Dubious distinction, and who gets credit for it.

From Betsy Russell:

Idaho has the worst wages in the nation. The Famous Potatoes state ranks 50th for average annual wage, per-capita income, and for wage increases since 2007. It also has the greatest percentage of minimum-wage workers in America. After hearing those figures Thursday as they reviewed Idaho’s economic outlook, state legislative leaders said it’s time to figure out how to reverse that “dubious distinction” for the state.

“I don’t think anybody’s proud of that No. 1,” said House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley. He quizzed the state’s new Labor director, Ken Edmunds, about why the state ranks so poorly. “We need to understand, I think, as a state this phenomenon here, so that we can address this as we shape policy to improve these numbers,” Bedke said; 

 From the Statesman.  

Bedke said he’s concerned that Fulcher’s presence would compromise the effectiveness of the cooperation between Republicans, who have run the Legislature since 1961 and the held the governorship since 1995.

If that doesn't make a voter wonder if keeping Republicans in power is good for the state, then I suppose nothing will. R's have controlled the legislature for 50 years, and the Gov's office for the last 18.  And Idaho is the shitty low wage state.

Until the R's can escape from the "no taxes, ever, for any reason" mentality and start to invest in the state, this is where we'll be.

And there was this:

Some interesting stats from Bob Fick of the Idaho Department of Labor, who’s presenting to lawmakers this afternoon: Idaho saw a big jump in its 55-and-older population from 2010 to 2012, a 59.3 percent increase, compared to a national increase for that age group of 37.9 percent. The percentage of the state’s population that’s 55 and older went up from 19.5 percent in 1990 to 25.3 percent in 2012. At the same time, the state is starting to see some out-migration of younger residents, Fick reported.

So, young adults can't get a decent job here, and are leaving for greener pasture in other states. Idaho will be left with an old population in need of medical care.  Good thing Idaho has refused to expand Medicaid.

Food stamps and poor choices

I was standing in line at WinCo yesterday, and the guy ahead of me was buying some roasted chicken, and some DVDs.  He was working out with the checker to pay for the chicken with his EBT, card, i.e., food stamps, and to pay cash for the DVDs.  He bought 4 movies, for about $16.

  I only saw a couple of the titles, but I didn't recognize them, meaning that they were pretty low budget releases.  Which also told me that the guy would watch pretty much anything.

My first though was, jeez, dude, if you need economic help, perhaps buying DVDs is not your best choice.   I thought, you know, you could go to the library and probably find lots of movies you'd watch, for free.  But then I thought, well, if he's out of work and at home, maybe he'll watch each movie several times, and pass the time a bit.  Even poor people need entertainment, maybe even more than more well off folks, since a poor life can be harsh, and distraction brings relief.

So, maybe that was a rational economic decision.  But then I remembered a saying a fellow I used to work with would say when he'd see a poor person buying cigarettes, or something:  "Poor people have poor ways."  Although that be taken two ways, I always thought he meant that making sub-optimal choices tended to help keep poor people poor.  It's not a good idea to smoke, especially when you're struggling to get by anyway and can't really afford the $5 (or whatever it is) a pack a day.  That's $150 a month, which would really help a poor person.

Anyway, I didn't begrudge the guy the food stamps (I know, SNAP), and I have no deep thoughts on the subject.  Other than, I'm pretty sure this anecdote is NOT evidence of the failure of the SNAP program.

Who wins? The people, or IACI?

To ask the question is to answer it.  Of course it will be IACI.

Testimony heavily in favor of bill that does not let the big property tax payers off the hook.  Mayors, county commissioners, etc., all oppose IACI's bill that lets Pacific Railroad and Idaho Power completely out of paying the personal property tax.

Testimony is that schools are crumbling, if the IACI bill passes the schools will have to go to the local property tax payers. Severe impacts to county budgets.  Idaho already a low tax state, business friendly, and business seeking to locate here don't complain about the business property tax, more worried about infrastructure.

So of course, our legislators will ingore all that and pass the IACI sponsored bill.  Because, like Lola, whatever IACI wants, IACI gets.  Citizens be damned.

How to get extra paid vacation days

Become a Boise policeman or an Ada County Sheriff (or any law enforcement, I think), and then shoot someone.  Presto.  Paid administrative leave.

Astroturf the immigration issue

Astroturf, in the political lexicon as I understand it, is fake grass roots. You know, where some group has an interest in some outcome but disguises its efforts to get that outcome by dressing up as being opposed to that effort. Anyway, that's how I understand it. Here's another definition.

I just read about how John McCain got an earful of anti-immigration reform anger. The Tea Party types and their ilk just hate the idea of giving the Browns a path to citizenship. Some hate "rewarding" people who broke the law. Some think that the Browns will vote Democratic once they gain citizenship, and thus should not be allowed that citizenship. And some are just straight up racist. But whatever the motivation, they don't want any path to citizenship.

Problem is, Republicans have to make some effort toward this, seeings as how the Browns are the fastest growing segment of the population, and they tend to vote Team D. If the Rs keep rejecting and/or pissing off the Browns, they're going to end up on the losing side of demographics. And they know this.

So to defuse the issue, the Rs are trying to talk up reform, and seem somewhat amenable to reform, even to some possible path to citizenship. Which puts them at adds with their base. How to woo the Browns yet not alienate their base, that is the question.

So I say, D activists should go to R town hall meetings, pose as Tea Partiers, and stir up the crowd against reform. Think back to the town hall meetings in which Dems got savaged by idiots thinking that Obamacare included provisions to euthanize seniors. That alone almost killed it. Let's return the favor and harden base sentiment by rabble rousing (respectfully, of course) in the R town hall meetings.
That will work on two levels. One, it will make it harder for the R politician to vote for meaningful reform, and two, reports of the meetings will resonate with the Browns and reinforce their antipathy for the R party. It's a win-win for Democrats.

What are we going to do about this?

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2013/jan/18/idahos-fast-growing-hispanic-population-shows-education-gains/

Given that hispanics favor Democrats by substantial margins nationally, it seems likely that this fast growing sector of Idaho's population is fertile ground of growing Idaho's Democratic Party.  I wonder what the IDP is doing about this.

That's a bummer, man

I see that Governor Otter is proposing  a 0% raise for state employees, and yet he's also proposing a $141 million tax cut for businesses and to stash some dough in the rainy day fund.  That's got to be demoralizing for state workers.  In the last few years they've gotten only one raise, last year's 2%.

On deadly selfishness

I can't add much to the conversation about the massacre in Connecticut, but I've a couple of thoughts about the gun control issue.

First off, it seems obvious that we need to do something to restrict the ability of lunatics to kill people in mass quantities.  Someone suggested that instead of talking about gun control, we need to focus on massacre control.  Things like banning 30 round magazines, and assault rifles, and Teflon-coated bullets, that kind of thing.

Gun ownership in America is, as I understand it, founded on two basic ideas.  One, that hunting is legal, and for some people even necessary, and therefore weapons suitable for hunting should be allowed.  I agree with this.

Two, it is necessary for the populace to be armed in order to prevent a tyrannical government from trampling citizens and enslaving them.  Well, that was important in the revolutionary period, and I think it is a reasonable idea even now, though it seems pretty far fetched.

For point one, it is obvious that you don't need a 30 round clip for a pistol.  Nothing you hunt needs that.  And you don't need an assault weapon for hunting.  The normal rifle is just fine for hunting.

Now I suppose that if you're arming yourself for an armed insurrection then you might need assault weapons and extremely deadly pistols and bullets, but do we really think we ought to let our population gear up for an armed insurrection?  Really?  Isn't it enough to have a populace armed with normal rifles and pistols?  As far as I know, there were no 30 round magazines or assault rifles in the revolutionary war period.

I hear gun nuts say stuff like, "yeah the massacre was horrible, but why blame people who didn't do it and take away their guns."  In other words, lip service tothe tragedy, to the suffering of the victims and their families, then an immediate pivot to me me me me.  Don't even think about something that might affect me me me me.  I didn't do it.  I should get to own all the firepower I want, and be as irresponsible with it as I please.  It's all about me me me me.  Don't make me me me suffer.  I want to contribute NOTHING to a safer society.  There IS NO REASONABLE RESTRICTION if it affects me me me me.

Selfish jerks.

Update:  Oh, and I think the blood of those murdered children is on Wayne LaPierre's hands.

A red letter day

Today is a great day, and I can't wait to get home tonight and watch TV.  Here's why:  the CALM act.

Good job, Guv

Governor Otter made the right decision on the health care exchanges.  Quite sane, indeed.

I'm still uncertain how the legislature plays in here, but I've no doubt that some legislators will engage in mischief on the subject.

Chumming, baiting, whatever

An article in the Statesmen tells how Charles D. Steele of Hagerman, a former volunteer president of the Hagerman chapter of Ducks Unlimited, was caught baiting ducks and geese onto his property by sprinkling corn in his fields.  He has been sentenced to a year of supervised probation, a $2,000 fine and 25 hours of community service in U.S. District Court, and he can't hunt in the US for a year.

Okay.  Seems legit.  And then there's this quote:

However, Idaho Ducks Unlimited leaders said their group condemns Steele's hunting tactics, not only as a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act but also the ethics of fair-chase that govern hunting.

Mond Warren, the group's regional director in Nampa, called corn baiting akin to using salt to lure big game such as elk nearer to hunters' scopes.

Okay, this guy says that baiting violates the ethics of fair-chase that govern hunting.  Agreed.  But here's what I don't get; why is bear-baiting okay?  A hunter puts out food for the bears, gets them used to coming to get it, then lays in wait and shoots the bear when it shows up.  Why doesn't that violate the ethics of fair-chase?

Tick tock

States were supposed to decide whether to set up their own medical insurance exchange by November 14th or thereabouts, but got a last minute extension until December 14th.  And by last minute, I mean they came within a day of the deadline.

Since the deadline was at hand, don't you think that most governors had made a decision?  Now, I can see taking advantage of additional time to learn more information or get politics lined up a bit better, but I have to believe they had made their minds up.

So I'm wondering, what is Governor Otter's reason for withholding his decision?  His advisory panels have completed their work and made their recommendations, so what is he waiting for?  Won't it be more likely to become an issue for the legislature if he waits til the bitter end?  Had he decided in mid November, that's 7 weeks for things to settle out.  If he waits until Dec 14, there will be only 3 weeks until the legislators hit town.

My premise is that he knows what he intends to do, and has known since last month.  The question then becomes, what does he gain by waiting to announce his decision?

Online learning

Tom Luna and his supporters sold one of their education reforms by pushing the idea that Idaho needs to prepare its children for online learning.  That's about all that came through to me, though I wasn't following the issue all that closely.

I never did hear why we need to prepare our children for online learning.  Perhaps it's so they can go on to enroll in one of the for profit online colleges.  I hope not, because those colleges are great at lending money and getting their students to go into debt to pay for the online learning, but they're not so great at graduating students.

Some suggest ("some;" Ha!) that Luna was mostly just trying to help his buddies in the online learning world by ensuring that Idaho provided a constant revenue stream.  Some even went so far as to suggest that Joe Scott contributed so heavily to the effort because of his interests in online learning businesses.

I'm not sure about the ostensible reasons, but I do know one thing.  The whole idea that we need to prepare kids for online learning is a crock of shit, and it stinketh.

Kids have taken to technology like a duck to water, so using a computer isn't a new, additional skill that we need to start up.  And one you can use a computer, the online learning is just another website or DVD, like any other.  There are no secret and arcane rituals or incantations that kids must know to drink of the well of knowledge online, other than perhaps "YouTube."

It's just silly.  Either Luna has no clue about the interests and abilities of kids, or he's got some hidden agenda.  Mandating that kids must take online learning courses to ensure that they can later take online learning courses is just a waste of time.  Why don't we mandate that kids must take breathing lessons to ensure that later on, they can breath?  That makes as much sense as Luna's laws.

HP

Years ago I used to like Hewlett Packard.  Had (in fact, still have) an HP 12C calculator, and an HP computer or two.  But once HP got greedy and started grossly overcharging for the ink in their printers, well, they lost my good will.

They're struggling these days, trying to recover from serial blunders by a series of CEOs.   And now I see that HP is alleging that a company it acquired, Autonomy, defrauded it by hiding the true amount of its sales history.  In other words, those geniuses on th board of directors approved a fraudulent deal.

So, just for grins, I checked out how much the directors get paid.  Turns out, an obscene amount, between $300,000 and $400,000 a year.  For 34 meetings a year.  Roughly $10,000 per meeting.  I know, I know, they do work outside the meetings.  Right.

There are 10 directors, so that's a bill of about $3,500,000 a year.  And for that they get the kind of advice that hires a succession of loser CEOs, and enters into multiple bad, or even fraudulent, transactions.

What's really going on is just rich guys logrolling, helping each other out, tossing each other lots of unearned cash.  Cronyism.  Disgusting.  Serves them right.  I'm just sorry for the employees who will take a hit.

Rawmney

Chris Christie says that Romney is still "raw" from losing the election, explaining away Romney's most recent remarks that Obama bought the election by giving free stuff to moochers and slackers and minorities.

Maybe.  Don't know him.  Can't vouch for him.  But, I'm guessing Romney is still struggling to cope with this loss.  See, I think that Romney has been a golden boy his entire life.  That's probably almost a provable fact.  Son of a Governor and wealthy man, tony schools (it's an ego rush just to get admitted to Harvard), success in church, made tons of $$, all that.  You probably recall Ann Romney describing how they struggled through college by cashing in stocks gifted to Romney.  In other words, they didn't struggle.

Anyway, I just think that ole Mitt has never not gotten whatever he wanted.  Some guys are just like that.  A combination of luck and work, and nothing really bad ever happens to them, and in fact, they always get pretty much what they want.  And I think that's Mitt.

I once had a friend, a lucky friend IMHO, tell me that he'd often takes risks and just rely on his luck to carry the day, because it mostly did.  And I think Mitt's been very lucky, his entire life, in addition to the good luck of being born with the gifts he had.  Like Ann Richards said of Bush, born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

So when your luck finally doesn't carry the day, when for the first time in your 65 years you didn't get what you wanted, that's gotta sting.  And it's gotta take some mental time to process.  You just can't believe it happened (or didn't happen as you wanted it to).  I guarandamntee you that on Wednesday post-election, Mitt woke up and wondered if it was a bad dream that he lost.

No wonder he's feeling "raw."  My heart just pumps p.., well, no, no snark, no Schadenfreud.  Let's just say I have exactly zero sympathy for the guy.  I expect his entire nuclear family has had the same fantastic fortune and luck during their lives, and are feeling the same way.  Robbed.  Tricked, somehow, out of something that should have been theirs.

Welcome to the world, Rawmneys.

Deep thought

Karl Rove is taking heat for the poor performance of his American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS money laundering operations.  Some are suggesting (using that vague phrase makes me feel all journalisty) that Rove was mostly interested in lining his own pockets by taking a cut of all the ad buys.  Mostly the rich donors are just pissed because they got no return for their investment.

You probably saw the Rove freak out when Fox News called Ohio (and therefore the election) for Obama.  Some are suggesting (!) that Rove has lost his touch because he was so wrong.  Others are suggesting (!) that Rove's not all that bright in any event.

And if the latter is the case, and if Rove was truly "Bush's Brain," as the fawning media liked to call him, that makes George Bush look really dumb.

Otter's dilemma

Gov. Otter has a bit of a dilemma on his hands.  His medicaid expansion work group unanimously recommended that Idaho accept the expanded role of Medicaid that comes with Obamacare.  If he does, lots more Idahoans will have health care, and counties will be freed up from the indigent care expense they've been carping about.

However, in a few years the State will have higher medicare expenses than currently, I think - not sure about the math* - and, of course, Otter will have signed onto the odious and scary "Obamacare." 

He's in a bit of a bind.  Because his panel, and it was all his idea and his appointments, gave a unanimous recommendation, that makes it tough to ignore. I mean, why have the panel at all if you're going to ignore what everyone on the panel says.  Had they split, he'd have more wiggle room.  But they didn't, and he's boxed in. 

Also, implementing Obamacare will piss off his homies in the Republican Gov's conference.  It just goes against their ideological grain, for one thing.  Even worse, it tends to make the hold-outs look even more unreasonable.  After all, if Butch Otter allows Obamacare, then how unreasonable and ideological must Rick Scott and Bobby Jindal be?  To the right of Otter?  That's a lonely place.

All in all, I think he'll follow the panel's recommendation.  For one thing, he was just shocked by how badly he misread the electorate that reeelcted Obama, and rejected the Luna laws.  So he might be proceeding cautiously, being a bit unsure of his read of the voters.  And, he's got the great cover of saying, hey, the independant panel made a unanimous recommendation.

*Math ... So, Obamacare will expand the number of folks eligible for Medicaid, which would indicate more spending.  OTOH, the percent paid by the feds goes up, so actual dollars spent might not increase.  Plus there's the relief from indigent that adds to the plus side of the till.  So I'm not sure that expanding Medicaid eligibility will cost Idaho anything.

Spring in my step

Still got it, one week post-election.

Oddly, a bunch of the guys who were crowing about how America's march toward socialism under the Marxist socialist communist Obama would finally be stopped have gone pretty quiet on facebook these days.  I'm so tempted to gloat, but no, I'm bigger than that.  Plus, no need to, the election said it all.

But jeez, it's tempting.

Heartless

I'm wondering about Gov. Otter's mentation these days.  See, he's got two big choices looming:  whether to set up a state health insurance exchange, or let the feds do it, and whether to allow the medicaid expansion mandated (per the S. Court, "offered") by Obama care to happen in Idaho.

He's got to be conflicted.  One one hand, he hates the fking feds and everything federal.  OTOH, he's got an ego.  If you doubt that, just have a look at his monogrammed french-cuffed shirts.  And what a legacy to leave, bringing health care to most of the 20% of Idahoan's who don't have health care.  Think of the misery and suffering and fear and uncertainty that would alleviate.  Who wouldn't want to accomplish that?

Only a really heartless person, I think.  And I don't think Gov Otter is heartless.

Now, on the exchange issue, again a conflict.  He doesn't want fking feds to run our health exchange, and lots of his cronies and supporters are desperate to have the state run it so they can keep their fingers in the pie.  Why, just a day or two ago, I read 3 letters to the editor in the Statesman from insurance brokers begging for a state exchange, because they're worried a federal on will cut them out of their piece of the action.

But, OTOH, Otter turned down the millions offered by the feds to help Idaho pay to set up the exchange.  So if Otter now chooses to set up a state exchange, his choice will have needlessly cost the state whatever it takes to set  up that exchange, apparently millions.

What to do, what to do...

Ta Da!

Okay, I've been focused on other stuff for a while now, but it's a good time to try to return to this.  I know, a political blog and I sit out the two months before a momentous election.  Stupid, in terms of getting traffic.  But, I'm not that bright a guy.

Anyway, thanks to ericn1300 for giving me a push.  I was kind of figuring that everyone had given up. 

So, my post election thoughts?  Well, first of all, Yee Hah, Pardner!  It's nice for the Blue team to notch some wins for a change.

My kids are no longer in K-12, so I wasn't all that fixated on the school "reforms" (snort), but I was paying some attention.  I planned all along to vote against them, just in the hope that the Republican good ole boys would finally take a hit.  And boy, did they.  I was watching the local broadcasts from the election night gatherings, and jeez, were the R's glum.  Did an ole Dem's heart good.  I know, schadenfreude is unbecoming and crass, but I don't get many chances, politically, so Ima indulge when I can.

I figured the Luna Laws where heading for troubled waters when my office neighbor said he wasn't following them either, but when he saw who was contributing to the effort to defeat the referendum (Bloomberg and Joe Scott he specifically mentioned), he decided to vote no.  Pretty much solely on that point.

I see that Mitch Toryanski was defeated by Brandon Durst.  I know and like Mitch, but, you know, he's a Republican so, while I feel bad for him personally, I'm happy for the outcome.  I gotta believe that his vote for the school reforms (snort) hurt him.  I also think he stepped on it when he showed up to watch Brandi Swindell do ultrasounds in the Capitol.   That linked him to the vaginal ultrasound/anti-abortion issue, and again, probably cost him some votes.

What I'm wondering now, re: Toryanski, is what he'll do for a job.  His wife used to be the head of the Office of Aging, I think, and now works for DHR.  It's common for R's to throw a patronage bone to former legislators when they need it, so it will be interesting to see if Mitch lands a state job.  He was a Deputy Attorney General before, but resigned to run for senator.