Comments on: Proposed Amendment To Limit Voting Rights

By: Cyclops

Cyclops — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:01:59 +0000

I have a close friend who is a small business man and he summed it up for me many years ago. He said, “You know, when times are good and my business is rolling along, if the government wants to take some of my profits, that’s OK. But when times are tough and I am wondering where my next job is going to come from, I am sorry, but I need my money to feed my family, pay my bills and put gas in my truck. I can’t afford to have the government take even more of my income”. Maybe we should start electing “CITIZENS” rather than the local “elitists” who know what is good for us!

By: JIMV

JIMV — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:01:07 +0000

We already live in a world where elected and appointed demi-Gods direct every facet of our lives. The areas where they must pay attention to the citizens are few. Why reduce them?

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:32:15 +0000

Jon, do you think voters are stupid? If you do then what is proposed makes sense, if not then people are wise enough to recognize a true need from a want.

Everyone recognizes there has to be a certain level of taxation and public support of various public entities. It is when they get stupid about spending our money without approvals and we have no recourse I find galling.

Public schools support is a great example of taxpayers stepping up to the plate to fund stuff. Urban Renewal districts routinely abuse taxpayers and I won’t go into all the abuses but all you have to do is look around at all the stuff they said would not cost the taxpayers a dime and are now fully funded by taxpayers.

The history of Artilce 8 section 3 was that governments all over the west were squandering taxpayer money (borrowed I might add) and going bankrupt bending over backwards to attract business and industry.

Take a good look at California $42 billion in the red, counties and cities going bankrupt. Why? no voter oversight on spending, caving to public employee unions and other pet projects done on the easy pay plan.

I want to keep my right of oversight on elected officials and will not support any Republican Legislator who votes for this effort to make Idaho Governement Bigger than it already is. All of the Repubs. tell us they are for smaller government and lower taxes. They have lost their brand identity with this voter.

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:13:25 +0000

Jon,
As mentioned in the initial post…Idaho citizens routinely approve these projects. If it’s a meaningful project the voters will approve it. All opponents of this proposal are saying is, “just let the voters decide on the individual projects”.

As great as business growth is for cities, voter opinion/approval is just as vital.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:41:19 +0000

Dave, all I can say is that you have way oversimplified this in your response. I’m not talking about the “fat cats” in corner offices, but rather the emerging creative class. They are the business leaders of tomorrow for this valley and many of them are just as tired of Libertarian scare tactics as they are good old boy politics.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:51:02 +0000

Dave, do you have specific data that says there is no demand from the citizens? I have personally spoken with dozens, maybe even hundreds of Valley business leaders that would be in favor of this amendment.

EDITOR NOTE–You make my case. The bankers who profit from sale of bonds, the lawyers, and those who make payments to lobbying groups may wish to see the citizen approval go away. The Chamber of Commerce that takes all those “leaders” to Sun Valley to get away from the unwashed masses probably wants to see cities go around the citizens. My guess is that “leadership” is going to change.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:26:45 +0000

Dave, last year you responded to one of my comments with something on the order of “if you don’t like it, get the constitution changed.” That is exactly what our CITIZEN representatives are proposing here. They are fully within there rights and are by no means trying to sneak this through. Should it pass a public vote, it will be the public that has chosen to abridge their direct rights and not the legislature.

EDITOR NOTE–There is absolutely no demand from citizens to alter the constitution–the pressure is from those wishing to deny us the right we already enjoy to vote on debt. You are correct regarding passage. That is why we will all have to work to overcome the might and financial resources of cities and counties which are being used against the masses. You ready to help?

By: Goobs222

Goobs222 — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:49:30 +0000

Let’s see if I understand this correctly. The legislature is proposing that people be allowed to vote on an amendment to the Idaho Constitution. Those long advocating that people be allowed to vote on proposals are opposed to allowing people to vote on this proposal. Isn’t that a bit ironic? Or is it just hypocritical?

EDITOR NOTE–see note to JON above. Citizens are not allowed to propose amendments to Idaho’s Constitution. Only the legislature can propose amendments in Idaho, even if 90% of the citizens were to sign a petition.

By: Tom Anderson

Tom Anderson — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:46:05 +0000

Time to sharpen the pitchforks and soak the torches…

By: Sharon Ullman

Sharon Ullman — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:42:23 +0000

We might end up having to fight the proposed constitutional amendment at the ballot box. Voters should be outraged when our elected officials try to cut us out of the spending equation and we should not vote to let it happen.

At the county, we are trying vigilantly to reduce spending beyond the “revenue neutral” point. We realize that taxpayers are hurting, so it’s time for government to feel similar pain. If you have any suggestions for where unnecessary or wasteful expenditures can be cut, please let me know. My direct dial office number is 287-7001 and home is 362-0843. Thank you!