{"id":14180,"date":"2013-01-02T15:00:09","date_gmt":"2013-01-02T22:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/?p=14180"},"modified":"2013-01-02T23:53:16","modified_gmt":"2013-01-03T06:53:16","slug":"idahos-new-house-speaker-weighs-in-on-the-key-issues-of-the-coming-session","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/2013\/01\/02\/idahos-new-house-speaker-weighs-in-on-the-key-issues-of-the-coming-session\/","title":{"rendered":"From Education To Tax Cuts, Idaho’s New House Speaker Weighs In On Key Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Molly Messick \/ StateImpact Idaho<\/p>

Rep. Bedke (R-Oakley) is the newly elected Speaker of the House.<\/p><\/div>\n

The Idaho Legislature<\/a> convenes January 7.\u00a0 Over the last month, StateImpact<\/em> sat down with lawmakers to discuss the most anticipated issues of the coming session.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Rep. Scott Bedke is a rancher from Oakley, Idaho.\u00a0 He was elected Speaker of the House in December, defeating Rep. Lawerence Denney<\/a>, who had served in that post for three terms.<\/p>\n

The new Speaker has said he seeks to be a consensus builder, and doesn’t want to lead the House in a top-down manner.\u00a0 That approach was on display last month, when we began by talking about the likelihood of a state-based health insurance exchange<\/a>. \u00a0Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter had issued his cautious endorsement<\/a> of a state-based exchange a day earlier.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>The governor says he favors a state-based health insurance exchange.\u00a0 How do you view that recommendation?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>That\u2019s a multifaceted question.\u00a0 Number one: I view my job as Speaker as a guarantor of the process.\u00a0 In other words, every other person in the House of Representatives is brand new, and I think it\u2019s incumbent upon the leadership offices \u2013 whether it\u2019s the Speaker\u2019s office or any of the other leadership positions \u2013 to not drive that discourse down into these new legislators.<\/p>\n

I appreciate what the governor has done, and I appreciate his seeming willingness to keep the state\u2019s options open.\u00a0 Having said that, I don\u2019t view my position as the Speaker of the House to go down and get his votes for him, or to go get any<\/em> of the proponents\u2019 votes for them, or the opponents\u2019 votes, either.\u00a0 My job is to ensure that the process works.<\/p>\n

Every one of these legislators represents 47,000 people back home someplace.\u00a0 And those 47,000 people think that person they elected is the best person to represent their interests in Boise.\u00a0 It\u2019s incumbent upon me to create a venue where those new legislators can make an informed decision and put their ideas out into the arena of ideas that we call a legislature.\u00a0 If the ideas grow legs, fine.\u00a0 And if they don\u2019t grow legs, then that\u2019s got to be fine, too.\u00a0 And that\u2019s how I view my role.\u00a0 We don\u2019t want to just listen to a few disparate voices on this subject.\u00a0 We need to listen to everybody.<\/p>\n

Now, I certainly will have a strong opinion.\u00a0 I represent 47,000 people, too.\u00a0 And I\u2019ll make a vote, and at the appropriate time I will speak up.\u00a0 But I don\u2019t think it\u2019s appropriate for me to do that at the start, particularly given the newness of the Legislature.\u00a0 I think that\u2019s not my place as a Speaker.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>You’re saying you want ideas to percolate up from your membership, and have the majority vote carry the day.<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>That\u2019s exactly it.\u00a0 I think we need to reach a consensus.\u00a0 In order for any group to reach a consensus, every member has got to contribute.\u00a0 My role as Speaker is to facilitate a venue where everyone is comfortable laying their cards on the table.\u00a0 From those collective cards, we find what the consensus of the House of Representatives is, and then proceed forward.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>As you said, you represent 47,000 people out there in your own district.\u00a0 What do they lead you to think is the best decision?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>I think it\u2019s safe to say my constituents are very leery of \u201cObamacare,\u201d and they are leery of the state entering into obligations with regard to Obamacare.\u00a0 I think that my constituents are realistic.\u00a0 I think they understand the difference between the federal government enforcing federal law and the state government being the liaison between the constituent and federal law.<\/p>\n

It plays out in many different venues within my legislative district.\u00a0 I think we\u2019re marginally better off having a state Department of Environmental Quality that enforces federal laws with regard to air, water quality, those types of things, than having those laws be administered out of Region 10 in Seattle.<\/p>\n

I think my constituents understand the uncomfortable place the state is in.\u00a0 Obviously, it\u2019s a very Republican district.\u00a0 They were very supportive of Gov. Romney in his campaign, and they understand that elections have consequences. I think we will all reason together and see what is the best course for the state.\u00a0 My view will have a Cassia County-Minidoka County color to it, and hopefully that will blend into the rest of the discourse from around the state.<\/p>\n

One of the earliest marketing concepts that\u2019s driven into each of us is that we don\u2019t buy pigs in pokes.\u00a0 And this has an element of that.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know exactly what we\u2019re getting into.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know what all the rules will be.\u00a0 We don\u2019t know how the rules that are written will be interpreted.\u00a0 And I think if we read the governor\u2019s statement carefully, you\u2019ll see that he\u2019s very aware of that as well.\u00a0 In many ways it\u2019s a states\u2019 rights issue.\u00a0 We need to be at the table.\u00a0 If no one sits at the table, then there will be no modifications to it.<\/p>\n

You\u2019re getting a stream of consciousness here, and I think that that\u2019s indicative of \u2013 we have not made a decision yet.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>\u00a0So you also have not made a decision at this point?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>\u00a0I think that\u2019s accurate, yes.\u00a0 I haven\u2019t made a decision at all on this.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>This issue is complicated.\u00a0 Is the Medicaid expansion <\/a>discussion even more complicated, because there isn\u2019t, in that case, the pressure of a deadline?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>I think that\u2019s accurate.\u00a0 The few things we do know about the Medicaid expansion: the State of Idaho provides indigent care, and the way we do it now is costly.\u00a0 The county has part of the responsibility, and the state has part of the responsibility, and it\u2019s costly for taxpayers. If there is a way to do that at a reduced cost to the taxpayers of Idaho, we should be interested in looking at it.\u00a0 Making no commitments one way or the other, we should vet that issue thoroughly.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>More than one lawmaker has predicted to me that the Medicaid expansion will not win approval, at least in this session.\u00a0 Do you feel comfortable making a prediction, at this stage?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>No.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think it\u2019s healthy for the Speaker to get out in front of his caucus.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>The business personal property tax<\/a> is anticipated to be one of the key issues of the session ahead.\u00a0 How do you expect that debate to proceed in the House?<\/p>\n

A:<\/span><\/del> The business community wants it removed, and the counties do not want that removal to harm them in any way financially.\u00a0 The state is not flush with money.\u00a0 If we were, then it would be easy for the general fund to replace that money in the counties\u2019 budgets.\u00a0 That\u2019s not an option because we don\u2019t have that kind of money.<\/p>\n

So then the next turn will be, “Well, can we do this in some incremental way?”\u00a0 That\u2019s fine, but this legislative body cannot obligate future legislative bodies.\u00a0 It\u2019s impossible to predict a timetable that we can absolutely stick to, because we don\u2019t know what the situation\u2019s going to be in 2014 or subsequent years.<\/p>\n

I think, frankly, the state is better off, the business community is better off, our ability to attract and keep new businesses is enhanced without a personal property tax.\u00a0 It\u2019s just how to change the policy, now, in a way that doesn\u2019t disrupt taxing entities or the counties who are obligated to provide services.\u00a0 The Legislature is not bashful about telling them what to do, or what services to provide.\u00a0 If we then remove some of their financial ability to do that, we\u2019ve got to replace that, or take some of that burden back to the state.\u00a0 That\u2019s why it\u2019s a tougher issue, and that\u2019s why it hasn\u2019t been solved at this point.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>We’re dealing with a budget that has already been strained by the recession.\u00a0 Does the state have the money to do away with the personal property tax right now?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>The short answer is no. Do we have $130 million ongoing that we can just plug into the counties\u2019 budgets year in and year out?\u00a0 No, I would say that we do not.\u00a0 Given the budget as presently constituted, I guess you could go in and carve it out.\u00a0 But that would come at the expense of other government services, and I just don\u2019t see the legislature going there.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>Is there a big business-small business tension in this?\u00a0 Some will point out that the state could exempt the first $250,000 of personal property from taxation and save a large percentage of businesses in the state from the headache of this tax, while still keeping quite a lot of the revenue. How do you view that?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>I\u2019m a big proponent of equal protection under the law.\u00a0 “Big versus little” should not come into play here.\u00a0 Having said that, that has never stopped legislative bodies from playing that game.\u00a0 I suspect that if the past is any indication of the future, we\u2019ll see that rise up again.\u00a0 But I don\u2019t know that it\u2019s good policy. \u00a0I think the more fairly you can treat all players, the better off we are, and the better policy that is long-term.\u00a0 We ought to be about the business of making our whole tax structure fair, predictable, flat.\u00a0 And treat all comers exactly the same.<\/p>\n

Having said that, I’ll use an analogy.\u00a0 If I plant a sapling oak tree next to the house, and I leave it there, and in 30 years it becomes evident that it was a foolish idea to plan the tree that close to the house \u2013 if I just hook up to that tree with a bulldozer and pull it out, I will probably do structural damage to the house.\u00a0 That does not mean that the tree is in the right place or that the tree should not be removed.\u00a0 I\u2019m advocating a surgical removal of the tree.<\/p>\n

Many counties, all of their finances are heavily dependent on the personal property tax for their budgets.\u00a0 If we just yank that out, then we will cause problems.\u00a0 I think we\u2019ve got to do this in a thoughtful way.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>What does that mean, in terms of policy? What is the way that you think works?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>Well, there\u2019s probably got to be two prongs to it.\u00a0 If everything stays equal, then it is a shift.\u00a0 One set of taxpayers no longer pays it, and a new set of taxpayers then pays it.\u00a0 We all have our own opinion on whether that\u2019s good policy or not.\u00a0 I guess it depends on whether you\u2019re in the new set of taxpayers or the old set.<\/p>\n

The personal property tax on farm equipment was removed.\u00a0 We were able to do that, and the world didn\u2019t come to an end.\u00a0 That was much smaller in scope, but the principles that drove that decision should drive this.\u00a0 I think we need to do some definitional changes.\u00a0 What is personal property?\u00a0 I think we all understand that in an office setting, the chairs and desks and fixtures are personal property.\u00a0 But in an industrial setting with specialized equipment, is that equipment personal or is it real?<\/p>\n

Because it was exposed to the same mil rates, we\u2019ve never had to struggle with those definitions until now.\u00a0 It didn\u2019t make one bit of difference, one way or the other.\u00a0 Now it does.\u00a0 I think we\u2019re going to have to agree to definitions first, and that will give us the scope of the financial hole that we need to fill.\u00a0 Then, we need to methodically dissect this problem. Frankly, we\u2019ve not really done that yet, in my opinion.<\/p>\n

I think that\u2019s in our future, and what little influence I have as a Speaker, I might use that to drive this and get some hard definitions.\u00a0 See what that\u2019s going to cost, under the new definitions, and go from there.\u00a0 But it\u2019s an elephant, and we\u2019ve got to eat it a bite at a time.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>Are you advocating a more limited definition of personal property, or are you simply saying that you want lawmakers to sit down and consider that question?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>I think that we need to consider that question.\u00a0 We\u2019ve got a very experienced group of new legislators, many of which have been county commissioners or commissioners on other taxing districts.\u00a0 They get this.\u00a0 I\u2019m interested to hear their ideas, because heaven knows this issue could stand a little change-up.\u00a0 We\u2019ve gone around and around and around on this.\u00a0 There needs to be something that changes the way we\u2019re viewing this.<\/p>\n

Maybe that comes from the new legislators.\u00a0 Maybe that comes from a definitional change.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know what it is, but it seems to me that this is d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again.\u00a0 We\u2019re hearing the same things, and yet there\u2019s been no big game changer here.\u00a0 \u201cGet on your mark, get set, go!\u201d And we race around the mulberry bush again.\u00a0 The issue needs some type of a game-changer.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>Based on what you\u2019re saying, it sounds like there\u2019s not a single personal property tax bill that already has a lot of support.<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>A lot of bills are floating around, and I think that we can use parts of them.\u00a0 But I think everyone agreeing on what is going to be taxed and what is not going to be taxed is the starting point.\u00a0 Otherwise, this is too slippery of a subject, and there\u2019s too much money at stake.<\/p>\n

It gives me some pause that the personal property tax<\/a> roles seem to have ballooned with our discussing this. I think that might come from the phenomenon that if taxing districts think we\u2019re going to replace that in their budget it\u2019s better to have a higher number than a lower number.\u00a0 Much like if we\u2019re going to enter a weight-loss contest, before we weigh in, it\u2019s okay to drink a lot of water.<\/p>\n

Now, I\u2019m not accusing anyone of gaming any systems, but it seems to me there\u2019s been this, \u201cWhen in doubt, classify it as personal, because down the road we\u2019ll get more reimbursement.\u201d\u00a0 That may be a hair unfair, but I think there\u2019s an element of that.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>The other thing I want to talk about is education. What do you anticipate, in terms of policy, given the success of Props 1, 2 and 3<\/a>?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>The ideas there are all across the board.\u00a0 The legislature fully funded the changes in education law that were overturned in Propositions 1, 2 and 3.\u00a0 So there\u2019s 40-some odd million dollars of ongoing commitment that the legislature has made that now there\u2019s no accompanying policy.<\/p>\n

This is a competitive environment when it comes to money, and so there are other entities outside of the education arena, outside of the public education arena, that are looking at that money.\u00a0 That\u2019s to be expected.\u00a0 If the money is not spent and it\u2019s not put in any other budget, it will just flow through into the public education stabilization fund, which is not all bad because we always can replenish our savings accounts, particularly in public schools.<\/p>\n

There seem to be some common themes that are starting to develop on what the path forward will be with regard to education.\u00a0 I think there were some things embedded in Prop 1 that, for many legislators, if they are not in there, those will be deal-breakers.\u00a0 Others feel very strongly about some kind of a pay-for-performance component as well as technology.<\/p>\n

Some of the things that were addressed in Prop 1 are important for me.\u00a0 I think a locally elected school board should be accorded the same privilege as a legislative body, in that the actions of the 2013 Legislature in no way bind the actions of the 2014 Legislature, or 15, 20 or 25.\u00a0 Yet we have allowed, in the past, that the actions of one school board have forever bound future school boards.\u00a0 I think evergreen clauses, some of the issues surrounding tenure — those things need to be included, from my perspective, in whatever bill goes forward.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>So, a bill that would limit union power?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>I would call it empowering the local elected school boards to take care of the business end of running the school district.\u00a0 You cannot have a contract that you can never revisit and properly run a school board from a financial end.\u00a0 Things change.\u00a0 We\u2019ve seen that.\u00a0 We\u2019ve gone through the Great Recession. We\u2019ve had less money, and substantively less.\u00a0 The state sent less money to the school districts, and they need to be able to react to the economic realities of the day.\u00a0 You can\u2019t do that by tying their hands, contractually.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>It\u2019s alleged that the state is not meeting its constitutional mandate in terms of funding education.\u00a0 What do you think about that?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>I think that, by and large, we are meeting our constitutional mandate.\u00a0 What is a thorough education?\u00a0 If we want to go by test scores, and compare kids\u2019 test scores out of one school district that is a \u201crich\u201d school district versus one that is a \u201cpoor\u201d school district.\u00a0 I think you\u2019ll see those correlations fall to the side very quickly.<\/p>\n

Money certainly is an important part of the education apparatus, but, like I say, I think that we\u2019re doing a thorough job when it comes to educating our kids, or at least having kids have access to a thorough education.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>Not withstanding the school fees that families and students pay in some districts?<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>Well, I think there\u2019s a bright line that school districts shouldn\u2019t cross.\u00a0 But again, that\u2019s the beauty of local control.\u00a0 If they get too close to this line, then their local patrons need to remind them that the line is there.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know that that’s a state issue.<\/p>\n

Q: <\/span>The line being that districts shouldn’t charge for core requirements.<\/p>\n

A: <\/span>That’s correct.<\/p>\n

This interview has been edited and shortened<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Idaho Legislature convenes January 7.\u00a0 Over the last month, StateImpact sat down with lawmakers to discuss the most anticipated issues of the coming session. Rep. Scott Bedke is a rancher from Oakley, Idaho.\u00a0 He was elected Speaker of the House in December, defeating Rep. Lawerence Denney, who had served in that post for three […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":46,"featured_media":14198,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15],"tags":[210,216],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14180"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/46"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14180"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14180\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14208,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14180\/revisions\/14208"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14198"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/idaho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}