Shirley Ringo Legislative Update
The following is from Idaho District 6 liberal Democrat, Rep. Shirley Ringo:
One of the early and critically important actions of the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee involves the official projection of general fund revenue for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. This is an action with great political implications. Those who are extremely conservative and push for reduced state-funded programs will try for a low number. On Friday, February 12, JFAC will probably take action. In all probability, the projection for FY 2010 will be 3% below the Governor's recommendation, and the projection for FY 2011 will be 6% below the Governor's recommendation.
It seems to me that the projections that JFAC keeps coming out with is always more optimistic than the actual numbers that result. If anything, I would say that the politics keeps telling the JFAC to not be as accurate as possible, but look through the budget with rose-colored glasses.
The Republican majority is determined to deal with reduced revenue by using reserve funds and cutting support for programs. I believe a more balanced approach would also require certain revenue enhancement.
It appears that Ringo’s phrase “revenue enhancement” is a euphemism for “increase taxes.”
Here’s one for you: why don’t you raise taxes on just the Democrats, since they love to pay taxes so much.
People in District 6 and around the state need to decide whether the narrow approach taken by the Republican majority takes us in the right direction. Here are some of the results:
- Phase out state support for Public Television, the Human Rights Commission, the Hispanic Commission, the Independent Living Council, the Developmental Disabilities Council, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Council, and the Digital Learning Academy. (JFAC will probably not act on these recommendations unless the appropriate policy committees concur.)
- Medicaid will charge user fees for parents of children with disabilities. (These fees are to be on a sliding scale, based upon gross income. This is problematic because of expenditures parents must make to provide for the special needs of their children.)
- Greatly reduced support for State Parks. This requires a business model that has not been successful in other states and a reduction of 25 positions.
- Further reductions in support for Higher Education, requiring furloughs, cuts in programs and higher student fees. Proposed cuts in Professional/Technical Education could result in the need to return millions of dollars to the federal government.
- Reduced support for Agricultural Research and Extension Service may force closure of a number of Research and Extension Centers.
- Deeper cuts will challenge the Department of Corrections. The prison population is growing. Further cuts will require furloughs and add challenges with respect to supervision.
It is clear that reductions in spending are required, and we must be creative in seeking efficiencies. However, cuts can be damaging. Loss of jobs for state employees and cuts in some services will have serious effects on the private sector and their ability to create and sustain employment.
OK, how does that work? It’s always been my experience that the government just gets in the way of the private sector. And government workers now have better pay and benefits than the corresponding private sector employee.
I will propose these measures to enhance revenue:
- 5% surcharge on income tax for those with more than $50,000 taxable income. (For example, a family of four earning approximately $75,000 would have taxable income over $50,000. The 5% surcharge would add about $164 to their yearly tax.)
- Partially freeze growth of the Grocery Tax Credit. (The credit has been increasing by $10 per person per year, with the goal of reaching $100 per person per year.)
- Hire additional compliance officers to recover unpaid taxes owed to the state.
- Impose an additional 50-cent per pack tax on cigarettes.
- (One of my colleagues has a proposal to collect taxes on internet sales.)
The Governor opposes the partial freeze of the grocery tax credit saying, "This is a promise we must keep." In 2006, we held a special session at the call of acting Governor James Risch. The purpose was to shift support of public education from an automatic property tax assessment to the sales tax. To confirm their support of this shift, citizens were asked to vote on raising the sales tax from 5% to 6% for the purpose of "protecting education." Approximately two years later, legislators voted to increase the grocery tax credit in stages. When the incremental changes are complete, it will cost the state about half of the money gained by the 6% sales tax to "protect education." It would seem that we broke our promise to the people when we raided funds available to education to pay for a new program.
It was an awful idea to shift from state tax to sales tax back in 1996. I was against it at the time, and I’m still against it.
However, Ringo should know that taxing people to eat is worse than taxing them to support government education. Remember Maslow: food, clothing, shelter?
I will appreciate hearing from you regarding your questions or opinions.
Representative Shirley Ringo