West of the Rotunda

Idaho voters thought it wise to place the legislative authority for administrative rule-making review into the Idaho Constitution this last November (HJR5). Now we are seeing the arrogance and hubris of the legislature in action. The recent rejection of some of the Education Standards by the House Education committee is using this authority to bypass the legislative process.

This decision to reject some rules was based solely on the whim and preference of some committee members. The newly passed Article III Section 29 of the Idaho Constitution reads in part: The legislature may review any administrative rule to ensure it is consistent with the legislative intent of the statute that the rule was written to interpret, prescribe, implement or enforce.

Show me the statute or legislative intent that declares it is not appropriate to teach global warming in Idaho classrooms or have such expectations for standards. Please point out the law; I can’t find it. If the legislature wants to pass such a law, they are free to. They have passed laws to require the daily reading of scripture in the classroom (33-1604); a prohibition of consideration of global warming shouldn’t be so tough. But instead of writing a law, voting on it and getting it into statute, they have bypassed the policy making process the Constitution gives them and injected policy by rejecting an administrative rule. They broke the law and ignored the Idaho Constitution and violated the principle of the separation of powers. But who will hold them accountable to this? Would our executive, Governor Otter defend the principle of our government?  Will we the people? Will the voters who elected these legislators be offended by this violation? There are too many legislators in our Capitol with a conscience to let this transgression go by with a shrug.

The legislature has clearly violated the Idaho Constitution, both Article II Section 1 and the newly passed Article III Section 29. My complaint has nothing to do with how or whether I perceive the planet to be changing. I object to the arrogant disregard for the process, the rule of law.

Arrogance is a trait that needs constant vigilance to check. But arrogance is just offensive and rude, not illegal. This act was illegal. The legislature is empowered to make laws but we are all obligated to uphold the laws. If the legislature chooses not to follow sworn oaths and disregard the very laws they have written and instead act on whim, our tenuous faith in government is in jeopardy. What next?

Senator Keough is right, small towns and rural counties in Idaho need help. Dialing in the details of the Tax Reimbursement Incentive (TRI) to suit smaller marketplaces is an appropriate move. This graph of labor force in the North Central region of Idaho gives you a sense of what rural communities face.

There are seven regions in Idaho; subtract South West (Boise) and then you can multiply this effect by six.

But I want to tell you the history of this legislation, so maybe you can understand why Idaho government is not functioning “at the speed of business” as former Idaho Director of Commerce, Jeff Sayer used to say was his goal.

The TRI started as a brainchild of Roy Lacey (D Pocatello) and Donna Pence (D Gooding)when they were in the Idaho House. The idea was to give companies who come to Idaho and start a business that pays more than the average salary a tax incentive that they could collect later if their promised development pans out. He initially proposed it to promote value added jobs in agriculture in 2012 and 2013. It got good reception from The Department of Commerce, the Governor’s office and some committee members, but the House Majority Leader Mike Moyle and Wayne Hoffman came out against it as “picking winners and losers”. It got killed. Still, Roy worked all summer of 2013 with Sayer and rewrote the idea to include all businesses, based on a Utah model already in place.  But Donna and Roy knew the slant of the field he was playing on.

So Sayer took the bill, with the Democrats blessing, to Moyle for the 2014 session and he agreed to sponsor. And it passed! Wayne Hoffman still hates it. But this shows that the Idaho Capitol is not quite the “arena of ideas” Speaker Bedke wants it to be. It seems that whose idea it is, or maybe the party affiliation of the person with the idea has influence. Shame on us that our representatives are not there to do the peoples work, but instead find party affiliation as a prejudice to the common good. It may be no accident that both Donna and Roy retired from the legislature this last year.  I question whether the partisan nature of the legislature serves Idaho.

Is this reflected in small towns? I have heard many constituents in these close communities express reluctance to acknowledge minority party affiliation. I can’t blame them. I’ve lived in this culture. And I’ve also seen minority party members dismiss any idea coming from the other side. Such stances almost seem tribal. I hope we don’t start hacking each other’s arms off. It’s bad enough that we kill good ideas.

As EORAC (The Economic Outlook and Revenue Assessment Joint legislative Committee) starts it’s meeting for this year, I am reminded of a comment by a fellow member a few years back. EORAC is tasked with recommending a revenue projection to JFAC so a budget can be set for the coming year. Idaho’s Constitution, like many states, mandates that government may spend no more each year than it takes in. Idaho tax revenue is of course mainly dependent on sales tax and income tax. Property taxes (also about a third of the Idaho tax burden) mainly go to local governments. Income and consumer activity is quite dependent on the economic climate, so the committee listens to many experts discuss their weather predictions for the coming year. When we heard from Idaho Department of Labor in 2014, House Speaker Scott Bedke seemed surprised by Idaho low wages. At that time Idaho had the highest percent of minimum wage earners (now we are 49^th), and the lowest average wage in the country (still 50^th). The Speaker asked that the numbers be repeated to the legislators for emphasis and suggested we consider our policy actions to address this. He’s right; our state leaders should understand this predicament.

But it’s not news. This has been a long time coming.

This paper provides a good analysis of each sector. Interestingly, when I have had this discussion with Republicans who will talk to me about this, they point to 1980’s as when environmental pressures hurt logging and mining. But those Idaho jobs actually pay above the national average and have for the last 30 years. Health care workers have driven this decline the most; their pay has lagged and the sector has grown.

So why hasn’t the market solved this for us? You’d think businesses would want to come to a place where the workers get paid less, then as demand for workers increases, the pay would also. Idaho has had some ups and downs, but overall the 30 year trend is swirling the drain. State Impact Idaho tried to get people’s attention about this issue 4 years ago. They did a great job, but it sure didn’t fire up any voter outrage.

The consequences we see of this trend are that bright young folks are leaving the state for better employment opportunities elsewhere and older, gray haired, fixed income folks are coming in to take advantage of the low pay. Such a demographic change will have a long influence on the economy, and the politics.

A further consequence, since we started talking about revenue, is that since people make less, the state collects less revenue to pay for schools and other services. If incomes rose, we could actually lower the tax rate and still get enough revenue to do the work the state should be doing.

So what should policy makers do? First, I would wonder if any see this as a problem. My sense was that Speaker Bedke did, but I sure didn’t hear others join him. When I can get Republicans to talk about this they usually deflect the low wages to a comparably low cost of living in Idaho. But they are wrong again. Idaho’s cost of living is about 30^th nationally, while wages are 50^th.

I have heard one lawmaker dismiss low wages as a problem. He also considered the goal of economic growth, especially for rural areas a mistake. “People like things the way they are; otherwise they wouldn’t be livin’ here. Why try to change things?”

As I sit in the distant back seat and watch EORAC hear testimony about Idaho’s economic forecast, I wonder who’s speaking up for the workers in Idaho? Do they have a seat on this bus?

All comments read but not posted.