As we get into the last part of the month of March, and our legislators in Boise start getting cabin fever, I thought it would be a good time to see how the agenda that leadership put before us at the beginning of the session is working out.
- Property tax relief. Early on in the session several legislators asked to explore our current “mark to market” property assessment system, with a system more like a cost bases system for placing a value on real estate. With increasing property assessments, many seniors and those living just above the margins are having to sell their homes—crickets.
- Grocery tax relief—crickets
- DHW audits and audits of those in the private and non-profit sector who receive over $100million of transfer payments—crickets
- A formal investigation of the now bankrupt Idaho Health Data Exchange that has lost over $97million of taxpayer monies—maybe it is time for the FBI to get involved in this investigation! How many government agencies and branches of government can be allowed to continue to kick that can down the road?
It really seems to me that many of our Republican legislators are more concerned with growing the size and scope of government and keeping revenues to all government agencies growing, than they are with putting money back in the pockets of citizens who are taxpayers. Are these guys representing the selfish interest of government or the interests of their constituents?
When government grows—taxes have to grow and money in the pockets of individuals, families, and businesses becomes less available for groceries, mortgages and rents, college savings and retirement contributions.
And here is what really sticks in my craw—As government programs grow in size, scope, and cost—let’s just focus in on Medicaid, individual citizens and businesses who pay their own insurance premiums, copays and deductibles are forced to pay more every year. Reimbursement to providers for both Medicaid and Medicare (not a State run program) are around 25% less than what commercial insurance pays. As the percentage of people on government subsidized health care increases, the everyday working stiff is paying more and more—but not those in the legislature or government employees or teachers who have the State pay for their health insurance. They don’t feel the pain that those who are covered in the private marketplace feel.
So as health insurance premiums go up in the private sector, those in our legislature feel none of the impact of their own policies. We the taxpayers pay for their insurance—in addition to our own. They pay almost nothing!
There seems to me to be an inherent injustice when legislators vote to increase Medicaid spending that causes their constituents to pay higher premiums for their health care and they feel none of the pain.
It is time to start cutting the State’s budget and one way of doing that would over a period of 5 years make government workers and teachers pay their own way for health insurance. Increase their salaries and make them shop for their insurance plans and providers, just like the rest of us.
Too many people slopping up to the trough I say.
5 replies on “Upon Further Review”
State legislators pay their own insurance premiums every month, it’s simply not true that they do not.
It’s always the same answer for politicians. Make hard-working citizens pay more. The answer is to cut government, stop all medicaid payments to illegal aliens, cut welfare benefits. Let’s start there.
HELLO!
It hasn’t worked now for 235 years!
With each and every election since the inception of the biblically abominable Constitutional Republic, America has only found herself further along on her suicidal trek to the precipice, regardless whether a Donkey or Elephant (aka Swamp Crocodiles) has been elected. They’re not called Swamp Crocodiles for nothing!
This was inevitable. Why would you expect anything but disaster from unbiblically electing biblically unqualified candidates into biblically egregious positions of civil “leadership” who when elected swear to uphold the biblically seditious Constitution as the law of the land?
When you factor in Article 6’s Christian test ban whereby mandatory biblical qualifications were also eliminated and you’re guaranteed nothing but nincompoops, scoundrels, incompetents, immoral reprobates, and outright criminals for your civil leaders. That should sound all too familiar!
For more, see blog article “Constitutional Elections: Dining at the ‘Devil’s Table,'” at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/constitutional-elections-dining-at-the-devils-table/
For how the Bible’s election system operates, see blog article “Salvation by Election” at https://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/salvation-by-election/ Don’t be fooled by the title.
For more regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html
Ted—
“For much of Natural Law and Two Kingdoms, then, I found myself sympathetic with various aspects of a two kingdoms doctrine but unable to accept the spiritual/political division. After all, our political actions are deeply spiritual—from abortion law to economic policy. And a Christian’s work in the civil sphere is guided not just by the eternal Son but by Christ the Redeemer. On the other hand, abandoning some formulation of a two kingdoms view, I believe, leaves us with a number of problems, such as the lack of a solid theological foundation for the separation of church and state. A renewed Constantinianism or Bahnsen-like theonomy strikes me as logically inevitable. If Christ the Redeemer means to take over every square inch of this world at this point in redemption history—in the “already”—wouldn’t that mean Christians should take over Congress and legislate the faith, as in Islam, a true one-kingdom religion? As soon as you pull back and say that we shouldn’t, you effectively concede that there exists a line between the kingdom of Christ which is “not of this world” and some other realm, a line that can only be crossed through conversion. And it’s another kingdom not simply in the Augustinian “opposed to God” sense, it’s a zone where Christians must operate together with non-Christians sweeping floors, passing laws, painting pictures, and making friends.”
jml
Treg
Thank you for your response,
The taxpayer picks up over $14k for each state employee for health benefits. For health insurance, legislators are considered full time employees, so they pay lower premiums, co-pays and deductibles. They are on the same plan as all other full time state employees even though they are part time. It is a very inexpensive plan with great benefits and low deductibles. Their plan provides better coverage at a cheaper rate than almost any other commercial plan that individuals or businesses in Idaho can buy on the open market. They are essentially buying a “Gold” plan at a “Bronze” price.
When they vote in lockstep with providers and carriers who increase commercial rates to their constituents in response to increasing Medicaid participation by young healthy individuals, thus securing their revenue streams, they are in affect placing a “tax” on people, families, and businesses who buy commercial insurance. When their own insurance is subsidized at such a great rate, they don’t share in the pain of such an “indirect tax”.
It is my humble opinion that any legislature that votes on a budget issue that impacts their constituents in such an unfair way should declare a conflict of interest and recuse themselves from voting when their own premiums are being subsidized by parties that their vote impacts and that they are charged with regulating.
Give them a certain amount of money and have them shop on the open market like so many citizens do—then they can vote on these issues without a conflict.
“Transparency is a great disinfectant.”
Thank you for your response.
jml