At a meeting earlier this week, the bureau voted itself out of the coalition, which features Blue Cross of Idaho, the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce and Regence Blue Shield of Idaho, among others.

The Farm Bureau’s spokesman, John Thompson, told IdahoReporter.com Friday that his group is “uncomfortable” with some of the messaging efforts by the coalition, but he didn’t give specifics.

In addition to pulling out of the coalition, Thompson said the bureau’s board voted to wait until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the federal law from which exchanges are derived. A ruling in the case, in which Idaho is a challenging party, is expected sometime in June, so the Farm Bureau will likely not weigh in on the exchange debate during Idaho’s 2012 legislative session.

Even if the court upholds the federal law, Thompson says the bureau may not back a state-based exchange. The board also voted to hold off on issuing a formal opinion on exchanges until state legislation, outlining in great detail how the program would function, is brought forth.

“With what we know now, we’re not comfortable supporting it,” Thompson said.

For now, the Farm Bureau is simply not taking a position on any exchange plans.

The exchange is opposed by two interest groups, including the Idaho Freedom Foundation, which believes state and federal exchanges are one in the same, and Idaho Chooses Life says Idaho shouldn’t participate in what it says is the federal government’s takeover of the health care industry.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

With that in mind, McGeachin proposed legislation Friday that would create a 10-member oversight panel to monitor state implementation of the federal health care law. The committee, which would operate only between legislative sessions, would feature six Republican lawmakers and four Democrats.

The speaker of the House and the Senate pro tem would each designate three Republicans and two Democrats to serve from their respective chambers.

The panel would work with state agencies, specifically the health and welfare and insurance departments, to examine how the PPACA would alter state practices or policies. McGeachin told her committee the new oversight board would bring some legislative certainty to the federal law’s implementation.

“We are kind of heading into uncharted waters,” she said. “This is a sincere attempt to move forward down the road.”

It is unclear what authority would be given to the oversight panel, but it’s likely to be not much, if approved. Interim committees, like Gov. Butch Otter’s health care task force, have the ability to make recommendations to the full Legislature and examine policy, but little else.

The panel, if approved, would work with the governor’s office to establish state health policy objectives.

McGeachin says she crafted the idea from boards already established in Utah, Colorado and New Hampshire.

The bill will receive a full hearing in the next week or two.

Perry introduced a bill Thursday in the House Commerce and Human Resources Committee to prevent that type of thing from happening and the measure will receive a formal hearing next week.

The legislation wouldn’t apply to all welfare programs administered by the state, but would rather focus solely on the Temporary Assistance for Families in Idaho (TAFI). This program is unlike most other welfare programs in that recipients are given cash to covers needs, which is put on state-issued debit cards also used for food stamps.

TAFI has a 24-month lifetime limit for recipients and the maximum benefit is $309 per month. Recipients are required to participate in certain activities to qualify, including work searches and trainings.

The program is administered by the state, but the money is ultimately provided by the federal government through a block grant.

Perry did not cite any known cases of the money being used for tattoos, lottery tickets, adult entertainment cigarettes or alcohol, but says state law doesn’t explicitly prevent it from happening. “We would have to be proactive rather than reactive on this,” Perry said.

Under Perry’s bill, those caught misusing the funds could be penalized by the state in varying degrees, but a larger offense could mean a misdemeanor for an offender.

Businesses would play a large role in enforcement because they would be asked to prevent TAFI recipients from using their cash cards at places dealing in the things Perry wants to prevent.

But the cards present a problem for the state in that they can be used at ATMs and recipients can access cash. Under the measure, the state would track ATM use to monitor if TAFI recipients are using their cards at ATMs in or around casinos, strip clubs or tattoo parlors. “Technology has come a long way and that aids us in these types of reports,” Perry told committee members of the state’s tracking efforts.

Perry doesn’t mind helping needy families, but would like to see the money go toward rent, food and clothing.

If the state doesn’t address the issue, it may receive some attention at the federal level. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing national legislation that would essentially do the same thing as Perry’s bill because they say welfare dollars are being frittered in similar programs across the country.

The Hill reports that Congressman Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., is the backer of the bill to close the loopholes. “It’s pretty rampant around the country,” Boustany told the publication of the cash program’s abuses. “This has really eroded the credibility of the program in the eyes of the American taxpayer — a program that has been successful, by and large.”

The federal measure would give states two years to develop their own rules to comply and states not in conformance would have their cash assistance program money docked.

“We have an obligation to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately,” Boustany told The Hill. 

The measure cleared the House 58-12 and it now heads to the Senate for consideration.

The plan would help high students move through their coursework faster by paying most of the cost for online, summer and overload courses. Students who begin taking extra classes in junior high can finish their high school education by the beginning of what is typically thought of as the junior year.

The yearly cost for the program could be as high as $2.5 million, with the state paying $225 per online course and families paying $75 per class. Students who do not pass their extra classes will be required to pay the full course costs in order to proceed in the program.

Thayn says by rushing students through high school, the state could save up to $7 million in college costs.

The real savings, he believes, will come to families in the program. If students take courses more quickly and graduate after their sophomore year in high school, they can then take dual enrollment college course and graduate with an associate’s degree around the time their peers earn their high school diplomas.

Because students can take concurrent enrollment courses while still in high school, Thayn says families will save money by not having to spend as much on tuition, fees, books, food and other college-related expenses.

The program is not for everyone, however. Participation will be limited to 10 percent of the statewide student population and, even then, students must be motivated to take part. “It really depends on the willingness of the student to take extra classes and do extra work,” Thayn said.

Rep. Mack Shirley, R-Rexburg, the vice chair of the House Education Committee, spoke in favor of the measure, urging lawmakers not to be scared away by the newness of Thayn’s idea. “The thinking is outside the box. It’s a little unusual,” Shirley said. “But the concept is good.”

Shirley recognizes that some details of how the program would operate are still sketchy and will have to be worked out, but said the idea is worth the work.

There was some concern by members of the budget committee about how they would find money to fund the $2.5 million figure, but Thayn said he’s spoken with Jason Hancock, a top aide at the Department of Education about the issue and has been assured funding can be found if the bill clears the Senate and is signed by the governor.

Harwood’s plan was to have it sent to print but not go any further, thus putting it up on the Legislature’s website in hopes that other states could access it and begin a process of coming together to fight the EPA.

Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, proposed a motion to send the bill to print, citing the 10^th Amendment and the commerce clause within it. This led to some harsh words from Rep. Eric Anderson,R-Priest Lake. Anderson felt that the bill was flawed and that it would reflect badly on the legislative body and him personally. He asked that the committee chairman, Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, be careful of the precedent and image to the committee if such legislation is approved.

Said Anderson, “We’re putting our name on something that is admittedly a wrong piece of legislation … This is a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that I think is so full of flaws. This particular piece of legislation … it gives us a conversation piece, but it sets a precedent here that we, I have never been involved with in my life. Any other committee we would be dissecting this, we would be taking this and saying ‘well you know on page 2, line 35 this is impossible to do.’ At the very least this would go to the amending order.”

Anderson believes that to just send a bill to print to bring up discussion is not the right way to do things especially, in his eyes, if the legislation is flawed. “My thoughts, to the sponsor, would be if you want something to go on the Internet let’s make sure that it is much more defined than this. This is nullification junior if all we’re doing is having a statement here that we’re unhappy with federal law. No one is happy with certain elements of federal law and federal dominion,” said Anderson. “I understand that, I get that. I don’t think anybody on this committee doesn’t have some frustration with that.”

The representative found it personally offensive to link his name to this kind of legislation. “I am not going to do a shotgun blast with my name on it out to the Internet that I agreed with this piece of legislation. I won’t do it. To me, this defines who I am, and who I am, by the maker of the motion, is somebody that doesn’t believe in the 10th Amendment, by somebody’s opinion, then so be it. I personally do believe in the 10th Amendment. But, I believe there’s a way to get there. I believe it needs to be judicial, it needs to be properly done. Because all we are doing is yelling in the wind and I don’t care if 12 other states can start to have a discourse or whatever.”

Anderson continued, “I can’t put my name on this. This defines me and I disagree with so much of how this is presented. This is a rejection of federal law. I can’t go there. I will not support the motion to print the way this is today, and I think it does set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that we’re just going to print whatever just to get some dialogue going.”

Harwood believes that since the EPA was formed under an executive order by President Richard Nixon, it should only apply to federal lands, not the state ofIdaho. Instead, Harwood believes that Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality should be in charge of setting and maintaining environmental regulations within the state, including regulations dealing with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act—both federal regulations.

Harwood also echoed comments he made to IdahoReporter.com in 2011, when he said that we (the state and its citizens) need to get back to following the Constitution and that this bill would be a step in the right direction, at least to get the conversation started.

A substitute motion was made to send the bill back to its sponsor, which Anderson supported. Once it passed, Anderson had more to say about the committee and the proceedings thus far this session. “I just would like to make this point to you, Mr. Chairman, that historically this has been my favorite committee and I have seen a lot of good things happen on this committee. This year has been a bit peculiar to me. I am not going to attend this committee and have a civics lesson every time I come here about my misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment and somebody else’s more appropriate understanding. I think it’s out of order …”

In a message back to the group, Burnett apologized for the harshness of his tone in a message about diversity training, but says he plans to proceed with the workshops, slated for next week.

“By the way, I have apologized in two open forums with students for the seemingly harsh tone of the language you have quoted,” Burnett wrote. “My intent was simply to be open and transparent, but I could have chosen my words more carefully.”

Burnett is planning training, entitled “Dialogue on Professionalism and Diversity,” next week on its Boise and Moscow campuses and students, faculty and staff are required to attend unless the school approves absences for work or health reasons.

Any students who skip the course and are not excused will have it noted in their permanent records, which will eventually be turned over to the bar association, which certifies new lawyers.

Lawmakers felt the note in the record could make students appear bigoted or uncaring, which could hurt their careers.

As part of the school’s diversity plan, Burnett believes the training will be beneficial to all involved. “The plan seeks to foster an inclusive and respectful learning environment, and to assure a climate of professionalism in which diverse students feel welcome and in which all students understand their professional responsibilities,” he wrote.

In a phone interview, Burnett told IdahoReporter.com the trainings will be open discussions and not simple lectures. All views, including those opposite to those brought forth by the speaker being featured by the school, will be included. “The sessions … will be closed, ‘safe’ conversations in which participants are free and encouraged to express their candid views,” Burnett wrote in his letter.

The law student handbook, Burnett believes, permits the college to note if students don’t attend required meetings. “This section (of the handbook) promotes individual responsibility, and accountability, which are important values in a professional school,” Burnett said.

See a copy of Burnett’s letter to lawmakers here.

Gov. Butch Otter has proposed a number of tax relief ideas with the intent of yielding $45 million in tax cuts.

While there were a number of ideas and suggestions given to the joint committee meeting on growing Idaho’s economy and providing some tax relief, the one overriding theme was Idaho’s personal property tax.

Personal property tax has become a lightning rod issue lately around the Capitol, with many prominent business representatives calling for an end to it. Brent Olmstead, lobbyist for the Food Producers of Idaho, believes this should be the case.

During testimony, Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston, questioned the need for the reduction or elimination of the tax that Olmstead suggested during his presentation. Olmstead replied, “In talking with processors and the food processing industry, they find that the business personal property tax to be more onerous, they would rather see that gone than any decrease in income tax. We’d be more than willing to pay a little more in one other area than to continue on with the business personal property tax.”

Alex LaBeau, president of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, echoed Olmstead’s comments, spending the vast majority of his testimony on the positive outcomes from eliminating the personal property tax.

LaBeau has not been shy this legislative session in expressing his distaste for the tax, telling IdahoReporter.com in January that, “It’s not transparent, it’s not administered fairly, and it’s something that is problematic not only for local government, but problematic for business to keep track of.”

During his testimony, LaBeau hit on areas where Idaho has made progress in economic development and growth, including education, human resources and infrastructure (including GARVEE road-building bonding). However, when he came to Tax Policy on his powerpoint slide, there was a question mark, followed by a long pause from him.

Said LaBeau, “What have we done on tax policy (to help economic growth)?” LaBeau cited a study by the Tax Foundation, which in part reads “sales taxes and personal property taxes are associated with lower employment growth.” The report also says, “property taxes are a significant factor in business location decisions.” According to LaBeau, the foundation estimates that a 1 percent tax hike on personal property tax can reduce employment by as much as 2.44 percent.

LaBeau also cited a Business Summit, part of Idaho’s Project 60 economic development program, and recommendations given for economic growth in the Gem State. According to LaBeau, the first recommendation given by businesses was overwhelmingly to eliminate the personal property tax.

“This was not something that was contrived by lobbyists, this wasn’t contrived by our organization or any other organization,” he said. “We were as interested as everyone else to find out what businesses would say so we specifically did not talk to any of the folks that were going to be slated in front of that committee. We wanted to find out what they were going to say. This (the personal property tax) still comes up as the single most hated tax by businesses in this state, and it’s time to eliminate the tax and find a way to get it done.”

Besides the elimination of the property tax, the committees heard testimony in favor of rewarding companies for selling Idaho products, resurrecting funds for agricultural research and development, monetary incentives for job creation and a request that income tax rates be reduced.

The House State Affairs Committee, a panel chaired by Loerstscher, voted down his measure after strong opposition from a number of county clerks and Secretary of State Ben Ysursa.

Loertscher told his colleagues that the May primary election hampers legislators, who are typically required to be in the Statehouse from early January to late March or early April. He believes moving the primary back to August would allow lawmakers to focus on legislative work in the early months of the year and still run a full campaign later in the year.

But the measure received little support in public testimony. A number of county clerks, in town for meetings with the Idaho Association of Counties, told the panel that pushing the primary back would cause too much work in a year when they are facing numerous obstacles.

There have been a number of changes to Idaho’s voting methods in recent years. Last year, the Legislature approved closing the state’s primaries and the Idaho GOP decided to pick its presidential candidate through a caucus process. Additionally, clerks are also dealing with new legislative district maps, causing officials to find many new voting locations.

Ysursa opposed the bill due to workload concerns, but also believes a move to August would hurt Idaho’s already-slumping voter turnout. “Our turnout has been abysmal in primaries,” Ysursa said. “We need to crank that up.”

Ysursa says voter turnout for primaries stands at about 25 percent of voters, down from highs of 40 percent in the past. He feels the keeping the primaries in May will cut down on voter confusion in an already-complicated election year. “It’s better for voters, in my opinion,” Ysursa said. “It’s better on turnout.”

The only person to speak in favor of the measure was GOP operative Rod Beck, buoyed by a Republican state committee resolution in support of an August primary.

Shortly before the vote, Loertscher offered a dark forecast of the tally. “I don’t have any illusions about the outcome of this vote,” he said, adding he simply wanted the topic brought up. “This has been a healthy discussion.”

Only Loertscher and Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, voted for the bill.

The bill, brought by Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, will come forward again in the committee in the next week or two.

The crux of the debate rested on whether or not legislators are full- or part-time employees. Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, told members of the committee he would be “offended” if he is regarded as a part-time worker while serving in the Legislature. He believes that paring down pensions would mean fewer people would be willing to serve in Boise for three months each year.

“This is going to lead down a road where the retired and wealthy can serve in the Legislature and the rest can’t,” said Anderson.

Rep. Erik Simpson, R-Idaho Falls, echoed Anderson’s feelings. “Quite frankly, it costs me a lot of money to be here,” Simpson said, explaining that he loses wages by serving in the Capitol.

The issue stalled, however, when Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, queried the committee how legislators would accrue Public Employee Retirement System (PERSI) credit going forward and how past service would be handled. Lake was forced to leave the hearing to attend another committee meeting and wasn’t able to answer Luker’s questions.

As law stands, PERSI calculates pension benefits based on an employee’s highest consecutive 42 months of pay, but also takes into account a worker’s total span of service.

That means lawmakers can log many years in the Legislature at a pay rate of about $16,000, then take a high-paying state job and have their legislative time count at the increased wages.

Lake’s bill would end pension-spiking by averaging out wages rates over a legislator’s full career, instead of basing payouts on just the highest 42 months. If it’s eventually cleared, the measure would take effect July 1, 2012.

There are several examples of pension-spiking in the Idaho Legislature’s immediate past. Late last year, former Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, took a job as the head lobbyist for the University of Idaho, a post paying $124,000 annually.

If Stegner had simply retired at the end of 2012—his 14^th year in the Legislature—he would receive a pension payout of about $373 per month, or $4,480 annually. If Stegner stays with the school 42 months at his starting wage, his pension payout will increase to approximately $3,410 a month, or $40,920 annually.

Former Rep. Debbie Field, R-Boise, retired as head of the Office of Drug Policy last year, just 43 months after being appointed to the job by Gov. Butch Otter. With her $70,000-a-year salary counting in her pension calculation, Field is set to bring in about $23,052 annually. If she had not been appointed to the post after losing her House election in 2006, her pension would be approximately $5,316 a year.

Former Senate Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, resigned during the 2011 legislative session to take a commissioner spot at the Idaho State Tax Commission, a job paying more than $85,000 annually. If Geddes stays with the commission at least 42 months, his pension will jump more than $2,500 each month or $30,000 each year.

If legislative sessions are marked by certain issues, ethics measures might be it for the 2012 confab.

On Tuesday, Rep. Julie Ellsworth, R-Boise, brought two bills to a House committee, one to add more oversight requirements to recall campaigns and another to remove House leaders who get DUIs while in office from serving in leadership posts.

Earlier this week, the full House approved Blackfoot Republican Dennis Lake’s measure to keep per diem payments out of lawmaker retirement calculations. Last week, Lake introduced a bill to stop lawmakers from spiking their publicly funded pensions by taking high-paying state jobs after lengthy careers in the Idaho Capitol and that measure will be heard Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pursuing a number of ethics reform measures, including creating an ethics commission with the attorney general’s office.

Lawmakers see this flurry of activity as a good thing for the state and legislators. In committee Tuesday, House Assistant Minority Leader Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, praised Ellsworth’s DUI and drug offense bill, saying it would help protect the integrity of the legislative body.

After the hearing, Higgins told IdahoReporter.com she is happy to see the measures and hopes lawmakers go further to clean up the Statehouse. “Well, I’m encouraged that issues that are being brought up that need to be addressed,” Higgins said.

Higgins is pleased both parties are taking steps to address problems this year as she has sensed a growing disdain for the antics of some of Idaho’s public officials. “People read the newspapers. People know what’s going in,” Higgins said. “We have heard from people all over the state that this needs to be addressed and cleaned up.”

And Democrats believe this is the year to do it. House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, has sounded off multiple times about a “culture of corruption” that he says exists among Idaho’s Republican public officials. “It’s about a culture,” Rusche said in a Jan. 10 press conference. “Culture’s a hard thing to change and it takes a long time, but it is my belief we have a culture that is sick.”

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, part of a working group to establish a bipartisan solution for an ethics commission, told IdahoReporter.com Tuesday that there isn’t a coordinated effort for lawmakers to police themselves, but rather singular responses to public official mishaps.

“I think maybe we all saw these problems this summer and we all come with our solutions,”
King said. “I think it just happened that we are converging here.”

Idahoans saw multiple instances of questionable activity by public officials in the last 12 months. Treasurer Ron Crane was accused of misuse of his state-funded gas card, while Sens. John McGee, R-Caldwell, Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa, took extra per diem payments for maintaining second homes during the 2011 legislative session while sleeping rent free at different locations.

Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, came under fire last spring for helping to kill a bill that would have blocked a lawsuit in which he had a personal interest.

Even with the number of alleged lapses in the recent past, not everyone is on board with the ethics reform ideas. Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, expressed concern of the narrow nature of Ellsworth’s measure in the committee meeting, a sentiment he confirmed in an interview with IdahoReporter.com.

“This is tragic, what we’re doing,” Anderson said, adding that he believes Ellsworth’s measure is a “witch hunt.”

Lest anyone think Anderson wants less oversight of ethical lapses by legislators, he says House rules cover problems if they’re enforced correctly. He just believes House rules need not be changed for singular events. “We’re going to say that drunk driving is the fundamental problem?” he asked.

Anderson would like to see his own ethics reforms, including how members are picked to serve on ethics commissions. Instead of allowing House leadership to choose the members, Anderson feels they should be elected by each caucus. “It would be an honor to serve,” Anderson says.

Internal matters, the Priest Lake Republican believes, should be handled by the commission and outward lapses, such as DUIs, felonies or other legal matters, should be presented to the board but investigated by the attorney general’s office.