February 19, 2010
Idaho Falls Post Register
An unwise reversal
Jeers to House State Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Loertscher, a Republican from Iona. On Wednesday, Loertscher's committee voted 13-5 to kill a bill that would halt a 1 percent cost of living increase for retired state and local government employees.
On Thursday, Loertscher brought the bill back for reconsideration, saying new information showed that the Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho has a $3 billion unfunded liability. Loertscher didn't put the bill on the committee agenda, which prevented public testimony.
"We had a lot of public input yesterday," Loertscher said.
None of that input, however, concerned Loertscher's $3 billion bombshell. The result was predictable. Eight Republicans, including Idaho Falls' Russ Mathews and Erik Simpson, changed their minds and voted to kill a miniscule cost of living increase for nearly 32,000 retirees, including 1,584 in Bonneville County.
Had Loertscher allowed public testimony Thursday, members of his committee might have learned that Idaho's pension plan is on solid footing.
A report released this week by the PEW Center on the States named Idaho and eight other states as "solid performers," the highest rank attainable.
Had PERSI Director Don Drum been given time Thursday, the committee would have heard that PERSI's assets fluctuate with the stock market. So, a surplus in 2007 turned into a deficit in 2009, Drum told the Spokesman Review's Betsy Russell.
Drum said the account has gained $500 million since June 30.
Killing a $50 million item in a multibillion dollar system that rises and falls with the stock market doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Hopefully, lawmakers will weigh all the information and understand what Loertscher, Simpson and Mathews clearly do not: blocking the cost of living increase won't save the state a dime, now or in the future.
Cheers to Idaho's congressional delegation, Democrat Walt Minnick and Republicans Mike Crapo, James Risch and Mike Simpson. The nation has been hollering for some good old-fashioned bipartisan action. Well, here's a good example. Idaho's delegation came together recently to fight a Forest Service proposal to take back discounts enjoyed by senior citizens and disabled public land users.
In a letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, the delegation questioned why a $650 million infusion of stimulus funds wouldn't preclude draconian cost saving measures. "We urge you to maintain these discounts at their current levels," the delegation wrote. "In this economic climate, we cannot eliminate the opportunity for our senior and permanently disabled citizens to enjoy our public lands."
Jeers to Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, whose proposed budget appears to have been founded on the Mafioso principle of mess with me and pay the price. Senate President Pro Tem Robert Geddes, a Soda Springs Republican, revealed this week that Otter's proposal to phase out several state agencies was less about determining the proper role of government than hammering the bearers of bad news.
"Those agencies and departments who chose to kind of thumb their nose at the governor found that they didn't have a place in the budget," Geddes said.
In September, Otter asked agencies to look for reductions. Heaven help you if the governor didn't like what he heard. "The budget was a wake-up call for them to get on board," Otter's budget director, Wayne Hammon, told the Idaho Statesman. "And with the exception of public television, all of them responded very favorably."
IPTV General Manager Peter Morrill told Otter that further budget cuts would adversely impact viewers. IPTV lost nearly 50 percent of its state funds in the last year.
Strangely, Otter backed off his zeroing out plan this week. The governor told the Idaho Statesman's editorial board that he wasn't serious about defunding the agencies.
"I wanted the (agency heads) to think that," Otter said. "How else am I going to get them to respond?"
Talk about mixed messages. Perhaps the public outcry over Otter's phase-out of public television and other agencies has the governor in damage control mode. Or maybe one hand in the governor's office doesn't know what the other one is up to.
Cheers to Sen. Joe Stegner of Lewiston, the lone Republican in the Idaho Legislature with the courage to call the Idaho Health Freedom Act exactly what it is, "meaningless legislation."
The bill would compel the state to sue the federal government if Congress and the president approve a health care plan that requires Idahoans to purchase insurance. It passed the House on a straight party-line vote. This week, the bill passed the Senate State Affairs Committee, with Stegner joining two Democrats in opposing the measure.
As Stegner pointed out, the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives the federal government authority in this area. Even if you disagree with that personally, the Supreme Court is in accord. Which led Stegner to ask the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, "Why in the world do you think the state can arbitrarily declare that they have sovereignty on the issue of health care reform when in fact I think all sorts of precedent would say that the federal government can certainly impose that if they so choose?"
Clark's response: "The Commerce Clause is there, but the federal government still has to prove that in court, and I think it's worth a fight."
At a potential cost of $100,000. And here we thought any bills that cost the state money were dead on arrival.
Originally posted at http://www.postregister.com/story.php?accnum=1028-02192010&today=2010-02-19
The Opinion posted here is provided by permission of its original publisher and does not necessarily reflect the views of Idaho Public Television.