These days, it seems nearly everyone is struggling for a bit more income. Families and individuals are prioritizing what they need, versus what they want, and choosing accordingly.

Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Coeur d’Alene, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, says the same situation applies to the state of Idaho concerning road and bridge maintenance.

As time ticks along and the state defers overhauls on some problem projects (the extremely busy Meridian interchange, for example), the question becomes what to do with limited resources?

Hammond compares road issues throughout the state to his own home. “I would compare it to myself as a homeowner. And, I have several needs. My family has gotten bigger and I need to expand my home, but I’ve also got a roof over my home that is degrading, yet I’ve got limited funds. So, I have to make a decision. Do I create that expansion to better accommodate my family, or do I first of all take care of the roof so what we have doesn’t degrade further? Well, it makes more sense to take care of that roof and make sure that’s where I first put my money.”

Hammond sees his family situation paralleling Idaho’s road maintenance and expansion. “The expansions are nice, but the highest priority has to be maintaining what we’ve already got because that’s what really gets expensive. You can continue to maintain those roads for quite a while but once they start degrading, if you let them degrade to any level of significance, then what you have to do is tear it all up and start over, which becomes much more expensive than just maintaining them.”

Bridges however, are a little bit different, according to Hammond. With bridges, there are different levels of degradation and they must be addressed accordingly.

“Now the bridges, that’s a different issue and in terms of deficiency I haven’t seen the specific criteria as to how degraded or what kinds of concerns we really have over those bridges,” said Hammond. “But, there are different levels of degradation, the chief way that a bridge degrades is the bridge deck itself. And so you don’t necessarily have to tear the whole bridge out and start over, but often you do have to take the deck apart and re-pour the deck and put new steel in.”

According to the Federal Highway Administration, the total number of bridges in Idaho in 2010 was 4,132. Of those, 414 were deemed as being deficient. That’s just under 10 percent.

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has some funding each year for maintenance projects, said Hammond. But the problem as identified by ITD and by a governor’s task force on roads and bridges goes far beyond the department’s resources. It is estimated that the state has $300-$400 million in needs, but clearly does not have that kind of money to attack the infrastructure deficiencies.

Thus, ITD relies on a five-year plan to address the most pressing needs, with the more meaningful projects bubbling to the top as the plan is updated. “It used to be that they (ITD) just fixed the worst projects,” explained Hammond. “Now, they’re trying to take a more mindful approach and look at those projects that best serve the needs of Idaho and Idahoans and put those as the high priority.”

To deal with these infrastructure problems, Hammond said that Idahoans must be ready at some point to “pay the piper.”  He adds, “None of us can afford to be paying any more taxes. But, at some point, we as Idahoans have to face the fact that we aren’t spending enough money to properly care for our roads …”

One way to raise funds for roads and bridges throughout the state is the often-talked-about gas tax. Idaho’s gas tax is 25 cents per gallon, same as the rate for diesel. Neighboring states levy similar rates: Oregon’s gas tax is 24 cents, Montana’s is 27.75 cents, Utah is 24.5 cents and Washington is 28 cents.

Is there a chance Idahoans could see a hike in the gas tax in the near future? Gov. Butch Otter proposed a gas tax increase and a hike in vehicle registration fees during the 2009 legislative session, which nearly set a record for length as lawmakers debated the issues, then ultimately rejected the governor’s proposals.

While a gas tax increase has not seen the light of day since then, Hammond says it will more than likely be looked at, but that it should be based on the mileage that individuals drive. However, he stressed that there is not technology right now that would make such a plan feasible.

Video for the Hammond series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.

The Idaho speaker of the House, Rep. Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, believes the remaining funds available for road and bridge work financed in part by GARVEE bonds could pass this session of the Legislature after not making it through the 2011 Legislature. The chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee sees it as an uphill fight, likely to fail.

GARVEE (grant anticipation revenue vehicles or a GARVEE) are tax-exempt bonds to finance road improvements throughout Idaho. These road improvements, undertaken by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), are to be repaid from federal highway funds received over a 20-year period from the Federal Highway Administration and certain state matching funds. Of the initial $998 million in GARVEE bonds authorized, there is $143 million available to the state.

Road and bridge infrastructure needs in Idaho, according to Sen. Jim Hammond, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, total $300-$400 million. But it is not as simple as doing maintenance or tacking on a new road or bridge. Actions have consequences, in other words, explained Hammond. “The challenge with expansion—it’s great in a way—but when you expand roads then you’ve got that much more to maintain, you’ve got that much more to plow, so it’s not just the initial expense of putting in that additional lane or that additional interchange, it’s the expense of continuing to care for that.”

Still, need or not, Hammond feels GARVEE will be a tough sell because of legislative reluctance to take on another program and because the funds are available due to borrowing from the federal government and he sees little support, including himself, for relying on the feds for the money.

Hammond also worries if the federal funding level Idaho is receiving continues to decrease, then the state must take more money from operating costs to pay for those bonds, which, in turn, makes it tougher for the state to maintain what it currently has.

In addition, Hammond says there is sentiment among some in the Legislature who consider GARVEE bonding as an indebtedness to its citizens, putting them on the hook for monetary obligations years down the road.

If the Legislature does not approve additional GARVEE funds, how does the state deal with the need for not only road and bridge repairs, but also expansion and replacement?

Hammond said ITD has an annual budget amount and plans for maintenance of the most pressing problems with no funds given to an expansion of existing infrastructure. According to Hammond, projects will be looked at only in terms of maintenance. Expansion and creation will not be a priority. Infrastructure that is degrading and needs the most urgent care will be the projects the state plan focuses on using whatever funds are available.

“That plan,” said Hammond, “isn’t put together with any thought about GARVEE. That plan is put together just based upon priorities of maintaining our current infrastructure. It used to be that part of that of that plan would have been expansion—additional lanes, new bridges, etc. Now because of the diminished level of funding the total amount of revenue available is just intended to be for maintenance and upkeep of our current infrastructure.”

Coming Tuesday: Chairman Hammond compares road and bridge maintenance to home ownership decisions and discusses the role of a gas tax in addressing infrastructure needs. Video for the series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.

This week, Otter has reversed course, telling the Associated Press he misspoke at the Jan. 5 legislative preview. “I must have left the impression it was the insurance exchange,” Otter told the AP Wednesday. “That’s simply not right.”

That’s good news for the fiscal business of the state, because Otter said the feds might threaten to drop the matching rate for the Medicaid program from 70/30 to 50/50, causing Idaho to need as much as $300 million more for the program annually.

Here’s video of what the governor told reporters about the interplay between the exchange and Medicaid funding:

One key lawmaker affirmed to IdahoReporter.com no such link exists.

House Health and Welfare Committee chairwoman Janice McGeachin,R-Idaho Falls, has spent time since the last legislative session studying the health exchanges and how they are to operate within the state. She didn’t say Otter intentionally misled reporters last week, but she suggested that maybe he’d confused some of the issues.

“I’ve never heard any such threats,” McGeachin said. “I do believe Gov. Otter had some of the issues minced up in his comments there.”

It is true that if Idaho does nothing to implement some of the changes required by the 2010 federal health reforms that the Medicaid program could lose some of its funding, but not in the way the governor explained.

The state is required to upgrade the technological system that handles and processes Medicaid enrollees so it can work within either a state or a federal health exchange program. Essentially, McGeachin said, the computers in the state’s Medicaid program need to be ready to “talk to” the systems handling the exchange.

If the state does not comply, at least in that area, the lawmaker says funding may be hurt. But even then, she points out, it’s still a big “maybe.”

“We could be putting our Medicaid programs at some risk if we don’t meet this requirements, but … it remains to be seen what that might be,” McGeachin said.

The state is planning the necessary work for the Medicaid system to integrate with whatever exchange program is formed. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare’s 2013 budget request includes $3.84 million in state money to prepare for federal reforms.

Otter’s health care task force endorsed an initial outline of how the exchange will operate, at least in its beginning stages, last week, but it’s unclear when the Legislature will take up the issue.

Who says one person can’t make a difference?

The coming fight over the creation of a state-based health insurance exchange might come down to just one person.

Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, the chair of the House Health and Welfare Committee is that individual.

In an exclusive interview with IdahoReporter.com Wednesday, McGeachin said she may use a perk given to committee chairs to stop a bad health exchange bill. McGeachin says that if a health exchange bill hits her desk that cedes some of the state’s sovereignty to the federal government, she will stop it by herself.

McGeachin, who spent a myriad of days and hours studying the exchange issue since the end of the 2011 legislative session, believes there’s not much difference between a state-based exchange and a federally-run program. She also warned that if lawmakers don’t give enough control to the state, she will end the legislation.

“Yeah, that’s my job,” McGeachin said. “That’s my duty as a state legislator, to protect the sovereignty of our state.”

The mandates handed down by the federal government in exchange creation rules, the chairwoman said, essentially tie the hands of the state and lawmakers. “If we sign on to the plan, we cede all of our authority to Health and Human Services (a federal agency),” she warned. “Why would we do that?”

There is no guarantee, however, that the bill will be sent to her committee. House leadership could, instead, send it to a number of different panels, including business or commerce.

The Idaho Falls Republican was the lone legislator to vote against an initial outline of the health exchange plan in the Health Care Task Force. The vote held no force of law, but recommended the draft legislation be sent to the Legislature for consideration.

McGeachin says she shares concerns with members of the business community about the composition of the exchange oversight board created in the initial draft. She is also worried that the exchange might alter the insurance marketplace in an unnatural manner.

“Whatever we do inIdaho, we need to do what’s going to be good for the consumer and not necessarily for a specific industry,” McGeachin explained.

McGeachin and her committee begin discussions about the 2010 federal health reforms and the exchange program Thursday. It’s unknown when lawmakers might begin discussion of the exchange legislation or if it will start in the House or Senate.

Coming Friday: Rep. McGeachin expresses her concerns about the subsidies within the exchange and a diminished role for insurance agents if the plan is implemented. Video for the interview by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.

Rep. Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, believes that cigarette taxes, funding for roads and bridges and attempting to move some federal lands into state control could be hot-button issues on the docket for 2012.

Denney is skeptical about the cigarette tax hike, citing some loopholes that could ultimately blunt the reason its backers are pushing for it. The speaker expects lawmakers to go all the way on borrowed road funding and says that taxpayers and the state would reap many benefits if some Idaho lands were put under state jurisdiction and management.

Cigarette taxes

For a number of years, Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, has said he will bring a bill to hike the state’s cigarette tax by $1.25 per pack. Lake is backed by the American Cancer Society, among a number of other pro-health groups. The Blackfoot lawmaker says he will bring the bill this year if the group asks him to do so.

Lake and the group argue that a hike would help curb youth smoking while generating revenue for health-related state programs.

Denney is skeptical of the idea because he sees ways to get around it. He says Native American reservations provide an easy way for Idahoans to get cheaper cigarettes than simply purchasing them at a local store. The speaker also pointed out that international websites allow less expensive smokes to come into the state and, while the practice is illegal, it’s very hard to enforce the law.

“If you’re going to increase the tax on cigarettes, there’s a few loopholes you have to plug first,” Denney said.

Going to the max for roads

Just before the 2011 session ended, Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell, brought a bill to spend the rest of the GARVEE money – a little more than $140 million in bonds – to repair some bridges and roads around the state, including the Meridian Road  interchange in the  TreasureValley.

GARVEE money is essentially borrowed and then repaid with federal road money. The program is authorized to spend $998 million, but the projects originally targeted are either in-progress or completed and $143 million is still available for road repair.

McGee told lawmakers in April the money would help address safety issues. “This would allow for those GARVEE dollars to be used on bridges across the state ofIdahothat are in much need of repair,” McGee said.

A number of lawmakers, including Denney, oppose more GARVEE spending because they believe it enters the state into debt, something prohibited by the Idaho Constitution. Still, lawmakers have never killed a GARVEE funding authorization bill and Denney expects McGee’s measure to pass and spending to be taken to the cap.

Even with his aversion to the road debt, Denney is fond of the work that’s already been done through GARVEE. “I do like the improvements that have been made on the interstate between Boise and Caldwell,” Denney said. “There are some great benefits to what we’ve done.”

If things go as Denney predicts, Idaho will hit the $998 million cap this year. “I suspect if Sen. McGee brings it again, there will be a good hearing and quite likely we will go to the max on spending,” the speaker said.

Taking federal lands for state control

There have been rumblings that the state might attempt to take some of the federal land within its borders and place them under state control through legislation or court challenges. No specific plans have been offered as to how this might happen, but Denney says the move would be beneficial for the state, taxpayers and even the environment.

“I don’t think they will ever allow us to take control over all of it at once, but I would certainly like to take control of a portion of it and have the federal government allow us to manage a portion of it and show we can actually do a good job and be good stewards of that property,” Denney said. “It would be good for the state and the environment as well.”

Denney says that if the state owned its natural resources, it would be beneficial to the budget. “Right now, the federal government owns a good portion of Idaho and we can’t manage it and we get very little revenue from that,” he concluded.

According to estimates, the federal government owns about 66 percent of Idaho’s land.

(Video for the five-part Denney series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.)

One of the coming battles in the legislative session will be over the creation of a health care insurance exchange, something mandated by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Idaho legislators must decide if they want to create a state-based system or let the federal government do it for them. House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, feels there is “considerable opposition” to creating a state exchange, at least in his chamber of the Legislature.

The exchange is an online marketplace where consumers could go to purchase health insurance or submit applications for public health programs like Medicaid or Medicare.

Denney also said he has questions about why the state should set up its own exchange if a federal one wouldn’t be too dissimilar from an Idaho version.

Though he wouldn’t give an outright prediction of the exchange’s fate in the Legislature, Denney said the program could face a steep fight. “I would say right now, there is considerable opposition to it in the House,” the speaker said. “We are being asked to buy something sight unseen.”

Denney said that lawmakers might not have enough answers to questions to go along with creation. “I think that’s a real tough sale in the House,” he warned.

As for his thought on the exchange, Denney feels Idaho should control its destiny as much as possible, but worries that federal rules would prevent that if lawmakers create a state-based exchange. “Certainly, if there’s a possibility of Idaho managing our future, I would have Idaho in charge rather than have the federal government in charge,” Denney said. “But, from what I am seeing right now, I don’t see there’s a lot of difference between just giving the money back and saying, ‘federal government, you manage it and just go right ahead,’ or the state managing it with the federal government with the strings attached that we know will be attached.”

Some, including lobbyist and Idaho Freedom Foundation Director Wayne Hoffman, have criticized the state for taking money from federal health reforms while suing in the U.S. Supreme Court to block its implementation. Partially under Denney’s watch, Idaho lawmakers passed a bill in 2010 – a measure backed by Hoffman – to authorize the state to sue over the health reforms. The case has found its way to the Supreme Court and is expected to be decided in June.

Denney deflected the question about the oddity of accepting money from a law the state is attempting to invalidate, but did say he is uncomfortable with the mandates handed down by the federal government.

“I would just have to say there’s no such thing as federal money, it’s state money we sent to Washington and they’re sending it back,” Denney said. “I don’t like us having to bow to the federal government to get back what is rightfully ours to start with.”

(Coming Saturday: Speaker Denney previews what he believes to the hot-button issues for the 2012 legislative session. Video for the series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.)

One national health policy expert doubts Otter’s claim.

John Graham, senior medical policy researcher with the Sacramento-based Pacific Research Institute (PRI), said the Idaho governor is off-base with his assessment of the situation. “I’m quite certain it’s not in the law,” Graham said. “This is the first time I’ve heard of it.” PRI describes itself as a non-profit advocate for personal responsibility and individual liberty.

Graham wouldn’t speculate as to the political reasons behind Otter’s claim, but did suggest that the Idaho governor might have some misinformation. “Maybe he’s confused,” Graham said. “If they (Otter’s office) could cite the part of the bill it’s in, I’d be more confident.”

But as for Idaho losing Medicaid money if it doesn’t create an exchange, Graham says that notion’s bunk. “No one else has ever heard of it,” he said. “I don’t know where he’s making this up from.”

The governor, meeting with reporters at the annual legislative preview, said that he’s heard that the state could lose a large amount of Medicaid funding – known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, or FMAP -  if the exchange isn’t created this year, a move that could have dire effects on Idaho’s budget. As it stands, the feds pay about 70 percent of the state’s Medicaid budget and Idaho pays the rest. Otter told reporters that he believes the state could see an even split with the federal government without the exchange.

But where did Otter get the information? His spokesman, Jon Hanian, told IdahoReporter.com Thursday the two state departments in talks with the federal government about exchanges, health and welfare and insurance, have said as much.

Hanian was quick to clarify, however, that the threat of the loss of funds isn’t material quite yet. “The consensus was if we do nothing there is a possibility we could see a change in the FMAP ratio from the current 70-30 match to a 50-50 match or anywhere in between,” Hanian said. “That is part of what the governor was referring to this morning.”

If Otter is correct, the loss of the funds could blast a hole in budgets for years to come. The Medicaid program is asking for $1.9 billion in funds for fiscal year 2013 and, of that, more than $1.3 billion in federal dollars. Otter said the even split for Medicaid could cost Idaho $300 million more in state funds each year.

There is some amount of interplay between the exchange and the Medicaid program, but Otter’s reference to a possible loss of $300 million in federal funding for the program is the first time that information has been presented. Through the exchange system, those with qualifying incomes will be shuffled into applying for Medicaid instead of private insurance and the same year that the exchanges are expected to be operational – 2014 – is also the same time when a good deal of newly-eligible Idahoans can come on the Medicaid roles, though the feds are picking up 95 percent of their cost for at least four years.

Dick Armstrong, head of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, told lawmakers last year that the new eligibility guidelines could put 100,000 more Gem State residents on the Medicaid program.

House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, says he was surprised in early December when Gov. Butch Otter decided to run for re-election in 2014.

Denney also shared his 2012 electoral plans and explained why he is backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the GOP race for president.

Otter’s December surprise

Regarding Otter, Denney expects much will happen in the way of politics between now and 2014 that could change Otter’s situation. But if the governor follows through on the promise, Denney says there will be support for Otter when that time comes.

Otter announced his intentions in early December at the North Idaho Governor’s Ball, a fundraiser to aid his campaign, which has more than $200,000 in debt. Several have panned the announcement, saying that the declaration was mainly intended to keep Otter from appearing as a lame duck governor and/or to give him a vehicle for raising money to retire his campaign debt.

Denney is skeptical of the announcement, but was supportive of Otter’s decision. “Certainly, if he is serious and wants to run, I think there will still be a considerable amount of support,” Denney said.  “But, I think it’s pretty early to announce what your intentions are two years from now.”

Denney warned that circumstances – political or otherwise – could keep the governor’s promise from happening. “We don’t know what’s going to happen in the next session before you actually start that campaign,” Denney said. “I was actually a little surprised he announced that early.”

Five legislators in a district

When the second redistricting commission completed its work in the fall, Denney found himself in an odd – though not unheard of – situation: He was included in the new District 8 with four other representatives. Denney and his seatmate, Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, were lumped together with Reps. Steve Thayn and Carlos Bilboa, Republicans from Emmett, and House Majority Caucus Chair Ken Roberts, R-Donnelly. The district’s Senate seat is open.

Denney declined to say how things might shake out with the other lawmakers, but did confirm he will seek his own seat again in the primary election.

On backing Mitt Romney

In the coming weeks, Republicans across the nation will make their pick for the man or women to face off with President Barack Obama in November.  While some GOP members are still deciding on their pick, Denney is firmly in the Romney camp.

While he says his views might align more closely with Texas Congressman Ron Paul or Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Denney says he believes of the bunch, only Romney is electable. TheIdahospeaker says getting Obama out of office is more important than nominating a pure candidate.

“I think that our country is in a position where we have to make a change, and certainly I think we have to look at who can win,” Denney explained.

(Coming Friday: Denney weighs in on the issue of a health care exchange for the state of Idaho. Video for the Denney series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.)

Sometimes, it’s all about the money.

So says House Speaker Lawerence Denney about the upcoming legislative session, who believes the budget will define the 2012 legislative session.

The speaker also said the Occupy Boise protest group camped across the street from the Capitol will have no effect on the session.

Some extra money – maybe

The speaker said that lawmakers may not be too eager to restore budget cuts made in prior years and that low-balling the state budget, a practice that’s taken some fire in recent years from political opponents, is the correct approach on fiscal matters.

“I think everything is tied to money,” Denney explained, adding that the budget picture is brighter than the past, but not as rosy as some would make it out to be. “I think even though we will probably get through this session without having to cut further, I don’t think there’s going to be any restoration of cuts we’ve already made.”

That goes against a promise made by Idaho Gov. Butch Otter in which he said education money would be restored when the state gets the chance.

Cathy Holland-Smith, the state’s lead budget official, told lawmakers last month that the expected surplus for fiscal year 2012 could run as high $130 million, though there are pressing needs that will cut into that amount. Extra funding requests for fiscal year 2012 will likely mean $50 million less from that surplus projection, meaning lawmakers could have as much as $80 million extra when budgeting time arrives.

Some legislators have expressed support for restoring cuts made to Medicaid and public education, while others say the Legislature should bolster rainy day funds drained as a result of the recession.

Even if there is extra money in the budget, Denney says lawmakers will be skeptical to spend more than is necessary to avoid more cuts should state revenue decline again.

“It’s easier to keep it where it is than to increase it and have to cut again,” Denney said, referring to program funding levels. “The decisions we have made in the past three years have been very difficult.”

With the projected 2012 surplus has come a number of critics who feel lawmakers low-balled or conservatively estimated the state budget last year. The critics say that if legislators had budgeted correctly, the $35 million in cuts to Medicaid wouldn’t have happened.

Denney approves of the conservative estimates because it’s the safest option for fiscal issues.  “I think the last three years have proven us right,” Denney said, adding that going with the higher budget number offered by the state’s forecaster might have led to a worse budget situation.

“I think we have done the right thing in being conservative and even if we low-balled, it’s a good thing we did,” Denney concluded.

Across the street

Following the creation of the Occupy Wall Street group in New York City, several mirror protests started in cities across the country. Boise’s group is camped out across 6^th Street from the Idaho Capitol and in plain view from Denney’s third-story House office.

No matter, the speaker says. He believes the group will have no influence on the legislative process this year. “My take is that, no, they won’t have any impact on the next session,” Denney said, adding that he’s had no interaction with Occupy Boise members.

The group is barred from camping on city property, but worked out a deal with the Idaho Department of Administration to set up its digs at the old Ada County Courthouse, which is being renovated to become theUniversityofIdaho’s newTreasureValleylaw school.

Denney appreciates the group is being politically active, but wonders if the encampment really qualifies as free speech. “I think the Occupy thing does take the freedom of speech to a step further than what I think freedom of speech actually is,” Denney said. “I think they have every right to make their point and to be heard, but to come and camp out on state land and actually perhaps even kill the grass on the lawn over here, I think that takes free speech a step further than what it actually goes.”

Occupy Boise members haven’t publicly stated how they might try to affect legislation in the coming session.

(Coming Thursday: Denney discusses his 2012 re-election plans and the announcement by Gov. Butch Otter that he plans to seek a third term in 2014. Video for the series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.)

Last year a number of lawmakers used their legislative positions to increase monetary gains for themselves. At least one lawmaker is proposing a fix to the problems.

House Speaker Lawerence Denney told IdahoReporter.com that it’s likely legislation will come forward to change the per diem formula and pension spiking by legislators, though he warned that any legislation must be well thought out to pass.

Pension-spiking

Through the years, a number of lawmakers have gone from long careers in the Idaho Legislature to high-ranking – and high-paying – jobs in state government, moves that fattened their wallets in the short term and spiked their pensions in the long term.

Last year, two legislators, Sen. Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs, and Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, took this route, with Gov. Butch Otter appointing Geddes to the Idaho State Tax Commission oversight board, an $85,000 per year job, and Stegner taking the $124,000-per-year chief lobbyist job at the University of Idaho. If each man stays in his post 42 months, each will spike his public pension thousands of dollars annually.

Rep. Dennis Lake, R-Blackfoot, brought legislation to end the practice last year, but it never received a formal hearing. Lake promises to bring it back again early in the 2012 session, but Denney is skeptical of the plan. Lake’s contention is that legislative service – largely considered part-time work – shouldn’t count as full-time credit in the state retirement system if a lawmaker takes a high-paying government job.

Denney is a believer that legislators may be paid part-time wages at about $16,000 per year, but says there is more work than just the legislative session. “To do it differently is to say that being a state legislator is not a full-time job,” Denney said. “It’s really a full-time part-time job.”

Even if former lawmakers are reaping thousands annually in extra unearned benefits from the pension system, Denney says they are likely valuable in the high-paying government jobs. “I think most legislators are probably worth the amount of the high-paying job,” Denney said.

As for Lake’s potential legislation, Denney suggests compromise might be in order. “I think those hours (out-of-session time spent by lawmakers) should account for something,” Denney said. “Maybe we can come to some agreement that would be more equitable.”

Per diem changes

In October, it was reported that two senators, John McGee, R-Caldwell, and Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa, were taking extra per diem payments meant for lawmakers paying rent on a second residence during the 2011 legislative session, but sleeping in free locations. McKenzie, the report said, slept on a couch at this law office down the street from the Capitol while McGee stayed with his parents.

While there is certainly the imagery of taxpayer abuse in the situation, the extra per diem money also adds to the pensions of the lawmakers because the funds count as taxable benefits.

Federal rules say that if lawmakers live within 50 miles of the Capitol, their per diem counts as a taxable benefit and increases salaries in pension calculations. Legislators outside 50 miles are compensated the per diem through a check that doesn’t count for salary.

The speaker says that reform may be needed, but advises that he doesn’t want to make life harder for legislators living just less than 50 miles, especially in the wintertime. “I think we have to be careful of how we use that per diem, especially for those who live in those 50 miles,” Denney explained.

He acknowledges, however, there has likely been a misuse of funds. “I think there has been some abuse of that,” Denney said.

Lake told IdahoReporter.com he will bring legislation to fix the per diem situation, though he didn’t offer specifics on his plan.

The speaker says that the per diem should be viewed as a part of a larger compensation package, which he says isn’t incredibly valuable, but is necessary to keep some talented legislators in public service. “If you’re looking just at per diem, I think the per diem we get is very generous,” Denney said. “But, on the other hand, if you look at the overall package, I don’t think it’s all that generous.”

Denney added he likes getting his per diem in a check up front so it’s not taxed and he sees more of the funds directly.

(Coming Wednesday: Denney talks about the 2012 budget and the Occupy Boise movement. Video for the series by Mitch Coffman, IdahoReporter.com.)