Spokane7
65°
August 7, 2011 in Idaho
Stoking Idaho’s conservative fire
District appears destined to seize power from moderates
Idaho District 3 Rep. Vito Barbieri works in his concession stand along with his daughter Tina, 14, at Honeysuckle Beach in Hayden on Aug. 3.
(Full-size photo)
Conservatism is practically a religion in Idaho’s legislative District 3, the district that elected tax-protesting state Rep. Phil Hart four times and this year added two like-minded lawmakers he recruited to run.
“I was considered a radical to my friends in California, and then I got up here and found out I was a moderate,” said Vito Barbieri, a first-term state representative and, like many District 3 residents, a California transplant who moved north.
The district, which takes in Hayden, tony Hayden Lake, the once-agricultural but fast-developing Rathdrum Prairie and little towns like Spirit Lake and Athol, has seen massive development and population increase over the last decade, but its conservative nature is nothing new – the last time a Democrat was elected here was in 1994. No Democrat has even run for the Legislature since 2002, and then there was just one candidate, who lost.
What’s different, though, is the intensity of the conservative leanings. Former state Sen. Mike Jorgenson, a Republican who represented District 3 for six years but lost to Hart-backed state Sen. Steve Vick in the primary in 2010, said, “These radical losers think that having legislation that requires contractors to register is communistic – any kind of reasonable government is too much government.”
With the Republican Party’s strong dominance in Idaho statewide, District 3 may offer something of a window into the future as conservatives within the party, some of them former third-party members, increasingly seek to steer it to the right and seize the reins from more moderate Republicans they deride as “Republicans in name only,” or RINOs.
When Hart first ran for the state Legislature in 2002, he ran on the Constitution Party ticket and lost with only 32 percent of the vote. But two years later, he beat the late Rep. Wayne Meyer of Rathdrum in a low-turnout GOP primary, targeting Meyer for not voting a hard line against abortion, and sailed to victory in the general election.
It’s a move increasingly seen around the state, as third-party members shift to working within the GOP. Former Libertarian Party Chairman Ryan Davidson of Boise, for example, is now a vice chairman of the Ada County Republican Party. “I really like to consider myself a Ron Paul Republican,” Davidson said. “I just decided that the third-party movement wasn’t really going anywhere, and that maybe if we tried to reform the two major parties we’d have a better chance.”
As for Democrats in District 3, “We have not performed there in a very, very long time,” said Shelley Landry, executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party and a North Idaho resident until this spring. “The population there leans not just to be conservative Republicans, but there are some constitutionalists, some libertarians, that definitely don’t agree with the Democratic Party.”
Rally Right targets candidates
Jeff Alltus, a Christian conservative who represented District 3 from 1995 to 2000, is a member of Rally Right, a group formed by a church pastor in 2009 to try to shift the local Republican Party more toward a religious conservative perspective. The group’s slogan, emblazoned on its website: “It is easier to fix the Republican Party than to try to start a third party.”
Alltus said the group has been successful, electing its own candidates to Kootenai County GOP precinct positions. “It was started to get conservatives back in office, to kind of take over the Republican Party, which they did,” he said.
Hayden Lake GOP icon Ruthie Johnson, the 87-year-old former longtime aide to the late U.S. Sen. Jim McClure, was among those targeted for her party precinct position. In response, she said, she “went to a Rally Right meeting and I told ’em they’d never find anyone more conservative than I was.” She won the election.
Johnson says of the district’s current legislators, “I think they’re all conservative, and I think they represent the conservative thinking of our district.”
She said she’s not thrilled with Hart’s tax-protesting, which includes a pending appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court over his more than $53,000 in unpaid state income taxes. “I think it was foolish of him to fight that in the way he did in the first place,” she said. “I thought that he should pay his taxes, and then challenge it.”
Johnson, a Wallace native, said the area was mostly Democratic when she first moved there in 1968, but that changed over the years. She attributes it to concern over “what’s been going on nationally.” She added, “We’re a self-reliant state we don’t want everything done for us.”
Pluses and minuses to political climate
District 3 is also a remarkably politically attuned district: A whopping 83 percent of the voting-age population is registered to vote, compared with just 50 percent statewide.
Ron McIntyre, owner of Super 1 Foods and the mayor of Hayden for the past 11 years, says the district is “very high in Republican, but mainly conservative.”
McIntyre didn’t vote for Hart in the last election, choosing instead a write-in candidate, Howard Griffiths, who garnered 25 percent of the vote. “Pretty gutsy to run when you have the government after you, the IRS,” he said of Hart. Still, “I thought the write-in had a lot less problems. I figured he could focus better.”
For Howie White, owner of the Saddle Up Grill in Athol, there are pluses and minuses to the political climate. When his restaurant burned down in 2008, he was able to rebuild with the help of volunteers and dealt with little red tape.
But he’s not happy that his hometown of 22 years has stubbornly resisted putting in a sewer system to allow the town to grow. As a result, he estimates, the area around Athol has grown by 10,000 people, but the city of Athol, still on septic tanks, grew by just 16 people in the last census. At the same time, Hayden’s population grew by 45 percent.
“I look at the older people who have to drive as far as Coeur d’Alene for as simple a thing as a prescription,” he said. “Whereas if they’d let a sewer system go in years ago, there would be a pharmacy, there would be a doctor’s office … a large grocery store. It would give a lot of people jobs.”
‘Cream of the crop’
Former state Sen. Jorgenson is bitter over his election loss after three terms, noting that his voting record was ranked the eighth-most conservative in the 35-member Senate in a state-commissioned study in 2010. The same study ranked Hart the 15th-most conservative-voting representative. But the new wave of conservative Republicans in the district branded Jorgenson not conservative enough.
Jorgenson, who was known for backing harsh anti-immigration legislation at the Statehouse, said, “Most of the people, the average Republicans, are embarrassed by Phil Hart’s image.”
He believes most GOP faithful, especially California transplants, are what he calls “stock-in-trade Republicans” who “don’t want to see taxes go up, they want to see immigration issues put in check.” But in a one-party district, voter turnout in the primary elections can be light – 24.7 percent of registered voters in 2010, compared with general-election turnout of 59.2 percent of registered voters – and intraparty squabbles can determine election outcomes.
Jorgenson, a former City Council president in Hayden Lake, said the district is full of haves and have-nots, including many retirees who moved to the area with “substantial means,” along with working-class folks who struggle to find jobs.
Barbieri falls somewhere in between, having sold a law practice in Orange County and bought a North Idaho restaurant, only to have it fail. Now he does “as many part-time jobs as possible,” from state lawmaker to paralegal work to operating a concession trailer with his family, “to try and make ends meet.”
He can’t just take the bar exam in Idaho and start practicing law again because the law school he graduated from in Southern California wasn’t accredited at the time, and he hasn’t practiced law 10 out of the past 15 years. That means he’d have to seek a waiver from the state Supreme Court.
Barbieri, like Vick, lives in Dalton Gardens, a city of one-acre- minimum lots where folks can keep a semirural feel to their in-town living.
With the area’s beautiful lakes, lower cost of living compared with California, and conservative bent, Barbieri said he’s still glad he moved north. He said, “Fifteen minutes outside of your house you’re in the forest – it’s pretty amazing.”
Johnson thinks the influx of newcomers has improved the area’s politics. “When so many people from California were moving in, I thought we were going to get all of the kooks,” she said. “And instead, we got the cream of the crop – the ones that wanted to get away from some of the ideas they had down there.”
Recent stories by Betsy Z. Russell
Mussel infestation threatens NW waters May 30, 2012
- Invasive mussels on the move toward Northwest May 29, 2012 5
- Unique artifacts confirm indelible link between Idaho, Lincoln May 27, 2012 1
- Eye on Boise: Idaho backs Montana’s campaign spending fight May 27, 2012 1
- Dems control Idaho tax panel May 26, 2012
Scoutster on August 07 at 6:32 a.m.
Maybe they just got the cream of the kooks.
dukkandpooh on August 07 at 6:37 a.m.
They sure did LOL
idahocity on August 07 at 6:46 a.m.
dems in that district should do what rick perry from texas did and switch that letter after their name, wear pointy boots, and talk funny. that was enough political camouflage to fool the texans.
Reaper on August 07 at 7:47 a.m.
This is an article of spoiled milk! Boo hoo - I lost power in the last election and it went to people who are REAL conservatives! Cry baby! Get over it. Mike Jorgansen and Duane Rasmussen supported Howard Griffiths in the last election? Where are there family values - word on the street is he was married 5 times - 6 if you don’t count his common law marriage. This is the candidate they supported. Wake up people - don’t listen to this biased reporting. You could tell an election is around the corner.
hawken on August 07 at 8:18 a.m.
Idaho is only the conservative tip of the iceberg.
Wait until November, 2012 when the iceberg is seen in full view, as the result of the dismal failures of the liberal left after four years of controlling government and Obama’s totally failed, liberal, leadership from behind.
kma on August 07 at 9:12 a.m.
And, pray tell just what have the wingnut right extremists done hawken. Can you please tell everyone here all their accomplishments? WE ARE WAITING hawken!
Oh, and Jeff Alltus. What a liar and cheat he is. A Christian, yeah, only for the greed!!! Don’t get caught up in his web of MY WAY OR NO WAY.
kma on August 07 at 9:38 a.m.
“He” who Reaper. Alltus, Barbier, Jorgenson…. who is “he” Reaper.
Yep, they (kooks) have come as Idaho has become a haven for liars, cheats and thieves and rightwing nutcases like Barbier, Alltus, Hart, Otter, Luna and all the rest.
Look out, they will next want your first born so they can start forming their army of extremist militants against anyone that does not believe as all these idiots do.
Best to stay under the radar in this state, or you might be mistaken for a wolf or some other wild animal and be shot on the spot…But, but….. officer he/she looked like a wolf in people’s clothing. Wait, didn’t Alltus unlawfully possess wildlife…and was found guilty and fined. Yepper. Oh, and Hart…what a fine upstanding example of the American way. I can cheat and not pay my taxes and get away with it because I am an extremist republican wingnut. But, don’t you joe citizen try it…or your behind will be thrown in jail in a heart beat! But, again that is the republican extremist wingnut way.
reservedparking on August 07 at 9:40 a.m.
Or watch, as the iceberg perhaps sees the light of day and melts in the heat of Republican failures in compromise, promised job creation, and their apparent amnesia or head-in-the-sand mentality. Voting to raise the debt limit was no problem for Republicans under GWB - they did it seven times! How much of the current debt was inherited from…. wait for it…. a Republican president?
Attention Congress (all of you): Enough of the partisan garbage. Stop the blame game. Accept responsibility for our present situation. Get to work.
maria on August 07 at 9:49 a.m.
It was a beautiful Sunday morning. I got my cup of coffee and sat down to read the news here. Then, like a blast of toxic noxious fumes, squawken yet again rears his fugly head to turn this site into bird cage liner.
johnclarke on August 07 at 9:53 a.m.
“We’re a self-reliant state we don’t want everything done for us.”
OMG - what? Idaho is a WELFARE state that lives on gubmint dollars, thank you very much. Let’s trot out the unemployment and welfare statistics for Athol and see how “self reliant” North Idaho really is. Hilarious, and these clown keep voting Republican. Good for them.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on August 07 at 9:56 a.m.
^ LOL maria.
And you were expecting…. what?
Hiker on August 07 at 9:59 a.m.
Washingtonians definitely have it better. Our overall state and local tax burden is slightly lower than Idaho’s. And our per capita income is much higher.
dukkandpooh on August 07 at 11:07 a.m.
There is definitely no shortage here of citizens who consistently vote against their own best interests and don’t even realize it.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on August 07 at 11:18 a.m.
I do enjoy how Hawkypoo thinks some big tea bagger conservative wave is going to wash over the country. The Tea Bagger Party has the LOWEST approval ratings out of the whole congress. Which says a lot when the whole congress has a disapproval rating of about 85% right now - this highest in this nations history.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on August 07 at 11:21 a.m.
Also, just because Idaho is stupid enough to keep voting in tax cheats and then also votes in this losers friends who the tax cheat recommends, doesn’t mean the rest of the country is as stupid as North Idaho is.
Keep voting republican Idaho, seems to work out well for you being one of the biggest welfare states in the country.
greyhound2 on August 07 at 11:30 a.m.
As one of the poorest states in the Union, at near the bottom of the educational ladder with the 2nd highest incarceration rate per capita in the country, it is amazing that Idaho, a one party state, keeps voting against its own self interest for the majority of its population. While the Republican Party, which is single minded in representing the interests of the rich and corporations at the expense of the middle and lower classes, is able to sway voters to support their causes even though they would never even dream of inviting any of them to their $35,000 per plate fund raiser dinners. Idaho keeps voting Republican even though none of them would ever be invited in the back door, or the servants entrance, to any of their black tie events. Stranger than fiction, but true. Maybe its the cowboy thing, freedom of sleeping under the stars with hot coffee over a campfire, that keeps them delusional. Problem is, those days ended 100 years ago when the West was criss-crossed with barbwire.
meadman on August 07 at 11:46 a.m.
well said, Greyhound… I’m sure the Idaho GOP voters are also happy about the downgrading of the nation’s credit rating by S&P. They see it as a victory for “self-reliant”. It is very true that BOTH parties are responsible for the total debt (altho a great case could be made for the recent increases due to GWB’s tax cuts, 2 unfunded wars, and a trillion dollar unfunded drug benefit).
HOWEVER, the failure to actually deal with that deficit in a responsible manner is TOTALLY on the Republicans and the Tea Party. Boehner can’t control them and the rest are afraid of violating their “oath” to Grover Norquist (I thought they were supposed to represent the citizens of their district…)
On page 4 of the S&P report: “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.” -S&P report on downgrading of US credit rating
How do they expect to resolve the debt without revenue? Can any of us pay down our bills without a paycheck? Why do the Republicans think it can be done?
Pat O'Leary on August 07 at 12:42 p.m.
Because they are a pack of morons.
johnclarke on August 07 at 12:54 p.m.
“Maybe its the cowboy thing, freedom of sleeping under the stars with hot coffee over a campfire, that keeps them delusional’
Yes, well said. I simply don’t get it. I spend alot of weekends on Idaho’s beautiful lakes and leave my dollars with the local businesses as much as possible. I find the small business owners to be very friendly and hard working - doing their best to get by. Unfortunately, that attitude is not shared by many in North Idaho.
force_vector on August 07 at 5:24 p.m.
The Republican Party is able to thrive in many places it should not, such as N Idaho and Spokane, by taking ownership of the “culture of morality” stance. While there are plenty of examples that show the hypocrisy of the claim to moral high-ground, it resonates anyway, for some reason. However, places like N Idaho and Spokane don’t win national elections. If Republicans want to have a prayer in winning the 2012 Presidency, they had better drop the moral-social bs and stick to the economic debacle we are in, and clearly define their intended solutions.
gmorton on August 07 at 5:45 p.m.
meadman wrote,
“On page 4 of the S&P report: ‘We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.” -S&P report on downgrading of US credit rating.”
Nice out-of-context quote. I assume you picked that up from some lefty web site.
The assumption in question is the assumption S&P made in earlier analyses that the Bush tax cuts would be allowed to expire. Given that they have now been extended twice, and Republicans remain opposed to tax increases, S&P has now abandoned that assumption.
Thus the “assumption” referred to in that sentence is not the “assumption” that US bonds deserved an AAA rating.
Here is the entire report:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/text-of-sps-downgrade-of-us-ratings-outlook-2011-04-18
“How do they expect to resolve the debt without revenue?”
So now you jump from out-of-context quotes to hyperbole.
The US has revenue – about $2.2 trillion this year. And you resolve the deficits by cutting spending until it matches revenue.
force_vector on August 07 at 5:52 p.m.
“The US has revenue – about $2.2 trillion this year. And you resolve the deficits by cutting spending until it matches revenue.”
You resolve, in-part, the deficits by taxing at a flat rate all Americans, so those who are “taking” are also “giving”. Ownership of dependency is the first step towards self-reliance. Do that first, then discuss what else to cut, with a huge increase in the number of voters who suddenly give a crap since they are now having to help pay for it. The flat tax has been a long time coming, and could be the answer to the question of how to fund the many programs people feel we need, yet stay within the revenues we take in. Simply cutting isn’t going to solve our problems. Though, there is no doubt that there is plenty of fat to cut.
meadman on August 07 at 5:57 p.m.
the FACT that needs to be noted is that the Republicans (esp. Tea Party) “continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues” — this is factual and THAT IS THE REASON that there will be no negotiation or compromise possible. It is truly impossible to cut our way out of this mess — there MUST be an increase in revenues. Because of the unwillingess of the GOP to cross its master-in-chief, Grover Norquist, they are NOT able to come to a reasonable, workable solution to this problem. That, my friend, is not serious, responsible government and representation of the people they have been elected to serve. (unless, of course, you are GOP and realize that those you “serve” are the ultra-rich and big corporate interests). Screw the average person in your district…..
We are in for a depression in the next year or so. Thanks so much Tea Party……
gmorton on August 07 at 5:58 p.m.
The actual S&P report is here.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/af2c4fac-bfc2-11e0-90d5-00144feabdc0.pdf
The above link has the link, but is not the actual report.
meadman on August 07 at 5:59 p.m.
the only possible good news in all of this is that the citizenry is finally starting to see the true colors of the TP and GOP and have had about all of their one-sided nonsense they can stomach. Many of these people will be gone the next time they have to stand for re-election…..
johnclarke on August 07 at 6:01 p.m.
“The US has revenue – about $2.2 trillion this year. And you resolve the deficits by cutting spending until it matches revenue.”
Funny, I’ve never seen that approach work out, but oddly some people seem to think lowering revenue in the form of tax cuts will magically create jobs and drive the economy. I’d like the supply side brain trust to splain that to me.
The other thing I’d like someone to explain how many years it’s going to take to buy back out debt with that genius plan.
“Nice out-of-context quote. I assume you picked that up from some lefty web site”
Having trouble with PLAIN FREAKING ENGLISH today gmorton? The Tea Party is to blame. They are essentially terrorists. So, like what part don’t you get?
johnclarke on August 07 at 6:02 p.m.
and of course I meant “our” debt. Mostly it’s the GOP debt, but I guess it’s ours now.
gmorton on August 07 at 6:07 p.m.
force_vector wrote,
“You resolve, in-part, the deficits by taxing at a flat rate all Americans, so those who are ‘taking’ are also ‘giving’.”
While there is some merit to the flat tax, it would not have the effect you imagine. As long as the tax takers realize a net benefit, they would continue to support their free lunches.
“Do that first, then discuss what else to cut, with a huge increase in the number of voters who suddenly give a crap since they are now having to help pay for it.”
That is precisely the wrong way to proceed. First you decide what are the proper tasks for government to perform. Then you devise a means of paying for those services, so that each person who benefits from them pays in proportion to the benefits he receives.
gmorton on August 07 at 6:12 p.m.
meadman wrote,
” … the FACT that needs to be noted is that the Republicans (esp. Tea Party) ‘continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues’ — this is factual and THAT IS THE REASON that there will be no negotiation or compromise possible. It is truly impossible to cut our way out of this mess — there MUST be an increase in revenues.”
Really? “Impossible” in what sense?
There is certainly nothing mathematically or economically “impossible” about “cutting our way out of this mess.” Any number can be reduced to a smaller number by subtraction.
Or do you mean, “Politically impossible,” i.e., the Dems will never agree to that? If that’s the sense of “impossible” you mean, then who is blocking the road?
force_vector on August 07 at 6:19 p.m.
“We are in for a depression in the next year or so. Thanks so much Tea Party……”
You cannot blame a minority portion of a minority party for an impending “depression”. C’mon. This is an issue owned by both parties, and their fringes.
gmorton on August 07 at 6:24 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“Funny, I’ve never seen that approach work out, but oddly some people seem to think lowering revenue in the form of tax cuts will magically create jobs and drive the economy.”
No magic to it, John. But it is not that tax cuts “create jobs.” It is that taxes *inhibit* job growth, other things being equal, just as any other cost burden on an economy inhibits growth. Tax cuts merely relieve some of that burden.
Taxes should be cut, but not while the US is running deficits of $1.5 trillion/year. You need to cut spending *first*, to get it into line with present revenues. Then you can consider further cuts in both taxes and spending.
“The Tea Party is to blame.”
For not raising taxes? You bet they are, to their great credit. They have the sense to know that increasing the government burden on the economy is not the way to end a recession (as do many Dems, actually). But not for not cutting spending – the TP shares no blame for that.
johnclarke on August 07 at 6:27 p.m.
“You cannot blame a minority portion of a minority party for an impending “depression”. C’mon. This is an issue owned by both parties, and their fringes.”
No, but I can blame them for having our credit downgraded, which (correct me if I’m wrong) is not going to help the economy.
I can blame the entire GOP for the recession. This issue is not “owned” by both parties. It’s now owned by President Obama since it was hung so nicely around his neck. The GOP has done everything in their power to prevent any real solution, which obviously means revenue/taxes. Or, we could just act like to the Japanese who have now been in the economic crapper for nearly 20 years. Austerity measures will not work.
johnclarke on August 07 at 6:30 p.m.
“No magic to it, John. But it is not that tax cuts “create jobs.” It is that taxes *inhibit* job growth, other things being equal, just as any other cost burden on an economy inhibits growth. Tax cuts merely relieve some of that burden.”
I guess that it just has not started working then, huh? What do you think, like another 10 years or so?
meadman on August 07 at 6:33 p.m.
all of us need to take 10 minutes (for those who read slowly or have compehension problems, it may take 20 minutes) to read and learn some debt facts at this website….
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
gmorton on August 07 at 6:39 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“I guess that it just has not started working then, huh? What do you think, like another 10 years or so?”
No, it isn’t working, and won’t, because taxes are not the only, or even the most serious, problem with the economy. As I’ve said before, the government’s *spending trajectory* is a much bigger problem, and is the reason S&P downgraded US credit. The current prospect is for $1 trillion+ annual deficits as far as the eye can see.
Diana on August 07 at 7:17 p.m.
Not the reason.
From Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor’s “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.
“We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
johnclarke on August 07 at 7:17 p.m.
gmorton, you are a pretty funny guy.
“and is the reason S&P downgraded US credit” Um did you read that on some righty website?
meadman on August 07 at 7:19 p.m.
gmorton and sqwkn — no response to the zfacts info??? cat got your tongue?
johnclarke on August 07 at 7:47 p.m.
meadman, you better stop it with those facts and stuff. We all know that President Obama is responsible for everything bad, and the Gipper everything good.
Seriously, you can’t use logic on these guys. Look above, it specifically states why our credit rating was downgraded IN WRITING and gmorton just denies it.
misjustice on August 07 at 8:07 p.m.
St(r)oking Idaho’s conservative fire…
Traveler on August 07 at 8:10 p.m.
I followed gmorton’s link to the S&P credit rating report. At the risk of cherry-picking like hawken, I think a couple of points from it should be repeated:
(from page 3): “The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.”
Gee, which party abandoned the no-strings-attached vote on the debt ceiling and turned it into a “bargaining chip”?
(from page 6): “On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners — lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.”
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to which party has absolutely refused to allow the multitrillion-dollar Bush tax cuts for high earners to lapse, even to “slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics”?
force_vector on August 07 at 8:18 p.m.
““We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.””
Tax EVERYONE at the same rate, No credits, No Deductions. End corporate welfare payments, END NAFTA and the like, END printing money as a response to everything, Tax at a higher rate any corporations earnings that are “earned” by outsourcing, END tax payer funding for pie in the sky energy technologies that will never meaningfully contribute to our cumulative energy supply. I could go on and on. Do these things, leave for good the sh!t holes that are Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, and maybe we’ll be on a better path.
johnclarke on August 07 at 8:36 p.m.
“Anyone want to hazard a guess as to which party has absolutely refused to allow the multitrillion-dollar Bush tax cuts for high earners to lapse”
They can’t refuse any longer, because they are going to expire. If Obama extends them again, I’m voting for Michelle Bachman.
force_vector on August 07 at 8:50 p.m.
“I’m voting for Michelle Bachman.”
Might as well vote for pee wee herman.
gmorton on August 07 at 8:51 p.m.
Diana wrote,
“From Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor’s “Research Update” – . . .”
You’re way behind, Diana. Read the backthread (and the entire report).
Traveler on August 07 at 8:52 p.m.
JC, unfortunately, the Repubs will hold ALL taxpayers hostage for the benefit of the few — the tax cuts apply across the board, and they won’t allow Obama to single out the bottom 98 percent. That’s why he caved the first time.
Traveler on August 07 at 8:54 p.m.
Yeah, Diana, read the version where they only refer to Republicans obliquely.
gmorton on August 07 at 9:01 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“Um did you read that on some righty website?”
Uh, no, John. That’s what the report says:
“The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.”
The link to the report is above. It would behoove you to read it before commenting.
gmorton on August 07 at 9:16 p.m.
meadman wrote,
“no response to the zfacts info???”
Not from me. It’s not relevant to the present discussion. And of course the graphs are hoked up to mislead.
Here’s a clean graph of the US debt since 1940:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1940_2011&view=1&expand=&units=b&log=linear&fy=fy12&chart=H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s
johnclarke on August 07 at 9:18 p.m.
I did read it, duh. You can post all the cherry picked sections to support that last little weak POV you cling to, but whatever. The report clearly calls out the reason for the rating decrease…..and that is not the topic of this story but thanks for the distraction. Also, thanks for proving that no amount of facts will change your thinking. I guess that makes you a Republican.
Traveler on August 07 at 9:24 p.m.
Oh no you DIDN’T call gmorton a Republican! He’s a Libertarian, and even if nobody else can tell the difference, he can!
gmorton on August 07 at 9:27 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“Anyone want to hazard a guess as to which party has absolutely refused to allow the multitrillion-dollar Bush tax cuts for high earners to lapse . . .”
Huh? “Multitrillion”?
You’ve been listening to too many Democrats. Repealing the Bush tax cuts for “high earners,” as Obama proposes, would increase federal revenues by ~$60 billion/year. That would barely dent the $1.5 trillion annual deficit, and would certainly not reassure S&P that the government’s debt trajectory was under control.
And why did you not highlight the major debt reducer mentioned in that paragraph, namely, the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations, which Obama dismissed out of hand?
gmorton on August 07 at 9:34 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“The report clearly calls out the reason for the rating decrease…”
Yes, it does. It is as follows:
–––––-
* The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.
* More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
* Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.
* The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ‘AA’ within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
misjustice on August 07 at 9:36 p.m.
Good catch, 56.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on August 07 at 9:38 p.m.
MIssed a few points there gmorton.
Traveler on August 07 at 9:41 p.m.
My “multitrillion” reference is the cost over the 12 total years (so far) the cuts have been in effect.
From “Revisiting the cost of the Bush tax cuts” (Washington Post, May 10, 2011) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html): “Tax cuts are estimated to have totaled $2.8 trillion, which we guess would count as “trillions,” as the president put it. Strictly speaking, the two big tax cuts during the Bush years are estimated to total about $1.5 trillion, But many continued into the early years of the Obama presidency, and in December he cut a deal with Republicans to extend them even more, which brings us to $2.8 trillion.”
And I highlighted the part about letting the tax cuts expire because that’s the bit everyone on your side of the line is so opposed to.
Frankly, I WISH the Simpson-Bowles recommendations of three dollars in spending cuts to one dollar in “revenue” increases had been accepted, but Obama wasn’t the only one to reject it, you know (although it seems to me some of his “offers” were in that ballpark). I can’t think of ANY politician who accepted it.
gmorton on August 07 at 9:42 p.m.
liberal_in_right_wing_land wrote,
“MIssed a few points there gmorton.”
Er, no, I didn’t. That is the entire Overview, except the first two points which specify the actions taken.
Please read the report before commenting further.
gmorton on August 07 at 9:50 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
My ‘multitrillion’ reference is the cost over the 12 total years (so far) the cuts have been in effect.”
Which is utterly irrelevant. No one is proposing that *all* of the Bush tax cuts be repealed. The entire argument is over repealing them for the wealthiest 2%, which would make no visible difference in the deficits.
For that matter, even repealing them for all taxpayers would fall far short – it would reduce the anticipated deficits for the next 10 years from an estimated additional $7-10 trillion to $5-8 trillion.
That’s on top of the present $15 trillion, of course.
Traveler on August 07 at 10:07 p.m.
Apples and oranges, gmorton.
I was referring to the “multitrillion-dollar” effect of what Bush’s tax cuts have had on our national debt. If you want to claim that that water has already passed under the bridge, go ahead. But you can’t deny the harm those cuts are still having — if only in the increased debt and interest we must repay because of them.
And I hope you’re not trying to tell me that Repub politicians didn’t force the president to extend the cuts for ALL taxpayers, while Obama only wanted to extend them for those who make less than $250,000. Or that they won’t do it again at every opportunity — that’s the Libertarian, sorry, neo-Republican way.
As for their not making any “visible” difference and therefore being what, unjustified, I disagree. Every little bit helps.
gmorton on August 07 at 10:18 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“And I hope you’re not trying to tell me that Repub politicians didn’t force the president to extend the cuts for ALL taxpayers, while Obama only wanted to extend them for those who make less than $250,000. Or that they won’t do it again at every opportunity — that’s the Libertarian, sorry, neo-Republican way.”
You bet they will. Libertarians, at least, reject the principle that taxes should be based on “the ability to pay.” They should be based on the value of the services each taxpayer receives from government. “The rich” have utterly no obligation to finance free lunches for “the poor.”
“Every little bit helps.”
For Democrats, only when it comes to taxes on “the rich.” When it comes to cutting spending, anything over zero is too much, as revealed by the FAA bill, which attempted to cut a measly $8.5 million in subsidies to small airports. The bill was killed in the Senate after passing the House.
johnclarke on August 07 at 10:22 p.m.
Maddening isn’t it folks ?
“no response to the zfacts info???”
Not from me. It’s not relevant to the present discussion. And of course the graphs are hoked up to mislead.”
First of all, this is an article about Idaho politics. Second, there is nothing misleading about the zfacts information, it is totally accurate. As usual, when presented with facts and data, and with Hawken like precision - gmorton attempts to dodge the truth. Sorry er, gmorton.
BTW, “Libertarian” is just another word for Republican, except they think they are somehow snobby or elite or some such nonsense. Meanwhile, like the actual topic of this article (Idaho) they blather about “small government” while collecting Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and all the “free lunches”.
force_vector on August 07 at 10:27 p.m.
“the actual topic of this article (Idaho) they blather about “small government” while collecting Social Security, Medicare, Welfare and all the “free lunches”.”
As does Spokane, John. While the article may pertain to N Idaho, Spokane is in the same boat. Let’s not forget that.
johnclarke on August 07 at 10:34 p.m.
Negative. While I realize that was a poorly worded general statement, check out the stats on unemployment and welfare in North Idaho and you will find that it’s higher than Spokane. Ironic, I know - that a GOP voting areas also have higher rates of government “handouts”, but as you are well aware that is true of every GOP voting state. They take more than they pay in to the Fed.
The rest of my point is I have a suspicion gmorton collects government assistance in some form.
Traveler on August 07 at 10:42 p.m.
gmorton, I know you’re an asocial, economic Darwinist, but sometimes your “logic” runs me in circles.
First you say “No one is proposing that *all* of the Bush tax cuts be repealed.”
Then you say Repubs will absolutely tie tax cuts for one income category to all other income categories, and that it’s only right they should do so.
And as for ending subsidies of airline service to a bunch of cities*, it had never before been done in the way Repubs did, and set a dangerous precedent in Senate procedure. Allow me to quote: “Senate Democrats complained that Republicans were breaking with precedent by using an extension bill to enact policy changes that hadn’t been agreed upon. Even Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas called the measure a “procedural hand grenade.” Senators refused to pass the House bill, saying to do so would be giving into legislative blackmail and inviting Republicans to up the ante on the next extension bill.”
(*Morgantown, W.Va.; Athens, Ga.; Glendive, Mont.; Alamogordo, N.M.; Ely, Nev.; Jamestown, N.Y.; Bradford, Pa.; Hagerstown, Md.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Johnstown, Pa.; Franklin/Oil City, Pa.; Lancaster, Pa.; and Jackson, Tenn.)
Traveler on August 07 at 10:48 p.m.
Ciao for now,
Traveler out
gmorton on August 08 at 9:44 a.m.
56traveler wrote,
“First you say ‘No one is proposing that *all* of the Bush tax cuts be repealed.’”
Correct. They’re not.
“Then you say Repubs will absolutely tie tax cuts for one income category to all other income categories, and that it’s only right they should do so.”
Correct. What logical problem do you see there?
Traveler on August 08 at 5:19 p.m.
Well, if no one is proposing to end ALL of the tax cuts, which ones are you, or the Repubs, or whoever (other than Dems), exempting?
And if Repubs say no one gets a tax cut unless everybody does, aren’t they proposing an all-or-nothing scenario?
gmorton on August 08 at 5:57 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“Well, if no one is proposing to end ALL of the tax cuts, which ones are you, or the Repubs, or whoever (other than Dems), exempting?”
None. The TPers (and me) favor extending them for everyone. The Dems wanted to extend them for everyone except the wealthiest 2%, as a sop to their class-warrior constituents, even though the impact on the deficit would have been negligible.
“And if Repubs say no one gets a tax cut unless everybody does, aren’t they proposing an all-or-nothing scenario?”
No, they were not saying that. There was no “either-or.” They would have rejected a proposal to let the cuts expire for everyone also.
Traveler on August 08 at 6:31 p.m.
Ah. So when you wrote “No one is proposing that *all* of the Bush tax cuts be repealed” I took that to mean an implicit *some* of the cuts were debatable, while what you meant was “No one is proposing that *ANY* of the tax cuts …” More clarity on your part would have helped.
And when Obama said in 2010 that he wanted to extend the tax cuts only for those earning less than $250,000, but Repubs demanded that they be extended for everyone, you see that as simply a matter of fairness — because who made out extremely well (the top 2 percent) and who lost (the bottom 98 percent) during the previous eight years is irrelevant — while I see it as the poor being held hostage for the rich’s benefit. Potato, Potahto, I guess.
On a related topic, here’s an interesting chart (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-wealth-inequality-2010-7#half-of-america-has-only-05-of-americas-stocks-and-bonds-the-top-1-owns-more-than-50-3) showing that the richest 1 percent owns more than 50 percent of the stock market.
And as I’m sure you know, capital gains (i.e., the stuff you make by moving funds around) taxes are HALF the rate of earned income (the stuff you make by sweating) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States). In other words, it’s a whole lot easier for the rich to get richer than it is for the poor to get richer. How do you feel about that?
gmorton on August 08 at 9:41 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
“And as I’m sure you know, capital gains (i.e., the stuff you make by moving funds around) taxes are HALF the rate of earned income (the stuff you make by sweating) . . .”
There should be no difference in tax rates for capital gains. That is one of innumerable loopholes, preferences, exemptions, etc., written into the tax code in order to manipulate behavior pursuant to someone’s pet economic or social theory or in order to win votes from some interest group. A flat tax would treat all income equally and there would be no exemptions.
But then, taxes should not be based on incomes anyway, but upon assets.
gmorton on August 08 at 9:50 p.m.
56traveler wrote,
” … you see that as simply a matter of fairness — because who made out extremely well (the top 2 percent) and who lost (the bottom 98 percent) during the previous eight years is irrelevant — while I see it as the poor being held hostage for the rich’s benefit.”
Oh? Who exactly held them hostage? And just how did “the rich” benefit from their “captivity”?
But you’re correct that I see income inequalities as irrelevant. Incomes are unequal because people are unequal, in almost every measurable way, including the talents, skills, and qualities of mind and character necessary to produce wealth. It is not the job of government to try to eliminate those inequalities, except to the extent that they derive from force or fraud.
Traveler on August 08 at 10:30 p.m.
gmorton wrote:
“There should be no difference in tax rates for capital gains. (etc.)”
On that, you and I agree. Unfortunately, the separate, inordinately favorable rate for capital gains is a sacred cow for conservatives.
“A flat tax would treat all income equally and there would be no exemptions.”
Again, we (and hmoffsuite, in another thread) agree. But that’s a “perfect world” scenario; in the meantime, we discuss the lemonade we’re given.
“But then, taxes should not be based on incomes anyway, but upon assets.”
I’ve never heard that one before, but it seems to me like such a structure would virtually exempt about half the country (I’d sell my house and start renting, for sure), and skew the taxes toward the wealthy, who own more stuff. And how is that fair under your “from each according to the benefits they receive” philosophy of taxation?
Traveler on August 08 at 11:02 p.m.
gmorton wrote:
“Oh? Who exactly held them hostage?”
Apparently I’m talking in circles. In December 2010, Obama proposed extending the tax cuts only for those who make less than $250,000. Repubs said they would not agree to that, and would only accept renewing them for everyone. In other words, Obama wanted to help the lower 98 percent of income earners, but Repubs rejected any proposal that didn’t include the other 2 percent. The Repubs therefore held tax cuts for the many as hostage for the few.
In case you weren’t reading the papers back then, here’s an article from Fox News: “Senate Republicans Reject Obama’s Plan to Extend Tax Cuts for Middle Class Only” ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/04/senate-dems-seeking-weaken-gop-force-doomed-vote-tax-cut-plans/#ixzz1UVVc3tGs)
“And just how did “the rich” benefit from their “captivity”?”
Now you’re just being obtuse. Reminds me of hawken. They benefited by getting to keep their 3 percent Bush tax cut, of course.
“But you’re correct that I see income inequalities as irrelevant. Incomes are unequal because people are unequal, in almost every measurable way, including the talents, skills, and qualities of mind and character necessary to produce wealth.”
Here’s my basic objection to a non-progressive tax reduction: If you cut my taxes 10 percent, I’ll bring home an extra $20 a week or so. If you cut Warren Buffett’s taxes 10 percent, he’ll bring home thousands more each week. While my extra money will be used support the local economy, his will be used to buy a bigger share of the money producers.
Buffett, btw, agrees with my position: From “Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html):
“(Bill) Clinton finished by asking Buffett, “Why are you a Democrat?”
Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.”
“It is not the job of government to try to eliminate those inequalities, except to the extent that they derive from force or fraud.”
Yeah, I know: The only reason societies of any kind are formed is to protect people’s stuff from other people, not to help anybody who may need it. I’m only a partial socialist, but I find it telling that the root of that word — social — means “characterized by friendliness or geniality” while the root of “capitalism” is another word for money.
gmorton on August 09 at 10:36 a.m.
56traveler wrote,
“And how is that fair under your ‘from each according to the benefits they receive’ philosophy of taxation?”
The presumption is that the chief role of government is to secure citizens’ rights to their life, liberty, and property. Hence the more property you have to protect, the more you pay for that service, just as you do with casualty insurance.
But government is charged with protecting life and liberty, as well as property. So each taxpayer should pay a head tax, equal for all persons, for protection of life and liberty, plus an asset tax proportional to the value of the property protected. Any person who did not pay the head tax would lose the right to vote and access to any public goods paid for with those taxes.
gmorton on August 09 at 11:15 a.m.
56traveler wrote,
” …but Repubs rejected any proposal that didn’t include the other 2 percent. The Repubs therefore held tax cuts for the many as hostage for the few.”
Er, wait a minute. Who decided who would be “hostages” and who would be sacrificial goats?
Let’s consider a real hostage situation. An airliner crash lands in the jungle and is immediately surrounded by cannibals, who threaten to eat all 100 surviving passengers. A detachment of Marines is dispatched to rescue the hostages. The cannibal spokesman proposes to release 98 of the passengers if he can eat the other two. You are the CO of the Marine detachment. Do you accept that proposal?
I think you’re confused as to who is holding who hostage.
gmorton on August 09 at 11:43 a.m.
56traveler wrote,
“They benefited by getting to keep their 3 percent Bush tax cut, of course.”
Of course. So did everyone else. You’re proposing, instead, that some be made sacrificial goats so that others can benefit.
“While my extra money will be used support the local economy, his will be used to buy a bigger share of the money producers.”
That also supports the economy (and whether or not it is “local” is irrelevant). That is where the investment capital to launch and underwrite productive enterprises comes from.
“The only reason societies of any kind are formed is to protect people’s stuff from other people, not to help anybody who may need it.”
Oh, no. That is the reason *governments* are formed. Humans (and all other primates) form societies for all kinds of reasons, but primarily because they afford opportunities for cooperation – they provide a milieu wherein individuals can seek out other individuals with similar or complementary interests and enter into cooperative endeavors with them, to their mutual benefit.
The government is not the society. It is simply the traffic cop on the corner who tries to make sure everyone observes the “traffic laws,” or house rules. It’s job is merely to prevent collisions; it is not to dictate anyone’s route, itinerary, travelling companions, or destination. Each traveler decides those things for himself.
Traveler on August 12 at 8:41 p.m.
gmorton wrote (three days ago; sometimes this web forum wearies me):
“Let’s consider a real hostage situation. An airliner crash lands in the jungle and is immediately surrounded by cannibals, who threaten to eat all 100 surviving passengers. A detachment of Marines is dispatched to rescue the hostages. The cannibal spokesman proposes to release 98 of the passengers if he can eat the other two. You are the CO of the Marine detachment. Do you accept that proposal?”
Cannibals? And you accuse me of hyperbole! No one is proposing eating those rich guys all up!
How ‘bout we tweak your analogy a bit:
Imagine the 100 hostages have been kept in a pen for a few years, and when you, the Marine CO arrive, about 20 of them are emaciated; another 50 are merely underweight; another 28 are at their optimal body mass; and two of them are morbidly obese — hundreds of pounds overweight. The captors tell you, “We want 100 pounds of body fat. We can take one pound from each of our hostages, or we can take 50 pounds from two of them. You decide.”
Who gets the liposuction?