Democratic persistence brings new child care law

When a new child care law takes effect in Idaho on January 1, 2010, it will mark the culmination of a five-year, Democratic-led campaign to make sure our children are safer when their parents must work outside the home. No one worked harder on that effort than Rep. George Sayler, a Coeur d’Alene Democrat representing District 4 in Kootenai County.

Under current law, Idaho has no regulation for facilities watching six or fewer children, with minimal regulations for those caring between seven and 12 children and licensing only for centers with 13 or more children. The National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies has consistently ranked Idaho last among the 50 states for these lax standards.

But starting next year, employees of child-care facilities watching four or more children not related to the provider will have criminal background checks. There must be a working telephone, water safety measures and smoke detector in smaller facilities covering between seven and 13 children. Staff-child ratios will be strengthened at this level, too, and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare can perform unannounced inspections.

Under the original bill co-sponsored by Sayler and Sen. Tim Corder, a Mountain Home Republican, those provisions would have applied to centers with four or more children, but social conservatives in the House Health & Welfare Committee watered down the bill. Still, Sayler said, “Idaho kids will be safer today than they were last year, and that’s good.” An estimated 70,000 Idaho children under age 5 are in some form of outside-the-home day care.

Read more here.

Session was marked by unnecessary cuts, GOP split

The 2009 Idaho Legislature has finally concluded after 117 days and a cost of more than $3.5 million to taxpayers. After the second-longest session in Idaho Legislative history, many of us are asking “What do Idahoans have to show for it?”

While transportation funding was the Legislature's main hurdle, the economy was the real story of the session. Over the past year, Idaho has gone from leading the nation in job creation to leading in unemployment growth. Combined with stagnant housing and financial markets, high unemployment means that state tax revenues are down significantly. Just as Idaho families and businesses have had to cut back, so has Idaho government, but Democrats fought hard to protect necessary services like police and public education.

Republicans had a different view. Throughout much of this session, they seemed determined to use our real but temporary economic downturn to make permanent and detrimental changes to Idaho’s public schools, colleges and universities and to negatively impact Idaho’s ability to deliver services to its citizens. The 2009 Legislature will forever be remembered as the one that made the first-ever cuts to public schools – cuts that many of us felt were completely unnecessary, given the availability of federal recovery money and Idaho taxpayers’ own rainy-day funds. Like most Idahoans, Democrats realize that strong schools and a robust job market are keys to our state’s future prosperity, so we worked to lessen attacks on our schools and economic development efforts and use a reasonable share of our available resources.

Other important issues remained virtually unaddressed during the long 2009 legislative session: health care, clean energy, rural broadband, telecommunications and economic development. While we saw the Legislature push a toothless measure to declare our state sovereignty, once again any meaningful ethics legislation died in the legislative process. While we saw the Legislature protect Idaho’s waters from zebra mussels, the majority party rejected protection of those same waters from inadequate septic systems and toxic chemicals. And while we debated transportation for months, Republicans cynically prevented any serious consideration of authority to trust local communities to address their own transportation and infrastructure needs.

Democrats are proud to report some solid successes. We led the campaign to strengthen Idaho’s child-care laws, and after five years, we succeeded. We pushed legislation to make schools more energy efficient and a successful measure to recognize that working Idaho women deserve equal pay. Democrats also worked to maintain life-saving health care for adults living with cystic fibrosis and forced reversal of the ill-timed layoffs of state auditors who were chasing tax cheats. But we did not drive the Legislature’s agenda, and like most Idahoans, we believe it went on far too long, with far too little accomplished for Idaho.

It became clear during this marathon session that Idaho’s Republicans lack a coherent vision for Idaho's future and are ill-equipped to handle the demands of our global economy and our changing population. Despite holding most of the legislative seats and the Governor’s office, Republicans appeared to spend much of the 2009 session locked in power struggles, unable to govern effectively and meet Idaho’s citizens’ most basic needs.

Idahoans deserve better. Democrats are unified behind a vision of a robust economy, pristine resources that value our farming and ranching traditions, excellent schools, efficient state services and a fair deal for all of our citizens. Democrats will continue to work for Idaho’s future, putting the public good first as we were elected to do.

John Rusche of Lewiston and Kate Kelly of Boise serve as minority leaders in the Idaho House and Senate, respectively.

The real story on the GOP standoff

Senator Elliot Werk (District 17) sent this message in his newsletter to constituents last weekend. The House did return today, and the Legislature is now on Day 113.

The Idaho legislative session is now in its 111th day – the 2nd longest session in history. The conservative Republican Governor is locked in a battle to raise the gas tax in the deepest recession in a generation with House Republican leadership who refuse to bring another gas tax increase to the House (the House has already voted down four gas tax increase proposals). The Governor is backed by Senate Republican leadership.

Senate Democrats have refused to support a gas tax increase on struggling Idaho families. House Democrats have very effectively and strategically leveraged votes in their caucus to reduce cuts to education budgets.

(Wednesday) night the House “finished their business,” adjourned Sine Die (meaning without a date), and left town saying that they will not consider another gas tax increase. Meanwhile the Senate continues in session with Senate Republican leadership looking to back the governor.

According to the Idaho constitution one legislative body cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other. So the House will be forced to return this coming Monday when the Senate does not accept their adjournment. What will happen when the House returns on Monday is anyone’s guess.

This is what we call a stalemate – the players are locked into their positions!

But the important question is why. What could be so difficult about the passage of a small gas tax increase? After all the Republican Party controls almost 80% of the seats in the legislature along with the governor’s office.

The answer isn’t in the issue; the answer is in the politics.

The Republican Party in Idaho is currently experiencing a civil (or perhaps not-so-civil) war. The Republican Party is very conservative. However, there is a wing of the party that is extremely conservative and they are seeking to take control of the party from the current conservative leadership.

This battle has been raging for years but really began to pick up steam when Bill Sali was elected to Congress in 2006. Sali won a primary packed with five far right conservatives and one “moderate” (I place this in quotes because there are really almost no true moderates in the Republican power structure). Sali’s supporters then began to try and systematically eliminate all typical conservative and “moderate” vestiges from the Republican Party leadership.

At the 2008 Republican Party state convention the far right conservative’s ousted long time party head Kirk Sullivan and installed far right stalwart Norm Semanko (one of the losers in the 2006 Congressional primary). This change occurred over the objections of Governor Otter and other long-time party brass.

Then the far right conservatives at the convention voted to close the Republican primary election in the hopes of purging any remaining “moderates” by ensuring party purity during primary elections. The closed primary election would ensure that only the most conservative candidates won election. This set the stage for the current fight.

So, this fight isn’t really over the gas tax, it is a fight about the future of the Republican Party in Idaho.
Will the far right conservatives fully subsume the Republican Party? Will they eventually oust Butch Otter as being too “moderate”? Will they impose some far right litmus test for belonging to the Republican Party (labeling everyone else RINO’s – Republican In Name Only)? Will they close their primary elections forcing people to register for their party to vote in their primary – all at public expense? FYI - a decision on a lawsuit - brought by the far right - to force the closing their party primary election is currently pending in front of Judge Winmill.

All of these pressures are forcing Republican legislators to move inexorably further to the right. You see with the closed primary the candidate with the furthest right positions is most likely to win (since the far right party purists dominate the primary election turnout). Hence this session alone we get seven NRA-sponsored gun bills and a memorial to Congress asserting our sovereignty (just as we were accepting about $1 billion in federal stimulus money!) and seeking elimination of the Federal Reserve bank.

Meanwhile the Republican Party has lost the ability to effectively govern. It is no longer about what might be best for the state of Idaho. They are so consumed with their party war that the people of the state of Idaho are being left out in the cold.

As the Republicans move further to the far right, the ability to craft consensus legislation that serves the people is lost. Instead we get a litany of legislative initiatives that have unintended consequences, cater to the most conservative element of their party, are either unenforceable or represent empty messages instead of good public policy, or provide special interests with benefits at the expense of the people..

And, of course, we get stalemate in the statehouse (or Dysfunction Junction as we Democrats are now calling it). At a cost of roughly $30,000/day this legislative session has already cost the people of this state $3,330,000. And with the House on a four day break until the Senate calls them back, the taxpayers are still paying for all of the per diem for the absent House members ($49/day for locals and $122/day for the out-of-towners).

If all this weren’t so sad and frustrating it would actually be funny. A party civil war that threatens the authority of their own sitting Governor and seeks to move a very conservative party further to the right while wasting taxpayer funds and resulting in the second longest legislative session in history (with every possibility of making it to number one in just a week). You could write a book about this stuff.

Unfortunately the people of this great state need to sit through the melodrama and wait for their fate (and the fate of their children) to be written in the backrooms. Welcome to Idaho!

House Democrats oppose adjournment stunt

The Idaho House adjourned "Sine Die" (without a planned date to meet again) shortly before 9 p.m. on April 29, over the objections of House Democrats, the Senate and Governor Butch Otter.

House Minority Leader John Rusche said "I don't believe it's constitutional," and reminded his colleagues that when the Senate attempted to adjourn without concurrence of the House in 1980, they were not permitted to do so. "The legislature is a team, Senate and House yoked together to do their work and move the state forward," Rusche said. "The legislature is constructed to have a balance of power between the houses and both 'balance' and 'power' are important parts of the phrase."

"We all feel an intense desire to serve the needs of our districts," Rusche added. "One of those needs is to have a government that works. I don't see how this motion promotes that value. Working government requires personal interaction and compromise. I don't see that the unilateral action this motion puts into place serves the value of good, working government."

Democrats held a news conference the following morning to further explain why we believe it's Republican power struggles - even more than the impasse over transportation funding - that have prolonged the legislative session, now the second-longest in state history. See video highlights of it here.

The House will have to be back at work Monday, May 4, because the Senate did not concur with its adjournment. Since Republicans hold 76 percent of the seats in the legislature and the governor's chair, it is primarily up to them to resolve their differences and bring this session to a close.

It's Equal Pay Day in Idaho

April 28 marks Equal Pay Day in Idaho, the result of a resolution passed by the Idaho Legislature earlier this month. It recognizes the fact that on average, Idaho women must work 16 months to collect the annual wages earned by the typical Idaho man.

Writing in the Idaho Statesman, Democratic lawmakers Anne Pasley-Stuart and Les Bock tell why they introduced the measure:

Pay for women in Idaho has only improved 5 percent since 1992, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Vital Statistics. In only three other states do women face a greater pay gap than they do in Idaho.

The wage gap becomes particularly insidious as women age. Women are far more likely to enter retirement in poverty than men, because women have insufficient incomes to save for retirement, maximize pension and Social Security benefits, and provide for their longer life spans. For retired women, the median income is $15,615, about half that of their male counterparts.

... HCR 23 assures women and men that they have not only an equal playing field, but an equal paying field. It is especially good that we've taken action in the wake of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that American workers are treated fairly under the law by correcting wage disparities.

Read more of their op-ed here, and read an article about the measure here.

Dem lawmakers respond to vetoes

The Idaho Democratic Legislative Caucus sent this statement in response to Gov. Butch Otter's veto of two bills today:

"As elected officials, we are tasked with solving a broad range of problems on behalf of Idaho's citizens. Yet the Governor and other Republican leaders are more interested in power plays than solving problems," Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly said today, after Gov. Butch Otter vetoed two bills. "In this critical time Idaho needs leaders and statesmen in charge."

"We are living in a time when Idaho's challenges are becoming more serious and more complex. As legislators, we are tasked with handling many issues at once," added House Minority Leader John Rusche. "More than 51,000 Idahoans wake up every day without a job. Our public schools are facing unprecedented cuts, and homebound seniors are losing needed services and medicine."

"Yet today, the governor vetoed two bills that had broad bipartisan support: one that recognizes the importance of parents as teachers and another that protects Idahoans against identity theft," Rusche said. "We question whether killing important bills is the best way to achieve the cooperation and collaboration that Idahoans deserve from their elected officials."

"We need leaders who are willing to work openly and responsibly to solve the problems facing Idaho and achieve our goals, not players who are more interested in scoring points for themselves than doing their best for the Idahoans they were sent to Boise to represent," Kelly added.

Week 13: legislators' reports

Here are excerpts from some of the e-mail newsletters that Idaho Democratic lawmakers sent home to their constituents about Week 13 of the 2009 Idaho Legislature. If you would like to receive regular updates from your legislators - Democrat or Republican - be sure to let them know.

Rep. Liz Chavez (District 7) - ... Last week there was a glimmer of hope that the slashing of 5 percent across the board in all agencies was going to be reduced to 3 percent, not my first choice but better than the number we were originally given. We will have to see if the Governor and Senate and House leadership can work together to forge a budget to meet our state's needs without further damage to the various department's ability to function.

I know that some, or many of you, read the article suggesting that my seatmate in the House of Representatives and I are casting irresponsible votes regarding raising the fuel tax to help fix and maintain our bridges and roads. I wouldn't presume to answer for the other good representative, however I would submit this opinion for your consideration. We can't make bridges or roads out of children, teachers, principals, aides, bus drivers, maintenance personnel, or parents but I believe that they are as much the infrastructure of our state and our future as those roads and bridges. I would hope that our Governor would be not only the "Transportation Governor", but the "Education Governor" as well.

Rep. Branden Durst (District 18) - Reacting to Gov. Otter's statement on the April 9 failure of a fuel tax increase, Rep. Durst wrote: With all due respect, Mr. Governor, your statement is irresponsible. You state, "For months now we have made every compromise, addressed every legitimate concern and provided every alternative that opponents wanted." With all due respect, Mr. Governor, but that is categorically false. As my debate against HB135 indicated you haven't even attempted to address every legitimate concern. You also haven't provided every alternative that opponents wanted. Are you saying that concerns about improving access and funding to alternative modes of transportation aren't legitimate? At what point did you invite members of the House Democratic Caucus from the Treasure Valley (who nearly all voted against your plans) to the table? At what did you ask us, "What do you need to get on board?"

To my knowledge the answer is obviously never. Even last week during the amending order, we tried as hard as we could to amend the bill so that it would address our concerns. You offered no leadership in supporting those issues that the people of my district care about. With all due respect, Mr. Governor, please don't suggest that you tried to meet us half way and certainly don't suggest that I am being irresponsible. I understand the problem, but will not be bullied or shamed into do something that I know is not in the strategic long term interests of the state of Idaho.

Rep. Phylis King (District 18) - Fish and Game has done a fantastic job of running their agency in the past few years, and they asked for a fee increase that averaged about 15 percent. Many sportsmen and sportsman groups supported this bill, saying hunting and fishing in Idaho is a bargain. 80 percent of Idahoans surveyed agreed it was a good thing to do. But the Senators on the other side of the Annex mucked up the bill and only increased out-of-state hunters and fishermen fees. I disagreed with the amendments, but as many on the committee said, half a loaf is better than none at all. So I voted for it. I’m sure they will be back in a year to ask for the other half of their request or else cut programs. By the way, non-game animals are protected by the Fish and Game and it is paid for by 99 percent federal funds. Thank God for the Feds who understand whole ecosystems.

Sen. Nicole LeFavour (District 19) - Writing today at her blog, Notes from the Floor:

For me home is within walking distance of the Capitol. For my colleagues it is generally not. Right now some are trying to extend leases, moving into hotels or contemplating sharing digs for what is a few days but could become a few weeks when you count the personalities involved in Idaho lawmaking.

For now the Senate's Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee members have stuck together on more mild cuts to state employee pay. Not a wholly moderate body, there seems to be a frustration on the Senate's part with House leadership for forcing votes from Republican members. The House has buckled down in its Republican caucus to make larger cuts state employee pay and to make the deepest possible cuts to Education.

... it is yet to be seen how the Senate will vote on tax increases for roads. Our Senate Caucus is unified even more than the House's Democratic caucus on this issue. If the vote is going to be close here as well I'm a bit surprised the Governor hasn't been chatting with us much about what he wants out of this session. There are a few things he wants, like lesser cuts to state employee pay which we might agree on. In years past he has been open to local option authority and I'd hope he might consider that and public transportation in particular as a worthy piece of any state wide transportation plan.

But he hasn't really called. So we'll keep at this staring at a board full of appropriations bills someone is worried about sending him. Until things start moving no one is going to budge. Until the first bill is vetoed we won't know how willing anyone is to take the heat of making this session go longer. Every day is probably one state employees' pay, one lay-off you might say.

We won't win a waiting game, only maybe a game of public chicken.

Rep. Wendy Jaquet (District 25) - I thought I would bring you up to date on last week's JFAC actions. On Wednesday, we voted to rescind the 3 percent across-the-board payroll cut to all state employees. At the Governor's request we voted to allow agency heads to allocate the personnel cost reductions at their discretion. Shirley Ringo (D-Moscow) and I, the two House democrats, voted with the 10 Senate members of JFAC tipping the vote. House Republicans met later that day and authorized their leadership to oppose this vote. They want a "trigger" to make the 2 percent reduction depending on revenue collections in the first and second quarters of this next fiscal year starting in July. The Governor's request was in writing, an email to all legislators, the previous week. Now I have seen a memo that says the Governor wants to change his mind and go along with the "trigger." The personnel cost reduction of 5 percent remains in the baseregardless. ...

... Because the Governor wants to put the stimulus monies to work as soon as possible, he and his executive advisory committee chose to recommend that the monies go to programs/agencies that are already in place such as the Department of Environmental Quality for water and sewer projects and to the Idaho Department of Transportation for road projects. JFAC chose to fund the water and sewer proposal as well as the Idaho Education Network for $3 million dollars - this will bring high speed connectivity to our rural areas and be matched by federal E-rate funds and grants; we proposed to fund $2 million toward the CAMP process, the aquifer management plan; and we appropriated $17 million dollars in transportation funds to the local highway districts. As of this writing we are hearing that the Governor is not happy with these decisions and we may be revisiting them in the future (which is why we may not be going home this week). Senator LeFavour (D-Boise) attempted a motion in JFAC to redirect the above funding to education operations which failed on a party line vote.

Rep. James Ruchti (District 29) - ... Increasing revenues through registration fees and the gas tax have been the central pieces of the Governor's agenda for the last two years, yet still he appears to be unsuccessful; at least so far. Originally the Governor proposed both a ten-cent fuel tax increase phased in over a five year period. He also proposed an increase in registration fees which amounted to nearly tripling the current registration fees for private drivers. Neither of these had much support in the Legislature.

Last week, the House debated HB135, a second piece of legislation to increase the gas tax by two-cents for the Fiscal Year 2010 only. This proposal failed on a vote of 37 against - 32 in-favor. I voted against the gas tax. If we had been able to make some headway that would mitigate cuts to education and other State services, I may not have felt the same about making a modest tax increase to support our State's transportation infrastructure. In the current situation, however, raising taxes for transportation doesn't make sense at the same time Idaho is cutting state workers' pay and making historic cuts to public education. I am sure we will be revisiting this issue.

On Friday we voted on the GARVEE project bill. This borrows against future federal highway money. While it is not all that good to borrow, it does make financial sense when the cost of construction now is less than in the future. The recession has dropped the costs of construction so current money buys even more. It also allows us to create and retain some construction jobs now when we really need them. In addition, Highway 30 between McCammon and Lava Hot Springs was the beneficiary of Garvee funding in the recent past. Our community has directly benefit from the Garvee program. I voted "yes" on Garvee. ...