Tim Corder
(R) State Senator
Idaho Legislative District 22
Senator Tim Corder
has proudly served District 22 since 2004. Currently, he is Chairman of the
Local Government and Taxation Committee and serves on both the Transportation
and Agricultural Affairs committees. Tim also serves on the Health Care Task
Force, Mental Health Subcommittee, Early Childhood Coordinating Council, and
the Idaho Commission on Hispanic Affairs.
Week Twelve 2012
This is the last week and I have revised
this very paragraph. H563 (Income tax
relief) passed out of committee and ultimately passed the Senate
yesterday. The Senate adjourned last
evening at 7:00 PM. I voted against the
bill in committee and no in the Senate and then changed my vote to aye. It is lousy policy to use one-time money for
ongoing tax relief and then sell the deal as a republican compromise package of
good fiscal expedience. My website has
more details on H563. I did get to vote
for restoring teacher salaries and for putting $35 million in savings – the
reason I changed my vote on 563.
There is a difference between compromise and
consensus. I suppose each legislator
draws philosophical and political lines in the metaphorical sand when they
begin the session. The thing about sand
is that one can move the line and previous locations get completely forgotten
or dismissed. The definition of fiscal
conservatism has changed since January because people want to go home and
campaign. H563 is only $35 million –
what the heck! In January we were
looking for the very best way to encourage broad economic activity and restore
structural balance to the budget. At the
end of March people just want to go home.
Of the three bills I started two have made
it. Idaho Code 12-120 has been amended
to give more access to the courts through the assurance that attorney’s fees
can be collected for the prevailing party.
Children in foster care will now be better cared for because new law
will allow foster parents and the department of Health and Welfare to share
information about the children under the care of the state. These reforms have been too long in coming to
fruition and I am very pleased with their success. The third piece having to do with dangerous
dogs was once again caught in a political shuffle. It will need another try next year.
As chairman of the Local Government and
Taxation Committee I must exercise discretion over what bills are heard or
not. I make those decisions on the
merits of the bill. There have been many
different ideas about tax policy and local governance this year that have stopped
at my desk. My discretion on House bills
has a political cost: dangerous dog legislation. I will use different strategies next year to
see that legislation important to the district is successful.
Legislation has been passed that broadens
the eligibility for energy conservation deductions. If you own a home built between 1976 and 2002
and you are adding insulation or changing windows or other conservation
measures you may be eligible for an Income Tax deduction. Current law provides that homes older than
1976 are eligible for improvements, though the new legislation narrows the
scope of qualified improvements a bit.
I misspoke at a recent meeting at
A bill to allow the auction of game tags has
passed both houses. Another, to restrict
Idaho Fish and Game from closing certain roads to ATV’s on Federal lands failed
to pass the Senate. Another bill that
classifies and exempts developed properties as “Inventory” from speculative
value has passed both houses.
The “Inventory” bill warrants further
comment. Some decades ago reasonable
people decided that development of property and growth in communities should be
planned in a way that encouraged long-term developments and large parcel
platting. It was held that to
accommodate that goal a developer’s discount might be needed to exempt
speculative or unrealized future value.
In 2005 I carried the bill that repealed that discount because it had
been abused and values were not realistic for property tax. Under the discount, land stayed at the agricultural
value until the house or business was occupied with no intermediate value. That wasn’t fair. After the repeal, developers began to reduce
the long term planning approach and some counties began to assess at nearly the
completed value – that wasn’t fair either.
This bill establishes a mid-development value for purposes of taxation
that reflects the investment in the property and not the future unrealized
value. Only the original developer
qualifies for the exemption; any transfer of the property removes the
exemption.
Once again it has been my honor to serve
you. God willing, I will have another
opportunity to do that next year. Please
feel free to email or call over the summer.
I look forward to seeing many of you as I travel through the district.
I
sincerely thank you,
Senator Tim
Corder
Week Eleven 2012
The end of each session is very difficult. Finding the piece of legislation that will
take us all home and thus reduce the threat to your freedoms is messy
work. It looks like the tax relief bills
will be the “going home bills”.
Along the legislative journey to the messy
end of session there is often a bill or two that causes great anguish and
forces people, especially in an election year, to choose expedience over
conviction. Black and white are easy to
discern but shades of grey are much more difficult; made even more difficult by
religious, ideological, or constitutional conflicts. I try not to judge the motives of others, but
when I am forced to vote on a bill that seems heavily influenced by religion or
ideology and which also seems to slide constitutional balance away from the
center; I tend to push toward constitutional centricity.
A ruling majority today, conceivably, may
not be the majority tomorrow. I see
great danger in allowing any majority a bully pulpit; particularly if that
majority demonstrates a propensity toward religious or ideological
predispositions. Therein lays a painful
conflict when voting on some legislation.
Which minority should be protected?
How does one prorate a vote?
Such was the case with S1387 known as the
vaginal ultrasound bill and S1348 known as the conscience or futile care bill.
I interject here points six and seven from
the Idaho Republican Party Platform. “We
believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those
critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private
organizations”, and “We believe the most effective, responsible and responsive
government is government closest to the people.
That the government is best that governs least.”
S1348 would create law that says that the
end of life instructions a person completes may never be violated, even by a
physician. No reported abuse of current
law was offered as evidence for a change in policy. Then why propose a solution to a
non-problem? I could have voted for the
bill knowing very little, if anything would change; but I didn’t, I voted
no. I do believe in personal
responsibility. I do believe in less
government. I do believe that government
should not push itself into the lives of people, especially in the most
intimate and private times of their lives.
The bill would prohibit family members from intervening or contradicting
a person’s directives and under certain conditions, would force physicians and
family members to provide care that was deemed futile by the physician. An
example would be: suppose a person became comatose and had left instructions
through a directive (living will, durable power of attorney) that only comfort
measures be used until the end; if the doctor determined that a medication
would result in consciousness or even recovery, he could not administer the
drug nor could any family member intervene.
Conversely, if a person had declared, in some sort of directive, their
desire to be sustained by any means and became comatose with no medical hope of
recovery, the doctor and family would be forced to provide all care possible
even though it was deemed futile by the doctor.
S1387 requires a physician, as part of
informed consent consultations, to require a woman to see the image of a fetus
before an abortion assuming the visual image would change the outcome.
A
vaginal ultrasound may even be required to acquire the image. There was no provision to accommodate medical
emergencies, such as a woman with a tubal pregnancy where the doctor would be
forced to acquire an image and require the woman to see the image before the
fetus is aborted. A more cruel,
intrusive, and egregious act I can hardly imagine.
Let me be very clear. I have a pro-life voting record. Except under the types of emergencies
described above, my conscience requires me to defend the lives and rights of
the unborn.
The
Republican principles quoted above are based on the Constitution of the
The House of Representatives has chosen not
to hear either bill.
Next week I will offer some final thoughts
on the session.
Week Ten 2012
House Bill 464 is about drilling for oil and
gas. However, H464 is much more than
that. Under 464 the Department of Lands
would have regulatory authority of the activity and where the drilling occurs
in a county. Under H464 cities and
counties would have restricted aesthetic and ancillary authority but they would
not be permitted to limit or restrict the activity itself.
This is more than an argument about property
rights or fracking (fracturing layers to allow the
flow of gas) or local control. Some
years ago a Democrat Senate Minority Leader proposed a plan for a regional site
authority to make decisions with respect to where such things as large power
generators, wind towers, or even large dairies should appropriately exist. The general premise was to protect individual
property rights while acknowledging that there are activities that one
individual, or county, can undertake that might have significant impact on the
neighbors.
The idea was shot down, legislatively
speaking, because it was usurping local control.
At the same time, there has been a growing
distrust of state agencies by Republican legislators. Agency proposals and actions are often
considered to be synonymous with bigger government and those same agencies are
deemed to be anti-libertarian.
The Great Recession happened. Oil and gas reserves have been discovered in
the
I do not recollect when I began to understand
the meaning of the word irony but I know it when I see it. A majority has a very profound responsibility
to listen to and protect the minority:
first, because a really bad minority idea one day may be a really good
majority idea on another day; and second, because the majority that does not
listen respectfully and with appreciation to the minority might one day find
themselves in the minority.
We are coming down to the line on tax
relief. We recall that the Governor
started the legislative year in the State of the State report by asking for $45
million for tax relief while specifically leaving the details to the
legislature. The Governor has changed
his mind and made a choice and so has the House. The Senate is not so certain.
The Governor has chosen an Income Tax
proposal that would lower the rate of Income Tax for corporations and
individuals. The rate change would
reduce taxes for the top 17% of wage earners.
A couple filing jointly with two children and earning $100,000 Gross
Income would save $71 income tax: that is not a typo.
The House has already passed the bill in
support of the Governor’s plan. The
Senate is divided. A slight majority, me
among them, would prefer to put the $61 million in savings in anticipation of
reduced federal spending towards states, additional economic difficulties,
additional demands on corrections, and a general distrust of reliance on the
words projected and forecasted. Spending
money we don’t have even on tax relief just does not make sense.
Just in case the Senate must make a deal
with the House and Governor, my task, as Chairman of the Tax Committee is to
find the compromise position between tax relief and savings. I have a proposal for Personal Property tax
relief that would eliminate the reporting requirement thus eliminating the
administrative burden for counties and all small business. This proposal would completely eliminate
Personal Property tax for 95% of the businesses in the state; perhaps 80% of
those are individual tax payers. They
are main street
The proposal would put in place the process
for full replacement dollars to the counties and provide an orderly and defined
process that uses an economic trigger to activate phase two (the balance of the
PPT [5% remaining]) and provide a mechanism for the legislature to stop the
process once triggered.
That is my task and I need to get back to it
right now. I will have more to report
next week.
Week Nine 2012
I promised more information about
Another bill, with similar application
before the legislature, takes authority away from counties to determine the
site locations of oil and gas wells claiming that county authorities might not
have the “big picture” in mind and may not have the expertise necessary to make
a decision impacting the state, not just their county. Companies and people can put pressure on
elected officials, at every level, to make decisions perhaps not in the best
interest of the majority.
Alamar was a
proposal for a Residential Treatment Facility for teens and they wanted to
build a facility in
The issue before you all is complex and introduces many elements never
before considered. Frustration,
uncertainty, and anger often find outlets and recipients in those we have
easiest access to. As a result, I am hearing so much suspicion being directed
toward Commissioners and government in general. It seems that some of the
distrust and suspicion is the result of changing information. "The story keeps changing" is what
I hear, and "they don't know what they are doing".
It has been my experience over the last eight years, in service to you,
that the more complicated a subject or solution might be the more difficult it
is to even understand the appropriate questions to ask. Often, in such circumstances, we must start
to act upon what we know and be prepared to adjust dramatically to what we
learn in the course of our due process examinations.
So yes, some information is changing and as a result is coming closer to
finality with each question and each answer.
It is true your Commissioners have not known all the answers: they could not have known and neither could
anyone else. Even the attorneys have
been confronted with questions for which answers were not readily available or
initial judgments required change. That
is the nature of these complex solutions.
Residents were and are clamoring for information and you wanted it
yesterday. I encouraged the
Commissioners to get information out early even before they had all the facts while
there remained unanswered questions. I
still believe that was a good decision, even though the changing information is
now being used by some as evidence of ineptitude or dishonesty. The majority of you know that far too often
we cannot have it both ways. This is one
of those times when information is coming out as quickly as it is made
available and is being adjusted as promptly as new questions are asked and new
answers provided. There is no precedent to follow in this situation.
I urge you to be patient with the process and persistent in your demand
for updated information. Your
Commissioners are representing you in public and in plain view and I am
convinced there is no effort to do anything but what is best for the
county. This is painful for all of
you. Please work to restore confidence
and reject the conversations aimed at division rather than solutions. The
Next week I will update you on taxes and
some other issues. Thank you for your
patience.
Week Eight 2012
The internet and the current technology
revolution really is a wonder. Some in
my generation just wonder why – really.
Calls and letters come to the legislative information center, to be
forwarded to me, with addresses to which I respond. More often now I get a great many returned
because the address was bogus. Likewise,
the emails flow in from cities, purportedly in
Federal Judge Winmill
has determined that the “Occupy” tents can stay up at the Capitol Annex as a
right of free expression. The Judge did
support the action of the legislature in restricting camping on the site. A number of you have passed by or visited the
location and have expressed various sentiments to me – many of which I dare not
repeat.
Senate bill S1305 has become known as the “stake
out your dog to kill a wolf” bill. This
bill has become the source of most of the illegitimate correspondence described
in paragraph one. The sponsor has said
his purpose is to raise awareness as to the plight of livestock producers and
educate the masses about the need to control this predator. Because the only
addition offered by the bill, to the current arsenal of control measures is the
aerial pursuit; I fear the wrong message is being proclaimed. The wrong message will alienate those in
animal agriculture from many other groups and individuals. One of the emails I received suggested that
ranchers should build barns for their animals to have their young in the
forest. Clearly, education is needed but
negative education will not serve any of us well. The bill has now been withdrawn back to
committee where it will remain. The
sponsors are now looking at other appropriate ways to get the message out to
the public about the devastating impact to wild herds and domestic
livestock. Here is one link that has
been forwarded to me: www.montanacattlemen.org/wolf_Reportings. There are other examples from wildlife
advocates and livestock advocates. This
is a very emotional issue where those on every side are very passionate. Before you take a side please take time to do
some research and make an informed decision.
In the world of taxes and tax relief a
number of things are under way. Let me
say again that the budget is very tight and will certainly not accommodate the
$45 million requested by the Governor.
The looming question is whether we should even be considering additional
tax breaks other than the ongoing food tax credit, or alternatively, to restore
rainy day accounts. You will recall that
the bill being proposed by the Main Street Alliance and supported by the
Governor’s office proposes to lower the Corporate and upper Individual Income
tax rates. Corporations are already able
to offset part of their liability with the Investment Tax Credit on equipment:
an amount they are able to carry forward fifteen years, thus potentially
effectively cutting their tax liability and effective rate.
Alamar. That means little
or nothing to Elmore, Owyhee or
This letter is getting long: more about the
plight of
Week Seven 2012
Sometimes it is difficult to get one foot
out of my mouth just in time for the other to slip in. I don’t wake up and decide to be insensitive
but there are times when I fail to consider fully all the implications of my comments
until it is too late. I apologize for
any offense and I am grateful when I am given an opportunity to respond or
explain. I must, however, continue to
take the risk and communicate with you as much and as clearly as I am able. I do appreciate constructive criticism.
There are new efforts to freeze the Home
Owners exemption at the current or even a lower value. Non-tax geek language: we have been there and done that as a state.
In 2006 the statutorily set value of $50,000 was lifted, we allowed the
home-site value to be counted, we increased the value to $75,000, and tied the
value to the Housing Price Index so the relative positions of economic sectors
would continue to adjust. A huge
re-shift in property taxes occurred in 2006, when the limit was removed,
shifting from homeowners to all other property tax sectors (business,
agriculture, utilities, etc.). The
purpose of the index was to nurture an equitable environment among the various
tax sectors that adjusts without further intervention. Were the changes made in 2006 Sustainable?
Yes! Were the changes Systemic? You
bet! Have the changes been
Synergistic? Without a doubt! Good Policy established by Process,
Persistently applied with Preparation. I
am prepared to see it through and protect what we have. Wow, this S’s and P’s stuff really
works! I might entertain a discussion on
the appropriate index to use but I will insist on an index. The HPI is more volatile but the volatility
means it is adjusting faster. Therefore,
the shifts among tax sectors are occurring in smaller increments and are more
reflective of the economy around us.
A Constitutional amendment is being
attempted to guarantee the right to hunt and fish in
S1283 died on a tie vote in the Senate. By itself, that was historical. The Senate had one Senator absent and the
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor) was also absent and not able to
break a tie. The only time the President
can vote is to break a tie. The bill
authorized land owners to sell the land owner appreciation (LAP) tags they are
given by the Department of Fish and Game for controlled hunts. There was no requirement that public access
be accommodated. My fear and the fear of
sportsmen was that public access might be denied to increase the value of the LAP’s and restricted access might then create an
environment where more depredations (kill permits when too many animals exist
and are causing damage) would be required.
It is a fairly complex issue pitting private property rights, public
game ownership, game management, and public access against each other. Another bill is coming that will present a
compromise position where access is a requirement for receiving the LAP. That bill has a better chance of
success. Damage done to private property
by game animals is significant and should be compensated. There are other programs that attempt to do
that with only marginal success. The LAP
tags were not intended to be a damage reimbursement but are intended to be
compensation for habitat. At best, the
LAP does that extremely poor. A better
solution should be pursued by land owners and sportsmen and the state as a
whole. This is another area where the
best interest of the state, whether one owns land or not and whether one hunts
or not, is served by having plentiful big game animals, public access, and
productive habitat. Because of the
collective best interest it should be incumbent upon the collective, not just
the hunters or owners, to bear the financial burden.
Wednesday was a sad day in the Senate. Senator John McGee resigned from the Senate
under allegations of harassment.
Investigations are under way within the office of the Attorney
General. The
The “wolf” bill that allows aerial hunting
after an attack on livestock passed the Senate committee yesterday and is
headed for Senate vote. Livestock
producers are suffering severe losses as are our wild game herds from wolf
predation. This approach to wolf
management jeopardizes progress made on delisting the wolf and in fact could
jeopardize the 10J status that allows owners to protect and defend their
animals. So says Congressman Simpson,
who has fought to get the 10J and the current management control. Idaho Fish and Game has also expressed their concern
and agreement with Congressman Simpson.
This could be a step forward resulting in three steps back.
Week Six 2012
When I grow up I would like to be an editor
– at least it might appear so from some of my letters. With this letter I will try to resist the
urge to editorialize and bring you up to date on a few other issues making
their way through the extensive legislative process.
Last week we held a joint meeting of the
House and Senate tax committees. Each
speaking participant had the opportunity to step away from their respective and
previously stated positions on tax reform and answer a question: what might be
the best way to stimulate the economy? A
few of the participants actually used the time to offer suggestions that were
wholly magnanimous. I was disappointed
by the performance of others. Still, the
exercise was useful to have both committees together hearing the same comments. Regretfully, no consensus can be drawn from
the meeting that will provide clear direction for a plan of action or defined
policy. To that end; I will continue to
bring speakers to the Senate committee to educate and broaden our perspective
of existing and potential tax policy as well as pursue the elusive consensus
plan.
Animal cruelty ‘light’ legislation made it
through the Senate committee Tuesday. I
have received numerous emails asking for a stricter law. The bill has a third conviction felony
provision, but it only applies to one of the five severally existing
definitions of cruelty and it does not have within it a definition of
torture. One goal of the bill is to
leverage public opinion so the “1 of 3” initiative attempt scheduled for the
2012 ballot will be unsuccessful. The
initiative goes much farther than the legislation. Among constituent requests are: mandatory
sentencing, first conviction felony for torture, and a first offense cruelty
felony provision. If the initiative is
successful, I believe next year the legislature will amend the law anyway. Law by initiative has the same effect as
legislated law and is subject to change just as any other statute.
The legislation to update the Early
Childhood Coordinating Council (EC3) died yesterday on the House floor even
after the amendments to strike references to federal programs were incorporated. A signed Executive Order should meet the
minimum standards of the federal requirements to maintain eligibility for
program dollars – I say should because time will tell. It is easy to say we should do it for the
children. We should. We should also do things like this because it
is the logical and reasoned thing to do and just happens to also be the right
thing to do. So why did it fail by six
votes? The answer would require that I
editorialize. Suffice it to say that,
very often, politics is a contact sport and is not for the faint of heart.
For some folks, ethics has been and will
continue to be on the agenda of things to do.
One of the ideas is to have an ongoing non-legislative ethics committee. Complaints from anyone could then be filtered
to the committee and the committee could then decide if action is
justified. There is good and bad in that
solution or any of the other solutions for that matter. Who watches the watchers? Whose judgment is just or wise enough? Most certainly, the House member that stole
state property and doesn’t pay taxes and the Senate member that had too much to
drink and walked outside in the cold and woke up in a vehicle that was not his
have focused attention on our process.
They also focus attention on our humanity. Willful intent or poor judgment; which one is
an ethical violation? One of the
individuals has been adjudicated by the legal system the other remains in the
legal process. Both faced their
respective legislative bodies. Perhaps
it was the decision of their peers we don’t want to trust. Would we trust an independent ethics
committee more? When we fail to measure
up as legislators or parents or citizens, we disappoint everyone around us and
there really is no excuse that is satisfactory.
Those of us in office should respect the public trust and we should
demand of ourselves an unassailable standard.
I suspect we will never have a satisfactory response for those times
when our humanity erupts and must be confronted. Never the less, we should try to find the
appropriate path and I will support reasonable efforts.
The ATV issue has been revived. Still at issue is whether roads that are open
to all other ATV traffic should be closed to hunters using their ATV’s on the
very same road. I believe I understand
both sides of the issue fairly well. An
interim committee was established to resolve the issues but they were
unsuccessful in doing so; arguably, some progress was made. Managing game animals for harvest is a very
important issue. So is the non-hunting
recreational ATV need for road access.
These two powerful and legitimate public needs and concerns meet
head-on, pardon the pun, in very remote places and here in the
legislature. There will be more to come
on this subject.
Other Fish and Game issues include whether
land owners who receive landowner appreciation permits should be able to sell
those permits. Land owners are given the
permits to show them appreciation for allowing access to hunting on their
property. Generally, the permits are for
those areas where hunting only by draw is allowed. The concern is that if owners are allowed to
sell their permits then access to the general public might be denied to
increase the value of the salable permit; thus enabling the exact opposite
effect.
Stay tuned.
Things are speeding up and heating up.
Don’t hesitate to email or call.
Week Five 2012
Last week I described my requisite three S’s
for proposed tax change legislation.
They are: does the proposal produce Sustainable
stand-alone results; will the change result in Systemic or naturally occurring economic vitality; and
finally, will the effect of the change produce independent or Synergistic results?
I also promised you a look at my four
P’s. The P’s aren’t just about taxes but
they certainly do apply. Here they are:
Policy, Process, Persistence, and Preparation.
Having a plan of action or blueprint is
important whether we are going on vacation or caring for the poor or making
changes to the tax system – a Policy. Too often, as I have said before, we govern
by jerks or bursts rather than with methodical, reasoned, and deliberate
direction modified with occasional methodical, reasoned, and deliberate
adjustments. Good policy must be
flexible while also resistant, though not immune, to change.
Process
is how the methodical, reasoned, and deliberate actions are evaluated and
enacted. Process must be consistent for
it to ensure the correct portions of flexibility and resistance in securing the
will of a republic majority and defending the interests of the minority. Deliberate process takes out the jerks and
bursts and thus provides an environment that is dependable and reliable. Business expects to pay taxes for the
services they receive and the infrastructure they rely on, but when location
decisions are made they will choose consistent and dependable over an uncertain
tax climate.
The third P, or Persistence, is what is required to see, to the end, the
outcome of fundamental change. Examples
are clear in a, not so recent, study of changes made to property taxes in
I think you see the point. The chaotic two years of Truth in Taxation
provides the greatest insight. Truth in
Taxation is a governance philosophy, and when embraced by state government
directs that local governments disclose information and inform constituents and
then empowers local governments to govern and be accountable. In other states where T-in-T has been
enacted, the initial response from local government bodies was skyrocketing
budgets for a year or two but within five years budgets stabilized as citizens
became more engaged and elected officials adjusted to the new authority and
responsibility. The legislature’s knee
jerk reaction to the two years of budget surges was to take back
self-governance and impose a more restrictive, almost punitive, budget
cap. No sustaining Policy, inadequate Process,
and very little Persistence.
The legislative arena is replete with
examples of unintended consequences.
Appropriate Preparation
for the unexpected doesn’t take away the surprise but it sure helps with the
shock. Expect the unexpected is a wise
adage. When we build legislation we tend
to labor over the details where the devil lives; trying to eliminate the
unexpected with another period, comma, or semicolon. Without Preparation
even the expected can be quite a surprise.
I hope to help define the public policy for
reasonable and sustainable taxation, define and defend an adequate process to
employ the policy, be persistent in implementation and application, and
finally; be prepared for the expected and unexpected. If successful in all that, we will have a
sustainable, systemic, and synergistic tax system.
I hear it already. Corder wake up and
take off the rose colored glasses; three S’s, four P’s, and a truck load of
naive optimism is what you have.
Perhaps! However, I have two other advantages. I have you and I have the door through which
all tax bills must pass.
Week Four 2012
For some of you this will be the first news letter
from me – please be patient. I am
adjusting to the newest new district lines.
The available redistricting map is not very clear but I am told I no
longer have the cities of Filer, Buhl, Hollister, or Rogerson
but perhaps still have the geography around Buhl. To offset the population loss from those
towns I will now have Murphy, Homedale and Marsing. I am also told that no other lawsuits are
pending – yet. Let’s all hope that
redistricting is behind us for another decade and we can get on about the
business of educating and governing and striving together for what is right as
we see it. Please share this newsletter.
I was warmly reminded by a constituent that
writing a fair to middling newsletter is a good thing but I also need to let
you know what I am doing. I love this
job. I love that so many of you feel
free to offer me advice, counsel, encouragement, and correction. I could not do the job without you. Though I must transition away from
I readily and eagerly expose this fact to
those of you reading for the first time.
I thrive on the interaction and feedback I receive from people. I like the “atta
boys” too but I believe the path towards representing all of you successfully
has lots of turnouts where we can stop for a minute and listen to each other.
Legislation to re-codify the Early Childhood
Coordinating Council (EC3) barely made it out of a House Committee yesterday on
a 5 to 4 vote. I co-sponsored that same
legislation last year and started it in the Senate where it passed easily. The bill died in the House in the final days
of the 2011 session for no apparent or rational reason. EC3 is one of my ongoing Senate designee
assignments. I have served on the
council for four years. The budget for
the council is less than $22,000 federally-sourced dollars but every one of
those dollars serves to eliminate redundancy and overlap among other federal
programs providing services to special-needs children from birth to age
five. The council has no programs of its
own, expands nothing, and creates nothing except opportunity, and yet some see
it as a threat.
EC3
coordinates activities and facilitates; that’s all, but without that
coordination and facilitation the state would lose federal dollars for
stand-alone special needs children programs and administrative efficiency.
I have received very few suggestions from
you with respect to my inquiry about how you would spend $45 million dollars to
stimulate the economy. I believe that is
because you are all very wise and are waiting to have more information before
drawing conclusions. Next Wednesday,
February 8, at 9:00 AM the Senate and House Tax Committees will be meeting
jointly to hear testimony from several economic sectors. The meeting will have video and audio feed so
if you are so inclined join us at http://www.idahoptv.org/leglive/legBody.cfm?pubPoint=WW02AUD.
Some special interest groups have not been
bashful about tax proposals. I use the
three S’s as a test for consideration.
Is it, or does it produce, a sustainable impact or benefit or is this a
onetime shot for effect? Is the change
or benefit systemic in nature? If so,
what will be required to implement, measure, and test outcomes and, more
importantly, is the policy question adequately framed and presented for
debate? If the goal is economic
stimulation, in any form, then will the proposal be synergistic? That is to say; will the initial effect in
the economy, of government intervention, be replaced by activities and results
that stimulate and energize the economy without additional government
manipulation?
Week Three 2012
As observers and participants of government
in action we must take my Katie’s advice: “Grandpa, sometimes you just have to
laugh at yourself.” It is difficult to
watch government in action unless one learns to take that sage advice of my
eight year old.
The redistricting commission will take up
their task once again this week. The
Supreme Court decision has left a constitutionally convened commission,
designed to be bi-partisan and consider secondary interests, with but one task:
choose which of the computers to use to draw the lines. The Court majority opinion has ruled that,
within the federal deviation limitation, a redistricting plan with the fewest
number of counties split shall be more constitutional than another plan with
more counties split. The plan that was
overturned had eleven county splits. It
is a subtle difference but the court has ruled; it is not the number of splits
in a county that counts but the number of counties that are split – split a
county three times and it still counts as one split. The counties that sued the state could
conceivably end up being split even more and so long as the number of counties
split is fewer than eleven, as in the overturned plan, the plan would be more
constitutional.
In fact, whatever plan the commission now
agrees on could be overturned by any conceivable plan that has just one less
county being split, and so on, and so on and so on. Hence my conclusion, that the only real
remaining task is to choose which computer to assign the task of dividing one
and one-half million people evenly into thirty five legislative districts and
do that while cutting as few of the forty-four counties as possible. It is just math – or is it? At least the computer would eliminate the
hubristic political drama of firing people.
The “Occupy” movement and their tent city on
the grounds of the old Ada County Court house have generated significant
interest. Is this occupation of public
property a demonstration of social unrest to raise awareness? I don’t know. Legislators are now in the
third week here at the Capitol – just across the street from the tents. I think there has been one gathering on the
steps, on Human Rights Day, where Occupy people participated to demonstrate for
human rights. Not a single person from
Occupy has spoken with me to inform me of their goals and what they hope to
achieve. No literature has been
distributed or calls made on people to educate us. I support the right of every citizen to
petition the government, to protest, and to hold demonstrations in an orderly
fashion. Absent the petitions and
efforts to educate, I struggle with where this is heading and I am anxious to
see how history records the events.
Great ideas and the most benevolent motives
can be defeated with bad timing, poor presentation, or a single misplaced
word. Timing can often be controlled,
presentation can be thought out, but words are always a choice. The question then is whether one wants to be
successful in gaining concurrence or empathy with the message or just to bring
attention to the fact that you had a message.
I have shared my definition of politics
before: politics is the art of convincing you that I am right, and that it was
your idea. Learning and practicing that
art is what I do for you in the legislature.
Every person who has a message to deliver to the legislature should keep
that definition handy. I have received a
number of inquiries from people wanting to know how best to communicate with
legislators. In light of the hours of
testimony offered last year by citizens where it appeared the votes ultimately
made by the legislature were contrary to the opinions presented, it is a good
question. I understand your frustration
because sometimes the other 104 legislators ignore me too. Perhaps, like me, you think that because we
feel strongly about something that everyone else agrees with our position. I can assure you they don’t and your elected
officials will hear from all sides.
Here are some suggestions for communicating
with elected officials. If communicating
face to face:
• Ask for time to speak them one on one
and respect the time they give
• When meeting in person, even if you
think they know you, introduce yourself
• Practice what it is you want to say,
maybe in front of a mirror
• Explain briefly the issue (one sentence)
then ask if they are aware of the issue
• Offer
more details but hesitate often to give opportunity for questions –
watch body language and facial reactions
• Be prepared to listen
• If possible, leave them with a brief
written summary (ask them if they want that) but do not leave them with a stack
of papers, unless they ask for it.
• Don’t make things up, if you don’t know
the answer say so
• Thank them for the time and leave your
contact information
If
communicating by other means:
• Internet facsimiles, third party email,
or other bulk mail schemes where officials get 100 pieces of identical
correspondence are NOT effective communication
• Don’t be rude and then expect positive
reactions
• Don’t call them names
• Don’t threaten, (i.e., if you vote no I
will work to see you out of office etc.)
• Before you send a written message, read
it out loud to yourself, if it doesn’t make sense to you it will surely not
make sense to them
• Check your grammar and spelling
• I would rather have a single sentence
from the heart than two paragraphs of a form letter.
• Identify yourself and address –
anonymous letters are not credible
Week Two 2012
I heard a legislator make a request, from a Finance
Committee member, that real money be appropriated to fund teacher pay – real
money. I think he meant that he wanted
to see an actual appropriation to salaries and not a paper shuffle or
appropriation to general discretionary spending accounts. I hope that is what was meant. The Governor has asked for the additional $41
million for one time bonuses for all state employees based on merit with a
maximum of 3%. I don’t think that is
what he meant. Frankly, the time to vote
for real money for teachers was last year when the reforms were passed that
took money away from the salary base. A
“yes” vote this year will not make up for a “no” vote last year. I will also add that a yes vote this year is
a contradiction to the stated goals and desired outcome of the 2011 reforms;
one of which was to reduce the cost of education.
I remain skeptical about having $45 million
to put into tax offsets. Suppose that we
do; how would you spend it? I have asked
for a joint meeting of the tax committees from the Senate and the House to
answer the same question. Because there
are 105 legislators I suspect there might be at least a hundred different
answers. Starting with exploring what the
expectations or goals to be accomplished are would seem prudent. We won’t do that as a group though because,
as I said, there will be at least a hundred different expectations. My job, as Senate door keeper of tax policy,
is to narrow those goals and expectations down a bit and then find the right
mix of tax offsets to accomplish the goals.
Sounds simple doesn’t it?
I do need a number to start with –
right? Will it be $45 or $60 or $10
million? The goals and mix of offsets
will differ for each number. A revenue
projection committee will not meet until January 24th with their informed
guess. The Joint Finance Committee
(JFAC) will have their informed guess as well and they must then appropriate an
amount to accommodate the Governor’s request.
Because JFAC is not a policy committee they cannot decide how or where
the money will go, that is left to the House and Senate germane tax
committees. Sounds like a page from
“Catch 22” doesn’t it? Tax committees
can’t decide what to do with the money until they know how much and JFAC can’t
decide how much until they see projections and have some idea where and how it
might be spent. It sounds less simple
now than a moment ago.
The policy discussion is worth the effort,
in my not-so-humble door keeper view, even if we have “0” dollars to work
with. Because, one day we will have
excess funds and one day we will need policy direction. We need to evaluate what we have done wrong
with tax policy and failed or successful social engineering efforts. Then we should use that information to put in
place a system that keeps downward pressure on expanding government and upward
pressure on economic growth and business vitality.
Taxes and tax change should be fair,
competitive with other states, easy to administer, and easy to collect and
enforce. Many options are being
considered, such as; lowering the rate of Income or Sales taxes, broadening the
base by eliminating exemptions, increasing the cigarette tax, personal property
tax elimination, energy credits, hospital assessment elimination, elimination
of Investment Tax Credit, eliminating or reducing the corporate Income Tax, to
name just a few. It should be noted
again that whatever we do with taxes and whoever is the initial and direct
recipient – every Idahoan will feel the impact in one way or another. Rather than feel the impact because of a
shift from one tax to another, from one pocket to another pocket, I would
prefer you feel the impact in these ways: in improving state and county
infrastructure, sustainable economic growth, ongoing efforts to keep government
the right size, reasonable and sustainable tax revenues, and a vibrant and
efficacious education plan including research and development. There are other ways you and I can and will
feel the consequence of consistent and sound fiscal policies applied
fundamentally and foundationally through sound tax policy because the effect of
appropriate tax policy is synergistic within our economy. Conversely, the consequences of
self-serving politically motivated tax
policy are observed and felt and are met with public disdain.
Among the various tests for good tax policy
two words will serve as my mandatory litmus test: sustainable and synergy. Will changes made to the tax mix be
sustainable? Will the synergistic nature
of the change offer short term confidence as well as extend into the future
providing a benefit to all Idahoans as a product of a thriving economy
independent of government intervention?
I am interested in your suggestions. What would you do with $45 million
Week One 2012
The Governor’s State of the State Address
marks the beginning of a new session. It
was an optimistic speech based on slow but continuing economic gains throughout
A couple of proposals are floating around
that would eliminate some tax exemptions and reduce rates of either income or
sales tax. Making the tax base as broad
as possible and reducing rates is sound tax policy because it results in
everyone paying a little rather than a few paying a lot and others paying very
little. One of the proposals would have
a net increase in tax revenue: meaning that the taxpayer base is broadened to
include more payers but the rate remains high enough to increase total
revenue. The other plan that I am aware
of, is revenue neutral: meaning that the number of payers is increased but the
rate is reduced to a level that would maintain total revenue at the current
level. Both plans contemplate broadening
the base with the removal of some exemptions and taxing some services
heretofore untaxed. Untaxed services
include such things as attorneys, barbers, hair salons, other professional
services, and the like.
I will be assisting the Headstart
Association in training parents to advocate for children to the
legislators. I will spend about two
hours letting parents “practice” on me to build confidence and I will critique
their approaches, methods, and styles to help make them more effective
advocates.
I will be meeting with the promoters of
animal cruelty legislation seeking to provide a felony provision for anyone
convicted of cruelty to animals for the third time within five years. You might remember previous comments I made
but allow me to reiterate: no data exists to validate a conclusion that making
something a felony changes behaviors.
There have been no animal abuse cases in
We are reviewing Administrative rules these
first couple of weeks of the session. I
don’t believe we have any this year that are particularly controversial and my
committees have fewer of them. I would
like to say again how unique
Tax committees from the House and Senate
will be meeting jointly to take public testimony regarding what ongoing tax
relief might look like. This will be the
first time the two committees have met jointly to learn about and discuss tax
policy together. Even if the Governor’s
request is not funded, the benefit to the state of having a discernable and vetted
plan for sustainable and ongoing tax reforms has great value. I will have more on the outcome of that
meeting in the coming weeks.
Senator Tim Corder
208-332-1331
599-0427
Follow me on: