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.

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.