? If there is a quintessential example of narcissism, its Donald Trump. One suspects that next to the word in Webster’s Dictionary is a picture of the Donald. One of the world’s largest egos, grandest and greatest narcissists is not about to share the spotlight with either a bunch of junior Trump aspirants or even a President of the United States.

The ultimate irony is that the Fourth Estate, especially as represented by CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, DID have a hand in the creation of the Trump phenomena. The number of minutes devoted to coverage of Trump compared to other candidates was simply staggering, through the fall, winter and spring.

There was always an underlying presumption that it was just a matter of time until the Donald would implode, that his base would figure out he was a fraud, a liberal not a conservative, a Democrat not a Republican, pro-choice not pro-life, for gay marriage not against. His support would then start to fade and reveal itself to be a joke.

It reminds one of song from the 60’s by the BeeGees: ‘I started a joke that started the whole world laughing. . . . . “ Turns out it should dawn on somebody that the joke is on the Fourth Estate. Trump rewrote all the rules, and because he was great for ratings, and ad revenue soared, exceptions and excuses were made for Trump.

What has not dawned on hardly any member of the Fourth Estate is the Donald figured out that most media has zero credibility with the voting public. All he cares about his his name identification, which he has in astronomic numbers, and that they respond to the agenda he dictates.

When the voting public has lost almost all trust in their government and simply don’t believe most of what they hear or read in or by the media, it should dawn on the Fourth Estate that a growing sentiment to send Trump to make changes in the way they do business is not merely aimed at government, its also taking dead aim on changing the Fourth Estate.

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published May 4, 2016 by

Presumptive only

stapiluslogo1

So is that really it? Is Donald Trump now the presumptive presidential nominee of the Republican Party?

Seems so – and yet, don’t oversell it. His train could slip the rails yet.

With the Tuesday Indiana vote in place, Trump seems to have collected 1,047 delegate votes. That puts him just 190 short of the 1,237 needed to win on the first ballot on the floor of the Republican convention.

With the departure of Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the race, Trump is well positioned to take to take nearly all of the 445 delegates still up for grabs in the nine states remaining. Even with Cruz still in the race, Trump was likely to win the bulk of the delegates to come (West Virginia, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey and California all were likely to go his way). Now, with only the barely-financed and slightly-organized John Kasich campaign standing in his way, he will probably emerge with all but a few dozen of those delegates. Maybe more than that.

And that would seem to be that, and it could be. If Republican organization honchos decide, as they may, that they’d be better off just letting the Trump train run through the rest of the nomination process and then hope for the best, he might in fact get the nomination without too much squabble.

But the recognition of the possible damage Trump could do to the Republican Party as its presidential nominee is not lost on the party leadership, or on the rank and file. And there remain tools available to send this whole thing off in a different direction.

The big one is credentials rules. It’s been a few years since either of the parties had a good credentials fight, but it’s happened before with far less provocation. The convention, through its rules, has the right to determine who can be seated there as an official delegate, and who can cast a vote. Looked at generally, there’s nothing unusual or out of line about the way Trump collected his delegates, but if you want to scratch around for details suggestive of irregularities, you can come up with raw material here and there. (The most mentioned such case may be Trump’s big cache of votes from South Carolina.) Knock out just enough delegates – and this would be done at the beginning of the convention, before the vote for president occurs – and you could knock out Trump.

Various other rules could be enforced rigidly, or new rules concocted. As you read this, Republican activists all over the country – probably including strategists on Trump’s behalf, in defense – are considering all the many possibilities.

For now, it seems reasonably to say that Trump is the default nominee, the guy who will get the job unless something comes along to change that. And it will probably happen.

But nothing is 100% certain until after it happens. He’s not the nominee until the convention votes have have been cast and counted. Until then, watch carefully.

Share on Facebook

Stapilus

Published May 3, 2016 by

The other view

raineylogo1

I can’t stop thinking about a piece written by my Ridenbaugh Press co-hort and friend Chris Carlson on these pages a few days back. The subject was voluntary end of life, Canada’s impending creation of a new law allowing it for some residents and a “profile” of who – in this country – his research appeared to show had ended their lives with this option.

At the outset, it should be recorded Chris and I are poles apart on the concept of assisted suicide. His well-thought out position opposing the practice is not surprising given his lifelong Catholic background and firsthand experience with a loved one’s suicide. Just as my support is not surprising given my lifelong beliefs and some years working in Hospice care.

Chris and I also are bound by a shared first-person experience with cancer. When you become the one in cancer treatment, issues of life and death rise to a level of personal attention those who’ve never had the disease can feel. The diagnosis and subsequent treatment can shape – or reshape- your thoughts on many subjects.

That being noted, you may be surprised he and I are in complete agreement in some areas. Possibly the most basic is the shared belief government should have little to no role in the matter. There are just two roles I would assign government. One is to remove laws blocking the choice for terminally ill patients. The other, allow medical professionals to create the necessary guidelines for when and how assisted suicide should be considered an option, then codify those requirements for the protection of all involved. Physicians and nurses who may participate in the final act need legal protocols. Such guidelines now exist in Oregon and Washington.

Chris and I have each been affected by someone related – or otherwise close to us – committing suicide. That desperate act may stop whatever the real – or perceived – suffering is felt by the departed. But it ignores the terribly painful load for those of us left behind. Guilt. Rage. Anger. Loss. Endless questions. Suicide is a terribly selfish act because there’s no consideration of loved ones and others who will be severely affected. The person committed to dying is beyond such thinking by that time.

He and I have other mutual experiences. So, the most interesting aspect to me is how such commonality can result in two positions so far apart.

Chris wrote of his opposition. My views come from very different exposures to end-of-life issues. I’ve been a Hospice volunteer, have had some Hospice training and participated for several years in a citizen advisory position overseeing a Hospice program. I’ve been at the bedsides of many people facing certain death. I’ve observed firsthand how patients deal with the waning days of their own mortality. I’ve seen it quiet and peaceful. I’ve seen it loud and hard.

My fervent support is not based on the Hemlock Society or any other citizen advocacy. It’s rooted deeply in personal witness of suffering and what the end of life experience is in its many guises. It’s confirmed by the many statements I’ve listened to from someone – or their families – who’ve said they wish they’d thought more carefully about the end of life before being overwhelmed by the subsequent trauma and pain.

One issue on which Chris and I disagree concerns who has used or favors use of the option thus far. He states it’s “the rich and powerful … who come from the top one-tenth of one percent” of the citizenry who “brag about not paying taxes.”

That hasn’t been my personal experience. You may recall the 30-something woman from California who came to Oregon a few months ago with her husband to take advantage of our assisted suicide law. About as middle class American couple as anyone could be. She had a certain prognosis of a protracted, painful death. She chose not to wait. I’ve attended bakers, salesmen, blue collar workers and the homeless. Pain and death disregard economics. The choice to forestall suffering knows no social ranking or privilege.

I’m personally aware of at least three other assisted suicides in Oregon. In each case, there was no “rich and powerful” – no part of the top minuscule percentage of society. All were repeatedly diagnosed with debilitating, painful, end-of-life conditions. Whether not wanting to burden families with huge bills, no desire to suffer, or just wanting to take control of their situations, we don’t know. But those, and many other factors, come into sharp focus when you’re lying in that bed. I understand the desire to avoid those conditions and – if possessing the courage – to leave this world as easily and as comfortably as possible.

To me, the issue of end-of-life care is very much like that other one government keeps sticking it’s nose into – abortion. Both subjects are as personal and private as any can be. Both involve the patient, family and a physician. Neither has space in the treatment room for someone from government to kibbitz. There ultimately comes a time when desires of the one person at the center of both abortion and end-of-life issues are all that should be considered. Privately. We’re talking life and death.

I suspect Chris opposes abortion as well as assisted suicide. But, I suspect – despite our differing backgrounds – we hold similar views on both subjects. Our greatest commonality is a belief that there’s no role for government in such deeply personal life experiences. It grieves me politicians, bureaucrats and public do-gooders keep pushing their unwanted and unnecessary views in both matters.

Share on Facebook

Rainey

Published May 2, 2016 by

Tangling web

mckee

In his major policy speech last week, and when on the stump generally, Donald Trump continues to berate Obama about the trade imbalance, contending in a string of bumper-sticker declarations, without detail or explanation, that the manufacturing trade deficit is approaching $1 trillion a year, that this is result of terrible deals negotiated by political hacks of Obama, and that the United States is losing jobs to other countries on account of it.

He promises to bring in high powered negotiators to renegotiate everything to get better deals, to impose punitive tariffs to get the trade imbalance in line, and somehow to reach out and retrieve all the jobs that have been moved offshore.

Trump is completely misrepresenting the scope and nature of the problem, and deliberately overstating the consequences that may be expected from any of his proposed solutions. He is only looking at half the picture. When all of the picture is examined in perspective, it becomes clear that Trump’s entire argument on this point is pure, unadulterated nonsense, and he should know better.

Fundamental to understanding what is really going on is the recognition that nations do not trade with one another, individuals do. A trade deficit is not the product of one nation making a lopsided deal with another, it is the net sum of thousands if not millions of separate, individual deals made between individuals and businesses in the separate countries, each expressing their individual choices within the countries involved. Trump’s promise to bring expert negotiators in to renegotiate all the trade deals that make up the trade deficit is a good indication that he has no idea what he is talking about.

As any economists will explain, a trade deficit, standing alone, is not a bad thing – it is merely the economic indicator of an existing condition. A trade imbalance or deficit occurs when the dollars out to buy imports exceeds the dollars in to sell exports. To determine whether any such deficit is good or bad depends upon why the imbalance occurred. The United States has almost always maintained a trade imbalance; we are and have been since at least 1975 a net importer as a nation, and we largely benefit because of it.

The average American consumer benefits hugely from the importation of cheaper foreign goods. Where the fundamentals of the economy are strong, any shortage from the excess in dollars flowing out over reciprocal dollars flowing is absorbed by increased GDP and normal growth without resulting in abnormal inflationary pressures. Capital returning in the form of investments in the U.S. or acquisition of U.S. securities (i.e., Toyota and Honda, for example, in constructing automobile assembly plants here) is providing a capital surplus that directly benefits the U.S. economy, which on balance has led or will lead to increased opportunity throughout the local markets.

According to a series of Cato Institute studies published in 1998-99 and corroborated in a 2015 analysis by the Wall Street Journal, a burgeoning trade deficit is consistent with a healthy growing economy and indicates an economy ripe with investment opportunity and flush with consumer confidence. Trade deficits tend to be pro-cyclical, growing during expanding economies and shrinking during times of recession. By almost every measure, America’s economy has performed better in years in which the trade deficit rose compared to years when it shrank.

Trump’s wringing of hands over the burgeoning trade deficit is further indication that he is either trying to kick sand in everyone’s eyes or he does not understand the fundamental economics of international trade.

The trade imbalance is not causing domestic manufacturers to take their plants and jobs overseas. Improvements in technology in underdeveloped nations – particularly the increasing availability of reliable electric power – and improvements in communications and shipping alternatives have made it possible to duplicate quality manufacturing capacity in underdeveloped countries. For labor intensive manufacturing, this means that production can be accomplished in an underdeveloped country at significantly lower labor costs. The loss of labor intensive manufacturing from the United States to underdeveloped countries is becoming and will continue to be an economic certainty regardless of the status of the balance of trade. Further, and no matter what Trump promises, these manufacturing processes are not going to return to the United States until further technological improvements here, such as robots and automation, eliminate the labor cost consideration.

Imposition of tariffs to dampen the benefit of cheaper labor overseas may appear to solve the problem of jobs being outsourced overseas, but it is only of short term relevance. Any tariffs that are imposed will be added to the price and be passed to the consumer, which will cause a decline in the demand for the foreign goods. The resultant increased price on the goods from foreign competition may permit the local manufacturer to continue to compete price-wise in the domestic market for a while. But the lower cost alternative will continue exist in the international markets, preventing the domestic producer from competing world-wide.

In very short order, the impact of imposing tariffs on one segment of the import market will reduce the amount of returning capital – reducing imports will lower the flow of dollars out which then become available to finance reciprocal trade, or capital investments, or acquisition of securities. All elements of the market will eventually be dampened to some degree by the imposition of tariffs or other artificial restrictions on any one segment of the market.

The net effect may appear to save some production jobs in some areas, but this will come at the expense of higher prices to domestic consumers throughout the market, lower reciprocal trades in other areas of the market, and lessened availability of foreign investment capital. If the domestic manufacturer in the tariff market attempts to continue to manufacture goods at the higher labor costs of the United States, he will be unable to compete in foreign markets. Determining the actual net value of all these elements is an ongoing and extremely complicated process. Suffice to say that theoretically and by definition, it will eventually balance out exactly, as by definition the markets will always strive to achieve equilibrium.

The take away from all of this is that Trump is simply blowing smoke in his tirades and promises around the trade deficit, and what he can actually deliver in the way of increased jobs and balanced trade. Recognizing that this is an extremely technical subject it can all be summarized in a phrase that anyone can understand:

Either Trump is a fool or he thinks we are.

Share on Facebook

McKee

Published May 1, 2016 by

Back to Big Sky

stapiluslogo1

Ever upward, we tend to think: Bigger is better, more is merrier.

But not always, and credit the University of Idaho for figuring that out.

When it has come to Idaho football, the example of Boise State University has loomed over all. BSU has moved to big time, though now in the Mountain West Conference after a 2011 flirtation with the Big East Conference.

The UI Vandal program has never quite reached those heights, even early on. Back in the mid-70s, looking for a college to attend and uninterested in one that would be football-obsessed, I found the UI amenable. From the end of World War II to the early 80s, the Vandals posted winning seasons in just three years, 1963, 1971 and 1976.

Still, a correspondent of mine (and a highly loyal Vandal) has suggested that “If an institution is going to have intercollegiate football, it should at least be competitive and enjoyable (preferably by winning), produce good memories for the associated social events, and be a common topic of interest for alumni: ‘How ’bout them Vandals?’”

From that perspective, UI did well for a stretch with the first year (1982) of Dennis Erickson as coach, through to 1995. The school may not have have become the national team BSU did, but it scored winning seasons consistently through that period. Athletics-based enthusiasm at the institution may have been higher then too.

Various factors no doubt contributed, a series of strong coaches among them. But the UI’s participation then in the Big Sky Conference, whose members overall were competitive with the UI, no doubt helped. The institution had long been a Big Sky member (and was a charter member in 1963) through its losing years too, but when other factors came together the more local conference may have helped. And local Idaho boosters could fairly easily make their way even to away games in places like Washington, Montana and Pocatello (Idaho State University).

As the Wikipedia account notes, “Idaho experienced its best years in football from 1985 to 1995, when it made the I-AA national playoffs in ten of eleven seasons with four different head coaches, reaching the semifinals twice. After 18 years in Division I-AA, Idaho returned to Division I-A competition (now called the FBS) in 1996 in the Big West.”

The collapse followed. In this new century, the Vandals have bounced around other affiliations including independent, and maybe not coincidentally saw its winning seasons turn to losers. This year, the Sun Belt Conference said that UI (and New Mexico State University) would be dropped from their group after 2017.

So on Thursday there may have been some air of resignation to word that UI was returning to Big Sky. President Chuck Staben said that “I understand the magnitude of this decision and the strong opinions that surround it, both for and against, but joining the Big Sky Conference is the best possible course for our athletics program and for our university. We have carefully weighed our options and concluded that competing as an independent with an extremely uncertain future conference affiliation would be irresponsible when we have the alternative of joining one of the most stable FCS conferences.”

Not exactly the words of hyperconfidence (and just as well), but as he suggests, this likely was the best move. It suggests retrenchment; it suggests a backing away from the big time. But that’s far better than more of the kind of seasons UI has been experiencing recent years.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus

Kasich in Portland
Published April 29, 2016 by

Kasich in Portland

jorgensen

Ohio Governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich held a town hall meeting Thursday, April 28 at The Castaway in Northwest Portland.

A few hundred people were in attendance, including Rep. John Davis (R-Wilsonville), some Salem lobbyists and an entire line of television news crews.

Kasich arrived to a standing ovation, flanked by Lake Oswego City Councilor and Republican state treasurer candidate Jeff Gudman.

Gudman took to the microphone and told the audience that the only way for Republicans to win the White House in November is to nominate Kasich. He praised Kasich’s “outstanding service” to Ohio and his “incorruptible character.”

Introduction Kasich to the crowd was Ron Saxton, who ran as the Republican nominee for Oregon governor in 2006. Saxton echoed Gudman’s prior remarks about Kasich’s electability, citing the last 16 polls showing the Ohio governor beating Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Kasich began his remarks by stating that he started his bid for the presidency with no name recognition and is being outspent 50-1, but still placed second in four of the last primaries.

His overall message was a sharp contrast to that of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, and probably very deliberately so.

We have problems and they’re easy to fix, Kasich said, but anger, division and politics are getting in the way of solving them.

Kasich described how he was 30 years old when first elected to Congress. His stint on the Defense Committee saw the military rebuilt, the Berlin Wall fall and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein pushed out of Kuwait, and Kasich said those successes were due in part to statesmanship.

“We didn’t function much as partisans,” he said. “That was when we could figure out how to work together.”

In that time, Congress balanced the budget for the first time “since man walked on the moon,” Kasich said. “They haven’t done it since I left.”

Since becoming governor of Ohio, Kasich said that state went from having a 20 percent deficit in its operating budget to a $2 billion surplus and has gained 420,000 jobs.

“We’ve left no one behind,” he said, adding that the mentally ill, addicted and developmentally disabled are all now being helped.

Kasich recalled how there were initially 17 Republicans seeking the presidency, including several other governors. He said he would go to debates and not get called on and was largely ignored until about eight weeks ago.

“And I’m still standing,” he said.

In his remarks, Kasich said he wanted to be someone who can talk about the way things can be. He characterized his campaign as being about lifting people up, not name calling or bullying them, an indirect reference to many of the controversies that have followed the Trump campaign.

An audience member asked Kasich about Trump during the question and answer portion of the meeting. Kasich predicted that if Trump didn’t have the nomination won by July’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, that the developer and reality television star would be unlikely to end up with it.

Kasich cited Trump’s high negative ratings among married women and 15 polls showing him losing to Hillary and getting “crushed” in the Electoral College. He added that Trump’s nomination could result in Republicans losing the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court.

“I’m not taking the low road to the White House,” Kasich said.

Share on Facebook

Jorgensen

John Kasich Republican presidential candidates

Published April 28, 2016 by

Prematurely undiscovered

carlsonlogo1

There’s irony in new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s selection of April 15th, normally considered to be “Tax Day” in the United States, to introduce a physician assisted suicide bill, but only for Canadians participating in Canada’s “single payer” healthcare system.

It’s as if he subtly wanted to remind folks of life’s two certainties – death and taxes. He has added a new wrinkle, though. Now a portion of a Canadian’s tax dollar is actually going to be expended ensuring a Canadian knows he can count on State support if he has been diagnosed with a fatal disease and desires to end his life.

Trudeau had little choice. Canada’s Supreme Court ordered physician assisted suicide be included in the healthcare law and legislation be brought before Parliament. Trudeau, citing the last painful days of his father’s life, endorsed the law.

The question Canadians as well as Americans should be asking is why? Is there really a need for legislation in such an intensely personal, and really private matter? Isn’t there a larger issue concerning whether government should be involved in the first place?

The old Hemlock Society, recast as “Compassion and Choices” (In Canada the group is known as “Dying with Dignity Canada”) has done an excellent job convincing the public the debate is about choice, and a law is needed to ensure a non-Constitutional right to die. It’s a classic straw dog argument that masks what the focus should be on: 1) Should the state be involved at all? 2) Should health care providers be involved, and possibly even compelled to participate despite conscientious objection? 3) Is society sending a mixed message about the sanctity and value of life?

Few in North America recognize suicide is the second leading cause of non-natural death annually. A recent Cable News Network (CNN) telecast listed suicides in the United States at approximately 42,000 a year, second only to drug overdose-induced deaths at 44,000. Suicide ran ahead of car accident deaths at 36,000 annually and gunshot deaths, at 32,000 annually.

Think of the millions spent annually promoting safe driving, seat belts and highway safety. Think of the millions spent on drug education and prevention programs, not to mention gun safety.

Think too about millions spent on teen suicide prevention programs such as suicide hotlines wherein teens are urged not to give up hope, not to take the path from which there is no return. Teen suicides are especially high in proportion to population among Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. It is a mixed message to say the least.

Buried among that number are the approximately 250 people annually who in Oregon and Washington avail themselves of the law. The accuracy of the number is difficult to calculate largely because the law mandates the physician signing the death certificate must list the underlying disease as the cause of death, not the lethal dose of drugs consumed in completing the suicide.

A Department of Health study of those that actually completed their suicide (About twice as many folks start the paperwork) was revealing:

Almost all were white, well to-do and well educated.

There were few minorities.

Virtually none were fully disabled.

Pain management was not an issue, rather it was a matter of wanting to control their exit.

The picture seems pretty clear. Once again an unnecessary law is being proposed in Canada and will eventually be on the ballot in states which do not yet sanction physician- assisted suicide, to benefit the rich and powerful.

They come from the top one-tenth of one percent, the same group Senator Bernie Sanders has been railing against. They brag about not paying any taxes, and they know their money will buy them an extra ten years of life followed by an easy exit. They seem not to dread that “something after death/ The undiscovered Country from whose bourn/ No traveler returns/” Nor does it “puzzle the will/ And makes us fear those ills we have/ Than fly to others we know not of?”

(Editor’s note: full disclosure. Chris Carlson’s father committed suicide in 1961; in 2008 Chris chaired the losing campaign in Washington state against Initiative 1000 which allows physician assisted suicide.)

Share on Facebook

Carlson

Published April 27, 2016 by

A Greenbelt tour

We’re only a few days away from publishing David Proctor’s new book on the history and development of the Boise Greenbelt, Pathway of Dreams. But first we wanted to give a taste of what’s coming.


This is On the Greenbelt, a short historically-based tour by David Proctor of the gem of the Boise recreation system. It has material drawn from Pathway and a walking tour of the whole, long route.

It’s available for free in just about every e-book format. Click on the button above and download a copy with our complements. And check back in a few days for Pathway of Dreams.

Share on Facebook

books