Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in September 2018

All politics is local

All politics is local

September 15, 2018

johnsonlogo

Please welcome Marc C. Johnson, a fine participant, observer and commenter on politics generally and Idaho politics specifically. He was press secretary and chief of staff to Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus. His biography of Montana New Deal-era Sen. Burton K. Wheeler will be published early next year by the University of Oklahoma Press.

There are few universal rules in politics, but one rule certainly holds that no challenger wins a contest without making the incumbent the issue. Challengers who don’t take the fight to incumbents lose. Paulette Jordan, the Democratic nominee for Idaho governor, isn’t precisely running against an incumbent in Republican Brad Little, three-term governor C.L. “Butch” Otter’s lieutenant governor, but Little has all the trappings and the potential downside of incumbency.

Little is an “establishment” Republican who vanquished two conservative foes in a divisive GOP primary. He’s been around Idaho politics for years – his father was a long-serving state senator – and he is, in effect, running for Otter’s fourth term, accountable for all the bad and ensured of only modest credit for the good. Yet, seven weeks in front of the November election Jordan, the insurgent challenger, has yet to lay a glove on the incumbent. She certainly isn’t making it clear, as she must if she hopes to win (or even come close), that the election is a referendum on 12 years of the Otter-Little administration. A skillful candidate would by now have exploited some of the many missteps of the last dozen years, but beyond supporting Medicaid expansion and offering pabulum about a more humane government, Jordan hasn’t offered specifics about much of anything.

Jordan, a novice statewide candidate, is also violating Tip O’Neill’s old truism that “all politics is local,” by largely ignoring the traditional means of politicking in Idaho. Jordan has received heaps of attention from CNN and national publications have devoted ink to her resume as potentially the first woman and first Native American governor in Idaho. Yet she regularly avoids engaging with Idaho reporters and was largely missing on the summer fair and rodeo circuit. One long-time weekly newspaper editor told me recently he hasn’t seen the Democratic candidate and doesn’t expect to. He’s given up on ever getting a phone call returned. It’s a common refrain.

Jordan should have taken a page from the surging campaign of Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke who is challenging Texas Senator Ted Cruz and seems to have made that race a virtual toss up. O’Rourke, running as the underdog in a Trumpishly red state, has crisscrossed Texas repeatedly holding town hall meetings with anyone who will show up. During a recent gathering in San Marcos, according to the Texas Tribune, “O’Rourke answered questions about what he thinks about impeaching Trump, how to address the wealth gap between African-Americans and whites and whether he supports Betsy DeVos’ efforts to bring guns to campuses (‘No,’ he said).”

In contrast, Jordan recently swapped time in Idaho for an appearance on a Saturday night CNN show where she avoided discussing any specific issue. Idaho voters, she said, were “ready for true compassion and governance again.” Jordan told CNN host Van Jones that her upbringing stressed love of country, love of the land, love of all humanity, but that such attitudes hadn’t been “reflected in Idaho for the last three decades.” That is a vacuous and dubious claim at best. Going back thirty years, for example, would take us to the third term of the last Democrat to win the governorship, Cecil D. Andrus, a man who championed good schools, fought the feds over nuclear waste storage, presided over a strong economy, advocated for human and civil rights and certainly loved the land. Andrus knew that any successful Democrat has to run with a real and specific agenda.

Jordan does seem to be attempting to expand the electorate, trying to appeal to disaffected Idahoans and younger voters. O’Rourke has much the same strategy in Texas, but he adds the critical ingredients of substance and presence. In other words he shows up and is willing to confront issues, even difficult ones, head on.

I have long argued that Idaho Democrats must find a new approach to running statewide campaigns, including strategies to expand the electorate. They need to focus on younger voters who much research shows aren’t particularly wedded to either political party. They need to play to their one true strength, years of commitment to improving educational opportunities. And they must relentlessly and enthusiastically engage voters. A brief hit on CNN is no substitute for a town hall meeting in Payette, a picnic in Orofino or knocking on doors in Soda Springs.

Jordan has apparently mastered one part of a new Democratic strategy. The University of Virginia Center for Politics and Ipsos, the polling outfit, has created an online 2018 Political Atlas for every major race in the country. The Atlas measures, among other things, a candidate’s social media presence and on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram Jordan looks like a winner. One analysis gives her seven times as many Twitter followers as Little and six times as many followers on Facebook. Nevertheless respected political scientist Larry Sabato who helped invent these new measures calls the governor’s race “safe Republican.” That call is based on his detailed analysis of polling, Idaho’s electoral history, the quality of the candidates and other first hand intelligence.

A good social media presence is clearly an element of a challenges strategy, but it’s hardly enough by itself. The vast majority of Jordan’s social media followers appear to be fans from outside Idaho and therefore unable to vote for her in November. Perhaps that’s what you get when you base an Idaho campaign on profiles in The Atlantic or interviews on CNN.
 

Matters of relative importance

Matters of relative importance

September 14, 2018

stapiluslogo1

You can tell campaign season is kicking in by the flurry of data points arriving. Here are two sets from the forthcoming Idaho campaigns - one that might be over-rated in importance, and one under-rated.

First up is the latest poll, covering the races in Idaho’s two U.S. House districts, from Dan Jones & Associates. Those polls have been the subject of criticism from some Idaho political people, but they’re among the few regularly conducted in Idaho, so we’ll put that aside for the moment and just look at their bottom lines. They show these levels of support: In the first district, Republican Russ Fulcher at 35 percent and Democrat Christina McNeil 27 percent, and in the second district Republican (incumbent) Mike Simpson at 59 percent, with Democrat Aaron Swisher at 23 percent.

One way to look at this would be big news: If the margins between the candidates in the second district (more than two to one) is about right, maybe that indicates a much closer race than expected in the first district, where polling is showing the two candidates running tightly. There might be some temptation to attribute some of this to a Democratic year and an appealing female candidate (who did unusually well in the primary), and possibly those are factors to consider. A little.

The problem is that the races in the districts aren’t really comparable. Simpson, representative in the Idaho 2nd for coming up on 20 years, is about as well known locally as a member of Congress could be. Fulcher has been on the ballot for major office twice, but only in primary elections. He isn’t nearly as well known in the first district as Simpson is in the second. That will change somewhat in the ramp-up to election day, and - bearing in mind that he’s run a capable and uncontroversial campaign so far - you’ll likely see his numbers rise significantly over the next couple of months, as Republicans come home.

If you assume the Jones numbers are an accurate snapshot of recent weeks, that doesn’t mean the end results will look the same way they do now. The dynamic is fluid. The percentages will change.

Item two is an endorsement from a seemingly off-the-wall source that could prove important.

Endorsements in political campaigns usually don’t matter much. Many of them are mildly helpful just by way of showing the person or group involved isn’t opposed to the endorsee. Rarely do they actually change people’s minds or cause them to look at an issue or person in a different way.

Here’s one that could be an exception to the rule.

The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association has voted to endorse Proposition 2, the measure that would expand Medicaid access in Idaho. Chris Goetz, the sheriff in Clearwater County Sheriff and chair of the group’s government affairs group, remarked that “The vote for this wasn’t even close. Sheriffs voted overwhelmingly to support Proposition 2 to save taxpayers money, to keep people out of the jails, and to keep people out of the emergency room. By expanding coverage to low-income people with health issues or mental health issues, they’re more likely to contribute to society and less likely to end up back in the system.”

The ISA endorsement comes not from one of the “usual suspects” - people and groups you might expect to be supportive - but from a group that usually wouldn’t be anticipated to weigh in at all. The reasons they give for doing so, relating to public safety, could cause a number of Idahoans to think about Medicaid expansion in a different way than they have in the past.

Remember too that 40 out of the 44 Idaho sheriffs are elected Republicans. This is no gaggle of liberal activists, and no one is likely to mistake them as such. And they’re spread all over the state, not concentrated in the urban centers where most of the expansion support likely has been focused up to now.

If the vote winds up being close, this one might be an actual game-changer.
 

Home maintenance

Home maintenance

September 13, 2018

schmidt

When a place feels like home it’s a treasure. But all homes need maintenance.

I was born in a city but moved to a small town when I was very young. As I grew the town’s population exploded. When I started kindergarten, we had one small high school, but by the time I graduated from the new second high school, graduating class sizes for both high schools ran in the 400-500 range. The next year there was a third high school; I went off to college and never went back. That town grew too fast to feel like a home to me. I hope it feels like home to its current couple hundred thousand souls.

Some Treasure Valley communities in SW Idaho are struggling with such rapid growth. But many small Idaho towns are getting smaller. In most of these towns their populations are getting older on average. The economic effect, then the cultural affect is clear. Older residents often rely on fixed incomes called “transfer payments” (retirement income, Social Security, disability benefits) and they see taxes as a threat instead of an investment. Without investment and maintenance small towns crumble and shrink.

These aging, shrinking towns often struggle to fund their schools and infrastructure since such investment requires citizens to see the value of such expense, and be able to afford investing in it.

But investment doesn’t always come out of your bank account. Planning, organizing, communicating, and just showing up are worthy investments to make a place feel like home.

One of the blessings of public service is learning about new things. In my first year in the Idaho legislature I got appointed to the Idaho Rural Partnership Board. I had no idea such an entity existed, but there you go, I’m now on the Board. Before my first meeting (in downtown Boise) I asked a fellow board member why we didn’t meet in a rural town. “Oh, nobody would come,” was the quick answer. I started my IRP service with a jaundiced eye. But I learned some things.

The most valuable service offered by the IRP is the community reviews. These are all available for your reading on their website. St. Maries had one done in 2006, Plummer in 2017; they do about three a year in every corner of the state. They are a lot of work, lots of meetings and tours with local leaders, businesses, community members.

I would encourage you to read your “Community Review” if you haven’t. This isn’t out of town experts coming to give the locals their wisdom. The value comes when a community speaks up, reflects on its needs and character. And the best part is, each community does this work itself. Or, it could just talk about it for a day or two, then not do anything. That’s why looking back at these reviews after a few years is quite helpful.

If towns feel like home, can sustain their residents and support the community, I call that thriving. Don’t expect Boise or Washington DC to have answers if you think your town needs a boost. It will be your efforts that make your town great again.
 

Diversity

September 12, 2018

politicalwords

On September 7, Fox News host Tucker Carlson ran a series of video clips promoting the idea of diversity - presumably, ethnic, cultural and otherwise - in America, and then proceeded to take on the idea.

It has become an increasingly heated topic, much more so than two or three decades ago, and Carlson went right at it.

He offered a series of questions:

How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are?
Do you get along better with your neighbors, your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values? Please be honest as you answer this question.
And if diversity is our strength, why is it okay for the rest of us to surrender one of our central rights, freedom of speech, to just a handful of tech monopolies? And by the way, if your ideas are so obviously true, why does anyone who question them need to be shamed, silenced and fired?

Fair enough. A good many people around the country have been asking such questions, and answers should be given, not just assumed. They’re not always universally obvious, though there are ready answers.

I’ll offer some of those in a moment. Before we get there: What do we mean by “diversity”?

Most simply, it means (in dictionary definitions) a range of different things, a variety, a mix. It can refer to a variety of anything; a television network could be said to offer diverse programming if it airs enough different kinds of shows.

That’s not exactly what we’re talking about in a political or social (or even business) context, though. What we’re really talking about is things like race, religion and ethnicity - and a resistance in some quarters to anyone who is distinctive from oneself.

This makes diversity is one of the flash points in our society. It is something we should discuss seriously and not dismiss.

So to move on to Carlson’s questions:

How, precisely, is diversity our strength? The broad answer is, we gain strength from a larger pool of experience, skills, strengths, understandings and points of view. Narrow and limited perspectives - smaller pools of knowledge and perspective - increase the likelihood of mistakes.

Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific as you explain it. Carlson needs to explain who exactly is proposing “diversity” as a national motto. Unless you count “e pluribus unum,” or “out of many, one,” the slogan on our national seal and on some of our currency. From Wikipedia: The 13-letter motto was suggested in 1776 by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere to the committee responsible for developing the seal. At the time of the American Revolution, the exact phrase appeared prominently on the title page of every issue of a popular periodical, The Gentleman's Magazine,[10][11] which collected articles from many sources into one magazine.”

Can you think, for example, of other institutions such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units in which the less people have in common, the more cohesive they are? In fact, marriage and military units are excellent examples of how diversity can work very well. In my own marriage, my wife and I have some things in common but also a number of differences - different skills and interests, perspectives and aspects of background (not to mention genders). That’s not a weakness in the marriage. We’ve made many things happen, and avoided many mistakes, because we jointly brought more to what we do than would have been the case if, say, either of us had been working with a clone.

In the military, concerns about diversity weakening cohesion often were brought up on the front end of a change in more varied forces. The concerns nearly vanished in most cases as the greater variety of personnel wound up contributing far more than any (most illusory) loss of joint identity. The Congressional Research Service said in a 2017 report that diversity in the military is “associated with better creative problem solving, innovation and improved decisionmaking.” Those sort of traits are becoming increasingly critical, not only in the military but also almost everywhere else.

Do you get along better with your neighbors, your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values? Please be honest as you answer this question.
The honest answer is that a little effort and communication results in greater understanding. That’s not kumbaya; that’s just the way people relate to each other.

And if diversity is our strength, why is it okay for the rest of us to surrender one of our central rights, freedom of speech, to just a handful of tech monopolies? Not sure where Carlson is veering off to here; the question about the growing power of the big tech communications companies is a serious and legitimate question, but it doesn’t have a lot to do with diversity as such. Nor do they have much to do with “freedom of speech,” which is a bar that limits governmental restrictions on speech; it does not, never has anyway, limit Google or Twitter or for that matter my blog from limiting the speech disseminated there.

And by the way, if your ideas are so obviously true, why does anyone who question them need to be shamed, silenced and fired? Still got a job, Carlson? Oh, right, you work for - well, actually, for 21st Century Fox, which in its 2017 annual report said it “appreciates the importance of valuing and serving a diverse marketplace. Different backgrounds and characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability, culture and sexual orientation, bring innovative viewpoints and merit to the creation of our content and products.” Discussion is diversity is quite public and ongoing, so it’s hardly being silenced.

As for fired, that generally has related to companies which have policies and practices much like the one you work for. If those companies fire people on grounds of statements they make, it’s because they have a commercial, business or public relations reason for doing that.

As for shaming: That could work only to the extent people agree shame ought to be attached to expressing the idea. Approbation shouldn’t attach to a dispassionate discussion of the concept. But the idea of diversity, in this country, often is linked to attitudes about race, about a willingness to accept even the humanity of people somewhat different from oneself. In a country of many kinds of people, where we must work together to succeed, a certain amount of concern about trashing other people is probably appropriate.
 

Sinking the partisan ship

Sinking the partisan ship

September 11, 2018

jones

In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned the nation of the dangers of partisanship in an elective government like ours. He advised that “the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

Partisanship is tearing this country apart. One of the strong proponents of working across the aisle, the late Senator John McCain, was just laid to rest. This would be a good time to reflect on things we can do in our good state to discourage and restrain partisanship.

Earlier this year, long-time political writer Randy Stapilus observed that most of Idaho’s statewide elective offices were not or should not be partisan in nature. The same could be said of local government administrative offices. Why not remove the party labels from essentially non-political offices and focus on the qualifications of candidates to carry out the laws that govern their work?

The Secretary of State oversees elections and maintains business and commercial records. It is not clear why party affiliation should matter in that position. The same goes for the State Treasurer and State Controller, both of whom are charged with performing administrative duties, not setting state policy.

The Attorney General does have some ability to make or influence policy through rule making and court proceedings, but must also maintain independence from the Governor and Legislature. Based on my eight years of experience in that office, it is not uncommon for officeholders of your own party to expect favoritism--a favorable legal opinion on a policy issue, favorable treatment of a constituent crosswise with the law, or urging that you file a lawsuit of questionable merit.

The Attorney General represents the State and the people, not fellow party members. An AG who remains true to the law will often make fellow party members unhappy.

Running on a non-partisan ticket like judges do might clarify the responsibilities of the office and reduce the pestering an AG gets to carry water for the party.

It should be said that the current Attorney General, Lawrence Wasden, has done a good job of advising the Legislature and Governor about the requirements of the law. When his advice has been ignored, he is usually found by the courts to have been correct. Removing that office from partisan influences would be a good step.

One of the most important offices in state government is that of Superintendent of Public Instruction. It is an administrative position but has a vitally important advocacy component. Political affiliation won’t result in better-educated children. The way to foster student achievement is to work tirelessly with stakeholders to develop and implement strategies for teaching, learning, and school safety.

The Superintendent position should go to the person who demonstrates a willingness to dig in and improve our school system by hard work and advocacy, regardless of party membership. We should take this office out of the political arena and focus on who will work the hardest and smartest to educate and protect our kids. I believe George Washington would agree.
 

Not who but what

Not who but what

September 10, 2018

rainey

As usual, our national media folks are running around, chasing their tails again. The herd mentality permeating today’s print and broadcast practitioners is at a fever pitch as they try to find out who wrote that anonymous New York Times op-ed.

In their frenzy, nearly all are missing the real issue. It’s not WHO wrote it but WHAT was said.

For the record, I believe the writer should have identified him/herself which would have strengthened the credibility of the piece. I also think The Times should have demanded the op-ed be by-lined. As others are. Or refused publication. As others are.

Also, for the record, I believe the writer was National Intelligence Chief Dan Coates. Gut hunch. But, that’s another story for another time.

As a stand-alone piece, the op-ed seems closer to gossip than new facts. Yes, it has some juicy tidbits like keeping Trump in the dark about certain things, staff agreeing to follow an order, then ignoring it, stealing documents from Trump’s desk. All grist for the “I-told-you-so” crowd. But, without authorship ID, pretty much gossip.

The plain fact is, we already knew most of this from publication of three books on the market in recent months. My pick of them is Bob Woodward’s “FEAR” which is due out tomorrow but which has been in the headlines for the last two weeks, thanks to a broken publication release date.

Woodward, whose investigative journalism career goes back to Watergate with Carl Bernstein, is one of the best in the business. He’s a taskmaster for accuracy, probity, intimate detail and documentation. He routinely records almost all interviews and conversations, gathering supporting documents when available. I’ve never heard of a reporter more difficult to challenge than Woodward.

His book is filled with named sources, saying their pieces into a digital recorder. Several have denied saying what they said. But, it’s on his record. Woodward is not backing down. And, he won’t. The irony here is some voices quoted and documented by Woodward spoke truth then and are lying in denials now. Or, their denials are incomplete. If the op-ed is accurate, and it really was written by someone high up in the administration, someone is lying there, too, since all cabinet and senior staff have submitted their denials.

The writer of the op-ed will eventually be identified. Just as Watergate’s “Deepthroat” finally surfaced - after 35-years - the current anonymous source will be known. In a shorter time, likely, but it’ll happen. Which makes media focus more on WHO than WHAT even more ridiculous.

Three consecutive books on the “Titanic” atmosphere in our White House were written separately but resulted in a lot of overlap and repetition of the chaos. As citizens - and as voters - we know all we need to know about this dysfunctional administration. And, daily, we are slathered in new detail about our disastrous and dangerous President. With or without the op-ed, we know enough.

The media drumbeat about the Times op-ed is distracting and useless. Without attribution, there are really only two ways to look at it. One, nearly all of it simply confirms what we already know, thereby reducing its relevance. And, two, with no authorship, it’s basically gossip.

And here’s a final theory - improbable, but fun to think about. Suppose the op-ed was a “plant” by the administration to take attention off the Kavanaugh hearings. What’s happening in that Senate hearing room is the wreckage of decorum, precedent and undermining of what that hearing should really be about. But, Kavanaugh, on the U.S. Supreme Court, is thought to be a Trump-saver when push-comes-to-shove. Which is likely.

I’m just sayin’.
 

Idaho Weekly Briefing – September 10

Idaho Weekly Briefing – September 10

September 9, 2018

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for September 10. Interested in subscribing? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

Education was a keynote last week, as the state considered funding formulas, the Boise School District held its election, the College of Idaho got an honor and another college in Canyon County saw a ribbon cutting, College of Western Idaho propose big new levy, and planners at Idaho Falls public schools try to figure out how now to handle increasing student population growth there.

Senator Mike Crapo on September 6 questioned Judge Brett Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s second round of questioning as part of its week-long hearing to consider Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Robert Martin et al v. City of Boise, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on September said that the city of Boise violated the federal eighth amendment to the constitution – banning cruel and unusual punishment – with its rule banning outdoor sleeping away fr homeless shelters even when no other shelter was available.

College of Western Idaho’s Board of Trustees voted unanimously, on September 4, to place a $39 million plant facility levy on the general election ballot this November.

Several hundred people gathered on the Idaho State University-Meridian campus Sept. 5 to tour the new Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine and listen to remarks from educators, community leaders and founders of the state’s first medical school.

Senators James Risch and Mike Crapo joined with Senate colleagues Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Cory Booker, D-N.J., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Chris Coons, D-Del., to introduce bipartisan legislation to boost nuclear energy innovation and ensure advanced reactors can provide clean, safe, affordable, and reliable power to meet national and global energy needs.

Hunters can look forward to a good fall season in 2018, with similar elk and white-tailed deer populations as last year and likely more mule deer in many areas.

Rocky Mountain Power is asking the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to determine that approximately $8.5 million of the company’s investments in energy efficiency and conservation programs in 2016-17 were prudently incurred and benefited customers.

IMAGE Aerial view of the Cllege of Idaho at Caldwell’ the college was named top college in Idaho in the Wall Street Journal’s 2018 rankings. (photo/College of Idaho)
 

On sale

September 9, 2018

stapiluslogo1

Forget about the Infowars conspiracy nonsense. That's just there to pull in the easily entertained and credulous, to rev up the emotions of the market segment Alex Jones is really aiming for.

That would be the people headed for the store.

The Infowars store is where the action is. Hawking oddball conspiracies doesn't bring in the bucks that's made Jones a handsome living. For that, look to the store, which is not at all hard to find.

Here's some of what I found when I checked it out a few days ago.

There's 50% off Bodease, "whole body support." And ProstaGuard for $24.95.

Last I looked you could get 25% off SuperSilver, the wound dressing gel, now at only $29.95. Survival Shield X-2 (a dietary supplement) goes for $29.95.

There's "the Real Red Pill" (remember the Matrix?) no only $39.95.
The Ultimate Krill Oil is $4.95.

Just the ticket for gearing up the apocalypse scheduled for, oh, day after tomorrow or so.

And Alex recommends plenty more (the place is an incipient amazon.com):

Infowars stickers, at only $2.95, and car magnets for $7.95 ($2 off the earlier price), and the attractive Infowars tumbler at $28. Don't forget the T-shirts, one of which is an explicit support sign for Donald Trump re-election in 2020 ("Re-elect 45").

He'll sell you a shower filter (ProPur Antique) for $89.95. And there are some larger items too. For $3,495, he'll sell you a "Harvest Right Large Freeze Dryer" (includes plastic bags and oxygen absorbers).

There are several books on sale, as you might expect, but actually not many - surprisingly few for a site ostensibly trading in "information." Maybe the Infowars audience isn't exactly a book-reading crowd.

But you will find a series of "alternative comics" - Alt-Hero. From the description: "If you grew up on the exciting stories of comic companies like Marvel, DC, Darkhorse and more, you're likely dissapointed in the comics of today. Filled with excessive social justice, uninteresting stories, constant character changes and focusing on movies instead of readers, the world of comics isn't near as good as it used to be. That's why Vox Day stepped in to create Alt-Hero, an exciting new kickstarted comic book series to challenge the SJW-converged comics of DC and Marvel. ... As the superpowered Homo Sequens and heroes continue to pursue justice, the threats around them - and the potential dangers of government overreach - only grow stronger."

And, taking a lesson from airlines and credit cards, "we worked hard to create a program that rewards you for purchasing your favorite high quality products from our store - Patriot Points!" You get more of them the more you buy.

Say this much for Alex Jones: He has figured out how to build a business model.
 

Told you so

Told you so

September 8, 2018

frazier

Long time GUARDIAN readers will recall “we told you so!” when it comes to recent revelations about Boise Fire Dept. financial ineptitude disclosed by the Idaho STATESMAN.

In his Statesman Thursday piece, reporter Sven Berg said Boise officials spent twice as much as they promised four years ago in a bond proposal. The bon d passed, some of the projects were not built and the money is gone.

“The overruns are due partly to rising demand for construction crews and materials — factors that have driven up costs and slowed both private and government projects across the Treasure Valley the last few years.

But city leaders admit a bigger factor was their miscalculation of both money and time. They say they’ve learned their lesson. And they’re getting the projects — and others — built anyway, by tapping rising property-tax revenues.”

The GUARDIAN was CRITICAL of the proposal at the time. This analysis apparently fell on deaf ears.

Nearly FIVE YEARS AGO we went into great detail about the need for other departments to have “skin in the game” if they were going to use Boise’s then-proposed training facility.

The GUARDIAN also raised some important warning five years ago which have proven valid. We have included the warnings below.

–Why do we give away hundreds of thousands of dollars in free fire protection to Boise State while charging around $1 million for Boise police at the same institution? BSU and other state agencies have a huge exposure and every taxpayer in the state should pay a tiny bit to protect those assets and people. It shouldn’t rest on the shoulders of Boise taxpayers alone.

–The fire budget has been used for new construction to facilitate growth in South and East suburbs.

–All the departments in the area work together on “mutual aid” agreements (memorandums of understanding). That’s good, but they should also pony up some cash for mutual training facilities. Boise’s claim of allowing the other departments to use the proposed new training facility in exchange for use of their stuff simply falls short.

–Instead of buying new fire equipment, the department is planning to lease trucks. If the leases are true leases, that COULD be OK. However, if they try to disguise long term debt purchases as a “lease,” they could ignite a legal tinderbox.

Boise FD has a You Tube VIDEO showing construction with a Chief Dennis Doan voiceover talking about the merits of the fire training center which is called a “regional facility” to be used by the department and “its partners.” We don’t know who will actually pay to use the place, nor do we know who the “partners,” may be.