Three Choices for the Legislature

The State of Idaho is facing a $400 million budget shortfall. This could mean a further reduction in k-12 funding of up to $200 million and $175 million reduction in the Department of Health and Welfare (DHW). Why are tax revenues down? What can be done?

Tax revenues are down because the private sector of the economy has contracted. Idaho once had a $54 billion economy that generated $3 billion in tax revenues at a 5.5 percent average tax rate. A $45 billion state economy at the same 5.5 percent generates only $2.4 billion in taxes.

It is obviously better to have a bigger economy than a smaller economy. A $60 billion economy would generate more taxes for public education, roads, and social programs than a $40 billion economy.

Fact: higher taxes and more regulations act like a brake and slow the economy while lower taxes and fewer regulations stimulate the economy.

We have one of three choices:
1. Do nothing to reduce taxes and regulations and hope the economy improves by itself. This is called the Titanic Approach; hang on long enough and it will come back up.
2. Raise taxes to protect the state budgets like education and DHW and run the risk of slowing the economy even more. A smaller economy at a higher tax rate will result in less tax revenue than a larger economy at a lower tax rate. ($40 billion x .06% = $2.4 billion: $60 billion x .05% = $3 billion)
3. Reduce taxes and regulations to stimulate the economy.

Which is the wisest policy to adopt?

The Titanic Approach is a passive approach. It is doomed for two important reasons. First, according to Americans for Tax Reform, the cost of government is 48 percent of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) plus another 15 percent of the GDP to pay the cost of regulations. The cost of taxation and regulations is too high in order for the economy to significantly improve. Second, environment regulations are killing natural resources and manufacturing jobs which form the foundation of any strong, stable economy. The strategy of doing nothing runs the real risk of condemning the average Idahoan to a steadily declining standard of living for years to come.

Raising taxes will guarantee a smaller economy and a prolonged recession. Who would make this choice?

The last choice, our only real choice, is to reduce taxes and/or the cost of regulations to allow the private sector of the economy to expand and regain its strength. I see a real opportunity for the State Legislature to reduce the cost of regulation which has the same effect as a tax cut and getting more money into the private sector without reducing tax rates. While it will not be easy to reduce spending and still maintain services, for far too long the legislature has taken the easy approach of raising taxes when the going got tough. What will happen this year? What will the legislature do? What do the citizens of Idaho support?

Cut Spending or Raise Taxes?

The Prime Issue of the 2011 Legislative session is what to do about a shortfall of $400 million in the general fund. The legislature has two basic choices:
1. Raise taxes rates
2. Cut spending

I would like to explain why I cannot support a sales, corporate or individual tax increase. I fear that too much time will be spent debating if we should raise taxes or not. The answer is unequivocal: no tax increases. The sooner the legislature comes to this conclusion, the sooner real solutions can be found. Here are a few reasons not to raise taxes.

First: current tax rates are too high and should be cut by 30 percent. According to the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, 63 percent of all wealth created each year in the United States goes to federal, state, local taxes and/or pay for the cost of regulation. The cost of taxation and regulation should never exceed 40 percent of the GDP. In 1900, the percent of the GDP that was needed to fund all levels of government was only 8 percent! Government is getting plenty of money. Government does not need any more taxes. Government needs to use its current funds more efficiently.

Second: The private sector is struggling. Taxes come from private sector economic activity. State tax revenues have fallen from $3 billion two years ago to $2.3 billion this year. An increase in taxes would further reduce private sector activity and stifle the economy.

Third: Unemployment is up because there is not enough work or wealth in the private sector. If the legislature raises tax rates on the private sector, there will be less money left for businesses to hire workers and tax collections will drop even further.

Fourth: The legislature needs to fund public education. Public education cannot be funded with a shrinking private sector which is the source of public school funding. In order to fund public schools, the health of the private sector must be the 2011 legislature’s main focus. A $56 billion Idaho economy will raise $3 billion while a $45 billion economy will raise closer to $2 billion.

Fifth: The economy is stimulated by private sector production; not by government sector spending. The private sector produces wealth. The private sector is a perpetual wealth producing machine. It does not need government to continue producing wealth.

The government, on the other hand, does not produce wealth. It consumes wealth and gets in the way of the privates sector’s efforts to produce wealth by creating regulations. Regulations and taxes are a burden on the private sector. Proof that the government consumes wealth is to answer this simple question. How long would any government worker receive a paycheck if all taxes were suspended for one year? Government cannot survive without taxes paid by the private sector. (Inflation and printing money is a type of taxation.)

If raising taxes is not an option, then how will the legislature fund public schools and still provide essential government services? Two budgets (Education and Health and Welfare) must be the focus of the legislature’s deliberations because these two budgets consume 85 percent of state general funds. Two separate efforts need to proceed simultaneously. First reduce the cost of government. The second is to reduce the cost of regulations. I would offer several suggestions in the next post.

EPA's Proposed $1.3 billion plan for Silver Valley in Idaho

EPA Coeur d’Alene Basin Team
1200 6th Avenue
Suite 900
ECL-113
Seattle, WA 98101

RE: Proposed Record of Decision Amendment – Upper Coeur d’Alene River Basin

To Whom It May Concern:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the EPA’s proposed Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Upper Coeur d’Alene River Basin.
I have several concerns about the proposed ROD.

1. Past cleanup efforts have significantly reduced the threat to human health. The current plan does little to improve human health while expending financial resources in consumptive activities that will not improve human standard of living.

2. The federal government is experiencing huge budget deficits which threaten the nation’s monetary system unless they are brought under control. The plan being proposed with a price tag of $1.3 billion is not prudent because of its price tag.

3. Opportunity costs. The $1.3 billion proposed budget for this project could be used in other, more effective ways. For example, there are 2,080 students in Shoshone County Idaho schools. If $7,000 were spent per child, the $1.3 billion could fund public schools in Shoshone County for 89 years. I see this as a clear example of growing a bureaucracy without regard to the children and families of the Silver Valley.

4. The proposed plan does nothing to produce wealth or stabilize the tax base. Taxes are paid by those that produce wealth. Current declines in the state of Idaho and national tax revenues are caused by a contraction in the private sector of the economy. The private sector of the economy cannot grow without access to natural resources and capital. To simulate the economy, we need to focus on five industries: mining, logging, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture. Current environmental regulations and, specifically, this proposed plan will hamper access to natural resources, drive up costs to businesses, and reduce the standard of living in the Silver Valley and the whole nation.

5. Finally, the proposed plan severely restricts private property rights. As private property rights are restricted, the control by government over its citizens increases. The proposed plan runs the risk of undermining the very principles upon which limited government is based.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this very important matter.
Sincerely,

Steven Thayn
State Representative
District 11

How to Stimulate the Economy and Environmentalism

Tax revenues to the state government are down in Idaho. Leaving less money for schools and other social programs.

Who pays taxes anyway? People who work pay taxes. Specifically people who work in the private sector and produce things pay taxes. True, government workers pay taxes; but, they are paying taxes on money that was first collected from the private sector worker.

The way to get the economy going is to stimulate the private sector; especially, mining, logging, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production. All other private sector economic activity services these 5 industries. Limit these 5 industries and the economy cannot recover.

What is stopping these 5 industries from thriving and growing? Environmental regulations that keep them from using natural resources and high taxes. The way to stabilize the tax base is to reform environmental regulations. How? Next time, I'll give a few ideas.

Key to Economic Recovery

The economy is on everyone's mind. How do we get people back to work? There are two choices. First, have the government spend more money. Second, grow the private sector through tax reduction and government spending cuts. Which works?

Let's go back in time to 1847 when the Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley. They were experiencing a profound depression. The Salt Lake Valley was a desert; no homes, no businesses, and no farms. What did the Mormon pioneers do? Did they start printing money or start working?

The answer is obvious. They started working, building homes, planting gardens, cutting timber etc. Money would have served no purpose. There was nothing to buy. The solution to our current deep recession is the same. Start working. How? Read the next post.

The Fall Election Cycle

A common thread is developing in this year’s election cycle between the Republicans and the Democrats.
• The Republican position is the economy is struggling and government must live within its means without raising taxes just like everyone else is doing.
• The Democrat position is that more money needs to be taken from the private sector of the economy to protect government programs.

The Republican position appeals to those that pay taxes (farmers, workers, small businessman, manufacturers, loggers, miners, etc.) while the Democrat position appeals to those that live off of tax revenues (public employees, teachers, social workers, welfare recipients, etc.)

You need to ask yourself this question: “Will the economy and everyone’s standard of living improve if taxes go up and government grows or will the economy improve for everyone if taxes are reduced and government growth is reduced?” This question is the basic issue of the campaign. Let me give you a couple of facts to clarify the issue.
• Government now spends 48 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)). This means that government consumes 48 percent of all wealth in the United States.
• In 1900, local, state, and federal governments combined only consumed 8 percent of all wealth.

It is my position that high taxation is a form of slavery. Freedom is only possible when taxes are low and the laborer is able to keep the fruits of his labor. Redistribution of the wealth and high taxes favored by Democrats violates this basic principle of freedom and prosperity. For these reasons, I cannot vote for any Democrat.

The top of the Democrat ticket (Allred/Olsen/Minnick) has an almost identical view of government and taxes – taxes need to be increased to protect government programs. They are concerned about the health of government.

The top of the Republican ticket (Otter/Luna/ Labrador) also has a similar view – government must live within the tax revenues now being generated. Government must learn to do more with less. They are concerned about the wellbeing of the taxpayer.

The choice is clear. Will you vote to protect the private sector and vote Republican or will you vote to protect the government and vote Democrat?

The Governor Race in Idaho

The Problem with Spending More Money on Education:
The failure of the “Allred Reasoning”


During the last four years under Governor Otter, Superintendent Tom Luna, and the Republican legislature student achievement has improved, test scores are on the rise, and the number of schools reaching AYP have more than doubled. Getting better results with less money

Gubernatorial candidate Keith Allred wants more funding for education without identifying any specific area where the money should go; neither has Allred identified any specific problem that needs to be addressed. Judging by Allred’s statements, the real problem is the budget was reduced. How can an efficient, low cost education system be a problem?

Allred’s vagueness on funding sources is even more troubling. He claims that cuts to education were not necessary; yet, he gives only one indication where the money will come from – the repeal of sales tax exemptions that could raise an additional $1.7 billion or a 73 percent increase in state taxes. How can Allred say this is not an increase in taxes?

If Allred has a solution that will increase funding to education without raising taxes, I want to hear what it is and so would every other Idahoan. I hope he is right. I would love to be wrong. If, however, Allred can’t explain his plan to restore education funding without raising taxes, he should be viewed as a political pretender instead of the smartest man in Idaho.

We have a right to know a few details of his plan. As voters, we have the right to judge his plan before he gets elected. Personally, I don’t want to take on faith the details of a nonexistent plan.

I have done the math. I don’t believe a short term solution to restore funding exists without raising taxes. Long term education funding can be increased without raising taxes by increasing the size of the private sector of the economy. This is exactly what Governor Otter is trying to do.

How will Idaho Fund Public Education?

I have been very concerned about declining tax revenues in Idaho. They have fallen from near $3 billion to $2.3 billion in two short years with the potential of another $200 million shortfall next year. How will the legislature be able to fund public education and the Department of Health and Welfare at current levels?

Some have suggested raising taxes. However, most taxes come from the private sector of the economy which is already struggling. Raising taxes on a sick host may further weaken the economy and even produce less tax revenue not more. It would be similar to taking a pint of blood from a patient that has already lost 2 pints of blood.

Another solution is to increase the size of the private sector of the economy. A $60 billion Idaho economy could raise $2.5 billion with only a 4.1 percent tax rate while a $35 billion economy would require a 7.14 percent tax rate to raise the same $2.5 billion.

The burning question on everyone’s mind is - How does one jump start the economy? I don’t think this question has been answered because the experts have been focusing on consumer spending. Stimulus packages and deficit spending are based upon Keynesian economics theory that says increased government spending will stimulate the economy. I think this a flawed approach and will no longer work. The focus needs to be on basic production rather than consumer spending.

Basic production is the real key to any economy. Basic production creates wealth, jobs, and raises the standard of living. Basic production produces tax revenue while government spending does not create wealth; it consumes wealth and produces little tax revenue.

Think about the Mormon pioneers. When they moved into the Salt Lake Valley, they were experiencing a profound depression. What did they do? Did they spend more money? No. They started working – planting gardens, crops, building houses, etc. No amount of money will stimulate the economy if there is no basic production taking place.

Basic production is mining, logging, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production. The policy of the United States federal government through high taxes and extreme environmental policies has caused jobs to go oversees and restricted development on public lands. If my theory on the importance of basic production is correct, our current economic downturn will not change until we decrease the tax load on private businesses and reform our environmental laws. The key to public school funding and the funding of social programs depends upon a paradigm shift away from Keynesian economics to basic production.

When the tax base is increased through increasing the size of the private sector of the economy, then and only then, will tax revenues stabilize.

How Our Current System of Entitlements Harm the Economy

Yesterday, I called for a reform of the American system of entitlements. Today, I want to explain a few reasons how entitlements harm the economy.

The purpose of a stable economy is to provide material goods and services to the individuals within a nation. I assume that wealth is consumed every year (food, fuel) or over multiple years (cars, housing) and must be continually replaced by productive work. A stable economy capable of providing a high standard of living requires several components:

1. Incentives for individuals to work and produce. This means that an individual needs to expect to keep the fruits of his labors. High taxes and lack of private property protection are negative incentives. Thus, taxes must be kept low and private property respected.
2. Producers need a stable money supply in order to make long-term investments in time and effort.
3. A large percent of the population must be engaged in productive work.

The current entitlement system is decreasing our standard of living in two ways:

First: it pays able bodied individuals capable of productive work to not work thus entitlements decreases the number of individuals working. As the number of individuals paid not to work increases, the burden on the few remaining productive workers increases adding stress and reducing profits until profits disappear and production stops. If the number of individuals receiving government handouts continues to increases, America will reach a point where the economy will stall and shrink requiring a reduction in everyone’s standard of living.

Second: increasing the size of entitlement budgets takes resources away from the productive workers in society called capital. Capital is needed to buy equipment such as tractors needed for farming or heavy machinery needed in a factory. Instead of buying a piece of equipment that would produce lumber or computers, government takes this money and buys someone food. Thus, capital is taken away from production and invested poorly in consumption. Entitlements decrease the ability of industry to invest in production which, by itself, reduces everyone’s standard of living over time.

The question is not if people should be helped or taken care of. The question is if the needy should be encouraged or even required to shoulder some of the burden of providing for their own needs. To me it is simple, we reform the entitlement system and encourage more production which will lead to an increase in everyone’s standard of living or continue the present system which will result in an increase in poverty and suffering.

A Call to Reform the Entitlement System

I believe that America’s economic, social and political problems cannot be solved until after we address and reform our dysfunctional entitlement system (food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc.).

The current system causes more harm than good. It burdens our economy with high taxes by paying individuals not to work. It is changing our system of limited government into a centralized bureaucratic state. And, it is destroying the traditional two-parent family.

The federal government was never meant to take care of individuals within the individual states. This is a state responsibility. The way to reform entitlements requires a two pronged attack.
1. Transfer responsibility for these programs back to the states without federal regulations. This simple act would reduce overhead costs by 30 percent and go a long way to reducing our federal deficit. (63 percent of the federal budget is consumed by entitlements)
2. Change the nature of most entitlement programs from a dependency, handout system to a system that gives people skills and opportunities to take care of themselves.

To begin this process, I am going to suggest Idaho create a pilot program that uses correct principles of charity with the end in sight of reforming all social programs over the next 10 years. A pilot program is needed to compare and contrast the two approaches to helping the needy. Once the Idaho program is implemented and functioning, it will be easy to compare and contrast the two approaches demonstrating the need to phase out our current dysfunctional system of entitlements.

I am interested in what you think. Is it time to reform entitlements?

Food Stamp Asset Test

I would like to share with you an email I received from a Dept. of Health and Welfare worker. The worker is commenting on my comments on a story about Food Stamps. The DHW recently removed the asset levels from Food Stamp eligibility. Now, a person can qualify for Food Stamps, no matter how much property they own, simply through income levels.
*****************************************************************************

Mr Thayn,
I am writing to express some concern about a comment I read that supposedly was said by you regarding the Asset Test at DHW. Reporter Dustin Hurst quoted you as saying the following

”The reason I believe DHW employees don’t want to deal with the asset test because it means they would have
to work,” said Thayn. ”The whole philosophy behind federal food aid is wrong because we are missing a good opportunity to teach people how to stretch their food dollars are instead teaching people to become reliant on the government for sustenance.” Thayn

Mr Thayne; I sincerely hope you were misquoted. As a "Self Reliance Specialist" I can assure you that I nor any of my fellow eligiblity workers here in the Twin Falls office of the DHW are "afraid to work", in fact I have done 9 interviews today myself and many of my co-workers have done just as many or more. Most days there is literally a line out the door in our office, which consists, I believe of a large percent of people who don't want to be here. Whether or not we have to verify resources for our clients makes no difference to me; what does however is the perception of the work we at DHW are doing. We may sit at a desk all day, but I can assure you that listening to people in crisis day in and day out and trying to give them just a little bit of help is very hard work. If you doubt it, you should try it some time!

Thank you for your time;
Name withheld

*********************************************************************
Dear Name withheld:
Thank you for your communication.

I believe that going out and determining the assets a person has would require more work. Determining income alone is much easier. Am I wrong on this? Second, giving food stamps to people only helps them in the short-term. It does not help them in the long-term. We simply cannot afford to get more and more people dependent upon government programs by paying them not to work.

The wealth of a nation is determined by the productive capacity of the people. As much as your work is supposed to help people, if you look over the last 45 years, the programs of the Great Society have done just the opposite. Until we come to this recognition and reform the system, our nation will continue to decline and experience poverty. If you would like to help me reform the system and modify it to help people become productive and independent, I would like your help.

Rep. Thayn

The Republican Party State Convention: The Good News and the Bad

I fear the conservatives are committing two major mistakes. First, they are impatient and want to move too quickly which will scare the voters. Second, they have little strategy to implement their policies. They have confused principle adoption with policy formation.

For example, the Convention voted to repeal the income tax; yet, had no suggestions on how to reduce spending to make these tax cuts possible. Tax cuts cannot come without spending cuts; yet, no resolution was introduced indicating where spending reductions could or should take place.

With a significant Republican/Conservative shift likely to occur in November, the lack of well thought out Conservative policy initiatives will negate this opportunity. Conservatives have no plan; just principles. The Conservatives in the Republican Party need to formulate policy initiatives to deal with social programs in Health and Welfare that require 20 percent of the State budget and education that requires another 65 percent of the State budget. Until I hear these two issues being addressed, I don’t see any real changes taking place in Idaho or at the federal level.

Every Student Could Graduate with an Associate Degree from H.S.

Yesterday, I started crunching some numbers to see what a student in the 6th grade had to do in order to graduate from high school with two years of college. The strategy used below is based upon taking all 72 semesters worth of classes required by the public school system for grades 6-12, a 7 period day, and taking two classes every summer from IDLA. It does not include challenging classes that is allowed under Idaho law.

Vallivue school district has a plan in place that allows a high school freshman to finish high school with an associate degree by taking concurrent enrollment classes. This program does not begin until the freshman year which means that by taking summer classes and/or challenging some classes a student could finish high school with an associate degree even sooner. Here is the class schedule.


Total classes needed 72
7th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 56 classes remaining
8th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 40 classes remaining

9th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 24 classes remaining
10th grade 14 during school year 2 summer 8 remaining
11th grade
12th grade

All classes taken during the junior and senior year could count toward an associate degree or a professional technical skill by using concurrent enrollment. Concurrent enrollment is a class that counts both for high school credit and college credit.

If you have any questions please email me at ssthayn@aol.com

Public Education and the Idaho Constitution

The Idaho State Constitution in Article IX section 1 states “…it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free, common schools.” What does “thorough” mean?

The teachers union (IEA) has equated “thorough” to mean adequately funded. The IEA would logically make this connection because of the relationship between funding and teacher salaries. However, the primary purpose of public education is to educate children; whereas, teacher pay is a secondary issue and important only in that it is a means to an end. The end is the education of children.

Section 1 also gives the reason for public schools: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people…” Schools were to be established to help the citizens become intelligent and educated and capable of self-government.

The Idaho Constitution gives few details concerning the nature of public education. It simply defines the prime purpose.

Public education has come to mean:
1. 180 days of attendance
2. 7 hour school day
3. 5 day school week
4. k-12 years of school
5. 44 - 48 credits hours of work in high school
6. 3 years of high school math
7. Students taught by a certified teacher
8. Public bussing
9. Sports activities
10. Music, band, drama, etc.
None of these above 10 items or educational traditions are listed in the Idaho State Constitution. They are all policies that we have adopted in the years since 1890. The State Constitution gives us a goal with no or little direction of how to accomplish the goal.

Is there an assessment to see if the goal of public education has been reached? When each student graduates from high school are they capable of self-government? What makes a citizen capable of self-government? Has this been defined? If not, why not? This is our Constitutional mandate for public education.

What does a person need in order to support a “republican form of government”? I ask this question for two reasons. The first is to clarify the purpose of public schools. It seems much of school funding discussions have focused on adult salaries. It’s time to shift our focus to student outcomes, and then make adjustment to take care of the needs of adults. Second, Idaho is experiencing serious budget shortfalls. If Idaho continues to experience budget shortfalls, Idaho taxpayers will not be able to afford all of the educational traditions that we have been able to fund in the past. A serious look at the core reason for education may clarify our thinking in deciding which programs are necessary and which are not.

The End of the Age of ‘NO’?

Current Republican and Democrat proposals and policies are not capable of solving the problems with the economy and growth of government. The predictable response of Democrats to every challenge is to raise taxes, spend more money, and increase the role of government. This approach is not solving our problems but it is ruining the economy. Massive federal deficits, heavy burden of taxation, rapid and out of control growth of entitlements, and growth in social programs which undermine the family are all the direct result of Democrat’s love affair with big government.

As bad as the Democrat approach is, the Republican plan may be even worse. What plan? They are the party of ‘no’. This is no longer acceptable. Americans demand real solutions to real problems. If more government and simply saying ‘no’ is not the answer, then what is?
I believe our problems are not being solved because problems have been misdiagnosed.

In the past, we have focused on consumption.
We need to focus on production.

In the past, we have focused on redistribution of the wealth.
We need to focus on redistributing the ability to work.

In the past, we have built government social programs.
We need to build the ability of the family to provide its own social services.

In the past, we have demonized and discouraged private sector usage of natural resources.
We need to recognize our economy and jobs are dependent upon a balanced and responsible use of natural resources.

In the past, we allowed the federal government to be responsible for social programs.
In the future, the state and the local communities and families need to be responsible for social programs.

In the past, we focused on monetary policy.
In the future, we need to focus on production policy.

In the past, government jobs and private sector jobs were of equal value.
In the future, private sector jobs need to be seen as production jobs while government jobs are seen as consumption jobs.

In the past, redistribution of the wealth was seen as a form of charity.
In the future, giving a person a skill and a job will be seen as a higher form of charity.

America can solve its problems if we correctly identify them. We need to focus on production, not consumption. Deficit spending, Keynesian economics, and funding government social programs are all examples of policies based upon consumption. Consider; social programming consumes 63 percent of the federal budget and 85 percent of the state budget. If we reduce costs in these areas, tax cuts will be easy. How can tax cuts come before spending reduction?

Many Republicans and Democrats share my concerned about the growth of federal deficits and increasing taxes. However, most citizens do not realize the cause of government growth. The federal government has grown in the 20th century almost exclusively in one area – entitlements. They now make up 63 percent of the federal budget -- up from 28 percent in 1965. (Entitlements are payments to people not to work. Can you imagine anything more detrimental to our standard of living and the mental health of a people?)

The solution, I suggest, is to transfer entitlement spending from the federal government back to the states where current services could be maintained at a 30 percent reduction in costs. The cost reduction is achievable because of the wasteful nature of federal programs. Then, as social programs are transferred, slowly over time, to the states, the states can move toward a mentor system of social programming that helps individuals become self-sufficient and productive. In this manner, social spending could be reduced as much as 50 to 75 percent within 10 years. The federal deficit completely eliminated, people put back to work, and America will once again become the financial giant it was meant to be.

Many school teachers and those involved in Health and Welfare programs have come to me, as a state legislator, and asked me to raise taxes. They assert that we cannot reduce spending to public schools or on social programs without harming services. I explain to them the following:

Tax revenues come mainly from private sector economy activity. The reason tax revenues are down is because private sector economic activity has been reduced. If we want to stabilize the tax base then we need to increase private sector economic activity in 5 main areas: mining, logging, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture. We cannot stimulate these five areas and put people back to work with our current system of environmental regulations. They need to be reformed to allow us to use our natural resources. If you want more money for schools and social programs; help me reform the environmental laws and regulations.

No one seems to know how to respond negatively against this common sense reasoning.
This short essay is a basic outline of the problems and plan of action that I believe America needs to pursue. We can begin in Idaho. If you agree with me, share it with your friends and neighbors. I am also very interested in your insights and wisdom. Together, we can change America back to a limited government, prosperous, charitable Republic. If you are interested in receiving updates on these efforts and specific, practical legislation that can be implemented in the next legislative session, please feel free to contact me at stvnthn4@aol.com.

New Sawmill in Emmett

I attended the opening and ribbon cutting of the first new sawmill opened in the last 15 years. Emerald Forest Products is owned by Dick Vinson, Dennis Drake, and the Pruyn family. It will provide 47 new jobs. The sawmill is located on the old Boise-Cascade sawmill site in Emmett.

Our standard of living and quality of life depend upon access to natural resources. That is where our wealth comes from. The saw mill cost $10 million to open. This is an investment of $212,000 per employee. Another 30 jobs will be created to support the mill in related industries. This mill and the jobs created add to our tax base and our overall standard of living.

By contrast, the Health and Welfare budget was $1.7 billion in Idaho last year. If that $1.7 billion had been used to invest in production facilities at the rate of $212,000 per employee, Idaho could have had 8,018 new jobs created to run the facilities plus another 5,100 support jobs. Imagine creating 13,000 new jobs. Instead, we are spending $1.7 billion and the money is simply gone. No new buildings, no new jobs, and no new businesses that pay taxes.

The lost economic opportunity is one of the problems with our current entitlement system. At the end of 10 years we could have 130,000 new jobs with the money now being spent on government social programs. Now, I understand that we can’t simply eliminate all social programs; but, we should be able to reduce the costs of the programs and free up capital for business expansion. A job is a higher form of charity than a government handout.

Can you balance the federal budget by stopping earmarks?

Vaughn Ward has indicated that he wants to balance the federal budget by stopping bailouts and earmarks. Will this balance the budget?

Bailouts: are a huge issue. We cannot continue to use bailouts to stimulate the economy for two reasons. First, it is debt which must be paid back. Second, much of the bailout money went to special interest groups including Fanny Mae. Very little of the stimulus money went to the private sector to create jobs.

However, we had massive deficits before the bailout era. So that leaves us with balancing the budget by stopping earmarks.

Earmarks: in 2009 there were 9287 total earmarks that cost $12.8 billion. If all earmarks were eliminated that would save us $12.8 billion. However, $12.8 billion is only .3 percent of the total budget. The deficit is $1.8 trillion. We need to find savings 140 times larger.

Conclusion: while stopping earmarks is wonderful and a good idea, by itself this strategy does absolutely nothing and only plays to the prejudices of the voters. Real solutions must also focus on social spending and military cuts. I hope someone running for national office will have the courage to say it.

America's Three Main Problems

Currently, America is experiencing several serious economic problems. Does this generation have the courage to make the hard decisions necessary? Rest assured, every problem has a solution, if we have the resolve to do what it takes. In this short article, I would like to list our three most serious political problems and offer possible solutions.

Our second President, John Adams stated: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

One measure of morality is the level of tax burden; the higher the tax burden; the lower the overall morality of the people. A low tax burden, on the other hand, indicates a high level of basic morality. Why is this? Thomas Jefferson said:

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

High taxation means that government is taking from the worker and giving to someone else who has not earned it. High taxation leads to redistribution of the wealth. Redistribution of the wealth leads to an oppressed working class and a dependent lower class that can only survive on the wealth of others. Worst of all, high taxation leads to the centralization of power from which no free society can survive.

American’s three Political Problems
1. The federal government has ventured into and controls almost all social spending.
2. Environmental regulations are keeping us from using our natural resources wisely.
3. The breakdown of the family unit.

Why these are Problems
Federal social spending
• Federal spending is out of control with 63 percent of the federal budget allocated for social spending,
• Social spending is the fastest growing portion of the federal budget
• High social spending creates a dependent class
• Social spending is the main cause of our budget deficits and threaten our monetary system
• High rates of social spending centralize power in Washington D.C.
• Social spending takes “from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” thus discouraging productive work

Environmental regulations
• A nation is wealthy because of its ability to produce
• Production takes place mainly in the big 5 industries – mining, logging, manufacturing, energy production, and agriculture
• Environmental regulations discourage and at times totally prohibit access to our nation’s natural resources
• Senseless environmental regulations increase unemployment, decrease our standard of living, and increase our budget deficits

Family breakdown
High taxes coupled with federal control of social programs cause the family unit to decline
The family is the most efficient social service delivery system ever known to man
Most childhood poverty is found in single parent homes
Most social problems are found in dysfunctional homes

Solutions
Federal spending: transfer social spending to the states. This simple act would reduce overall costs by $700 billion and reduce the federal deficit by 41 percent. How? Federal programs, by their very nature, are more expensive to run than state-run programs. Once federal programs are at the state level, they could be further modified to help people become independent rather than dependent and further reduce costs.

Environmental regulations: move to a more balanced system that protects the environment while still allowing for natural resource usage. The pendulum has swung too far towards environmental protection. It is time to rethink and reform the environmental rules and laws. States should begin to sue the federal government and environmental groups for violating the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Our general welfare is being impacted.

Family Breakdown: reduction of taxes, reform of social service programs, and acknowledgement by national and community leaders of the value of two-parent homes will allow the family to naturally heal itself with no grandiose government programs. Ill conceived government programs have been the problem.

Conclusion
It seems that we have a choice. We can continue the current course and watch the federal government self-destruct or decentralize power, reject redistribution of the wealth as impractical and immoral, and acknowledge the family as a more important tool in solving social problems than federal social programs.

HOW? We need to focus less on the office of president and focus more on Congress and State Legislatures. Do these politicians support and what is their plan to…
• Transfer social programs from the federal to the states?
• Give more control to the states to determine environmental policies?
• Strengthen the family unit?

If you agree with Rep. Steven Thayn’s views on these issues and would like to have more information or copies of this article, please contact him at 208 365-8656 or check out his blog at steven-thayn.blogspot.com or website at thayn4idaho.com

Time for Political Courage: The Untold MAPP Story

Prior to the 2009 legislative session, I brought a resolution to the State Republican Central Committee to support the concept of early graduation that was later incorporated in the MAPP bill. This resolution was defeated! Why? Some of the old guard Republican leaders thought it was too controversial.

So, I worked, without the help of the Republican Party leaders, to develop and get a resolution passed through the legislature that had all of the major points of the later MAPP bill. This resolution passed the House and got a hearing in the Senate.

After the legislative session, Rep. Branden Durst a Democrat from Boise who liked my resolution approached me to suggest that we create a pilot program. I thought this was a great idea and MAPP was born. I partnered with Rep. Durst because no Republican offered to help me.

Now fast forward to the 2010 legislative session, MAPP passed the House 61 to 7 and the Senate 27 to 7 with no organized opposition. The IEA did not oppose it. Superintendent Tom Luna supported it. Almost every major newspaper in the state supported it. There was no controversy.

Why did the old guard Republican leadership not see the potential in MAPP? Why did they see pitfalls that did not exist?

I believe they focus too much attention on the media. They tend to cater to the media rather than focus on problem solving. I think it is time to change our focus. We need kind, thoughtful, courageous leadership with vision.

MAPP and the Increasing Cost of College

MAPP and YOU

The passage of the MAPP bill (HB493) was an historic event that will benefit Idaho families in several ways. I would like to mention one of those ways.

Students using MAPP can reduce their cost of college education. Idaho colleges and universities raised their tuition almost 10 percent for this next school year. MAPP allows students to challenge classes beginning in elementary school and finish the 1-12 curriculum up to three years early. This means that your child could then take college level classes, in the high school, for one or two years and obtain an associate degree at very little cost by age 18.

Your child could then leave home and enroll in the U of I or ISU or BSU or any other public institution of higher learning and take only two years to obtain a college degree or professional technical certification.

For example, tuition at ISU cost $5,416 per year. The four year cost of tuition would be$21,664. If a student has an associate degree after leaving high school then the cost for two years of school would only be $10,832 a savings of $10,832.

This possibility was brought to your courtesy of the Idaho State Legislature and Governor Otter with bi-partisan support.

Hug your child and then thank your legislator.

Constructive Political Discourse

Constructive political discourse requires an exchange of factual information and basic principles within an historical context between two or more people desiring to understand reality

On the other hand, destructive political discourse involves an exchange of prejudices, "gotcha" moments, and ridicule

The media has long been guilty of modeling the latter by telling half-truths, withholding information, stirring up controversy and marginalizing certain political positions. This media marginalization of certain groups is one of several causes of great frustration on the part of many American citizens trying to petition their government for redress of grievances

I fear that this mixture of media bias and citizen frustration may combine to form a new toxic political extremism. What is political extremism? A comparison between a political extremist and a political realist may be instructive.

A Political Extremist verses A Political Realist

intimidation vs. persuasion
prejudice vs. facts
name calling vs. analysis
emotion vs. principle
anger vs. reason
appeal to frustration vs. appeal to person action
blaming vs. personal accountability
finds problems vs. finds solutions

I maintain that the current political landscape contains few political realists; we need more of them. It is easy to find problems and complain; it is much harder to offer solutions.

Political extremists are found on both sides of the political spectrum. Walter Bayers and Rex Rammell both tend toward political extremism; not because I disagree with their basic political positions; but rather, because they too easily abandon persuasion. Whereas, Keith Allred is a political realist, not because I agree with all of his positions; but rather, because he is willing to use reason, facts, and persuasion. Political extremism, to me, involved both the method of pursuing a political objective as well as what the political objective may be.

I find Idaho politics dominated by political realism. At the national level, however, I find political extremism to be on the increase. The country will be better served if those running for office would embrace political realism and abandon political extremism.

Response to a Social Workers Questionnaire

To; Mr. Stone: Lobbyist for the National Association of Social Workers;
From; Rep. Steven Thayn District 11

This is in response to your questionnaire.

1. Am I in favor of raising taxes on those that make $250,000 or more?
Answer: No. I don't believe that the problem is not a lack of money. The real problem lies in the nature of social programs that focus on the material needs of individuals rather than on helping them become self-sufficient. While it is true, not all individuals are able to achieve self-sufficiency, most individuals can do something to contribute. Our current system creates more dependency not less. Success should be measured by the number of individuals that don't need the assistance rather than the number of individuals on different programs.
The current system is too expensive and needs to be reformed. Simply increasing the budgets of these programs is not the answer. Already, 63 percent of the federal budget is for human services and is a phase of uncontrolled expansion.

2. Would I support the creation of a state-owned bank in Idaho and the elimination of the state's use of private for-profit banks so that all revenues would go back to the citizens of Idaho?
Answer: I don't know. This is a new issue for me. I would have to learn more about it. However, the question seems to have an anti-profit slant. I find profit a positive thing. In a free market system, people are free to make choices to buy and sell. When profit is taken out of the system, the only thing left is a state controlled economy which leads to less production and widespread poverty.

3. Will you oppose all attempts at restricting a woman's reproductive rights if you are re-elected to the Idaho Legislature?
Answer: I think what you are asking is if a woman should be able to get an abortion at any time. Life is sacred. The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe governments are instituted to protect these rights. I would oppose tax funded abortions. I do think there are a few, narrow situations where an abortion could be considered. I do not support unlimited access to abortion at any time during the pregnancy.
In fact, I wonder why this is a question on a National Association of Social Workers questionnaire? How does unlimited access to abortion further the life and liberty and quality of life of individuals. It would seem that you would be interested in teaching the youth the consequences of their actions so that they can make wise and informed choices.

4. What are your top three priorities if re-elected to the Idaho Legislature?
First, help implement House Bill 493 which I wrote and allows students beginning in elementary school to challenge classes, graduate early, and get a couple of years of college completed before age 18 and while still at home saving them and the state money. This will improve their later standard of living.
Second: Stimulate the private sector of the economy (logging, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production) so as to lower unemployment rates and create a stable tax base by reducing environmental regulations.
Third: Reform the entitlement system so that it recognizes the importance of the two parent family. I would like to see the number of children raised by two biological parents increase so as to reduce poverty, abuse, and crime.

Sincerely,

Rep. Steven Thayn

Reform our social service system (Entitlements etc.)

I believe that the current entitlement system (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps etc.) needs to be reformed. I am not suggesting that society not help those in need. I am simply suggesting that our current system is inefficient, expensive, harmful to individual human progress, and undermines our system of limited government.

Definitions: Human services, social services, social program, and entitlements are nearly interchangeable in meaning. The Department of Health and Welfare administers these programs.

The numbers:
• the human service portion of the federal budget is 63 percent of the total federal budget
• at the state level, education and Health and Welfare make up 85 percent of the general fund
• at the local level almost 50 percent of all costs are social service costs
• China sends 5 percent of its GDP on Social Services while the USA spend 13 percent of its GDP

The budget problems facing America are largely because of the costs of delivering social programs.

Why have these costs increased? The answer is simple. Government social services are funded through taxation. These social programs tend to increase the number of people that need them by encouraging poor decision making. Social programs also encourage individual consumption while discouraging people to produce and work. The reason is simple. If a person on food stamps earns too much money, they no longer qualify. There is a real incentive not to work and as the number of people not working increases, the burden on the productive increases.

Also, those that do produce are punished through high taxation to fund social programs. If there were no social programs in place and all charitable giving was voluntary, then taxes could be reduce by at least 50 percent and maybe as high as a 70 percent reduction in tax levels.

It is not realistic to simply eliminate all social programs; however, they can be reformed, altered, and improved while reducing costs. These are the steps that I think we should consider:
1. Start transferring social programs from the federal government to the states. This would allow states to control costs and improve services. A place to start would be with the Medicaid program. This simple act would reduce costs by 30 percent without reducing services.
2. Eventually return all social programs to the state over a several year period.
3. Allow those that pay into Social Security to have an option of maintaining the current system or controlling their own retirement account as is done in Chile.
4. While social programs are being returned to the states, reform them from a materialistic system that helps people with material needs to a system that helps individuals become self-sufficient. Instead of giving a fish, let’s help people learn how to fish.
5. The value of the family needs to be rediscovered. The family is the most efficient social service delivery system ever invented. Parents provide social services at no cost to other taxpayers. This year the Idaho Legislature passed a bill that directed the Department of Health and Welfare to place children taken into protective custody first with extended family members, second with an adult that has a significant relationship with the child, and third in the state foster care system. This concept will increase success rates and reduce costs. Other such common sense ideas can be found if we look for them

Are Republicans the Answer?

By Rep. Steven Thayn

I was listening to the radio this morning and the host said that the Republicans were poised to win in November and that all voters had to do was kick out all the Democrats. His inference was that all our problems would be fixed if we just had conservative Republicans in office.

Wait just a minute, not so fast. What makes you think that conservative Republicans are going to fix our nation’s problems? Where is the proof? Republicans have been in charge in the past and our problems got worse not better. I will grant that President Obama could possibly be the worst president in American history and that we need to replace President Obama and his liberal Democratic friends; but, the question remains with whom and what policies need to be replaced? I have three suggestions. Until I hear these three issues being discussed, I have no expectation that improvements will occur at the national level.

1. The federal government is too large with 63 percent of the federal budget goes to human services. Most, if not all, human service responsibilities need to be transferred to the state level where costs can be reduced and services improved.
2. The economy is in shambles. The key to stimulating the economy is increasing “the big five:” Logging, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy production. “The big five” cannot be stimulated until environmental regulations are reduced and made business friendly.
3. The character of the American people is changing from a sense of personal independence to dependence upon government programs. The philosophy of human service programs needs to change from a focus on the short-term material needs of individuals to, a much more healthy approach, where long-term needs are addressed to encourage people to become independent and self-sufficient. Success of a social program should be measured on the number of people that no longer need help rather than the number of people on the program.

The problem in the past with the Republican Party and conservatives in general is that they have had virtually NO IDEAS on how to deal with real social problems. Until Republicans engage in solving real human problems using limited government principles, I do not believe our problems will improve.

Rep. Steven Thayn, R-Emmett, represents District 11 in the Idaho House of Representatives.

Who Wants to Help Reform Health Care

If any of you are interested in making health care more affordable in Idaho and would like to work on this issue between now and the next session, let me know. I have found some interesting facts about the Health Care system in Singapore that I have added below.

http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/hcsystem.aspx

Introduction to Medisave

Medisave, introduced in April 1984, is a national medical savings scheme which helps individuals put aside part of their income into their Medisave Accounts to meet their future personal or immediate family's hospitalization, day surgery and certain outpatient expenses.

Under the scheme, every employee contributes 6.5-9% (depending on age group) of his monthly salary to a personal Medisave account. The savings can be withdrawn to pay the hospital bills of the account holder and his immediate family members.

Contributing to Medisave
Typically, an employee would contribute between 6.5-9% of their wages to Medisave. Find out exactly how you are contributing to Medisave here.

Gov. Otter Signs Health Freedom Act

Wednesday afternoon, Governor Otter signed the Health Freedom Act that directs the attorney general to take the Federal government to court if nationalized health care passes.

One of the questions from a reporter asked is if it isn't hypocritical to try to get the F-35 fighter jet to be based in Idaho while rejecting Federal health care.

The Governor did a great job answering the question. I would like to add a thought.

National defense is a Federal responsibility while health care is a state and personal responsibility. The Federal budget is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends and 63 percent of the Federal budget is for human services. If human services were transferred back to the states, these services could be delivered at 30 percent less cost simply because of the inefficiencies inherent in Federal programs.

America's Three Main Problems

We all know that America is headed the wrong direction. The question is what is the right direction?

I would suggest that we have three main problems.

First: the federal government is too big.
Second: the economy is struggling.
Third: the character of the American people is changing from independence to dependence on federal social programs.

The budget figures indicate the main reason why the federal government is too big is that 63 percent of the budget is used for human services. The human service budget is growing the fastest and seems totally out of control. Yet, the federal government thinks that it can reduce costs by nationalizing health care.
Possible solution: transfer human service responsibilities back to the states where they belong. This would reduce spending by 30 percent simply because of the inefficiencies inherent in the federal system.

The economy is struggling because of loss of private sector jobs. The private sector of the economy needs growth in the 'big five': mining, logging, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy. I don't see the economy improving until the 'big five' make a comeback and I don't see the economy making a comeback until environmental regulations are reformed.

Finally, the character of the American people is changing largely because of the growth of federal social programs. I believe that transferring social programs back to the state level, modifying them to move to a mentoring level instead of handouts, and reforming public education using my MAPP proposal are all good steps in this process.

MAPP in the Senate

Some of you may be wondering what is happening with the MAPP bill. On Thursday the 11th of March, the bill was debated on the floor of the Senate and was sent to the amending order to add a sunset clause. The Senate should go to the amending order on Tuesday. MAPP should then be sent back to the floor and pass.

There is only one Senator that is actively fighting against it, Senator Gary Schroeder from Moscow. What I find interesting is that each of his arguments used to defeat MAPP are actually reasons to support MAPP. For example, he suggests that we will have 13 year-old youth going to college.

I didn't know we were slowing kids down that much. But, if most kids could get through high school by age 13, as he suggests, then we really need to pass MAPP, let students finish early and then solve this problem of young people ready for college at age 13. Too many students ready for college at too young of an age seems like one of those problems we would like to have.

Freedom, Mercy, Kindness, and Truth

Understanding politics is difficult because words have double meanings. Let me give you an example of a few.

Freedom can mean (A) ability and opportunity to choose or
(B) Freedom from consequences

Mercy should be given by (A) the individual through voluntary gifts or
(B) the state through forced redistribution of the wealth

Kindness can mean (A) telling a person what he wants to hear or
(B) telling a person what he needs to hear

Truth (A) changes with each individual or
(B) is the knowledge of the past, present, and future.
Of course with the second definition of truth, no one knows all truth. The definition simply alludes to the fact that the truth does exist and suggests that we should find it.

How is it found? The only clue was Jesus who said: "By their fruits ye shall know them" which I take to mean that consequences and reason can guide us in finding good public policy. A keen understanding of history is essential in this quest. If politicians cannot back up their policies with historical examples, I would beware of such a person and his policies.

Drug Testing in order to Receive State Assistance?

Voters have long asked me why we can't drug test those on state assistance? Rep. Rich Wills has introduced such a bill that asked that the Department of Health and Welfare to:

"DRUG TESTING - COST STUDY - Stating findings of the Legislature and requesting the Department of Health and Welfare to undertake a study of the cost of implementing a random drug testing program of adults receiving public assistance and requesting the department to report its findings to the Legislature."

HCR 55 has passed the House. I like the bill. How can we really help someone on public assistance unless we understand their problems? If someone has a drug problem, we can't help them until we know.

Reelection

I just want to announce that I am running for reelection to the Idaho House of Representatives. I am pleased with my work on public education. It appears the MAPP bill will pass this session which will allow students to move through the system faster if they so choose and potentially reduce costs to the state.

I am also working on moving the Health and Welfare system to a mentor system and away from forced redistribution of the wealth. This is a long-term project; however, there is progress being made on this front. I would like to come back and work on it again.

Thanks for your support.

Education Funding and the Environment

I receive communications on a daily basis asking that education funding be protected. These Idaho citizens correctly identify the importance of education. I want to point out that I and my fellow legislators do not want to reduce education funding; however, we are faced with two choices due to falling tax revenues:

1. Reduce education funding as well as funding to other state agencies
2. Raise taxes

I do not believe that raising taxes at this time is wise. Increasing taxes will cause even more harm to the economy. Tax revenues are down because the private sector of the economy is shrinking. If we want tax revenues to increase, we must stimulate the private sector of the economy.

The private sector will most effectively be stimulated by focusing on the ‘big five’: logging, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, and energy. The ‘big five’ will not be significantly stimulated unless the burden of environmental regulations is reduced. I do not believe that this recession can end until the ‘big five’ once again grow and expand.

Once the ‘big five’ start expanding, then tax revenues will increase allowing for increased public education funding. If the ‘big five’ continue to struggle, tax revenues will remain flat or even decrease further. I do not see the end of this recession until political leaders and citizens at the local, state, and federal level start discussing the need to reform environmental regulations. I do not mean their total repeal; but rather, recognition of the cost and damage done by the high cost of senseless environmental regulation.

There is a link between public school funding and the economy and natural resources. The economy cannot grow until the natural resource segment of the economy grows. The natural resource segment of the economy is struggling because of the weight of environmental regulations.

I believe that we have a choice to either embrace sensible environmentalism or endure continued public school funding declines. The American economy can't support both heavy-handed environmentalism and big government spending. There is an opportunity for school teachers to lead in creating balance between proper use of our natural resources.

Why haven't we done this before?

Rep. Sharon Block introduced House Bill 610 in Health and Welfare Committee that directed the department of Health and Welfare to place children in foster care based upon the following criteria.
1. A fit and willing relative.
2. A fit and willing non-relative with a significant relationship with the child.
3. Foster parents and other persons licensed with the state.

This is one of the most common sense ideas that has come out of the legislature. Why hasn't the department being doing this in the past? Has the department of Health and Welfare not been in the business of keeping families together?

This bill is an example of the good things that can happen when government spending decreases and more innovative, low-cost methods must be used. Such as using the natural advantages of the family unit.

Health and Welfare: Should we have radom drug tests for welfare?

Today, Rep. Rich Wills introduced a resolution to ask the Department of Health and Welfare to undertake a study to check into the feasibility of giving random drug tests to those adults receiving state assistance.

The Democrats voted against the issue while the Republicans on the Committee voted for it. Why shouldn't we give drug tests to individuals? How can someone actually be helped to become self-sufficient unless their real problems are addressed?

The bill passed. It is House Concurrent Resolution 55.

COLA- Cost of living increase

Job growth is job #1. Not just any job, the economy needs private sector jobs in mining, logging, manufacturing, energy and agriculture in order to provide the economic fuel necessary to maintain our standard of living and fund state government. Part of this process necessitates the legislature to keep government expenditures and taxes low so that businesses can have resources necessary to survive and expand in these difficult times.

A Cost of Living Increase (COLA) for retired state employees is not prudent at this time. The PERSI system is underfunded by $2.6 billion and a COLA increase may trigger a future increase in current state contributions that are ultimately funded by the taxpayers. We cannot risk burdening taxpayers.

MAPP update

One of the legislators stopped me in the hall today in the capitol. He thanked me for my work on MAPP. That it was innovative and would help education. I thanked him. The strange part is that he voted against the bill on the floor of the House. So, even some legislators that voted against it still liked it.

MAPP in the Senate

Senator Goedde, the Senate Education Committee chairman informed me that a hearing will be held on Monday March 1 at 3:00 in the afternoon on the MAPP bill. I am visiting with Senators on the committee to try to understand their concerns so that they can be addresses during the committee hearing. So far they include:

1. Do we have assessments in place so that students can challenge classes?
2. If students graduate early, will they be mature enough?

These are the main two questions at this time.

For your info, there are 9 senators on the committee so 5 votes are needed to get the bill out of Committee to the floor of the Senate. It looks like it will be close.

Medical Care, Expenses, and Goals

Why is medical care in the United States so expensive? Why is reforming medical care so difficult?

Americans want something they can't have. They want both unlimited access to medical care and low cost. This is not realistic. Unlimited access guaranteed by government means the government will have unlimited access to your wealth through taxes.

Currently, medical costs are 17 percent of the GDP. This is much more than any other nation in the world. We have to decide if we are going to have unlimited access to care which means that costs will continue to rise; or, we have to decide if we want affordable medical care. We can't have them both.

If the American people decide they want affordable medical care, then they have two options. The first is socialized medicine where the government limits access to care through long lines, delays, and rationing. The second is a free market system where people pay for their own medical expenses and limit their own personal access to care for financial reasons.

This is the choice we have. Which would you choose? Which is most humane?

The Difference Between Limited Government and many Democrats

Rep. Phillis King (D) Boise said of a bill, "Just look at the number of people we can take care of if we pass this bill." (HCR 42)

Let there be no mistake, I am not going to take care of you using taxpayer money. Is government suppose to "take care" of people? It seems that in order for government to "take care" of you; government must have the power to reach into your pocket book, use the wealth that you created, and then pick winners and losers.

My approach is much different. I see government as providing an organized predictable framework within which you can work and produce and take care of yourself. To me this is the genius of the American system.

Rep. King's statement really summarizes the difference between limited and unlimited government.

Public School Funding and Natural Resources

Many times this last week employees of public education have asked me to find more money for public schools. This is a polite way of saying, please raise taxes.

I tell them that I cannot; but, I do explain the link between economic activity and the five natural resources (mining, logging, manufacturing, agriculture, and energy). Our economy cannot improve until at least two or three of these industries start growing. Simply increasing the money supply cannot cause long-term stimulation of the economy; only primary production can.

The natural resource industries cannot grow until the EPA backs off and allows use of the land. The EPA has so many regulation that, in effect, they are stopping most new economic activity. In other words, radical environmentalism being taught in our public schools and in the media needs to be replaced with balanced environmentalism where natural resource industries can use the land. If this does not happen, funds to public schools and other social programs will continue to decline. I don’t see any other outcome.

Will public school teachers and the public at large demand the government to allow the use of the land by natural resource industries? When they do, we have hope the economy will improve and public funding can stabilize.

Senator Crapo in the House

Senator Crapo is in the House speaking to us about the danger of uncontrolled spending. He did not support the Obama stimulus package. "We cannot spend ourselves to prosperity."

This year's federal deficit is going to be $1.6 billion up from $200 billion under Bush.

He states that the federal government is taking control of companies and growing phenomenally. Freddy Mac, AIG, the Health Care Bill, etc.

Good news is that the reaction of the American public is wide and broad causing Congress to reconsider its ways. He sees hope in developing energy. Coal might even be making a come back.

AEYC does it help parents or not?

Members of AEYC or the Association for the Education of Young Children addressed the House Education Committee yesterday (Feb.16, 10). They are developing a rating system for day care centers. Probably a good idea. During the course of the presentation, Jane Zink said AEYC was helping strengthen families. When I asked her how they strengthened families, she said that they were providing parenting classes. Parenting classes can be good to help young parents understand how to be better parents.

Ms. Zink went on to say that they help these parents receive other government services like food stamps, rent assistance, etc. I concluded that these organizations that receive government funding like AEYC are very adept at helping to grow dependency on other government programs; but, I have not seen them help families become independent. Is it any wonder that more and more people think the government should take care of them? Is there something wrong with this picture? AEYC is funded with federal money.

Will Thayn have a primary opponent?

As many of you know, I have had an opponent in everyone of my primary and general elections. Will this year be different? I don't know for sure until the 19th of March when the filing period ends; however, I have gone to the Gem County and Canyon County Lincoln Days events where candidates usually announce and no one has yet announced. In fact, there is only one race that is contested out of 15 at this point. Rep. Steven Kren has an opponent, a very impressive and active woman. This will be an interesting race.

Why are so few races contested? Is it the economy? Is it because we are cutting budgets and no one wants to enter in this environment? What is going on?

Senator Risch in the Idaho House

Senator Risch addressed the Idaho House and spoke of the differences between the legislative process in Washington and in Idaho and how superior the process is in Idaho.

He also warned of the economic collapse that is possible if Washington politicians don't make some changes. The good news is that they are starting to become very concerned about deficit spending. America is approaching the level of debt which has destroyed the economic system of nations in history. The level he spoke of was 90% of GDP. (I think we are already there and headed toward 100% or $14 trillion.)

Congressman Minnik in the Idaho House

Congressman Minnick addressed the Idaho House. He made a good point that human service spending must be reduced; however, he suggested that the government should provide pre-kindergarten and provide more college scholarships. This demonstrates the disconnect that I see. How can we reduce human service spending when we increase it?

The real option is to move human service responsibilities back to the states, from the states to the local communities, and then to the family. More on this later.

MAPP passed to the floor of the House

I am happy to announce that the Mastery Advancement Pilot Project (MAPP) that allows students to challenge classes starting in elementary school and move through the system faster passed out of Committee 16 to 1.

There were some concerns expressed by members of the committee. In the end, most of the concerns were addressed.

In the hall afterward, Luci Willits, who works for Superintendent Tom Luna, expressed concern that MAPP required the State Department of Education to "create" end of course assessments. This would cost millions of dollars. The bill uses the words "identify and adopt end-of-course assessments". This is a different approach that is more cost effective and costs very little.

A special thanks to Lori Shoemaker who testified in favor of the bill. She did a masterful job explaining how the bill would help her child succeed in school. Sandi Powell, a chemistry teacher, testified in favor of the bill explaining how MAPP gives students more choices. John Knickerbocker and a Mr. Turner also testified. Without these citizens helping out, MAPP may have died in committee.

Next on to the House floor sometimes this or next week.

MAPP and the IEA

Some of you may be interested what the position of the Idaho Education Association is in relation to the Master Advancement Pilot Project (MAPP)to be discussed on Monday morning. I spoke with Burt Marley who represents the IEA in the legislature. He said that this is the type of thing I was talking to him about 5 years ago while he was still a state Senator and he thought MAPP was "worth trying."

Yes, the lobbyist of the IEA thinks "it is worth trying." Why? Because MAPP might work and will benefit teachers. I don't know if the IEA has taken an official position.

Risk-Reward of MAPP

The Mastery Advancement Pilot Project (MAPP) is going to be introduced Monday morning at 8:00 AM in the House Education Committee. Allowing students to challenge classes and earn a scholarship is a new concept. People ask, “Will it work? In preparing for the presentation, I have asked myself what is the risk-reward trade off of MAPP?

1. What is the cost? The likelihood is very low that MAPP will require extra funds. I don’t see how having fewer students in school can cost more money. The likelihood that MAPP will reduce the tax burden is very high. The fiscal note indicates as much as $545,000. If MAPP works as anticipated and is implemented statewide savings could easily reach $100 million. LOGICAL DECISION – Give MAPP a try

2. Can students learn too fast? One concern that I hear is that students will learn so fast that they will graduate from high school at age 13 or that the students will not be mature enough. Is this really a problem? Are people admitting that our current system is slowing students down that much? If that is the case, we need to implement MAPP and then deal with the issue of maturity. LOGICAL DECISION – Give MAPP at try

3. What happens if a child passes a competency exam that is poorly constructed and the child is not ready for the next level of instruction? This is legitimate concern. The problem would be in the competency exam and would need to be fixed. What about the child? The bill reads that a student request to a challenge exam “be made pursuant to collaboration between the student, the student’s teachers, the school administration, and the student’s parents or guardians.” If a child fails a competency exam, they will need to do what is best for the child and give the appropriate instruction. This is what schools are already trying to do. Nothing is changing except we are providing more options. Finally, the current state funding formula has no requirement that the student learn anything. There is no requirement for learning to take place to get funding. The only thing the state requires is that the student is alive. At least MAPP has a testing requirement. LOGICAL DECISION – Give MAPP a try

4. What happens if the parents overrule the opinion of the teacher and administrator? What is the worst thing that could happen? The student would not pass the competency exam and the opinion of the teacher would be ratified. LOGICAL DECISION -- Give MAPP a try

After a risk-reward trade off analysis, it seems that there is very little real risk; however, tremendous upside potential such as: Improved education at less cost, more engaged students with better parental support, less teacher stress, more prepared students and, possibly, the Idaho system can become the best education system in the world.

Mastery Advancement Pilot Program The bill number is HO 493

The bill number is HO 493 for those that want to read the Mastery Advancement Pilot Program bill.

The bill is getting widespread support. The assistant minority leader of the House, Rep. James Ruchti stopped me and said that it was an intriguing idea.

Democrats and Republicans alike find it interesting.

Idaho Health Freedom Act IV

Rep. Barrett is arguing for the Constitutionality of opposing federal control.

Rep. Clark is now closing the debate and a vote will be soon.

The bill passed 52 -18 with all the Democrats voting no.

Idaho Health Freedom Act III

Rep. Labrador is now refuting some of the cost arguments. He says, in support of the bill, that there will be little fiscal impact. Also, the need for proactive action. Finally, there is a need health care reform. This bill does nothing to limit the potential for future health care reform.

Rep. Sharon Block is now speaking favor of the bill. If the federal government does pass a single-payer system, there will be a huge increase in federal regulations and control.

Idaho Health Freedom Act II

Rep. Luker is now addressing the body. His argument is that the federal government does not have the power to mandate insurance coverage. This is not an enumerated power or power under the general welfare clause of the Constitution of the U.S.

I find it interesting that this issue, now on the floor of the House, was discussed by several of us in November where Rep. Luker said that he was working on this bill. He has done a good job. The Idaho Legislature has the opportunity to limit federal power. It is a small but important step.

Now, Rep. Higgins is arguing against the bill. She says it might cost money.

This is an interesting debate. Rep. Nielsen is making an argument that states and local units of government can counter federal power.

Rep. Rusche is making an argument against the bill. He is arguing that this is a matter of freedom. He is saying that we will be more free if we are forced to participate in a government program. Rep. Rusche is making a good point that cost of medical care is too expensive in the U.S. Is the medical cost problem because there is not enough government or because there is too much government?

Idaho Health Freedom Act

Rep. Clark is now debating in favor of the Idaho Health Freedom Act that was co-written by my good friend, Rep. Lynn Luker. The purpose of the bill is to allow the attorney general to sue the federal government if the federal government tries to impose a one-payer system on Idahoans. This bill attempts to protect Idahoans from the federal government.

There will be some opposition to this bill from some of the Democrats. Should be good.

F-35

A joint memorial HJM 10 is being debated on the floor of the House. Rep. Nielsen just debated in favor. It passed 70 - 0. This memorial shows the desire of the legislature to bring the F-35 to the Mt. Home and Boise areas. A potential boon of $1 billion per year.

MAPP was printed

The Mastery Advancement Pilot Program was printed this morning by the House Education committee. It was unanimous. Next, will be a full hearing. I missed the reading of the bill number but should be found at the state website later in the day. It might not have been read across the desk and will be posted tomorrow. I will let you know.

Master Advancement Pilot Program "TODAY"

This morning at 9:00 am Rep. Durst and myself will introduce "The Mastery Advancement Pilot Program" (MAPP) that allows students to graduate early from high school with a scholarship.

We have been working on this bill for about 8 months, so I am a little excited. This is a print hearing which means that no public testimony will be heard. A full hearing will be held later if it is printed. I expect it to be printed with only a few questions.

The full hearing will be different.

Tom Lunas' Support of MAPP

I spoke with Superintendent Tom Luna yesterday and asked him if he would support the Master Advancement Pilot Program (MAPP) written by myself, Steven Thayn, and Rep. Durst of Boise. He said that he was very supportive.

MAPP will be introduced on Monday the 8th in the House Education Committee at 9:00 AM. This will be a print hearing with no public testimony. It is expected to have a committee meeting later in the week. I have been working on the fiscal statement. Part of it reads:

There will little or no negative impact to the State General fund in 2011. After 2011, impact to the general fund will be positive if the following assumptions are met:
1. ADA at $4,593.51
2. 1000 to 1500 seniors participate in the pilot project

50 to 75 (5%) early graduation = $65,000 to $97,000 in savings
100 to 150 (10%) early graduation = $130,000 to $195,000 in savings
200 to 300 (20%) early graduation = $260,000 to $390,000 in savings
300 to 500 (30%) early graduation = $390,000 to $585,000 in savings

Exciting Education Ruling

The Idaho House Education Committee approved a rule this morning (Feb. 3, 2010) that allows students to challenge classes. It reads:

“Students may also achieve credits by demonstrating mastery of a subject’s content standards as defined and approved by the social school district or LEA.” (Local Education Authority) This rule is found in 08-0203-0905 of the rule book.

This means that a student can study a topic area and ask to take a final exam. If the student can pass the final exam, then the student can get credit without attending the class.

The Sweet Bridge

The Gem Country Commissioners tell a sad story. A bridge needed to be built over a small river in the community of Sweet Idaho. The Commissioners figured they could build the bridge in about four months at a cost of $300,000. A federal grant was available so they decided to work with the federal government to save local tax dollars. The sad part is that with federal “help” the project took 14 months to complete and cost $1.3 million dollars. The bridge, with federal “help” ended up costing the local taxpayers more than if the local community had build and financed the bridge alone.

Think of what this $1 million of wasted resources could have been used for. It could have paid for as many as 20 teachers or heated hundreds of homes or vaccinated many of the children in the state. The Sweet Bridge is one example of thousands of examples that could be found. How many billions are being wasted by our federal government? In my opinion, the waste caused by the federal government is a national disgrace. It is time that this wastefulness ends.

The Four Levels of Charity

Yesterday, I wrote about the four levels of charity.

1. Government charity funded through forced contributions (taxes).
2. Voluntarily assist the poor.
3. Mentor the poor and help them produce their own wealth.
4. Become self-sustaining and able to help others.

Government charity is the least effective and most damaging form of charity. It increases the number of needy while harming the healthy. The current government system of helping the needy is unsustainable. Did you know that the total of all federal taxes collected this year will not even pay for our obligations to entitlements?

We could improve our charity system in the United States and reduce costs by doing two things.

1. Move to the third level of charity which focuses on mentoring the poor and needy to help them produce their own wealth. This would, over time, reduce the number of poor, increase the number of taxpayers, and reduce overall costs.
2. Move the responsibility to fund and oversee these programs from the federal government to the state and local governments. Cost could be reduced by 30 percent or $500 million in Idaho and would improve social services while reducing costs and solve our current budget problems.

Is the United States a Kind Society?

The goal of a kind society should be to help every person become self-sufficient and independent. How does the United States measure up? To answer, this question, we need to list four approaches to charity -- from least desirable to most desirable.

1. Have the government take wealth through taxation and give it to the needy.
2. Voluntarily assist the poor.
3. Mentor the poor and help them produce their own wealth.
4. Become self-sustaining and able to help others.

The problem with method #1 and #2 is that the needy are still poor. They are given a fish but are not taught how to fish. These two approaches perpetuate and increase poverty.

Methods #3 and #4 are vastly superior because they help people grow by focusing on individual needs. These two methods teach a man to fish and focus on production and self-sufficiency.

The America government’s approach to helping the poor employs the worst of all methods of charity – using the force of government to redistribute the wealth. I think it is time to use the higher levels of charity. Our needy deserve it.

The Forgotten Man

The Forgotten Man” is an essay that bears reviewing. The entire essay can be found at: http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/SumnerForgotten.htm

"The Forgotten Man"
By William Graham Sumner.
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) was a Professor of Political Economy and of Sociology at Yale.


The current Health and Welfare system is unsustainable. For the first time in American history, the sum total of all federal taxes collected will not be enough to pay for the cost of entitlements. The system is unsustainable. Unsustainable means that it must be changed and reformed or it will collapse the economic system of the United States.

The reason for the collapse is very easy to understand. Any kindergarten child could follow the logic. The current system encourages consumption and discourages production. As more and more people require charitable support provided by government, there are fewer individuals producing. When the number of consumers exceeds the ability of the productive to produce, the system collapses and general, widespread, oppressive poverty occurs.

I believe we can avoid widespread poverty; but only if we make systemic changes to the Health and Welfare system. The changes can be made; but only after the need to make changes is recognized.

Higher Ed and Cuts

In House Education Committee today, we heard from three university student body presidents: Kelby Wilson U of I, Ross Knight ISU, and Clay Long LCSC. All three were well spoken, articulate and concerned about higher education. Their parents should be proud.

These three young people raised a question in my mind. How can funding be stabilized for higher education? I see five options:
1. We can make cuts in the state budget in other areas to protect higher ed spending. If we decide to do this, where should we make these cuts?
2.Increase efficiencies and change the culture at higher education to reduce the costs. If so, what are these changes?
3. Increase taxes. Is this possible?
4. Increase the ability of universities to self-fund. What can universities do to create funding through self-perpetuating activities?
5. Increase the ability of students to pay for their own education by encouraging high school students to get professional-technical certificates in high school.

The easy route is simply to raise taxes. I think that this option would harm the economy and is not available to us. I believe we need innovative solutions that require addressing budget cuts, increased efficiencies of higher education, and self-funding. It is time we become truly innovative.

A Heartwarming Story for Parents

Should everyone get a college degree? Or, should more young people get a professional-technical degree? Let me tell you a story. On January 26th in the House Education Committee, Dene Thomas the president of LCSC shared with us an experience she had with one of her daughters.

The daughter said she did not want to go to college and if she was forced to go she would fail. Dr. Thomas asked, “What do you want to do?”

The daughter replied, “I want to be a dental assistant.”

So the daughter went to school, got her dental assistant certificate, worked two weeks, and then decided she wanted to go to college. She didn’t like being a slave of the doctor. Was the time spent obtaining a dental assistant certificate wasted? NO. She used her certificate to work summers and during vacations to fill in for other dental assistants, in this manner, was able to pay for her college education.

I got thinking. The state is going to require a senior project for all seniors to graduate in 2013. Maybe this requirement should be waived for anyone who gets a professional-technical certification.

War, Bush, Democrats, Republicans, and the 2010 Election

The Democratic strategy of blaming Pres. Bush worked well in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. It appears that blaming Bush is no longer working; but what if the Democrats do dust of the old “blame Bush” strategy? What should Republicans do? I have a suggestion.

We should acknowledge the Bush mistakes. We should recognize that Bush supported a costly war that was fought with little support from the regional nations in the Middle East. Yes, I, too, was wrong for supporting the war in 2001. According to Costofwar.com, the war in Iraq since 2001 has cost America over $700 billion. Imagine if we had invested 700 billion into electrical generation facilities. We could have build around 70,000 20 megawatt facilities and generated enough power for 140 million homes. This would have largely solved our energy dependence on the Middle East and stimulated our economy. We would probably not be in a recession at this moment.

But why stop at blaming Bush, it seems that we are still hampered and harmed by the policies of the Great Society that LBJ saddled us with. Republicans ought to blame LBJ and his ill-conceived social policies that have cost 10 times as much as the war in Iraq. It seems that we need to declare war on foolish policies at home before we go and fight expensive wars in other places in the world where we are not wanted.

I maintain that it is time for politicians in both parties to take ownership of the mistakes of the past, correct them, and solve them. I believe the voters want a balanced budget, wise use of funds for social services, a stimulated private sector economy, and a peaceful world through strength. Republicans understand these issues better than the current administration in Washington D.C. that seems ashamed of American greatness.