The MountainGoat Report

Otter: Balancing the Budget On the Backs of Idaho Kids

Missed Revenue Forecasts and The 'Worst Scandal'

How much of this:

For two years, [Idaho’s chief economist Mike Ferguson's] forecasts missed actual state revenue totals, prompting criticism from some lawmakers he was too optimistic amid turbulence that accompanied the 2008 financial crisis and collapse of the housing bubble.

is related to this:

Idaho stands to lose more than $75 million just from tax compromises that are now in the works, according to a group of whistleblowers who are current and former employees of the state Tax Commission - including one $203,000 tax break about to be handed to a taxpayer on his $7 million private plane.

Suicide Prevention Chair: Idahoans Are 'Really Hurting'

The poor economy is taking a toll on Idahoans in many ways.

From the Idaho Press-Tribune, [emphasis added]:

Reported suicides in Idaho shot up by 22 percent from 2008 to 2009, according to figures compiled last month by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. And the chairperson of the Idaho Governor’s Council on Suicide Prevention said those numbers could get worse. The increase in suicides in Idaho in 2009 (307) from 2008 (251) marked at least the second year in a row reported suicides went up in the state.

The poor economy is a factor, Governor’s Council on Suicide Prevention chairperson Kathie Garrett said.

Idaho has consistently ranked high for suicides nationally and is the only state in the country without its own suicide prevention hotline.

The article goes on to note that calls from Idaho to a national suicide prevention line increased 61 percent from 2008 to 2009 but its operators lack knowledge of local resources available to callers.  A recent Idaho State University study showed that an Idaho hotline could be run for about $100,000 a year, incidentally the same one year amount allocated by the Idaho Health Freedom Act to sue the federal government over health care reform.

Garrett went on to tell the IPT about the substantial suicide increase, "We can’t put our finger directly and say this is the one cause, but we do know we are seeing an increase because of the economy. Unemployment is a stressor, home foreclosure is a stressor. The citizens are really hurting."

Indeed...and hopefully they're not too small to matter.

Is Otter Twisted?

This is what Idaho Governor Butch Otter calls a "great session," praising legislators for their "efficiency, sensitivity and civic virtue?"

The Idaho Statesman's Colleen Lamay reports on the effects of budget cuts on the state's mentally ill:

"We have a lot of panicked people out there and a lot of disarray," said Dr. Larry Banta, a Caldwell psychiatrist who contracts with the Idaho Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse to see state patients.

"We worry as providers that without sufficient funding of the mental health centers, we are going to have more tragic outcomes," Banta said.

Those outcomes could include suicide, homelessness or violence against other people, especially if patients stop taking prescribed medications, he said.

Tragic outcomes and potentially increasing a prison population that is already overcrowded, underfunded and stressed.  Many adjectives would seem appropriate--some would use "difficult"--great isn't one of them.

Is Governor Otter twisted or just out of touch?

'Stop This Insanity,' Indeed

It appears that once again the Idaho Legislature, Governor Otter and Attorney General Wasden are a little premature--this time in spouting off about "states rights" and "unconstitutional mandates."  While Idaho's already bare-bones budget is being systematically dismembered due to lack of revenue (some would say, the lack of will to raise revenue), the Legislature passed the Idaho Health FreeDumb Act.

Then Governor Otter proudly declared "a high priority on sovereignty," publicly making a show of signing it into law and curiously becoming semi-notorious for doing so.  (Contrast that with his "cloak and dagger" swearing in... what was that all about?)

Not to be outdone, then AG Wasden (cheered on by "stop this insanity" Otter) announces that he's joined 12 other states in a lawsuit against the federal government and "it will not be inexpensive" to "protect" Idahoans from health care.

Now, it seems all of that is moot . . . or the political grandstanding it appeared to be.

From Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) discussing a provision of the legislation he authored saying, "You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan." 

It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Governor Otter, AG Wasden, Idaho Legislature:  Stop this insanity.  We don't have the money to waste on political grandstanding, your 15 minutes of shame or to refurbish your anti-gumment credentials. 

Caught In the Idaho GOP 'Wonderland'

Miffed that they don't have supreme authority over every state government employee salary or retiree pension, Idaho Republican legislators are proving once again that local control is best, 'cept when it's not.

Seems some public school districts had the gall to give teachers and administrators raises this year.  Never mind that many districts were under contract to do so or had so frugally managed their funds allowing for it, Rep. Cliff Bayer (R-Boise) and others believe that decision should be left to the ax-wielding Idaho Legislature.

From the Idaho Statesman:

Teacher salaries are not set by the state, but by negotiations between districts and employees. The state provides some discretionary funding to districts, which also receive money from local and federal sources.

Bayer, a member of JFAC, wants limits on that discretion.

"I'd like to see those state-appropriated dollars not be used for raises," Bayer said. "I don't want to see a situation in this climate where we fall short of classroom needs, maybe more than we needed to, because of displacement with increased salaries."

With a compulsion against raising revenue or even for collecting revenue owed (bizarrely 10 to 12 percent tuition hikes not withstanding) and petrified by a teabag-wielding minority (apparently students aren't very scary), state Republicans have resolved to balance the budget on the backs of the young, the elderly and the infirm and are incensed that any have escaped the ax.

"Off with their heads," omnipotence-craving Idaho GOP legislators screech, as if stuck in some nonsensical rabbit hole.

Can't a Guy Get a Little Compassion?

Idaho Governor Butch Otter says his job isn't any fun.  He says it's tough making cuts to state government and he deserves some compassion for doing it.  Really.  He said so to reporters this morning.

He said that's what he was hoping for when he released a scathing opinion attacking the press for criticizing some of those budget decisions last week--some compassion--all the while curiously insisting that he has a thick skin.

Here's how Boise Weekly reported the governor's comment:

"Otter doesn't want to cut," Otter said. "I would like to see some compassion. This is a tough tough position to be in and I've got to pick and I've got to choose."

Third-person Otter aside, it's hard to feel compassion for a guy who reported a net worth of between $8.9 and $31.7 million in 2006 and whose toughest day would probably seem quite utopic to many.

If Otter wants to know what tough is, he should ask that young man who appeared recently in a Nampa courtroom charged with stealing a bag of chicken.

Or maybe he should ask that young college student who couldn't afford the prescription the doctor ordered last month.  It wasn't really optional.

Or maybe that family over on 15th Avenue who lost their home to foreclosure a few months ago.

Or that elderly Nampa woman who couldn't afford insurance for her car or to pay the citation for not having it.

I bet there are tens of thousands of Idahoans who could describe a tough day to Butch Otter.

No, can't say as there is much compassion for Butch Otter and his "tough job" here.

Cowboy up, Butch.

Governor Otter, Stubborn Facts and Petard Hoisting

Yesterday Idaho Governor Butch Otter released a scathing opinion accusing the press of a lack of civility and glossing over the facts when reporting on his proposed budget cuts this year.  Quoting John Adams saying "facts are stubborn things," the opinon disputes claims that he wanted to cut funding for public schools and shut down seven state agencies.

But Governor Otter is trying to have it both ways.

In January, in an election year and facing "breathtaking" budget shortfalls, Otter attempted to veer back to his libertarian, government-shaking roots by proposing weaning some agencies off government funding.  When those agencies turned out to be popular and his ideas widely criticized, even by traditionally very conservative editorial boards, he now says he really didn't mean it.

Otter's recently penned opinion lambastes media criticism of his budget plans, essentially claiming that he had no choice but to propose cutting public education budgets and denying that it was his intention to "shut down State parks and the Department of Parks and Recreation, Idaho Public Television, the Idaho Human Rights Commission, the Idaho Commission on Hispanic Affairs, the Idaho Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Idaho Council on Developmental Disabilities, and the State Independent Living Council."

He says that zeroing out these agency budgets over four years was an "effort to nudge those agencies toward the greater efficiency we need, or give them the chance to find alternative funding methods."

He continues:

It was not an artful process. That’s a fair criticism. However, I did not propose closing any parks or eliminating any agencies. I did not propose “a batch of half-baked plans to zero out small but politically popular state services.” [Idaho Statesman] I did not ignore “hidden costs.” [Spokesman-Review] My approach was not, “If it brings joy to people, government has no business doing it.” [Boise Weekly] And I am not trying “to run parks or public TV on the cheap.” [Idaho Statesman]

Facts are stubborn things.

The governor would like to believe that criticism of his budget plan, including eliminating general fund revenue for popular state agencies, is unfounded but what did the governor expect people to believe when he said in his 2010 State of the State and Budget Address that his proposals for "sweeping changes" in State government were "meant to be permanent?"

Here is what he said then:

With that in mind, let me say again that the budget recommendations I bring you today are based on the fact that it is not State government’s money. It is the people’s money.

As a result, these recommendations are responsibly conservative.

They were developed with great care, deliberation and a full understanding of their consequences – real and perceived.

And they provide for a balanced budget, as our Idaho Constitution so wisely requires.

My recommendations include some sweeping changes to the way we do business in State government.

Those changes are meant to be permanent – based on a philosophy of government that recognizes our responsibility to individual Idahoans rather than to government itself.

I believe they represent what can and must be achieved within the realities we face, and to more closely align our government with its properly limited role.

He didn't say anything about "nudging" state agencies toward efficiencies as he now claims was his intention.

No.  In fact he made his intentions quite clear.

There Otter is saying that some functions of current state government don't fit within his limited-government philosophy and should be realigned.  Although he didn't explicitly state what agencies he believes fall outside that philosophy, he made it perfectly clear in his budget proposal—by phasing out their general fund revenue.

And he said that the decision to do so was "developed with great care, deliberation and a full understanding of their consequences."  Only after being widely criticized for that decision does he concede that it was "not an artful process."

Facts are stubborn things.

Here is what the governor wrote in his fiscal year 2011 budget highlights:

The Governor’s recommendation fully integrates several legislative priorities that his office plans to advance during the 2010 legislative session, including the beginning of a four-year phase out of General Fund support for:

• Human Rights Commission
• State Independent Living Council
• Developmental Disabilities Council
• Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission
• Hispanic Commission
• Idaho Public Television

The Governor’s recommendation includes the elimination of the Department of Parks and Recreation, with park maintenance being transferred to the Department of Lands and the fees portion being transferred to the Department of Fish and Game. The combination will result in fiscal year savings of $10 million with ongoing savings of $7 million annual. The goal is to ensure the continued operation of Idaho parks for residence [sic] and visitors.

Governor Otter can state that he "did not propose ... eliminating any agencies" but it wouldn't be true.  He did--explicitly when he recommended eliminating Parks and Rec and implicitly when he said those other six agencies weren't worthy of taxpayer funding by eliminating general fund support for them.

Governor Otter can be the ax-wielding, limited government budget cutter or he can be the amiable, efficiency seeking budget nudger.  He can't be both.

Governor Otter can criticize the critics but facts are stubborn things and his criticism embarrassingly epitomizes "hoist with his own petard."

Hypocrisy Of The Year . . . So Far

Kudos to The Political Game for first bringing this issue to light January 14 in, "A Reminder Amidst Political Ploys" and again a week later in "What Compulsory Coverage Really Means."  Now, from Eye On Boise:

HB 391, the “Idaho Health Freedom Act,” has just been moved to general orders for amendment by unanimous consent of the House. Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, said the problem is that the bill, as written, would outlaw a requirement lawmakers enacted into law back in 2002: Requring all state college students to have health insurance.

The bill would give the state the authority to sue the federal government should they pass health care reform legislation that mandates individuals carry a health insurance policy.  Apparently the Idaho Legislature wants to protect its right to be the sole executer of mandates on the citizenry.

Over the weekend here at MGR, this bill and Idaho leaders advocating against health care reform were called stupidly shortsighted... add shamelessly hypocritical.

Let Them Eat Cake

Advice for Governor Otter and the Idaho Legislature from Idaho Mountain Express:

They need to talk about the elephants in the room, including the de facto zero sales tax on sales of goods on the Internet and taxes on gasoline that haven't been increased since 1996.

The first is grossly unfair to bricks-and-mortar retailers who must charge sales taxes on goods while Internet merchants gain the advantage of being able to charge less.

The second is stupidly shortsighted.

State departments and commissions on the chopping block have quickly found ways to stave off their demise for now.

But nothing will save education and the services needed by Idaho's weakest citizens unless Otter and legislators take off the political blinders, roll up their sleeves and do what businesses and families do every day: Figure out palatable ways to bring more money through the door.

Won't happen.  Won't happen because stupidly shortsighted is apparently a sacred mantra for Idaho leaders.  As we speak, the governor and legislators are hoarding money on the off chance they'll need to tell the federal government to shove its health care reform.  And not to shove health care reform for them.  They've already got theirs.  They want to tell the federal government to shove health care reform on behalf of every other Idaho citizen.

What they don't like—what they are stockpiling our money to fight—is a mandate that everyone buy insurance, never mind that they are already enforcing their own insurance mandates on Idahoans.  (Apparently they don't like the feds creepin' on their corner.)

In very simple terms the problem is this:  if you don't require that everyone buy insurance but you do require that companies insure everyone with preexisting conditions and not drop anyone when they get sick, the price of health insurance will go through the roof.  Companies simply will not take on the cost of paying millions of claims for the less healthy without increasing premiums, co-pays or deductibles for everyone.  There has to be a larger pool of generally healthy people in the mix.

And that is why those who understood it were demanding that a public option be included in any health care reform package.  If you are going to require that everyone buy a policy, you have to give them a choice.  A choice that includes something besides the crappy policies currently offered by the insurance company monopoly.  A choice of buying into a not-for-profit pool if it meets their needs.

It would be like having a freeway system alongside a toll road system. One built and maintained by the government and one built and maintained by private companies.  Those who like the private route and find that it gets them where they want to go, can take that road.  For those who don't, there is an alternative route.

A requirement that everyone take the toll road would be insane, yet that is exactly what a mandate without a public option does.  On the other hand, if the toll road is going to be the only route available, without a mandate very few will be able to afford even getting on the road.  But yet, it was the public "freeway system" that was demonized as "socialism" by those trying to scare people and score political points.

Stupidly shortsighted.

Idaho, those are your "leaders"—your Congressional Delegation, your Governor and your Legislature—advocating a toll road-only option for you, because they obviously know best.  And on your behalf, hoarding money so they can tell the federal government where to shove your health care reform.

Nothing ever tasted so bitter.

Eye of the Beholder

Need a little good news today?

Most do after the Governor's S.O.S yesterday filled with ideological butchering and dubious praise and leaving no one to answer the phone in some places as Butch Otter endeavors to remake state government in his incrementalist image—and permanently.

The "we're all in this together" rings hollow in the spiffed up magnificent marble of the Capitol as does praise for "convincing" billion dollar French companies with exclusive tax breaks while the vulnerable suffer.

Well, here's that good news from the Washington Post:  "Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009."

Wall Street firms aren't the only banks that had a banner year. The Federal Reserve made record profits in 2009, as its unconventional efforts to prop up the economy created a windfall for the government.

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.

Gasp. . . returning billions to the Treasury?!  That oughta confuzzle the "abolish the Fed" folk a little.  Oh, wait, that's not just some loose cadre of fringy-mcfringersons.  That's the entire Idaho GOP!

'Under' Every Great Man. . .

Recently released economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau's ongoing American Community Survey indicates that during this recession Idaho's poor—especially women and children—aren't faring well.  It's not clear that those making decisions in this state have plans to ease this burden any time soon.  In fact if anything, it seems the load being carried by Idaho women and children will get heavier before it gets lighter.

Average household income ($59,429) is down from the previous year.  The percentage of people using food stamps (7.6%) is up.  Households with incomes less than $25,000 (23.5%) are up. Those making between $25,000 and $35,000 (12.2%) are down.  The percentage of children with all parents in the workforce (65.1%) is up.  Per capita income ($22,748) is down.  The percentage of grandparents responsible for grandchildren (54.2%) is up—from 26th to ninth in the nation.  More people—renting and buying—are paying a higher percentage of their income in housing costs.

Nowhere is it more evident just who is taking the brunt of this recession than in the number of Idahoans living in poverty.

While the percentage of all Idaho families below the poverty level increased slightly from 9.3 percent in 2006 to 9.4 percent in 2008, during the same period female householders living in poverty grew at a significant rate of 17 percent.  The number of single women with children under eighteen living in poverty climbed from 34.7 percent to 40.6 percent.  Those with very young children (under five) jumped nearly ten percentage points, from 47.7 percent to a whopping 56 percent.

One contributing factor is the disparity in earnings between men and women in Idaho, where the median earnings for women are 72 percent less than for men.  This disparity has persisted over time, but Idaho women working full-time, year-round in 2008 had a median salary of $29,730, down slightly from $29,880 in 2006.  Men, on the other hand, saw their median wage increase over the same period from $40,866 to $41,461.  In only five states (Wyoming, West Virginia, Utah, Indiana and New Hampshire) do women encounter a greater earnings disparity than that of Idaho women.  [For a sobering snapshot of how this earning disparity persists across all occupations in Idaho, even those dominated by high percentages of women, check out this chart.]

Idaho women were more likely than men to find themselves living in poverty in all educational attainment categories.  Fifteen percent of female high school graduates had incomes below the poverty line compared with eight percent of men.  Even nearly 6,000 women with a bachelor's degree or higher had incomes below the poverty line in 2008—nearly two-thirds more than their male counterparts.

The survey estimates that in 2008, 13.7 percent of Idaho children under eighteen were without health insurance—nearly 4,000 more than '06 and '07 estimates of 12.2 percent.  The number of uninsured Idahoans overall is estimated to be 267,000 or 17.8 percent.  Although the survey doesn't separate these most recent numbers by gender [at least I defy anyone to locate this data if it exists], a report issued in March from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation indicates that in the last decade the number of uninsured women in Idaho has increased at a rate of 37 percent, while the rate of increase for men is 4.7 percent.

Women in Idaho earn less, are more likely to live in poverty, are becoming increasingly uninsured and, as the primary caretakers for children in this state, during this recession are being asked to do more with less.  With his new budget proposals that include slashing 6 percent out of higher education, inexplicably the governor of this state is cutting women off at the knees, creating obstacles to the primary tool they have of creating a better life for their children—education.

Idaho women are legendarily tough but this gives a whole new meaning to "women and children first."

Update 10.06.09:  Betsy Russell has more on 2008 children's health insurance data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey with results that vary from the data in the American Community Survey.

Lost In Anger

Jared Hopkins of the Times-News reported the reaction Rep. Maxine Bell (R-Jerome) had to the thirty-five bills vetoed by Governor Otter this week as, in the waning days of the session, he attempted to bully the Legislature into passing a fuel tax increase to pay for road maintenance.

"One bill would’ve sent a message. Two bills would’ve sent a message. A bill a day would’ve sent a message.  But this message – the message was lost in the anger."

Capitol City Heats Up

Governor Butch Otter threw a hissy fit yesterday vetoing ten bills, sending a message to the Idaho Legislature, particularly the House, that he was not pleased that they failed to increase fuel taxes and other transportation fees to raise funds for road maintenance.  Today, the hissy fit grew by more than a factor of three as the governor vetoed twenty-five more budget bills when the entrenched House failed again to pass a gas tax increase, making this hot-for-April day in Boise even more stifling for legislators.

In day one hundred and counting—at thirty-five bills and counting—this legislative session is far from over.  Where it will end is anyone's guess at this point, but as Eye On Boise reports, Otter's message to the legislature is, "They need to know that I’m serious."

I think they get the point.

I think we all get the point and at $30,000 a day, sending the bill for the session over the $3 million mark, it could turn into an expensive game of chicken for taxpayers.  Meanwhile school budgets are being cut, state employees are facing pay cuts or layoffs and the poor, elderly and disabled are being told there isn't enough money to go around.

So the Republican legislature and the Republican governor keep shoveling taxpayer money into the furnace, raising the heat and the stakes in the capitol city until the other side caves.  Raise taxes or keep shoveling.  And all over what?  Road maintenance.

This is what the governor is willing to throw down over... not the poor, not the elderly, not the disabled, not you, not me, not your kids—road maintenance.  Maybe we could all chip in and buy the governor a new pair of jeans.  Obviously his have become too tight and there's nothing at all hot about that.

Bryan Fischer: We Don't Want To Be Stimulated

Now that President Obama has officially signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law and Idaho Governor Butch Otter has signed an executive order creating a "stimulus executive committee" (members to be appointed whose job it will be to make recommendations on what to do with Idaho's share), lately there's been little talk of anything but stimulus.

Today's broadcast of "Zeb at the Ranch" was no different, with Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance joining Zeb Bell to talk about, what else, but the stimulus package, among other things.  Despite being "the third-most stressed state economically," Fischer's suggestion is that Idaho should refuse to be stimulated.

Bryan Fischer:  Well, one thing, I would like to see, uh, Idaho's lawmakers turn down this stimulus money.  You know the Legislature right now has even suspended a number of committee hearings to wait and see how much money the federal government is gonna promise them, but I will guarantee you that this money is gonna come with strings.

Zeb Bell:  Uh-hum.

Fischer:  And one of the things that Idaho citizens could do right now is simply be [sic] to contact their representatives and say, "Look don't take the stimulus money.  This money is gonna come with strings from D.C.  We don't want bureaucrats in D. C. telling us how to run our schools," and that sort of thing and urge them to just politely, uh, decline.

You know, I know the education money for instance comes with strings attached that Idaho can take the money as long as they promise not to layoff any teachers or reduce any teacher salaries.  And the education committees were just right on the cusp of some fairly dramatic and long overdue educational reforms and all that got put on hold when this offer of this kind of free money from D.C.—I mean, it's not free, obviously; our kids and grand-kids are gonna have to pay for it.  But when this offer of this money, uh, came, it kind of short-circuited all that process of budgetary reform.  And so that's one place to begin.

The arguments surrounding education budget cuts are varied but Fischer may be one of the few, if not the only one, at the Capitol Annex publicly cheering these budget cuts as "long overdue."  Even the House Education Committee chairman Rep. Bob Nonini (R-Coeur d’Alene), (making news today for appearing to strong-arm new Lieutenant Governor Brad Little over State Board of Education appointments), when introducing controversial legislation affecting teacher contracts and pay, recognized that the proposal isn't ideal or pleasant. 

"This is not fun stuff … but we’re in a crisis," Nonini told the committee. "The other thing we are accomplishing in this legislation is not to have teachers lose their jobs."

And when later relaying to the committee Idaho's estimated share of the education stimulus money, Nonini called it "good news."  [Find info on the estimated state by state funding distribution from the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee and a discussion of what the numbers mean here and here.]

That Fischer would prefer to see Idaho teachers taking pay cuts or, apparently, out of work rather than accept federal stimulus money under the pretext that "bureaucrats in D.C." would be telling us how to run our schools is a ludicrous failure of both compassion and logic.

Not only would teacher pay cuts and layoffs add to the growing number of Idaho families who find themselves struggling to make ends meet (meanwhile telling Idaho kids who find themselves in overcrowded, crumbling classrooms to just suck it up); regardless whether or not Idaho actually takes a dime of stimulus money, you can bet that come April 15th, every single Idaho taxpayer will still be paying the same tax rates that every other taxpayer in every other state in the union will undoubtedly be paying.

Idahoans won't be getting the special "you-didn't-take-the-stimulus" rates.  And with statistics like these:

• food stamp participation up 24.2 percent,
• home foreclosure rate the 10th-highest in the country,
• December's unemployment rate up nearly 4 percent from December 2007,

Idahoans can little afford to pay for the stimulus other states will be enjoying while politely saying, "Thanks, but no thanks."

What does the IVA, an entity that doesn't pay any taxes, have against Idaho taxpayers anyway?  Idaho family values indeed.

Geithner's Confirmed but Tough Decisions Ahead

President Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, facing confirmation delays and tough questioning in hearings over a tax controversy was confirmed by the Senate yesterday on a 60-34 vote.  Idaho Senators Crapo and Risch split on the vote with Crapo joining nine other Republicans and a majority of Democrats voting to confirm.  Risch joined the majority of Republicans and three Democrats voting against confirmation.

Geithner was sworn in just hours after the vote and as the Washington Post reports, is ready to begin the unenviable task of managing this economic turnaround.

Geithner's first act at Treasury, which is set to be announced today, takes aim at limiting the influence of lobbyists seeking rescue funds from the department's $700 billion financial rescue program, government officials said.

Though important, Idahoans may be more interested in whether Geithner can apply a tourniquet to an economy that is bleeding jobs by the thousands.  Especially given yesterday's news that, nationally, companies in a variety of industries from Home Depot (7,000) to Caterpillar (20,000) were planning layoffs totaling nearly 40,000 and here in Idaho, even the health care industry that was once considered immune from workforce reductions has seen nearly 200 jobs cut or hours reduced at Treasure Valley hospitals.  All this on top of December press releases like, "State Pays Out Record Amount in Unemployment Benefits."

Each one of those jobs lost represents a family who may or may not have somewhere else to turn; maybe they have other job prospects or maybe they don't; maybe they have friends or family or maybe they don't; maybe they have community or neighbors with resources or maybe they don't.  How many will swallow their pride and turn to the state as a last resort and with state agencies already oveburdened and facing budget cuts, will be turned away empty handed?  If even just one, that's too many. 

To Senators Crapo and Risch and Representatives Simpson and Minnick and to every state legislator, as you deal with Secretary Geithner and others in solving this economic crisis, may you not be "too high to see their eyes."  And to the next person who accuses those seeking assistance as being "on the take" or something equally derogatory, may you never be in the awful position of having to ask for help.

Stupid Is. . . .

Tough times call for tough decisions but it's no time for stupid ones which is exactly what this would be:

Correction Department Director Brent Reinke told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the department was preparing a formal request for information to see if any private prison companies would be interested in taking over the 500-bed Idaho Correctional Institution-Orofino

You'd think after all the problems, problems and more problems the Department of Corrections has had housing Idaho inmates in scandal-ridden private prison facilities, Reinke would be intimately familiar with the pitfalls of privatizing this government entity.  Since he apparently isn't, maybe a refresher from Molly Ivins would be helpful, "What happens if you privatize prisons is that you have a large industry with a vested interest in building ever-more prisons."

Let's hope in digging ourselves out of this economic hole we don't bury our common sense in another.