When I grow up I would like to be an editor – at least it might appear so from some of my letters.  With this letter I will try to resist the urge to editorialize and bring you up to date on a few other issues making their way through the extensive legislative process.

 Last week we held a joint meeting of the House and Senate tax committees.  Each speaking participant had the opportunity to step away from their respective and previously stated positions on tax reform and answer a question: what might be the best way to stimulate the economy?  A few of the participants actually used the time to offer suggestions that were wholly magnanimous.  I was disappointed by the performance of others.  Still, the exercise was useful to have both committees together hearing the same comments.  Regretfully, no consensus can be drawn from the meeting that will provide clear direction for a plan of action or defined policy.  To that end; I will continue to bring speakers to the Senate committee to educate and broaden our perspective of existing and potential tax policy as well as pursue the elusive consensus plan.

 Animal cruelty ‘light’ legislation made it through the Senate committee Tuesday.  I have received numerous emails asking for a stricter law.  The bill has a third conviction felony provision, but it only applies to one of the five severally existing definitions of cruelty and it does not have within it a definition of torture.  One goal of the bill is to leverage public opinion so the “1 of 3” initiative attempt scheduled for the 2012 ballot will be unsuccessful.  The initiative goes much farther than the legislation.  Among constituent requests are: mandatory sentencing, first conviction felony for torture, and a first offense cruelty felony provision.  If the initiative is successful, I believe next year the legislature will amend the law anyway.  Law by initiative has the same effect as legislated law and is subject to change just as any other statute.

 The legislation to update the Early Childhood Coordinating Council (EC3) died yesterday on the House floor even after the amendments to strike references to federal programs were incorporated.  A signed Executive Order should meet the minimum standards of the federal requirements to maintain eligibility for program dollars – I say should because time will tell.  It is easy to say we should do it for the children.  We should.  We should also do things like this because it is the logical and reasoned thing to do and just happens to also be the right thing to do.  So why did it fail by six votes?  The answer would require that I editorialize.  Suffice it to say that, very often, politics is a contact sport and is not for the faint of heart.

 For some folks, ethics has been and will continue to be on the agenda of things to do.  One of the ideas is to have an ongoing non-legislative ethics committee.  Complaints from anyone could then be filtered to the committee and the committee could then decide if action is justified.  There is good and bad in that solution or any of the other solutions for that matter.  Who watches the watchers?  Whose judgment is just or wise enough?  Most certainly, the House member that stole state property and doesn’t pay taxes and the Senate member that had too much to drink and walked outside in the cold and woke up in a vehicle that was not his have focused attention on our process.  They also focus attention on our humanity.  Willful intent or poor judgment; which one is an ethical violation?  One of the individuals has been adjudicated by the legal system the other remains in the legal process.  Both faced their respective legislative bodies.  Perhaps it was the decision of their peers we don’t want to trust.  Would we trust an independent ethics committee more?  When we fail to measure up as legislators or parents or citizens, we disappoint everyone around us and there really is no excuse that is satisfactory.  Those of us in office should respect the public trust and we should demand of ourselves an unassailable standard.  I suspect we will never have a satisfactory response for those times when our humanity erupts and must be confronted.  Never the less, we should try to find the appropriate path and I will support reasonable efforts.

 The ATV issue has been revived.  Still at issue is whether roads that are open to all other ATV traffic should be closed to hunters using their ATV’s on the very same road.  I believe I understand both sides of the issue fairly well.  An interim committee was established to resolve the issues but they were unsuccessful in doing so; arguably, some progress was made.  Managing game animals for harvest is a very important issue.  So is the non-hunting recreational ATV need for road access.  These two powerful and legitimate public needs and concerns meet head-on, pardon the pun, in very remote places and here in the legislature.  There will be more to come on this subject.

 Other Fish and Game issues include whether land owners who receive landowner appreciation permits should be able to sell those permits.  Land owners are given the permits to show them appreciation for allowing access to hunting on their property.  Generally, the permits are for those areas where hunting only by draw is allowed.  The concern is that if owners are allowed to sell their permits then access to the general public might be denied to increase the value of the salable permit; thus enabling the exact opposite effect.

 Stay tuned.  Things are speeding up and heating up.  Don’t hesitate to email or call.

Last week I described my requisite three S’s for proposed tax change legislation.  They are: does the proposal produce Sustainable stand-alone results; will the change result in Systemic or naturally occurring economic vitality; and finally, will the effect of the change produce independent or Synergistic results?

 I also promised you a look at my four P’s.  The P’s aren’t just about taxes but they certainly do apply.  Here they are: Policy, Process, Persistence, and Preparation. 

 Having a plan of action or blueprint is important whether we are going on vacation or caring for the poor or making changes to the tax system – a Policy.  Too often, as I have said before, we govern by jerks or bursts rather than with methodical, reasoned, and deliberate direction modified with occasional methodical, reasoned, and deliberate adjustments.  Good policy must be flexible while also resistant, though not immune, to change.

 Process is how the methodical, reasoned, and deliberate actions are evaluated and enacted.  Process must be consistent for it to ensure the correct portions of flexibility and resistance in securing the will of a republic majority and defending the interests of the minority.  Deliberate process takes out the jerks and bursts and thus provides an environment that is dependable and reliable.  Business expects to pay taxes for the services they receive and the infrastructure they rely on, but when location decisions are made they will choose consistent and dependable over an uncertain tax climate.

 The third P, or Persistence, is what is required to see, to the end, the outcome of fundamental change.  Examples are clear in a, not so recent, study of changes made to property taxes in Idaho.  Idaho had for a time a 5 ½% cap on property tax that was not very restrictive with regard to individual fund limitations.  Lawmakers changed that system to a “Truth In Taxation” strategy.  That strategy lasted two years and then lawmakers changed to the current 3% cap with very restrictive controls on funds.  (Pardon me for using obscure terminology here because it may be confusing to some.  Funds are the separate accounts within local budgets.)  Local budgets are rate based which means that a rate is determined by dividing the total budget by the total value and then multiply the rate by individual property values.  However, when the change was made to 3% there was another 4% value-based tax to be used for schools.  Individual values were multiplied by 4% for school maintenance and operations.  A couple of years later 1% was removed from property tax and shifted to sales tax and finally in 2006 the remaining 3% budget or value-based tax was removed and shifted to sales tax. 

 I think you see the point.  The chaotic two years of Truth in Taxation provides the greatest insight.  Truth in Taxation is a governance philosophy, and when embraced by state government directs that local governments disclose information and inform constituents and then empowers local governments to govern and be accountable.  In other states where T-in-T has been enacted, the initial response from local government bodies was skyrocketing budgets for a year or two but within five years budgets stabilized as citizens became more engaged and elected officials adjusted to the new authority and responsibility.  The legislature’s knee jerk reaction to the two years of budget surges was to take back self-governance and impose a more restrictive, almost punitive, budget cap.  No sustaining Policy, inadequate Process, and very little Persistence.

 The legislative arena is replete with examples of unintended consequences.  Appropriate Preparation for the unexpected doesn’t take away the surprise but it sure helps with the shock.  Expect the unexpected is a wise adage.  When we build legislation we tend to labor over the details where the devil lives; trying to eliminate the unexpected with another period, comma, or semicolon.  Without Preparation even the expected can be quite a surprise. 

 I hope to help define the public policy for reasonable and sustainable taxation, define and defend an adequate process to employ the policy, be persistent in implementation and application, and finally; be prepared for the expected and unexpected.  If successful in all that, we will have a sustainable, systemic, and synergistic tax system.

 I hear it already.  Corder wake up and take off the rose colored glasses; three S’s, four P’s, and a truck load of naive optimism is what you have.  Perhaps! However, I have two other advantages.  I have you and I have the door through which all tax bills must pass.

For some of you this will be the first news letter from me – please be patient.  I am adjusting to the newest new district lines.  The available redistricting map is not very clear but I am told I no longer have the cities of Filer, Buhl, Hollister, or Rogerson but perhaps still have the geography around Buhl.  To offset the population loss from those towns I will now have Murphy, Homedale and Marsing.  I am also told that no other lawsuits are pending – yet.  Let’s all hope that redistricting is behind us for another decade and we can get on about the business of educating and governing and striving together for what is right as we see it.  Please share this newsletter.

 I was warmly reminded by a constituent that writing a fair to middling newsletter is a good thing but I also need to let you know what I am doing.  I love this job.  I love that so many of you feel free to offer me advice, counsel, encouragement, and correction.  I could not do the job without you.  Though I must transition away from Boise County I hope I can continue the relationship I have had with so many people living in Boise County who are ever ready to demonstrate qualities of true friendship by their genuineness.  I look forward to developing new relationships.  To that end, if you have not visited my web site at www.senatortimcorder.com please find out more about me there.  The blog is restricted and houses several years of newsletters.  A search engine is available for your convenience.

 I readily and eagerly expose this fact to those of you reading for the first time.  I thrive on the interaction and feedback I receive from people.  I like the “atta boys” too but I believe the path towards representing all of you successfully has lots of turnouts where we can stop for a minute and listen to each other.

 Legislation to re-codify the Early Childhood Coordinating Council (EC3) barely made it out of a House Committee yesterday on a 5 to 4 vote.  I co-sponsored that same legislation last year and started it in the Senate where it passed easily.  The bill died in the House in the final days of the 2011 session for no apparent or rational reason.  EC3 is one of my ongoing Senate designee assignments.   I have served on the council for four years.  The budget for the council is less than $22,000 federally-sourced dollars but every one of those dollars serves to eliminate redundancy and overlap among other federal programs providing services to special-needs children from birth to age five.  The council has no programs of its own, expands nothing, and creates nothing except opportunity, and yet some see it as a threat.  EC3 coordinates activities and facilitates; that’s all, but without that coordination and facilitation the state would lose federal dollars for stand-alone special needs children programs and administrative efficiency. 

 I have received very few suggestions from you with respect to my inquiry about how you would spend $45 million dollars to stimulate the economy.  I believe that is because you are all very wise and are waiting to have more information before drawing conclusions.  Next Wednesday, February 8, at 9:00 AM the Senate and House Tax Committees will be meeting jointly to hear testimony from several economic sectors.  The meeting will have video and audio feed so if you are so inclined join us at http://www.idahoptv.org/leglive/legBody.cfm?pubPoint=WW02AUD.  

 Chairman Dennis Lake and I have invited representatives from energy, food production, jobs, commerce, small/medium business, chambers of commerce, and the banking sectors.  Each participant has been asked to offer their perspective of what government might do to stimulate the economy and to distinguish between short and long term benefits as well as sustainability.

 Some special interest groups have not been bashful about tax proposals.  I use the three S’s as a test for consideration.  Is it, or does it produce, a sustainable impact or benefit or is this a onetime shot for effect?  Is the change or benefit systemic in nature?  If so, what will be required to implement, measure, and test outcomes and, more importantly, is the policy question adequately framed and presented for debate?  If the goal is economic stimulation, in any form, then will the proposal be synergistic?  That is to say; will the initial effect in the economy, of government intervention, be replaced by activities and results that stimulate and energize the economy without additional government manipulation?

 Next week: more on pending legislation and the four P’s.  Your suggestions and questions are always welcome and appreciated.

As observers and participants of government in action we must take my Katie’s advice: “Grandpa, sometimes you just have to laugh at yourself.”  It is difficult to watch government in action unless one learns to take that sage advice of my eight year old. 

The redistricting commission will take up their task once again this week.  The Supreme Court decision has left a constitutionally convened commission, designed to be bi-partisan and consider secondary interests, with but one task: choose which of the computers to use to draw the lines.  The Court majority opinion has ruled that, within the federal deviation limitation, a redistricting plan with the fewest number of counties split shall be more constitutional than another plan with more counties split.  The plan that was overturned had eleven county splits.  It is a subtle difference but the court has ruled; it is not the number of splits in a county that counts but the number of counties that are split – split a county three times and it still counts as one split.  The counties that sued the state could conceivably end up being split even more and so long as the number of counties split is fewer than eleven, as in the overturned plan, the plan would be more constitutional.  

In fact, whatever plan the commission now agrees on could be overturned by any conceivable plan that has just one less county being split, and so on, and so on and so on.  Hence my conclusion, that the only real remaining task is to choose which computer to assign the task of dividing one and one-half million people evenly into thirty five legislative districts and do that while cutting as few of the forty-four counties as possible.  It is just math – or is it?  At least the computer would eliminate the hubristic political drama of firing people.

The “Occupy” movement and their tent city on the grounds of the old Ada County Court house have generated significant interest.  Is this occupation of public property a demonstration of social unrest to raise awareness?  I don’t know. Legislators are now in the third week here at the Capitol – just across the street from the tents.  I think there has been one gathering on the steps, on Human Rights Day, where Occupy people participated to demonstrate for human rights.  Not a single person from Occupy has spoken with me to inform me of their goals and what they hope to achieve.  No literature has been distributed or calls made on people to educate us.  I support the right of every citizen to petition the government, to protest, and to hold demonstrations in an orderly fashion.  Absent the petitions and efforts to educate, I struggle with where this is heading and I am anxious to see how history records the events.

Great ideas and the most benevolent motives can be defeated with bad timing, poor presentation, or a single misplaced word.  Timing can often be controlled, presentation can be thought out, but words are always a choice.  The question then is whether one wants to be successful in gaining concurrence or empathy with the message or just to bring attention to the fact that you had a message. 

I have shared my definition of politics before: politics is the art of convincing you that I am right, and that it was your idea.  Learning and practicing that art is what I do for you in the legislature.  Every person who has a message to deliver to the legislature should keep that definition handy.  I have received a number of inquiries from people wanting to know how best to communicate with legislators.  In light of the hours of testimony offered last year by citizens where it appeared the votes ultimately made by the legislature were contrary to the opinions presented, it is a good question.  I understand your frustration because sometimes the other 104 legislators ignore me too.  Perhaps, like me, you think that because we feel strongly about something that everyone else agrees with our position.  I can assure you they don’t and your elected officials will hear from all sides.

Here are some suggestions for communicating with elected officials.  If communicating face to face: 

• Ask for time to speak them one on one and respect the time they give
• When meeting in person, even if you think they know you, introduce yourself
• Practice what it is you want to say, maybe in front of a mirror
• Explain briefly the issue (one sentence) then ask if they are aware of the issue
• Offer  more details but hesitate often to give opportunity for questions – watch body language and facial reactions
• Be prepared to listen
• If possible, leave them with a brief written summary (ask them if they want that) but do not leave them with a stack of papers, unless they ask for it.
• Don’t make things up, if you don’t know the answer say so
• Thank them for the time and leave your contact information

If communicating by other means:

• Internet facsimiles, third party email, or other bulk mail schemes where officials get 100 pieces of identical correspondence are NOT effective communication
• Don’t be rude and then expect positive reactions
• Don’t call them names
• Don’t threaten, (i.e., if you vote no I will work to see you out of office etc.)
• Before you send a written message, read it out loud to yourself, if it doesn’t make sense to you it will surely not make sense to them
• Check your grammar and spelling
• I would rather have a single sentence from the heart than two paragraphs of a form letter.
• Identify yourself and address – anonymous letters are not credible

I heard a legislator make a request, from a Finance Committee member, that real money be appropriated to fund teacher pay – real money.  I think he meant that he wanted to see an actual appropriation to salaries and not a paper shuffle or appropriation to general discretionary spending accounts.  I hope that is what was meant.  The Governor has asked for the additional $41 million for one time bonuses for all state employees based on merit with a maximum of 3%.  I don’t think that is what the legislator meant.  Frankly, the time to vote for real money for teachers was last year when the reforms were passed that took money away from the salary base.  A “yes” vote this year will not make up for a “no” vote last year.  I will also add that a yes vote this year is a contradiction to the stated goals and desired outcome of the 2011 reforms; one of which was to reduce the cost of education.

I remain skeptical about having $45 million to put into tax offsets.  Suppose that we do; how would you spend it?  I have asked for a joint meeting of the tax committees from the Senate and the House to answer the same question.  Because there are 105 legislators I suspect there might be at least a hundred different answers.  Starting with exploring what the expectations or goals to be accomplished are would seem prudent.  We won’t do that as a group though because, as I said, there will be at least a hundred different expectations.  My job, as Senate door keeper of tax policy, is to narrow those goals and expectations down a bit and then find the right mix of tax offsets to accomplish the goals.  Sounds simple doesn’t it?

I do need a number to start with – right?  Will it be $45 or $60 or $10 million?  The goals and mix of offsets will differ for each number.  A revenue projection committee will not meet until January 24^th with their informed guess.  The Joint Finance Committee (JFAC) will have their informed guess as well and they must then appropriate an amount to accommodate the Governor’s request.  Because JFAC is not a policy committee they cannot decide how or where the money will go, that is left to the House and Senate germane tax committees.  Sounds like a page from “Catch 22” doesn’t it?  Tax committees can’t decide what to do with the money until they know how much and JFAC can’t decide how much until they see projections and have some idea where and how it might be spent.  It sounds less simple now than a moment ago.

The policy discussion is worth the effort, in my not-so-humble door keeper view, even if we have “0” dollars to work with.  Because, one day we will have excess funds and one day we will need policy direction.  We need to evaluate what we have done wrong with tax policy and failed or successful social engineering efforts.  Then we should use that information to put in place a system that keeps downward pressure on expanding government and upward pressure on economic growth and business vitality.

Taxes and tax change should be fair, competitive with other states, easy to administer, and easy to collect and enforce.  Many options are being considered, such as; lowering the rate of Income or Sales taxes, broadening the base by eliminating exemptions, increasing the cigarette tax, personal property tax elimination, energy credits, hospital assessment elimination, elimination of Investment Tax Credit, eliminating or reducing the corporate Income Tax, to name just a few.  It should be noted again that whatever we do with taxes and whoever is the initial and direct recipient – every Idahoan will feel the impact in one way or another.  Rather than feel the impact because of a shift from one tax to another, from one pocket to another pocket, I would prefer you feel the impact in these ways: in improving state and county infrastructure, sustainable economic growth, ongoing efforts to keep government the right size, reasonable and sustainable tax revenues, and a vibrant and efficacious education plan including research and development.  There are other ways you and I can and will feel the consequence of consistent and sound fiscal policies applied fundamentally and foundationally through sound tax policy because the effect of appropriate tax policy is synergistic within our economy.  Conversely, the consequences of self-serving politically motivated tax policy are observed and felt and are met with public disdain.

Among the various tests for good tax policy two words will serve as my mandatory litmus test:  sustainable and synergy.  Will changes made to the tax mix be sustainable?  Will the synergistic nature of the change offer short term confidence as well as extend into the future providing a benefit to all Idahoans as a product of a thriving economy independent of government intervention?

I am interested in your suggestions.  What would you do with $45 million?