vision2020@moscow.com: Repost (Part 2)
Repost (Part 2)
Greg Brown (gregb@siu.edu)
Sun, 2 Mar 1997 23:55:32 -0600 (CST)
>>> 8. ALCOHOL/BEER/WINE TAX TO SUPPORT SUBSTANCE ABUSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
>>>
>>> My bill to increase the alcohol tax on liquor, beer, and wine went
>>> down in flames on Friday in the Rev and Tax Committee. I had the
>>> support of Maxine Bell, a member of JFAC, and Roger Chase, a Pocatello
>>> Democrat. We even reached an agreement for the support of the Idaho
>>> Beer and Wine Distributors for their support. However, the prevailing
>>> "no tax" attitude won the day.
>>>
>>> Our bill would have raised the beer tax about 1 cent on a can of beer
>>> and 2-3 cents on a glass of wine. This would have generated about
>>>$7,000,
>>> 000 to support local k-12 substance abuse programs and local county
>>>based
>>> alternative sentencing programs.
>>>
>>> Monty Stiles, Assistant Deputy U.S. Attorney, reported that "drug
>>> usage has doubled in the past 4 years among Idaho youth." He notes
>>> that alcohol, marajana, and meth are the major problems. It is
>>> estimated that ninety percent of Idaho youth convicted of committing
>>> a crime were on drugs at the time of committing the act. The cost
>>> of keeping a juvenile on probation at the local level is only $1,700/yr
>>> as contrasted to $45,000/year at St. Anthony. Idaho just shipped out
>>> over 200 prisioners to Texas. Our tax revenues are increasing but
>>> are going to build prisions and pay for the $35,000/year cost of
>>> maintaining one prisioner.
>>>
>>> One legislator jokingly said, "We should turn half of our universities
>>> into prisions. Then the universities would have enough money to
>>> expand existing programs." There is a bitter truth to this statement.
>>> Prisions and corrections are the growth industries in the state.
>>>
>>> Rep. Miller will reintroduce his beer and wine tax on Monday to Rev.
>>> and Tax Committee. The odds of passing as slight.
>>>
>>> 9. INITIATIVE REFORM
>>>
>>> I've received more communications regarding proposed changes in the
>>> initiative process than any other subject other than state employee
>>> pay raise issue. There is no middle ground on this issue.
>>>
>>> The legal basis for the referendum comes from the Constitution of
>>> the State of Idaho (Article III-Section 1. Legislative Power-Enacting
>>> Clause-Referendum-Initiative)
>>>
>>> The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a senate and
>>> house of representatives. The enacting clasue of every bill shall be
>>> as follows: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho."
>>> The people reserve to themselves the power to approve or reject at the
>>> polls any act or measure passeed by the legislature. This power is
>>> known as the referendum, and legal voters may, under such conditions
>>> and in such a manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature,
>>>demand
>>> a referendum vote on any act or measure passed by the legislature and
>>> cause the same to be submitted to a vote of the people for their
>>>approval
>>> or rejection.
>>>
>>> The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact
>>> the same at the polls independent of the legislature. The power is
>>> known as the initiative, and legal voters may, under such conditions
>>> and in such a manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature,
>>> initiate any desired legislation and cause the same to be submitted to
>>> the vote of the people at a general election for their approval or
>>> rejection.
>>>
>>> The House passed by a 48-18 vote a major initiative reform bill which
>>> now goes on to the Senate. I'm presenting a bill to State Affairs
>>> which calls for the establishment of a Citizen Review Committee to
>>> examine each initiative after the initiative qualifies for the ballot.
>>> Details of this bill are outlined in the previous in last week's
>>> report.
>>>
>>> Rep. Miller and I voted for the Initiative Reform Bill sponsored by
>>> Rep. Mark Stubbs. There are elements of it that I liked.
>>>
>>> However, after reviewing major initiative reform efforts carried out
>>> in other states, I've become convinced of two facts.
>>>
>>> a. The Legislature can propose changes to the initiative process.
>>> b. An change the Legislature proposes and passes should go on the
>>> ballot for the citizens to make the final decision.
>>>
>>> Speaker of the House in Oregon, Lund Lindquist, is sponsoring a bill
>>> similar to mine. The various last line of the bill states: AN ACT
>>> OF THE PEOPLE. I'm definitely convinced the bill that cleared the
>>> House needs to go on the ballot. Otherwise there will be a concerted
>>> effort by groups opposing it to defeat it. If it is on the ballot, at
>>> least we can have an open debate about the merits or faults of the
>>> referendum. I'm contacting leadership, the sponsors, and
>>> members of the Senate Government Affairs Committee with my concerns.
>>> We need to place it on the ballot if we pass it as law.
>>>
>>> 10. CAMPAIGN REFORM
>>>
>>> I understand that there is an omnibus bill concerning campaign reform
>>> that will be voted before the end of the session. We need to pass
>>> significant legislation in this area. Rep. Wendy Jaquest and I have
>>> two campaign reform bills. The first would require that when an
>>> elected official leaves office for any reason that the balance of
>>> the campaign account goes back to the local or state party. The
>>> elected official would pay all expenses before turning over the
>>> funds. The second bill would limit elected officials to not accepting
>>> political donations between the election and the end of the legislative
>>> session.
>>>
>>> 11. EQUITY IN TAXES
>>>
>>> Rep. Dan Mader sponsored a bill to end the "marriage penalty" on
>>> state income tax returns. It will boost the standard deduction
>>> given married taxpayers over the next six years until it equals
>>> twice the amount given a single person. This is a victory for equity
>>> in taxation. It still needs to pass the Senate.
>>>
>>> 12. TELECOMMUNICATIONS REFORM--HOUSE BILL 313
>>>
>>> The House passed a major Telecommunications bill 65-3. The legislation
>>> is a joint effort by the Joint House and Senate State Affairs
>>> Committees and industry members to find reasonable solutions to
>>> this issue. While many issues will need to be addressed in more
>>> comprehensive legislation in the future, this legislation will serve
>>> as an interim measure. The measure will:
>>>
>>> a. Provides authority to the Public Utilities Commission to exercise
>>> its duties pursuant to the federal Act.
>>> b. removes all barriers to entry by prospective competitive providers
>>> of telecommunications services.
>>> c. Removes pricing regulation for new entrants into the telecommunica-
>>> tions basic local exchange markets of the state.
>>> d. Provides consumer protection oversight by the IPUC over all
>>> telecommunications service providers
>>> e. Provides for the suspension of the requirement for interconnection
>>> by rural telephone companies with competitors for a period of
>>> 3-5 years.
>>>
>>> I believe this is the best bill that could be crafted at this time,
>>> and that future needs will be addressed in more comprehensive legis-
>>> lation inthe future.
>>>
>>>
>>> 13. PROPOSED INTERNET CHARGES
>>>
>>> Telephone companies want to impose new internet charges on users.
>>> I've received many inquires into this subject, and I've contacted
>>> Marsha Smith, Commissioner, IPUC about the issue. I should have a
>>> reply this next week.
>>>
>>> 14. UPCOMING ISSUES THIS WEEK IN THE LEGISLATURE
>>>
>>> a. HB220--Real Property Rights. This bill adds to existing law
>>> to provide procedures available to real property owners when
>>> actions of various state and local governmental entities impact
>>> on real property that does not technicall fall within the
>>> definitions of a taking. There is alot of controversy in
>>> regard to this bill.
>>>
>>> b. HB307--Property Tax--this amends existing law to allow property
>>> taxes to be paid monthly if the taxpayer so elects. This sounds
>>> good on the surface but school districts and county treasurers
>>> are against it. The Moscow School District for example would
>>> be based to borrow money to operate on if this bill is passed.
>>> I will be opposing the bill.
>>>
>>> 15. COMMUNICATIONS WITH YOUR LEGISLATORS
>>>
>>> Senator Gary Schroeder, Rep. Mal Miller, and I will appreciate your
>>> communications regarding key issues. The best way to communicate
>>> is to phone: 208-334-2000 and leave a message at the information
>>> center. We may not be able to call you back because of a shortage
>>> of time. Our e mail is infocntr@lso.state.id.us
>>>
>>
>
>Dr. Tom Trail
>International Trails
>2039 Mt. View Rd.
>Moscow, Id. 83843
>Tel: (208) 882-6077
>Fax: (208) 882-0896
>e mail ttrail@moscow.com
----------
Greg Brown (gregb@siu.edu)
Asst. Professor, Dept. of Forestry
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
(618) 453-7465
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet