Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Idaho  (Read 122707 times)

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2003, 02:09:12 am »

Lars H has started a very informative thread on the problem of Federal Highway Funding:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1294

The arguments cannot be summarized here, but it is possible to say that based on his analysis, Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways. By contrast, all of the other western states are heavily dependent on federal funding to build and maintain their systems.  


Idaho is not taxed at roughly equal.  Anyway, WY or MT coule simple add a little toll booth right before their entrances to Yellowstone national park and SD could do the same with Mt. Rushmore.  Any of the states could just a few cents to the gas tax.  WY or AK could also just charge the mineral companies.  Anyway, this factor has already been considered in the depend of fed gov factor on the spreadsheet.  ID is actually more dependant than WY but less than any of the other mid-west or mountain states.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2003, 02:09:56 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

glen

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2003, 11:03:30 pm »

Hi Freedomroad

The following is the bit of statistics on which I based my statement that Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways.

Did I get it wrong? Please let me know.

From Lars H thread:

While it's highly improbable that the Free State could easily persuade the Federal gov't to cease collecting these payments, it is exceptionally interesting to examine the per capita Federal highway funding numbers net of these payments:

State Average Net Federal Funding, FYs 2000-1996, $ per capita

Alaska   295.89
Delaware   43.07
Idaho   5.03
Maine   (8.59)
Montana   85.68
New Hampshire   0.80
North Dakota   97.57
South Dakota   101.38
Vermont   49.99
Wyoming   70.02


Maine is a net donor state, and New Hampshire and Idaho receive almost negligible per capita Federal subsidies when you consider the full funding picture.  Alaska's losses when the Free State turns away Federal highway funding are the most profound, even when the states' contributions to the FHTF are taken into consideration, and the Dakotas also both fare relatively poorly in this analysis.

Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2003, 11:40:36 pm »

Hi Freedomroad

The following is the bit of statistics on which I based my statement that Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways.

Did I get it wrong? Please let me know.

From Lars H thread:

While it's highly improbable that the Free State could easily persuade the Federal gov't to cease collecting these payments, it is exceptionally interesting to examine the per capita Federal highway funding numbers net of these payments:

State Average Net Federal Funding, FYs 2000-1996, $ per capita

Idaho   5.03


Well, if you put $5 x 1,200,000 people in the calculator you get something like $6,000,000.  I do not consider 6 million dollars to be roughly equal to ZERO dollars.  I am sorry, but I just do not buy that.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2003, 01:24:14 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

glen

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2003, 12:37:22 am »

Hi Freedomroad

At this point in Lars H’s argument, he (she?) appears to be saying that the federal highway system in Idaho is subsidized at the rate of $5 per person per year.

This means that if the feds tried to hold Idaho hostage by withholding federal highway funds, the state could retaliate by withholding the fed share of the fuel tax then just using the money to maintain the highways thereby eliminating the middle-man.

No doubt that the situation is more complex than this, but it gives Idaho a possible means to fight back.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2003, 01:13:24 am »

Quote
5. Best job market

Exitus, this is actually a disadvantage because it draws statists. While it would be good to have a moderate job market, a hot one is to our disadvantage, especially in a state like Idaho with a population arguably already too large for the project.

Not that I don't like Idaho; on the contrary, if I were moving as an individual I'd certainly go there as my first choice.

thewaka, don't worry about the newspapers. They (especially the big city ones) are going to be statist, no matter what.

Quote
One disturbing trend in Idaho recently,  how some school districts are trying to lure homeschoolers with "free information packets and online support"  once the homeschoolers accept them, they are under the rule of the school district and no longer allowed the legal latitude to set their own curriculum.
exitus, this is not Idaho-specific, but a general trend. It is the most likely line of attack by the school establishment against homeschoolers. The other possible attack, simple brutal repression, is being tried in California and probably will fall flat on its face. Anyway, we just have to educate homeschoolers to avoid the seduction...

Gang, I was on another discussion list, and picked up this interesting tidbit about Idaho, I'm sure you will appreciate it. Someone was asking about moving to Idaho, and one guy responded:
Quote
If you do decide to move to Idaho, the first thing you need to do is get the California plates off your cars and other vehicles you bring with you. When I moved there, all of my tires were cut after only four days. They really don't like "Californicaters" Once the California label is removed, You will be "one of the family". The first year I lived there, I was in a ditch during a snow squall near Eagle, and not one single car drove past me. EVERY single car that drove up to me stopped to help me get unstuck. They are the most friendly people on the planet. When I got laid off in the winter from my construction job, I came home to find a full side of cut, frozen, and wrapped beef, and about fifty pounds of corn on my porch with a note that just said, "If someday you can help sombody else out, just do what you can." There was no signature. Idaho is a great place to live.
Can you imagine anything like the latter happening east of the Mississippi? I can't! Maybe that's one reason the state welfare load is so low there.  :)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2003, 01:15:48 am by Zxcv »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #65 on: March 01, 2003, 12:37:30 am »

This means that if the feds tried to hold Idaho hostage by withholding federal highway funds, the state could retaliate by withholding the fed share of the fuel tax then just using the money to maintain the highways thereby eliminating the middle-man.

I think we'd have the feds over a rather humorous barrel with that one.  If they decide to cut off our highway funds then they don't need the money we send them for those highways, do they?

So we might as well just keep it and save everyone the hassle.   ;D

glen

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #66 on: March 05, 2003, 08:57:50 pm »

Anyone who would like to make this thread into an actual web site is welcome to do so.

I will be hiking the Pacific Crest Trail from late April to early October so will not be able to continue working with it.

All my posts are ‘protected’ by copyleft. The future web site owner is welcome to use my posts or not as he/she sees fit.

Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2003, 03:15:56 am »

Glen,

You have no idea how jealous I am of you getting to take that hike.  I'm considering doing the very same thing in 2010 (I have a lot of planning to do ;-)

I'll be backpacking in the Sierras in July but I'm guessing you'll be well north of us by that point.

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

glen

  • Guest
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2003, 10:08:00 pm »

Hi Varrin

Hiking the PCT is easy. All you have to do is pay off all your debt, quit your job, put everything you have in storage and learn how to politely listen to your friends and acquaintances (and even perfect strangers) tell you how crazy you are.

It seems like the perfect dress rehearsal for moving to the free state.

When and where will you be hiking in July? The snow delay at Kennedy Meadows (southern jump off to the High Sierra) has been as long as the end of June. The average start date is mid June. I have heard that there is a higher than normal snow pack this year. If there is a later than average start, there is a possibility that we could meet up somewhere.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #69 on: March 07, 2003, 01:55:58 am »

Phyllis posted this comment on the Yahoo state discussion list earlier in response to some comments on the New Hampshire and Vermont LP's having endorsed the FSP.  I was just curious as to whether anyone else here working with the IDLP had any comments on it:

Quote
From   Phyllis <adelaide31@yahoo.com>
 To   FSP-state-discussion@yahoogroups.com  
 Date   06 Mar 2003 22:04  
 Subject   Re: [FSP-state-discussion] Re: Question for ID, ME, and NH Advocates  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--- Brian <holy_instant@yahoo.com> wrote:

>snip <
>  I like what New
> Hampshire is
> doing.  They are asking: How many libertarians does it
> take to free
> New Hampshire.  Their answer: one.  It only takes one
> fully prepared
> libertarian whose learning is complete. So they are
> setting about to
> prepare themselves.
>


As an active member of the Idaho Libertarians, I would say
this is why IDLP does not officially endorse the FSP. They
believe they can free Idaho without outside help and do not
wholly trust the potential for non-Libertarians to "take
over" Idaho, or lure Idaho activists to another state.

Phyllis

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #70 on: March 07, 2003, 06:14:26 am »

From what I understand, the LP in Idaho is divided.  In the Idaho report on the FSP research page, the author mentioned this rift.

There are the left-leaning Libertarians:
http://www.lp-idaho.org/

Then there's the Official Libertarian Party (that the other group accuses of being too right- wing) :
http://www.lpidaho.org/


The man who ran for governor on the LP ticket was an absolute nut-case accused of being with the former group, but everybody in the LP disavows.  He still managed to pick up 2.5% of the vote in a four-way race, this despite being arrested for assaulting police officers with a sword while naked the day before elections, so the story goes.

This highlights both the stregnths and weaknesses of the Idaho caucus system, where you do not have to be nominated by your party to get your name on the primary there.  Important to us, in that if we were to go to Idaho, we would expect success in the big elections by working through the Republican party there and the RLC.  

The LP in Idaho, as most everywhere is good as a spoiler party helping to put the libertarian agenda on the table in many elections.  It is the purists who aren't willing to 'get their hands dirty' and work with the political system as it is who rest ALL their hopes on this party, and this party only.  Like in Varrin's quote, "failure is not an option", anywhere we go, we are going to have to ignore those who are not serious about bringing about liberty and willing to work within the political system.
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #71 on: March 07, 2003, 08:13:38 am »

The man who ran for governor on the LP ticket was an absolute nut-case accused of being with the former group, but everybody in the LP disavows.  He still managed to pick up 2.5% of the vote in a four-way race, this despite being arrested for assaulting police officers with a sword while naked the day before elections, so the story goes.

Good grief!  What is it with the LP that it attracts elements like blue guys and naked, sword-wielding madmen?

Yes, we really may want to seriously consider adopting a new handle for ourselves when we finally go into action.  With friends like these...

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #72 on: March 07, 2003, 11:20:31 am »

Don't worry, Robert, all parties attract such nut cases. Only the LP lets them represent it, though.   ::)

It this caucus system a party thing, or is it some state law? If the former, we should be able to change the LP bylaws if we get enough people in the party. Sandy, are you familiar enough with the bylaws to say if there would be a way to impose some discipline on the LP, via the addition of some of our members? Specifically, we want to be able to keep LP candidates out of those races where we have an FSP-endorsed Republican. If there is no way for us to do that, it pretty much kills the idea of FSP going to Idaho.

Scratch what I just said. The R's are so dominant in Idaho that it doesn't matter if there is a LP candidate in the race or not; they will never cause a seat (except in a few places) to be thrown to the D's.

Seems like the LP is entirely irrelevant in Idaho, and we should ignore it there and put all our people working on the R primary. That means we need our people to become R's. This itself will be a difficulty because we have a contingent who will never want to work with the R's.

Idaho just sounds difficult for us as a "project" state. We may be able to help some there in generally protecting freedom, but I can't see we'd be able to do much beyond that except run some initiative campaigns (they have the initiative, don't they?).
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #73 on: March 07, 2003, 11:52:52 am »


It this caucus system a party thing, or is it some state law?


No, it is the way of the state's laws, check-out the Idaho Chairman's conversation with the Idaho secretary of state on the official LP website.

Quote
Seems like the LP is entirely irrelevant in Idaho, and we should ignore it there and put all our people working on the R primary.
I wouldn't exactly say that, the number of people who ran and scored significant election percentages in Idaho was just about as high as California, or any other big state in the country, according to what I saw on the state-by-state postings of LP numbers at the California LP convention.  In many races, the Democrats don't even bother to put a candidate in position in Idaho.  In fact, in the race for secretary of state, the Libertarian candidate scored 86,437 votes or 22.5% of the vote.
   
Quote
That means we need our people to become R's. This itself will be a difficulty because we have a contingent who will never want to work with the R's.
I understand the aversion, I don't really like the Republican party either, but if a Republican has any thought of handily losing to a Democrat on account of a Libertarian, you can bet that Republican will start to act more libertarian.

Quote
but I can't see we'd be able to do much beyond that except run some initiative campaigns (they have the initiative, don't they?).
In an analysis of the inititive process that I did, I found Idaho to have the best system in place.  Montana's was the only state more accessible for the inititive process, but had a strong track-record of defeat by activist judges.
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

phylinidaho

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:Idaho Free State .com
« Reply #74 on: March 07, 2003, 03:58:23 pm »

the Idaho LP may not only be no help, they may be an impediment by running their less viable candidates against more viable Liberty candidates.
In Idaho, the Libertarian Party has little say over who runs as a Libertarian, since we do not register by party and anyone can run on any ticket. The party does not "run" any candidates, but merely endorses or fails to endorse (btw, we did not endorse the recent candidate for Governor).
Quote
I had posted this over on the e-mail forum but, if the Idaho LP is going to be ideological purists that don't want any help,
I would not describe current "leadership" as ideological purists, since they believe in incrementalism, and in stressing in campaigns the issues that are most important to their constituency (which may vary depending on the part of the state they represent). In addressing the issues, they insist on giving the Libertarian solutions, while leaving room for short-term compromise.  They are ideological purists only in the sense that they refuse to knowingly mislead the electorate regarding their end goals. As to the perception that they don't want help, it is clear to me that they would gladly accept help, so long as the help was aimed at decreasing the role of government in our lives. What they don't want is someone coming in and undoing all they may have been able to accomplish toward educating Idaho citizens as to the true meaning of libertarianism. We have just been through 2 years of that.
Quote
then it would be best they don't take up the following challenge if the FSP chooses Idaho.

Among the candidate states, can any of the state LP's either
1) increase LP dues-paying membership to one tenth of one percent of that state's voters  (that's only 300 to 700 dues-paying members -- depending on the state's voter population)
OR
2) increase LP voter registration to one percent of that state's voters?  (that's only 3,000 to 7,000 registered libertarians -- depending on the state's voter population)
Is between a 5% to 10% "match" in activists too much to ask?
Besides, Plan on 5% to 10% or 1,000 FSP'ers joining the state LP and taking it over.  If the state LP has over 1,000 members they might still be a majority in their own party.
I see where my penchant for brevity of communication has led once again to a misunderstanding. I shall try to be more verbose:

First, I should have said, the following comments are my perception only, and may not accurately reflect reality. For more information, see http://lpidaho.org/  I believe I have stated elsewhere that I have no political experience. I have been a member of a political party only since April 2000. I am trying to learn, but it is much harder in the 70s than in the 20s.

Next, I should have given a more complete description of the current status of the IDLP. In order to do that, I will have to "back-track" to the 2000 state convention. I was not present, due to untimely notice and the fact that I was a new member. According to what I have been told, the meeting was "taken over" by a bunch of "gun nuts" and many of the former activists quit the party in protest. One of the "gun nuts" was elected to state chair, and proceeded on the theory that any publicity is good publicity. [of course, we have that element in the FSP - so it can't be all bad :)]

The 2002 convention was well-organized (by the current chairman - then volunteer Executive Director) with advance notice, and prominent speakers. The election of state chair was hotly contested, resulting in a defeat of the incumbent by 3 votes (he claims only 1) on the 3rd ballot There is an element in the party (including some members of the EC) that still claims loyalty to the former chair. Their primary quarrel with the current chair is that he believes in building the party from the bottom up, and favors strengthening the party - adding Idaho citizens whom he believes to be ideologic libertarians, whereas they believe that winning elections should come first. (whatever it takes)

Several of those who quit in protest over the 2000 convention, encouraged by the character of the present chairman (a CA transplant), have rejoined and are actively working at building an effective political party. They are fairly well in agreement, IMO, that the average Idaho citizen is libertarian-leaning, but has a distorted picture of the Libertarian Party. They hope to change that perception, and to motivate the large number of nonvoters to see the value in voting for Libertarian candidates.

I am not trying to sell Idaho. As I have stated elsewhere, Idaho is my second or third choice. I merely feel it is my obligation as an "insider" to give as full a picture of the Libertarian climate in the state of my residence as possible.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 13   Go Up