Who’s to blame for Idaho’s budget woes? Gov. passes the buck | Opinion
Idaho budget
Gov. Brad Little’s State of the State speech on Jan. 12 introduced the “Enduring Idaho Plan.” This so-called plan is seriously flawed. Who is responsible for the fiscal policies (decisions) that are undercutting our very existence? What kind of plan ignores a shortfall, over-commits limited resources and robs from the poor to satisfy the rich?
What kind of fiscal policy is respected when there is no routine, standard, well-defined process to assess and evaluate both expenditures and revenue? The 1965 sales tax legislation has never been reviewed through a thorough, well-defined process.
Who is responsible? On Feb. 17, the governor claimed it isn’t his fault, but that of the Legislature. I disagree. He has the power and authority to veto, which he declines to use because the legislators want to end the session as early as possible so they can go home and campaign for re-election. A legislator’s job, once elected, is not to govern wisely nor is it to represent the will of the people, it is to get re-elected. The governor and the Legislature are failing the people of Idaho. I anxiously await the next election.
Nancy Szofran, Boise
Idaho taxes
Retired to Idaho 14 years ago and have never paid Idaho state income tax. Now before you call me a freeloader, let me remind you that I do not write Idaho tax laws, I just follow what’s on the books. Yes, of course I file my taxes yearly, and we have a very nice upper middle class income. Idaho does not tax Social Security income, so scratch that income. The state also does not tax pensions, so count that out. That leaves our monthly withdrawals from our IRA’s. Take that income and subtract Idaho’s standard deduction for married couples of $31,500 and now we look nearly impoverished. Our tax amount owed is zero. But wait, because of Idaho’s Grocery tax we are entitled to a refund. For tax year 2025 we get a refund of $300. There are thousands and thousands of like people in Idaho. The legislature needs to rework the tax laws instead of spending time on which flag flies at City Hall.
Steve Gant, Boise
Federal budget
Recently, Senator Risch highlighted what he described as savings for Idahoans by cutting funds from agencies like the IRS, Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, and Veterans Affairs. The amounts ranged from thousands to a few million dollars, and were framed as victories for fiscal responsibility.
But many Idahoans are asking a larger question: why are we penny-pinching at home while sending billions of dollars overseas?
We are told that trimming $15,000 here or $100,000 there proves Washington is tightening its belt. Yet at the same time, Congress continues approving massive foreign aid packages, including billions for Israel. Whether one supports foreign aid or not, it deserves the same scrutiny applied to domestic programs.
If fiscal responsibility is truly the goal, it should be consistent. If we can debate trimming tens of thousands from agencies that serve veterans, seniors, and working families, surely we can also debate whether American tax dollars should first secure American well-being.
Idahoans are about honest priorities. If we celebrate relatively small domestic cuts as major victories, we should also be willing to openly debate the scale of our foreign spending.
Idahoans deserve a full conversation about where our money goes, both at home and abroad.
Danielle Chavez, Buhl
Smorgasbord
I grew up in the Midwest. My community was rural, Republican and two steps removed from Little House on the Prairie.
Neighbors of different religions, nationalities and backgrounds worked together. No one thought about making their neighbor be just like them.
Social gatherings often were centered around the smorgasbord. At first the dishes were northern European. Then new and different foods started to appear. Lasagna. Fried rice. Enchiladas.
No one said, “You can’t bring that Tater Tot hot dish because I find it offensive.”
No one said, “All these different dishes are divisive.”
No one forced anyone to sample every dish. No one supplied a list of “acceptable” dishes. Everyone was free to choose. Everyone!
I’ve been thinking about the smorgasbord and the lessons it holds for Idahoans.
Recent comments by the head of the Idaho GOP and members of the “Snowflake Caucus” in the state legislature stand in contrast to this feature of the rural Midwest culture.
Today we are told that expressing different ideas and flying different flags are divisive. We are told that regulating government uniformity makes everyone feel welcome. We are told expressing differences is offensive.
When did that kind of thinking become normal?
Mary Ollie, Bonners Ferry
Public lands
We should ask our state senators to vote no on Senate Amendment (SJR 103) which seeks to transfer land from its current federal protection to the state through a constitutional amendment.
The bill is framed at protecting public lands from privatization or transfer. Sounds good, but it was alarming to hear the House co-sponsor, Rep. Jordan Redman, say when he was talking about public lands that he “would love to have all of it back in ownership of the state right away.”
Let’s be careful before amending our constitution to make sure we have it right. There could be some unexpected consequences if SJR 103 were to pass. For example, it would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars by undercutting the existing funding for rural counties and schools and possibly jeopardize access to our public lands for regular folks who enjoy hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.
Is this amendment a backdoor attempt to open our public lands to more mining, timber harvest and grazing resulting in more of the land being closed off to the general public? There are too many unanswered questions to get behind SJR 103. We don’t want to lose access to public lands.
Kayla Dodson, Boise