Letters to the Editor: State budget

Otter's moment to lead,by cutting back budgets

Some difficult, sometimes scary decisions have to be made in households and businesses that have less money to run on. What makes a state any different?

Cut it back, Mr. Otter! Cut it wherever you can, however you can! It is cutting expenditures and reducing that ensures a bright future. We will complain and cry and stamp our feet, because we have become spoiled, dependent little babies.

Please cut and reduce. Don't borrow. Please don't borrow, not for schools, not for roads, not for anything. Things will get better. Don't squander our future to appease us when we hold our breath until we get what we want. It may just be that our childish tantrums are because we are terrified of an awful truth: We can do well, even flourish, with less.

We are counting on Gov. Otter's courageous leadership here. This is his moment to lead. He shouldn't waste it trying to change the diapers of all the crying interests wailing about their funding.

CHAD FRIDAL, Malta

Otter could have phoned in this thoughtless budget

The public entities targeted by Gov. Butch Otter in his recent speech continue the Republican practice of targeting the underrepresented, minorities and the ignorant. His proposals illustrate the GOP's interest in continuing that situation for those groups, by eliminating aid, representation and information. His proposals regarding the schools and Idaho Public Television are tantamount to eating the intellectual seed corn of our communities. He could have phoned in such thoughtless suggestions.

Let's get this guy out of public affairs.

JERRY BLANKINSHIP, Boise

First, consider the state's constitutional mandates

The assertion that downsizing government to fit ideology is "shameful" surprised me because of its implications.

Could it be that the true purpose of government has become misunderstood over time, or have other ideologies rendered government something other than that was ideologically envisioned constitutionally? Much can be said about the purpose of state and federal government, which is to first protect, then to enable citizens (not legislators).

However, the discussion point here is the budget process. How much is enough? Based on what?

Simply put, first consider the fundamentals of what our state government is constitutionally obligated to do (which is a whole lot easier said than done but still important as a process). Department of Parks and Recreation Director Nancy Merrill hit the concept on the head when she said that she was looking at needed functions and not at people's faces in her budget deliberations.

The next step is to define "needed." Working down the ladder of existing functions to get to the fundamental needs functions is the yearly zero-based budgeting process.

Once baseline need is established, then revenue projections come into play. Not the other way around.

BILL EISENBARTH, Boise

Modest tax increases beat shortsighted budget cuts

The budgets for Idaho's schools and higher education have been cut to the bone. Rather than see further cuts in these critical programs, many voters would support a modest tax increase.

Idaho's beer tax has not been increased for 40 years. During the last session, The Common Interest group proposed a 100 percent increase in the beer tax. This proposal was probably too ambitious, and it was rejected by the Legislature. A reasonable increase in the beer tax should be considered. The cigarette tax does not raise enough money to pay for the Medicaid costs of treating smoking-related illness. A sales tax on items purchased on the Internet would level the playing field.

The recession should not be used to implement a libertarian agenda. We need more businesses to hire more people. Businesses want a well-trained work force and a quality of life for their workers. Cutting education and dismantling Parks and Recreation is shortsighted.

DARRELL W. BROCK, Meridian

Coincidence? Cuts threaten the powerless among us

The governor's plan? Take away those things that help people: Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Independent Living Council, Council on Developmental Disabilities and Hispanic Commission. Then spend a million dollars on suing the federal government to make sure that those who need health care don't get it.

Is it coincidental that the agencies to be scuttled are those who know the most about the greatest needs - and have the least political power?

BETTY LUGINBILL, Boise

Putting Idaho's privileged ahead of the marginalized

I am writing to you as one of the members of the board on the Idaho Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and as a deeply concerned mother of a child who is hard of hearing.

I offer this for your consideration: First, the Idaho Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing has regulations that make it difficult for it to seek alternative sources of funding. Second, the council has accomplished remarkable things since its inception.

I want to suggest that the money you will save by closing the council will be statistically insignificant to Idaho, but will be critically damaging to a population that embraces nearly 10 percent of Idaho's residents.

I have considered ways the state might save money. Give to our senators, governor and representatives the benefits that all other part-time state employees receive, rather than full-time benefits. I believe that their luxurious benefits package prevents our governing body from truly connecting with its constituents on a realistic level.

Now is not the time to favor the privileged at the expense of the marginalized.

DESERET BAKER, Boise

Lawmakers have a choice

My niece lives in Idaho and she is deaf. She didn't choose that, but the governor and Legislature can choose to not cut the funding for the deaf community.

MARY MARGARET BECERRA, Twin Falls

Here's one place to cut

What in the world is the Idaho Office of Species Conservation? I suspect if you look around, you'd find lots of places to cut the budget besides education. This might be a good place to start.

MELVA MCKENZIE, Mountain Home

Let's improve our economy by improving our schools

What don't they get? I am amazed and discouraged by the positions being taken by legislators and the governor concerning the funding of education at all levels. Are they genuinely interested in the economy and well-being of the state and its residents? Investment in education should be the highest priority, along with finding the revenue to pay for it.

Look at what two other politically conservative states, Utah and Texas, have done with investment in education and how it has helped strengthen the quality of jobs and their economies overall. The current unemployment rate for Utah, for example, is 6.7 percent, compared to 9.1 percent in Idaho. Does anyone believe that this is not a reflection of the long-standing commitment to the funding and quality of education in Utah vs. Idaho? Let's make the investment.

It would also be interesting to compare Utah's average family income and the status of their state government revenues.

BILL CLARK, Boise