*
*
>>> WELCOME TO THE IDAHO
DEBATES, A LOOK AT THE
CANDIDATES ON THE 2014 BALLOT.
THE IDAHO DEBATES IS A
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT OF THE
IDAHO PRES
WOMEN VOTERS OF IDAHO AND IDAHO
PUBLIC TELEVISION.
THE IDAHO DEBATES ARE MADE
POSSIBLE BY BOISE STATE
UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF PUBLIC
SERVICE, DEVOTED TO BUILDING
FUTURE CIVIC AND COMMUNITY
LEADERS THROUGH
INTERDISCIPLINARY
PROBLEM-SOLVING, REAL-WORLD
RESEARCH AND POLICY STUDIES, AND
THE HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE YOU CAN
ONLY GET HERE AT THE STATE
CAPITOL.
THE IDAHO DEBATES ARE ALSO
BROUGHT TO YOU BY CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION
ENDOWMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE
IDAHO DEBATES AT THE IDAHO
PUBLIC TELEVISION STUDIOS.
THIS IS THE FIFTH OF SEVEN
DEBATES WE'RE HOSTING BEFORE THE
NOVEMBER 4th ELECTION.
TONIGHT, THREE CANDIDATES FOR
GOVERNOR TAKE THE STAGE TO ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE.
THE GOVERNOR OF IDAHO HAS
SUPREME EXECUTIVE POWER IN THE
STATE AND IS TASKED WITH
ENSURING ALL STATE LAWS ARE
EXECUTED.
THE OFFICE ISSUES EXECUTIVE
ORDERS, PROPOSES A BUDGET AND
HAS VETO POWER OVER THE
LEGISLATURE.
THE GOVERNOR IS THE
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF IDAHO'S
MILITARY FORCES AND IS PRESIDENT
OF THE STATE LAND BOARD.
I WANT TO WELCOME THE
CANDIDATES, A.J. BALUKOFF, JOHN
BUJAK, AND GOVERNOR C.L. BUTCH
OTTER.
A.J. BALUKOFF IS A BUSINESSMAN
AND A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES.
HE SERVED ON A NUMBER OF OTHER
BOARDS, INCLUDING BOY SCOUTS OF
AMERICA.
HE HAS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN
ACCOUNTING FROM BRIGHAM YOUNG
UNIVERSITY.
JOHN BUJAK IS A FORM OF
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR CANYON
COUNTY.
HE HAS PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS A
DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, A
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
GENERAL COUNCIL TO THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION.
HE ATTENDED COLLEGE OF IDAHO AND
GONZAGA UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF
LAW.
GOVERNOR BUTCH OTTER HAS SERVED
TWO TERMS AS IDAHO'S ACHIEVE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
HE SERVED IN THE LEGISLATURE.
HE HAS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN
POLITICAL SCIENCE FROM COLLEGE
OF IDAHO.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR PANEL
OF REPORTERS SELECTED BY THE
IDAHO PRESS CLUB WHO WILL ASK
THE CANDIDATES QUESTIONS.
BETSY RUSSELL, KEVIN RICHARD,
AND ROCKY BARKER.
I'M MELISSA DAVLIN, COHOST OF
IDAHO REPORTS.
I'M MODERATING TONIGHT'S DEBATE
EACH CANDIDATE WILL BE GIVEN ONE
MINUTE FOR OPENING COMMENTS.
WE DREW NUMBERS A FEW MINUTES
AGO TO SEE WHO WOULD GO FIRST
AND MR. BALUKOFF YOU HAVE THAT
HONOR.
>> THIS ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM
ON GOVERNOR OTTER'S JOB
PERFORMANCE.
VOTERS MUST DECIDE: HAS
GOVERNOR OTTER EARNED THAT RARE
THIRD TERM?
TONIGHT, I WILL TALK ABOUT
GOVERNOR OTTER'S CRONYISM AND
HOW FAR BEHIND WE'VE FALLEN IN
EDUCATION AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES.
BUT FIRST, I WANT TO TELL YOU
WHO I REALLY AM.
I'M A SMALL BUSINESSMAN.
I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 44
YEARS, FOR 17 YEARS I HAVE
SERVED AS A TRUSTEE ON ONE OF
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN THE STATE.
I'VE ALSO FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS
SERVED AS A TRUSTEE ON MANY
NONPROFIT BOARDS.
I'VE CREATED GOOD JOBS, STRONG
SCHOOLS, AND MANY STABLE
ORGANIZATIONS.
WHEN ENDORSING ME, THE TIMES
NEWS WROTE, GOVERNOR OTTER'S
NARRATIVE IS A WORK OF FICTION.
THE BEST CHANCE FOR TURNING THE
STATE AROUND IS TO ELECT A
PRAGMATIC LEADER, THAT'S A.J.
BALUKOFF.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. BUJAK, YOUR COMMENTS NEXT.
>> I'M JOHN BUJAK, I'M RUNNING
FOR GOVERNOR BECAUSE I THINK THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
DESERVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN
POLITICS AS USUAL.
I'M SHARING THE STAGE TONIGHT
WITH TWO CANDIDATES WHO ARE
GOING TO GIVE YOU THEIR IDEAS
THAT WILL RESULT IN LARGER
GOVERNMENT AND MORE SPENDING.
THEY BOTH SUPPORT AND EMBRACE
COMMON CORE, THEY EMBRACE
OBAMACARE AND MEDICAID EXPANSION
AND THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN
REGAINING CONTROL OF IDAHO'S
LANDS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
I HAVE PRACTICAL CONSERVATIVE
IDEAS ON HOW TO SOLVE THE ISSUES
FACING IDAHO TODAY AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO SHARING THEM WITH YOU
DURING THE COURSE OF THIS
DEBATE, THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOVERNOR OTTER, YOUR REMARKS,
PLEASE.
>> GOOD EVENING AND LET ME BEGIN
BY THANKING NOT ONLY PUBLIC
TELEVISION, BUT ALSO, THE PRESS
CLUB AND THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TO THE ISSUES AS TO WHY I
BELIEVE THAT I DESERVE A THIRD
TERM AS GOVERNOR.
IF WE LOOK BACK OVER THE LAST
EIGHT YEARS AND THE FACT THAT
IDAHO HAS LED THIS NATION OUT OF
A VERY, VERY TOUGH RECESSION,
LED TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOW
NUMBER ONE IN THE PERSONAL
INCOME GROWTH, NUMBER TWO IN THE
BEST PLACE TO START A BUSINESS
AND NUMBER THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND
SIX IN THE BEST FINANCIALLY
MANAGED STATES IN THE UNITED
STATES.
AND WE DID THAT BY CUTTING BACK
ON GOVERNMENT.
WHEN THE RECESSION BEGAN AND OUR
REVENUES WENT DOWN, WE HAD TO
CUT BACK ON GOVERNMENT RATHER
THAN INCREASE TAXES.
AND SO I BELIEVE THAT IDAHO
DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE TO LEAD THIS NATION OUT
OF THIS RECESSION AND CONTINUE
TO LEAD IN THE METHOD THAT THE
FOUNDING FATHERS INSTITUTED FOR
OUR GREAT REPUBLIC.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS FOR YOU,
MR. GOVERNOR.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, YOU'VE SAID
THAT YOUR TOP THREE PRIORITIES
ARE EDUCATION, HIGHER PAID,
HIGHER SKILLED WORKERS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
ON INFRASTRUCTURE, YOUR ROADS
PROPOSAL WENT NOWHERE.
ON EDUCATION, YOUR EDUCATION
REFORM PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED BY
THE VOTERS TWO YEARS AGO.
AND ON WAGES, IDAHO'S PER CAPITA
INCOME HAS DROPPED FROM 43rd
WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED GOVERNOR
TO 50th AMONG THE STATES AHEAD
OF ONLY MISSISSIPPI.
WHAT IS YOUR LEGACY AS GOVERNOR?
WHY SHOULD VOTERS EXPECT
ANYTHING FROM THE THIRD OTTER
TERM OTHER THAN MORE OF THE
SAME?
>> WELL, FIRST OFF, YOU HAVE
CORRECTLY OUTLINED EXACTLY WHAT
MY EFFORTS ARE GOING TO BE
FOCUSED ON FOR THE NEXT FOUR
YEARS.
AND I WOULD TELL YOU BETSY, I
CAN'T REMEMBER HOW LONG YOU'VE
BEEN REPORTING IN IDAHO, BUT I
DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY COULD
TELL ME THEY HAVE EVER SEEN A
FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR EDUCATION IN
IDAHO AND MOVING EDUCATION
FORWARD THAT HAD BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AND THAT CAME OUT OF THE
OTTER ADMINISTRATION JUST TWO
YEARS AGO.
YES, WE HAD SOME SETBACKS, WE
HAD SOME SETBACKS ON
INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WELL.
BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I
BELIEVE THAT THE FOLKS IN IDAHO
RECOGNIZE THAT WE DO NEED SOME
INFRASTRUCTURE CORRECTION.
WE DO NEED SOME INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT.
THE 5,000 BRIDGES THAT WE GOT,
THE 16,000 MILES OF ROADS IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO, IF THEY'RE NOT
IN DISREPAIR NOW, THEY WILL BE
IN DISREPAIR AS THE POLLS SAID
WITHIN 10 YEARS.
WHETHER IT'S ACCELERATE IDAHO,
WHETHER IT'S THE 20
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY THE TASK FORCE WHICH HAS
BILATERAL, BIPARTISAN, BICAMERAL
SUPPORT, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I
THINK THAT THE LEGACY THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE IS A WELL EDUCATED
WORKFORCE THAT'S PREPARED
TOMORROW THE JOBS THAT THE
WORLD'S GOING TO DEMAND.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR
MR. BALUKOFF FROM KEVIN RICHARD.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, YOUR PRIORITIES
ARE NOT TERRIBLY DIFFERENT FROM
THE INCUMBENT GOVERNOR'S.
YOU TALK ABOUT IMPLEMENTING THE
EDUCATION TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS, CREATING HIGHER
PAYING JOBS, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY.
BUT YOU HAVE NEVER SERVED IN
STATEWIDE OFFICE, YOU HAVE NEVER
HELD A PARTISAN OFFICE AND YOU
WOULD BE DEALING WITH AN
OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN
LEGISLATURE THAT OVER THE PAST
FEW YEARS HASN'T ALWAYS WORKED
VERY WELL WITH THE REPUBLICAN
GOVERNOR.
HOW CAN VOTERS EXPECT A
DIFFERENT OUTCOME OR A MORE
PRODUCTIVE OUTCOME IF YOU'RE
ELECTED?
>> IF YOU FIRST LOOK AT GOVERNOR
OTTER'S RECORD WITH AN
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF HIS OWN
PARTY, HE HASN'T ACCOMPLISHED
THAT MUCH.
I'VE BEEN DOWN IN THE
LEGISLATURE FOR 17 YEARS
TESTIFYING ON EDUCATION BILLS
AND TALKING TO LEGISLATORS ON
EDUCATION ISSUES.
AND I KNOW MANY OF THE
LEGISLATORS.
AND WHILE I'VE BEEN TRAVELING
AROUND THE STATE, VISITING
PEOPLE, I'VE MADE IT A POINT TO
CALL ON CURRENTLY SERVING
LEGISLATORS AND TO INTRODUCE
MYSELF, TO MEET THEM AND TO TALK
ABOUT IF I WIN THIS RACE, WE'LL
HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.
AND THEY'VE EXPRESSED A
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ME AND
I WILL WORK WITH THEM.
I'M NOT HERE TO FURTHER A
PARTISAN AGENDA.
I'M HERE TO MAKE THE STATE
BETTER FOR THE CITIZENS OF IDAHO
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY A
MAJORITY OF OUR LEGISLATORS WANT
TO DO THAT, TOO.
THEY WANT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR
THE SCHOOLKIDS AND FOR THE
HARD-WORKING PEOPLE OF IDAHO.
>> REALISTICALLY MR. BALUKOFF,
DURING THAT DOWNTURN, WHAT WOULD
YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH
AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE
DIFFERENTLY?
>> FIRST OF ALL, I THINK MAKING
TAX CUTS WHEN THE STATE REVENUE
GOES DOWN AND WHEN YOU HAVE --
YOU'RE UNDERFUNDING SCHOOLS AND
YOU HAVE $350 MILLION OF
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON BRIDGES
WAS A MISTAKE.
I WOULD HAVE USED THAT MONEY TO
PUT PEOPLE TO WORK REPAIRING THE
ROADS AND BRIDGES AND MAKING A
DENT IN THAT DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE ON ROADS AND
BRIDGES.
THAT WOULD HAVE PUT PEOPLE TO
WORK AND IT'S PEOPLE SPENDING
MONEY AT BUSINESSES THAT DRIVES
THE ECONOMY, IT'S NOT TAX CUTS.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM
ROCKY BARKER FOR MR. BUJAK.
>> MR. BUJAK, YOU SAID YOU WANT
TO AVOID DEPENDENCY ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SHRINK
ITS SIZE.
POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN SAYING
THAT SINCE I STARTED COVERING
IDAHO AND YET HERE WE ARE.
HOW WILL YOU SUCCEED WHERE
EVERYONE ELSE HAS FAILED AND
WHAT SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
SHOULD PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO
SHRINK IF YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL?
>> ROCKY THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION, AND I THINK THE REASON
THAT YOU'VE BEEN SEEING THE SAME
THING HAPPEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN
IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PUT
IN THIS BOX IN PART BY THE MEDIA
QUITE FRANKLY, TO BELIEVE THAT
THERE'S ONLY TWO PARTIES THAT
THEY CAN CHOOSE FROM.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THEY HAVE THE
SAME AGENDA WHEN IT COMES TO HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO RUN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE
ANYTHING THAT THEY PROMISED TO
DO AND YET PEOPLE IN IDAHO
CONTINUE TO ELECT THEM TO
OFFICE.
THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS I'M A
THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE.
I'M NOT BEHOLDEN TO REPUBLICANS
OR THE DEMOCRATS, THEORY AGENDA
OR ANY SPECIAL INTEREST.
THE KEY TO IDAHO'S FUTURE AND
THE KEY TO SHRINKING THE SIZE OF
GOVERNMENT AND MAKING GOVERNMENT
MORE EFFICIENT REALLY IS IN
SPURRING OUR ECONOMY, AND I
THINK THAT THE WAY YOU DO THAT
HERE IN IDAHO IS DOING TWO
THINGS.
ONE, YOU'VE GOT TO GET ACCESS TO
OUR LANDS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATES THAT
ARE LEADING THE WAY OUT OF THE
RECESSION, THEY ARE ENERGY
EXPORTERS AND IDAHO COULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE SAME THING IF
IT COULD GET ACCESS TO ITS
LANDS.
WE COULD EVEN TAKE A LOOK AT
OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY LIKE
FOURTH GENERATION NUCLEAR
GENERATION WITH THE THORIUM
DEPOSITS THAT WE HAVE HERE IN
IDAHO IN ABUNDANCE.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT COULD HELP
LEAD US OUT OF THE RECESSION.
THE OTHER THING WE CAN DO IS
STOP GIVING SPECIAL INTEREST TAX
EXEMPTIONS TO BIG BUSINESS TO
LURE THEM HERE.
THAT DOESN'T WORK.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FOCUS ON
GROWING THE SMALL BUSINESSES
THAT ARE ALREADY HERE AND YOU DO
THAT BY REDUCING TAXES AND
CREATING A TAX STRUCTURE THAT'S
FAIR, LOW AND PREDICTABLE.
IF WE CAN GROW SMALL BUSINESS,
WE CAN HAVE A GREATER EFFECT
THAN LUGUBRIOUS BIG BUSINESS IN
WITH THESE SPECIAL INTEREST TAX
EXEMPTIONS.
>> ROCKY, YOU HAD A FOLLOW-UP?
>> SO MR. BUJAK, YOU'VE BEEN
CHARGED WITH MULTIPLE FELONIES,
YOU'VE PLED GUILTY TO FAILURE TO
PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WHY SHOULD
VOTERS TRUST YOU?
>> WHEN IT COMES TO MY HISTORY
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I'M
SURPRISED THAT I GET THE
QUESTIONS ABOUT SCANDAL WITH
GOVERNOR OTTER NEXT TO ME HERE,
I WAS CHARGED AND ACCUSED OF
DOING A LOT AND QUITE FRANKLY,
THE SYSTEM CAN ACCUSE ANYBODY IN
THIS STATE OF ANYTHING.
AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THESE
CASES WENT BEFORE A JURY AND THE
PEOPLE IN THE FORM OF A JURY.
THEY SAID I WAS NOT GUILTY.
I WAS CLEARED OF ANY WRONGDOING.
AND SO PEOPLE SHOULD RELY ON
THOSE JURY VERDICTS, BUT I THINK
THEY SHOULD ALSO TAKE SOMETHING
ELSE AWAY.
ONE, I'VE BEEN TREATED POORLY BY
A SYSTEM THAT'S BUILT UP OF THE
GOOD OLD BOYS THAT ARE THESE
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SO I'M
NOT ON THE INSIDE AND I'M NOT
GOING TO BE BEHOLEN TO THEM.
THE OTHER THING THAT YOU OUGHT
TO KNOW IS I'VE TAKEN ON THE
STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND I'VE WON.
AND I CAN DO THAT FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IF THEY'LL
PUT ME IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT QUESTION
IS FROM BETSY RUSSELL FOR
GOVERNOR OTTER.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, WHY DID THE
STATE OF IDAHO SETTLE WITH
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA FOR $1 MILLION FOR
UNDERSTAFFING AND OVERBILLING AT
THE IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER
WITHOUT FIRST REVIEWING THE
RECORDS TO SEE IF THERE WAS MORE
OF THAT GOING IN THE YEARS
BEFORE OR AFTER 2012 AND IS $1
MILLION A FAIR SETTLEMENT FOR
THAT?
>> IT'S A MATTER OF RECORD THAT
THE SETTLEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY
THE BOARD OF CORRECTIONS AND BY
THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF
EXECUTING THAT CONTRACT, I WAS
NOT INVOLVED IN THAT SETTLEMENT.
I PURPOSELY REMOVED MYSELF FROM
BE PART OF NEGOTIATIONS IN THAT
SETTLEMENT BECAUSE I HAD
RECEIVED CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM
THE VERY COMPANY THAT THAT
CONTRACT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION
WITH.
BUT I WOULD TELL YOU WHAT I DID
DO.
AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT THAT
THERE WAS SOME IRREGULARITIES,
WE DID ORDER AN AUDIT.
WHEN WE FOUND OUT THAT THOSE
IRREGULARITIES WENT BEYOND THE
PALE AND I WAS REQUESTED BY THE
COMPANY IF I WOULD ADVANCE THAT
CONTRACT FOR ANOTHER TERM, I
SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT, WE'RE GOING
OUT FOR AN RFP AND WHEN ALL THE
OTHER COMPANIES SAID THEY
WEREN'T GOING TO BID ON THE
CONTRACT I SAID WELL THEN THE
STATE OF IDAHO IS GOING TO TAKE
IT OVER AND WE DID TAKE IT OVER
AND WE ALSO ORDERED THE FBI
INVESTIGATION.
>> YOU SAID THAT $1 MILLION WAS
NOT THE AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT?
THAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT WAS
RELEASED.
>> NO, THAT WAS NOT THE AMOUNT.
CHECK YOUR FOYA.
YOU ABOVE ALL PEOPLE OUGHT TO
KNOW FOR ALL THE VOLUMES OF
REQUESTS THAT YOU'VE MADE TO THE
STATE, THAT IT WAS WELL IN
EXCESS OF A MILLION DOLLARS, NOT
AS MUCH AS MY OPPONENTS ARE
PUTTING INTO THIS RACE, BUT IT
WAS WELL BEYOND THE MILLION
DOLLARS.
IN FACT, THERE WAS A BILL
OUTSTANDING FOR OVER $300,000
THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THE FINAL
NEGOTIATIONS.
I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT UNTIL
THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE DONE.
>> SO YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE
$300,000 THAT WAS EXCUSED IN
ADDITION TO THE $1 MILLION THAT
THE STATE RECEIVED?
>> WHAT WOULD THE SETTLEMENT ME?
>> I GUESS IT DEPENDS --
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
>> BETSY, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION?
I DO.
>> NO, NO, NO, I THINK LET'S BE
FAIR HERE.
IF YOU OWE SOMEBODY $300,000 AND
THEY SAID NOT ONLY WILL WE
SETTLE FOR $1 MILLION, BUT WE'RE
ALSO GOING TO FORGIVE THE 300 WE
THINK YOU OWE US --
>> GOVERNOR.
>> IS $1.3 MILLION A FAIR
SETTLEMENT?
>> I DID NOT KNOW, BUT I'LL BE
ABLE TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN THE
FBI FINISHES THE INVESTIGATION
THAT I DEMANDED OF IT.
>> SO GOVERNOR, YOU SAID THAT
YOU RECUSED YOURSELF FROM THE
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, BUT THE
TOP STAFFERS IN YOUR OFFICE,
YOUR ATTORNEY, YOUR CHIEF OF
STAFF, YOUR COMMUNICATIONS
DIRECTOR, WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED
IN NEGOTIATING THAT SETTLEMENT.
WHO WERE THEY REPRESENTING WHEN
THEY DID THAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE
DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THOSE
NEGOTIATIONS.
I DO KNOW THAT THE STATE BOARD
OF CORRECTIONS AND THE HEAD OF
PRISONS WERE INVOLVED IN THOSE
NEGOTIATIONS.
I WAS GIVEN A REPORT AFTER THE
NEGOTIATIONS HAD BEEN ONGOING OF
WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE
GOING.
I DID NOT ISSUE AN OPINION ON
THE NEGOTIATIONS.
I DID NOT -- I WAS NOT ASKED NOR
DID I SAY THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS
A GOOD DEAL OR A BAD DEAL.
>> AND THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR
MR. BUJAK FROM MR. RICHARDS.
>> CAN I RESPOND TO THAT?
>> BRIEFLY, YES, PLEASE.
>> YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE WAY
GOVERNOR OTTER GOVERNS.
HE'S A ABSENT.
HE ABDICATED HIS RESPONSIBILITY
AS A GOVERNOR.
IF YOUR FRIENDS OR CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTORS ARE CHEATING THE
STATE, YOU'RE STILL THE GOVERNOR
AND YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
AND YOU CAN'T JUST PASS THAT OFF
TO SOMEONE THAT YOU HIRED.
THE BUCK STOPS AT THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE.
>> KEVIN YOUR QUESTION?
>> THAT DOVE TAILS INTO THE
QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK YOU.
YOU'VE RUN A LOT OF
ADVERTISEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
YOU'VE CALLED IT A SWEETHEART
DEAL.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE
DONE DIFFERENTLY HERE?
>> I WOULD HAVE DONE THE
INVESTIGATION BEFORE I DID A
SETTLEMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT JUST ADMITTED HE
DOESN'T KNOW IF $1.3 MILLION IS
A FAIR SETTLEMENT OR NOT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PRUDENT TO DO
THE INVESTIGATION AND UNDERSTAND
WHAT WENT ON BEFORE YOU LET A
COMPANY OFF THE HOOK.
>> KEVIN, I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR
THAT I GET TO RESPOND TO THAT
BECAUSE A.J. KNOWS DIFFERENT.
A.J. KNOWS IF HE'S DONE HIS
HOMEWORK, HE KNOWS THAT THAT
CONTRACT IS NOT FINAL.
THAT NEGOTIATION IS NOT FINAL.
IF THERE IS ANYTHING FOUND OUT
IN THE FORENSIC INVESTIGATION,
IN THE FORENSIC AUDIT AND HERE'S
AN AUDITOR, HE OUGHT TO KNOW
BETTER THAN THAT, SHAME ON YOU,
A.J., YOU OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER.
AND IF THE FBI COMES UP WITH
SOMETHING, ALL BETS ARE OFF.
>> ALL NO, THEY'RE NOT.
>> BEFORE THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
CAN GO FORWARD, BEFORE
ANYTHING --
>> THAT AGREEMENT AND
FORGIVENESS OF CIVIL PENALTIES
DOES NOT GO AWAY.
>> THAT'S NOT TRUE.
>> THEY CAN GO AFTER PEOPLE THAT
COMMITTED CRIMES, THEY CAN GO
AFTER THEM FOR CRIMINAL, BUT THE
SETTLEMENT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES
EXONERATED THEM FOR WHATEVER
OTHER DAMAGES MAY BE DISCOVERED.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, ONE THING I
DIDN'T HEAR YOU SAY IS WHERE YOU
STAND ON THE CONCEPT OF
PRIVATIZING PRISONS.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD
SUPPORT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?
THE GOVERNOR'S POSITION IS
CLEAR.
WHAT IS YOURS?
>> A PROFIT MOTIVE TO RUN A
PRISON IS NOT A GOOD MOTIVE.
I'M IN FAVOR OF OUR DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTION RUNNING THE PRISON
AND PROVIDING THE SERVICES TO
REHABILITATE PRISONERS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PRISONERS
AND INMATES ARE OUT THERE, EVEN
THOUGH THEY'VE COMMITTED A
CRIME, THE UNDERLYING REASON IS
MENTAL HEALTH OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE
ISSUES.
AND THERE'S NOT MUCH INCENTIVE
FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY TO DO
THINGS THAT WILL LOWER THE
PEOPLE THAT WILL -- THAT WILL
LOWER THEIR FEES FOR RUNNING THE
PRISON.
OUR GOAL IS TO REHABILITATE
INMATES, TO GET THEM BACK INTO
SOCIETY, TO BE PRODUCTIVE
CITIZENS, TO WORK AND SUPPORT
THEIR FAMILIES.
WE'RE BETTER DOING THAT AS A
STATE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS THAN FARMING THAT
OUT TO A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT'S
TRYING TO EARN A PROFIT ON
WATCHING PRISONERS.
>> CAN I WEIGH IN ON THAT ONE?
I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER SO YOU
KNOW.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF
PRIVATIZING THE PRISON SYSTEM.
I THINK THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T
DO ANYTHING VERY WELL AND THE
PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE FREE
MARKET CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE A
BETTER SOLUTION.
I THINK THE ISSUE ISN'T MAKING A
PROFIT.
THE ISSUE IS CHANGING THE
CULTURE WITH JUDGES SO THAT WE
DON'T INCARCERATE PEOPLE FOR
NONVICE PRESIDENT OFFENSES.
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE KEY AND
JUDGES WHO STAND FOR ELECTION
AND ARE WORRIED THEY WON'T GET
RE-ELECTED IF THEY'RE NOT TOUGH
ENOUGH ON CRIME.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO DO SOME
AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE
TO LOWER THE PENALTIES FOR SOME
OF THE CRIMES THAT ARE
NONVIOLENT OFFENSES IN IDAHO.
>> AND MR. BUJAK, ROCKY HAS
ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU ON
THIS.
>> SO THAT'S GOOD, WEIGHING IN
ON THE PRIVATE PRISONS.
WHAT ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT WITH
CCA?
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
DO YOU THINK THAT WAS A FAIR
SETTLEMENT FOR THE STATE OF
IDAHO?
>> I HAVE A LITTLE MORE
INFORMATION AS A LAWYER.
I'VE SEEN SOME OF THE LITIGATION
THAT'S GONE THROUGH THE FEDERAL
COURTS RELATED TO WHAT WAS GOING
ON THERE DUE TO THE LACK OF
SUPERVISION AND SO THE STATE HAS
BEEN EXPOSED TO LIABILITY
THROUGH THE LACK OF SUPERVISION
TO A GREATER DEGREE.
I THINK THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS
PREMATURE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT NUMBER
IS A GOOD NUMBER AND I WOULD
HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN MORE
INVESTIGATION BEFORE ANY KIND OF
SETTLEMENT WAS STRUCK REGARDING
THE PRIVATE PRISON.
>> WELL ROCKY, LET ME ALSO
RESPOND TO THAT.
A GOOD LAWYER WOULD HAVE READ
THE ENTIRE CONTRACT ON THE
NEGOTIATION AND WOULD HAVE FOUND
OUT THAT AT THE END, NEW
INFORMATION ON A NEW SUGGEST,
THE WHOLE CONTRACT IS OPENED UP.
THAT'S IN THAT CONTRACT, JOHN.
>> DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>> AS A CIVIL LAWYER, YOU DON'T
LEAVE OPEN ENDED LIABILITIES.
THE WHOLE NOTION IS ITS RISK
MANAGEMENT.
MAYBE THEY CAN BE OPENED UP IN
THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, BUT
THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL CIVIL
LIABILITY THAT CAN BE IMPOSED
UNDER THAT CONTRACT.
THAT WAS SIMPLY PUT TO BED FOR A
MILLION BUCKS.
>> NOT TRUE.
>> A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION REALLY
BRIEFLY.
>> MY QUESTION IS FOR YOU,
GOVERNOR.
YOU POINTEDLY TOLD THETERNALLY
THAT THE PRIVATE -- YOU SAID
THERE WASN'T A NEED TO CALL FOR
THE INVESTIGATION.
THEN YOU REVERSED YOUR DECISION.
SO WHAT ROLE DID YOUR STAFF AND
THE STATE POLICE PLAY IN THAT
LETTER TO THE A.G. AND IS THIS A
CASE OF INCOMPETENCE OR COVERUP?
>> WELL, IT'S NEITHER AND YOU
KNOW BETTER THAN THAT, ROCKY.
YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS
WHOLE THING.
THE INITIAL REPORT WAS THAT
THERE WERE SOME IRREGULARITIES.
THAT'S WHY WE ORDERED THE AUDIT.
WHEN THE POLICE WERE ASKED BY
THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION TO
PERFORM AN AUDIT, THE STATE
POLICE CAME IN AND PERFORMED AN
AUDIT.
NOW, HERE'S A LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY, IS THAT CRIMINAL AUDIT
OR NOT?
MY ASSUMPTION WAS HERE'S A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DOING AN
AUDIT, IT'S PROBABLY A CRIMINAL
AUDIT.
I WAS INFORMED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THAT IT WAS NOT A FULL
CRIMINAL AUDIT.
THAT IT WAS A FORENSIC AUDIT AND
THEY DID DISCOVER SOME
IRREGULARITIES, BUT IT WAS NOT A
FULL -- THAT'S WHEN I TOLD -- I
TOLD THE CONTRACTOR THAT THEY
WEREN'T GOING TO BE RENEWED,
THAT WE WERE GOING TO TAKE IT
OVER AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THAT
WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED THAT
DIRECTION.
>> CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING?
>> BRIEFLY.
>> THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS
ME ABOUT THIS IS THE WAY THE
INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE
IDAHO STATE POLICE AND I'VE READ
THE CORRESPONDENCE WHERE THE
POLICE INDICATED THEY HAD A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
WHEN IDAHO GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO
BE INVESTIGATED, YOU DON'T CALL
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT
ANSWERS TO THE GOVERNOR TO GO IN
AND DO THAT.
YOU BRING IN SOMEONE
INDEPENDENTLY TO DO AND THAT'S
WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED RIGHT
OFF THE BAT.
>> THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT
HERE.
IDAHO WASN'T BEING INVESTIGATED.
CCA WAS BEING INVESTIGATED.
THE STATE OF IDAHO WAS NOT BEING
INVESTIGATED.
>> IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON.
THE NEXT QUESTION --
>> OBVIOUSLY --
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
>> MR. BALUKOFF, WHAT SHOULD
IDAHO DO WITH REGARD TO THE
IDAHO EDUCATION NETWORK, ANOTHER
STATE SERVICE FOR WHICH THERE
HAS BEEN SOME CONTRACT TROUBLE?
>> THAT IS ANOTHER TROUBLE THAT --
CONTRACT THAT WAS LET OUT UNDER
SOME SUSPICIOUS CONDITIONS.
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION IS NOT PAYING WHAT IT
WOULD NORMALLY PAY TO SUPPORT
THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
THAT COST THE STATE OVER $11
MILLION THIS YEAR AND WILL
PROBABLY COST THE STATE $11
MILLION NEXT YEAR.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF UNDOING
THAT CONTRACT, REBIDDING IT AND
MAKING IT A FAIR PROCESS TO
AWARD THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
QUALIFIED BIDDER AND GET RID OF
SOME OF THE MULTIPLE LAYERS OF
MARKUP THAT COME TO THE STATE
BEFORE WE HAVE DELIVERED THE
PRODUCT.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, DID YOU WANT
TO RESPOND TO THAT?
>> AS YOU WELL KNOW, WE'VE
HOOKED UP EVERY HIGH SCHOOL IN
THE STATE.
ALL THE STUDENTS THAT ATTEND
THOSE OVER 85,000 NOW HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR DUAL ENROLLMENT.
IN FACT, WE HAVE DOUBLED THE
AMOUNT OF STUDENTS TAKEN IN DUAL
ENROLLMENT WHERE THEY'RE ALREADY
TAKING COLLEGE COURSES WHILE
JUNIORS AND SENIORS IN HIGH
SCHOOL.
A.J. KNOWS FULL WELL THERE WAS
ONLY ONE BIDDER, THE VERY
COMPANY THAT HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN
THE CONTRACT TO DID NOT BID, THE
VERY COMPANY THAT IS NOW SUING
DID NOT BID, DID NOT COMPLETE
THEIR FULL BID ON THAT CONTRACT.
YOU CANNOT GIVE A BID TO A
COMPANY THAT ISN'T GOING TO
COMPLETE THE BID.
AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHAT
HAPPENED.
ARE THEY UPSET?
YEAH, THEY'RE UPSET BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T GET THEIR TIME FOR THEIR
EFFORT.
REMEMBER THIS, WE'VE GONE TO
COURT.
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE CONTRACTS
HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY ANY COURT.
OF THE SIX CHARGES, FIVE OF THEM
HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY DROPPED.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR
MR. BUJAK.
>> WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IDAHO
SHOULD DO WITH REGARD TO THE
IDAHO EDUCATION NETWORK?
>> THE NETWORK ITSELF IS A GREAT
IDEA, BUT JUST TO BUTTRESS IN ON
THE GOVERNOR'S LAST COMMENTS,
WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THE WAY
THE CONTRACT WAS DONE AND THE
SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULE
ON THIS.
THE DIRECT OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF -- THE DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT DID THE PROCESS
ILLEGALLY AND THIS HAS WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A GOVERNOR
THAT APPOINTS HIS BUDDIES AND
WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THE WAY
IT WAS HANDLED BY THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE IS AFTER THE SUPREME
COURT MADE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT,
WHAT DID GOVERNOR OTTER DO?
HE WAS SILENT ABOUT IT AND, IN
FACT, HE THANKED HIM FOR HIS
SERVICE.
THERE WAS NO ACCEPTANCE OF
RESPONSIBILITY AND NO CHANGE OF
COURSE.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS LITIGATION
THAT'S GOING TO BE ONGOING, BUT
I WOULD SUPPORT KEEPING THE
NETWORK IN PLACE.
>> NOW, DIDN'T WE JUST HEAR
MR. BUJAK SAY YOU CAN BE CHARGED
WITH STUFF, BUT THAT DOESN'T
MAKE IT SO?
ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID
ABOUT THE CHARGES THAT YOU HAD
BROUGHT AGAINST YOU BY THE
SUPREME COURT, BY THE ETHICS
COMMITTEE?
BY THE STATE OF IDAHO TO GET
BACK PAY FOR CHILD SUPPORT?
>> AND YET HERE I AM AND THE
JURY HAVING HEARD THE EVIDENCE,
FINDING ME NOT GUILTY, AND I'M
STILL HERE --
>> WHY DID YOU PLEAD GUILTY?
>> I DIDN'T PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY
OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES.
>> JUST FOR CHILD SUPPORT.
>> IT WAS JUST FOR CHILD SUPPORT
FOR ONE MONTH IN AUGUST OF 2013
AND I'M CURRENT NOW, GOVERNOR.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A MONTH
OF CHILD SUPPORT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THE TAXPAYERS IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO ARE HAVING TO PAY
BECAUSE OF YOUR INCOMPETENCE.
>> I'M CORRECTED.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT QUESTION
IS FOR GOVERNOR OTTER.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, NEARLY TWO
YEARS AGO, YOU SAID THAT IDAHO
WAS PROBABLY NOT MEETING THE
STATE'S CONSTITUTION'S
REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH AND
MAINTAIN GENERAL UNIFORMS AND
LEVIES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
THE BILL CONTINUES TO RISE.
ARE WE STILL NOT MEETING OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AS YOU'VE
INDICATED?
>> YOU'VE BEEN REPORTING ON
EDUCATION FOR A LONG TIME IN
IDAHO.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU THE
QUESTION BECAUSE I EXPECT I KNOW
THE ANSWER.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IDAHO HAS
EVER, EVER MET THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE BECAUSE
OF THE RURAL NATURE OF IDAHO.
SO WHEN I ADMITTED THAT IT
HADN'T, I ALSO SAID THAT BECAUSE
OF THE IDAHO EDUCATION NETWORK,
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE WERE
MOVING UP THE SCALE ON OUR
EDUCATION REFORM, THAT WE WERE
GOING TO COME A LOT CLOSER TO IT
THAN WE HAVE EVER BEEN IN THE
HISTORY OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
AND I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT.
WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO REACH OUT
WITH TECHNOLOGY AND HAVE A
CLASSROOM TEACHER IN EAGLE,
IDAHO, TEACHING AN OTHERWISE
HARD TO PLACE CLASS IN JEROME OR
CASTLEFORD OR ANY OTHER PLACE IN
A REMOTE SCHOOL DISTRICT, I
THINK WE'RE COMING A LOT CLOSER
TO THAT, AND I THINK WE'VE COME
AN AWFUL LOT CLOSER TO IT UNDER
AN OTTER ADMINISTRATION THAN WE
HAVE PREVIOUSLY.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO RESPOND TO THAT?
>> WITH 95 SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT
HAVE BEEN FORCED TO PASS
SUPPLEMENTAL LEVIES SINCE
GOVERNOR OTTER'S ADMINISTRATION
HAS TAKEN OVER TOTALING $1
MILLION, THERE IS GREATER
DISPARITY AMONG SCHOOL DISTRICTS
THAN THERE HAS EVER BEEN IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO.
WE HAVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS CUT
BACK TO A FOUR DAY WEEK.
WE HAVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT
HAVE CUT PROGRAMS, ARTS, MUSIC.
THEY CHARGE FEES TO PARTICIPATE
IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES.
CHILDREN ARE NOT GETTING AN
EQUAL AND UNIFORM EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY ACROSS THE STATE,
LIKE THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS.
WE ARE NOT IN ANY FORM OBEYING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO
PROVIDE A GENERAL UNIFORM AND
THOROUGH SYSTEM OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS.
WE NEED TO MAKE THE PROPER
COMMITMENT THAT OUR CONSTITUTION
SAYS WE SHOULD MAKE.
NOW, ALL OF OUR OFFICERS, OUR
GOVERNOR HAS RAISE HIS HAND AND
SWORN TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION.
THAT INCLUDES THE ENTIRE
CONSTITUTION, EVEN THE PARTS
THAT ARE HARD TO OBEY.
WE WE DO NEED TO OBEY THE
CONSTITUTION FOR THAT EQUAL AND
UNIFORM AND THOROUGH SYSTEM OF
PUBLIC EDUCATION.
IT'S NOT NONE OF THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> IT'S REFRESHING TO HEAR THIS
RENEWED INTEREST IN OUR ENTIRE
CONSTITUTION BY A.J. WHO HAS
CRITICIZED ME FOR DEFENDING THE
CONSTITUTION AND ESPECIALLY
ARTICLE THREE SECTION 28 ON
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, BUT I WOULD
TELL YOU THIS, IDAHO RIGHT NOW
FOR EVERY DIME THAT A.J. SPENDS
IN HIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, FOR
EVERY DOLLAR, 73 CENTS OF THAT
IS COMING FROM THE STATE GENERAL
FUND.
SO YEAH, WE MAY BE 48 TO 49th
IN HOW MUCH TOTAL MONEY IS PUT
BEHIND EACH STUDENT, BUT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF
GENERAL FUND MONEY THAT IS
ACTUALLY GOING TO THE LOCAL
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, YOU'LL FIND
WE'RE NUMBER FOURTH IN THE
NATION IN THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL
FUND DEDICATION TO THE EDUCATION
SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, THERE HAVE
BEEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT HAVE
BEEN PUT UNDER FINANCIAL
PRESSURE.
WHY?
BECAUSE THE APPRAISAL PRICE OF
PROPERTY DURING THE RECESSION
DROPPED AND SO THE LEVY HAD TO
COME UP AND THOSE PEOPLE ON THE
LOCAL LEVEL SAID WE CARE ENOUGH
ABOUT IT THAT WE ARE GOING TO
VOTE.
BUT REMEMBER THIS, THE LOCAL
PEOPLE VOTED THOSE LEVIES IN,
VOTED FOR THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY.
IN FACT, I'VE HEARD A.J. SAY
THIS ABOUT THE FOUR DAY SCHOOL,
THE FOUR DAY SCHOOL WEEK, AND I
AGREE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT
GO AWAY.
BUT IT WAS THE GUY IN HIS VERY
AD, THE SUPERINTENDENT OUT OF
SHOSHONE THAT WROTE A NICE
ARTICLE ABOUT HOW GREAT IT WAS
TO HAVE A FOUR DAY WEEK.
>> ALL RIGHT, I'M SORRY TO CUT
YOU OFF, BUT WE NEED TO MOVE ON.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER QUICKLY,
THOUGH, $1 BILLION WORTH OF
SUPPLEMENTAL LEVIES THAT HAVE
BEEN PASSED OVER THE PAST SEVEN
YEARS ON YOUR WATCH.
IS THAT NOT A LARGE TAX INCREASE
THAT HAS OCCURRED --
>> KEEP YOUR ANSWER BRIEF.
>> $5 BILLION IN DEPRESSED
APPRAISALS ACROSS THE STATE IN
THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
PROPERTY VALUES THAT HAVE
DROPPED, IT'S FAR IN EXCESS OF
WHAT HAS BEEN LOST JUST TO THE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, LOST TO
MOSQUITO DISTRICTS, THE LOCAL
HIGHWAY DISTRICTS, TO EVERY
TAXING DISTRICT ON THE LOCAL
LEVEL, KEVIN.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO RESPOND TO THAT?
>> IT'S NOT JUST THE LOCAL
MONEY, THE REDUCTION IN PROPERTY
VALUES.
THERE'S BEEN A CUT IN THE STATE
FUNDING TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
IN 2006, THE LEGISLATURE AND
GOVERNOR TOOK OVER
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNDING
PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEN THEY TOOK
PROPERTY TAXING AUTHORITY AWAY
FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
REPLACED IT WITH A 1 PENNY SALES
TAX INCREASE.
THEY HAVE CUT THE FUNDING OVER
AND OVER AGAIN AND TODAY, EVEN
THOUGH GOVERNOR OTTER CLAIMS TO
HAVE PUT $35 MILLION BACK INTO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WE ARE STILL
$100 MILLION SHORT OF THE 2009
FUNDING LEVEL AND THAT'S BEFORE
YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
INFLATION AND THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE 22,000 MORE STUDENTS TODAY
THAN WE HAD IN 2009.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, ARIZONA SCHOOL
TRUSTEE, IN ONE OF THOSE
DISTRICTS THAT'S HAD TO GO TO
VOTERS AND GET A SUPPLEMENTAL
LEVY PASSED.
IS THERE NOTHING TO BE SAID FOR
THE GOVERNMENT CLOSEST TO THE
LOCAL PATRONS GOING TO THEM AND
DECIDING WHAT LEVEL OF
COMPLIMENT TO EDUCATION THEY
WANT?
>> THE PROBLEM WITH THE
SUPPLEMENTAL LEVIES IS THEY'RE
GOOD FOR TWO YEARS.
AND DISTRICTS ARE PAYING ONGOING
EXPENSES, TEACHER SALARIES AND
SO FORTH WITH TEMPORARY MONEY
AND JUST BECAUSE A DISTRICT
PASSED A LEVY LAST YEAR DOESN'T
MEAN THEY CAN PASS IT AGAIN NEXT
YEAR.
SOME DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE
GET ALMOST 25% OF THEIR TOTAL
BUDGET FROM SUPPLEMENTAL LEVIES.
IF THAT DISTRICT IS UNABLE TO
PASS A LEVY, OR RENEW THE LEVY,
THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR
THOSE DISTRICTS.
THAT'S NOT, THAT TEMPORARY
FUNDING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO
FUND OUR SCHOOLS.
IT DOES NOT PROVIDE STABLE
FUNDING.
SUPERINTENDENTS ALL OVER THE
DISTRICT TELL ME THEIR TWO
BIGGEST CHALLENGES ARE THE LACK
OF STABLE AND RELIABLE FUNDING
SO THEY CAN DO LONG-TERM
PLANNING AND THEIR INABILITY TO
FILL TEACHING POSITIONS, THE
VACANCIES THAT ARE CREATED WHEN
TEACHERS LEAVE FOR OTHER
PROFESSIONS OR OTHER STATES.
I HAD ONE SUPERINTENDENT TELL ME
THAT HALF OF THE TEACHING
VACANCIES IN THAT DISTRICT ARE
FILLED WITH PEOPLE ON
PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATION.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, ALL OF THOSE
THINGS ARE TERRIBLE, BUT HOW DO
YOU PAY FOR THEM TO MAKE THEM
BETTER?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU
ELIMINATE THE WASTE THAT'S BEEN
GOING ON IN THE GOVERNMENT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BROADBAND
CONTRACT, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH
MONEY WAS LOST AT THE PRISON
SCANDAL, BUT ALSO YOU CHANGE THE
PRIORITIES.
THIS YEAR THE GOVERNOR HAS
RECOMMENDED PUTTING $70 MILLION
INTO A RAINY DAY FUND.
HE PROPOSED PUTTING ANOTHER $30
MILLION ASIDE FOR UNSPECIFIED
TAX RELIEF.
THAT'S $100 MILLION THAT COULD
HAVE GONE TO SCHOOLS IF SCHOOLS
HAD TRULY BEEN THE TOP PRIORITY.
AND YOU KNOW THIS YEAR, WE WOULD
BE BACK AT THE 2009 FUNDING
LEVEL.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM
KEVIN.
>> MR. BUJAK, WE HAVEN'T HEARD
FROM YOU ABOUT SCHOOL FUNDING.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT CUTTING THE
BUDGET, FINDING WAYS IN THE
STATE BUDGET AND PUTTING THAT
INTO THE EDUCATION.
WHERE DO WE GET THAT FROM,
SPECIFICALLY?
WHERE IS THE WASTE THAT YOU
WOULD CUT?
>> THERE'S A NUMBER OF PLACES
THAT I WOULD LOOK.
I WOULD RECOGNIZE AND I AGREE
WITH GOVERNOR OTTER, WE AS A
STATE DEDICATE A LOT OF FUNDING
TO EDUCATION, 65% OF THE BUDGET,
IN FACT, GOES TO EDUCATION AND
ONE OF THE KEYS IS GOING TO BE
IMPROVING THE ECONOMY AND
RAISING THE SIZE OF THE PIE FROM
A ROBUST ECONOMY AND GETTING
MORE MONEY FOR EDUCATION, THAT'S
GOING TO BE PART OF THE PLAN,
BUT WHERE WE CAN CUT I THINK IS
IN CORRECTIONS SPENDING AGAIN WE
WAREHOUSE PEOPLE FOR NONVIOLENT
OFFENSES TO THE TUNE OF $40,000
PER PERSON PER YEAR.
WE CAN CUT BACK THERE.
WE CAN CUT BACK ON SOME OF THE
STRUCTURE WITHIN THE SCHOOLS.
I THINK IT'S ADMINISTRATION
HEAVY AND I WOULD RATHER SEE US
HAVE LESS ADMINISTRATION AND
MORE MONEY GETTING INTO THE
CLASSROOM SO THE TEACHERS DON'T
HAVE TO PULL MONEY OUT OF THEIR
OWN POCKETS TO FUND SUPPLIES IN
THE CLASSROOM.
I ALSO THINK THAT GETTING RID OF
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH COMMON CORE
AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THESE 20
GOOD IDEAS THAT THE GOVERNOR
TALKS ABOUT BECAUSE GOVERNOR
OTTER LIKES TO DO THIS.
HE TAKES THINGS THAT ARE
UNPOPULAR WITH THE PEOPLE OF
IDAHO, HE SELLS IT TO THEM IN A
DIFFERENT FORM.
THE 20 GOOD IDEAS ARE PROPS TWO
AND THREE THAT WERE REJECTED BY
THE VOTERS, AND NOW, HE'S
PERPETUATING SOMETHING THE
VOTERS REJECTED.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO
WHAT THE GOVERNOR SAID EARLIER
THAT HE BELIEVES IDAHO HAS NEVER
MET THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
FOR FUNDING IDAHO SCHOOLS AND I
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU
THINK ABOUT THAT IDEA.
>> WHEN YOU TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE DETERIORATING
STATE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS AROUND
THE STATE, THAT'S ONE CASE WHERE
WE'VE NEVER FULFILLED THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.
MAYBE ONE WAY TO FULFILL THAT
WOULD BE TO LOWER THE
SUPERMAJORITY, THE TWO THIRDS
REQUIREMENT IN PASSING A BOND TO
BUILD NEW SCHOOLS.
THERE HAVE BEEN DISTRICTS AND,
IN FACT, JUST RECENTLY THE WEST
AIDA DISTRICT PASSED -- TRIED TO
PASS A LEVY THAT THEY NEED FOR
SOME NEW SCHOOLS, TWO OF THE
HIGH SCHOOLS ARE LIKE 30%
OVERCAPACITY.
THEIR SCHOOLS WERE BUILT FOR
1,800 STUDENTS.
ONE OF THEM HAS 2,300 STUDENTS,
THE OTHER HAS 2,200 STUDENTS IN
THERE AND THEY BADLY NEED TO
BUILD NEW SCHOOLS.
WELL, THE BOND PROPOSAL WENT OUT
AND THEY GOT 63% OF THE VOTE.
NOW, IF I WERE TO WIN THIS
ELECTION WITH 63% OF THE VOTE,
THAT WOULD BE BANNER HEADLINES
ALL OVER THE STATE.
BUT IN A BOND ELECTION, 63% IS A
LOSER.
SO ONE WAY TO HELP US MAINTAIN
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WOULD BE TO
LOWER THAT SUPERMAJORITY
REQUIREMENT SO THAT MORE
DISTRICTS COULD PASS THE BONDS
NECESSARY TO BUILD NEW HIGH
SCHOOLS WHEN YOU HAVE
OVERCROWDING LIKE THEY HAVE IN
THE WEST AIDA DISTRICT.
>> MR. BALUKOFF THAT QUESTION
ABOUT FUNDING BUILDINGS DID GO
TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND
THERE WAS A RULING ON THAT BUT
WHAT ABOUT OPERATIONAL FUNDING
FOR SCHOOLS?
HAVE WE ALWAYS HAD THIS PROBLEM?
HAVE WE NEVER MET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO
FUND OUR SCHOOLS IN IDAHO?
ARE OUR FUNDING PROBLEMS
SOMETHING NEW?
>> I THINK PRIOR TO 2006, WHEN
WE DID THE SPECIAL TAX SHIFT,
AND GOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY
TAX FUNDING AND REPLACED IT WITH
SALES TAX, THAT WE WERE DOING A
PRETTY GOOD JOB OF FUNDING
SCHOOLS, BECAUSE BESIDES
DISTRICTS PASSING OR BEING ABLE
TO TAX AND COLLECT PROPERTY TAX,
THERE IS A FUNDING FORMULA THAT
TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE
VARIATIONS IN MARKET VALUE AND
THE ABILITY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS
TO IMPOSE PROPERTY TAXES AND
THAT FUNDING SOURCE OR THAT
FUNDING FORMULA DID A FAIRLY
DECENT JOB OF EQUALIZING THE
FUNDING BETWEEN SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, THE LARGE WEALTHY
URBAN DISTRICTS VERSUS THE SMALL
RURAL DISTRICTS WITHOUT MARKET
VALUE.
>> ALL RIGHT, IT'S TIME TO MOVE
ON.
>> WE HAD A BETTER FUNDING
SYSTEM IN THE PAST THAN WE HAVE
RIGHT NOW.
>> AND MR. BUJAK, WHAT DO YOU
THINK?
HAVE WE NEVER MET THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT TO
FUND OUR SCHOOLS?
>> I DISAGREE THAT WE'VE NEVER
MET THE STANDARD.
I THINK HISTORICALLY, WE'VE DONE
OKAY AND REALLY I'M NOT SURE,
CERTAINLY EDUCATION NEEDS TO BE
IMPROVED IN IDAHO AND FUNDING
FOR EDUCATION NEEDS TO BE
IMPROVED IN IDAHO.
THERE IS NO QUESTION, BUT ONE
THING THAT WE NEED TO STEP BACK
AND TAKE A LOOK AT IS THE MODEL
THAT'S BEING USED, NOT JUST IN
EDUCATION, BUT IN HEALTHCARE AND
OTHER ISSUES BECAUSE THE ANSWER
ISN'T ALWAYS JUST THROW MORE
MONEY AT THE PROBLEM.
I MEAN, IDAHO'S KIDS ARE NOT
GETTING THE FUNDING THEY
DESERVE.
THEY'RE NOT PERFORMING AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE BARREL, EITHER.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT JUST
THROWING MORE MONEY AT IT SOLVES
THE PROBLEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MODEL
IMPROVED AND CHANGED, AS WELL.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR
GOVERNOR OTTER.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, YOU SAID
REPEATEDLY THAT IN THE LUNA LAWS
WHICH THE VOTERS REJECTED WE HAD
A GOOD PRODUCT, BUT A BAD
PROCESS.
THE VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY
REJECTED THAT PRODUCT.
NOW, YOU HAVE A TASK FORCE THAT
YOU SAY HAS FOLLOWED A GOOD
PROCESS AND COME UP WITH A GOOD
PRODUCT.
BUT THERE IS A $350 MILLION
DIFFERENCE FROM THE LUNA LAW'S
APPROACH.
THIS PROPOSAL IS TO PUT
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MONEY INTO
IMPROVING THE SCHOOLS RATHER
THAN TO SHIFT PRIORITIES WITHIN
THEM.
ISN'T THERE A DIFFERENCE?
>> WELL, NO.
BETSY, IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, THE
PROP ONE TOOK SEVEN PIECES OF
LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO
ACCOMPLISH BASICALLY PROP ONE.
IT GOT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
IT GOT BICAMERAL SUPPORT.
FOR NOT MAYBE NOT ALL SEVEN OF
THOSE PIECES OF LEGISLATION, BUT
THE LEGISLATURE VIEWED THOSE AS
THE RIGHT WAY TO GO, THE RIGHT
DIRECTION TO GO AND SO THEY ONE
BY ONE INSTEAD OF JUST ONE PROP,
THEY TOOK SEVEN OF THE BILLS AND
SAID HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
DO.
THEN I APPOINTED THE TASK FORCE.
LUNA AND I DIDN'T HAVE A TASK
FORCE ON PROPS TWO AND THREE.
THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
PROPS TWO AND THREE ARE
BASICALLY THE 20 RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT HAVE NOW BEEN BY THIS TASK
FORCE THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER BY
ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN
EDUCATION THAT HAVE SPENT TWO
YEARS IN THE PROCESS AND HAVE
BROKEN DOWN INTO SUBCOMMITTEES
TO PERFECT THOSE PROCESSES TO
COME BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE IF
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW.
PLUS, THE FACT IT WAS A
FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM.
PROPS ONE, TWO, AND THREE
WEREN'T FIVE YEARS.
THEY WERE BOOM, RIGHT AWAY.
AND ALSO, IT'S GOT A $350
MILLION PRICE TAG ON IT, WHICH
WITH THE GROWTH THAT WE'VE HAD
IN THE ECONOMY, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO HAVE TO RAISE TAXES IN ORDER
TO ACHIEVE THAT $350 MILLION
INVESTMENT.
>> DO YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP,
BRIEFLY?
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR
THE OTHER CANDIDATES' VIEWS.
>> THANK YOU.
$35 MILLION INCREASE IN STATE
FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS LOOKS LIKE A
10-YEAR PROGRAM, NOT A FIVE-YEAR
PROGRAM AND THE PROCESS AGAIN,
YOU HAD A GOOD START.
WE HAD A BROAD RANGE OF
STAKEHOLDERS ON THE GOVERNOR'S
TASK FORCE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
THE GOVERNOR NEVER ATTENDED ANY
OF THE MEETINGS, NOT EVEN THE
FIRST ONE TO KICK IT OFF AND
GIVE THEM THEIR MISSION AND
SINCE THEY'VE SMIT -- SPLIT INTO
SUBCOMMITTEES, AND THERE IS ONE
WORKING TEACHER ON THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TIERED LICENSURE
AND CAREER LADDER.
SIX LEGISLATORS WHICH IN MY VIEW
CARRIES WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT AND
THEY CAME UP WITH A PRODUCT THAT
IS GETTING AN EARFUL IN THE
HEARINGS AS THEY GO AROUND THE
STATE PRESENTING THEIR PROPOSAL
TO GET FEEDBACK FROM EDUCATORS,
FROM TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS AND
SUPERINTENDENTS.
I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY THAT ARE IN
FAVOR OF THAT.
IN FACT, FOR THE LAST SIX WEEKS,
ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS I GET
AS I TALK WITH EDUCATORS,
TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, AND
SUPERINTENDENTS, IS HOW
CONCERNED THEY ARE WITH THIS
TIERED LICENSURE PROPOSAL.
SUPERINTENDENTS SEE IT AS
ANOTHER OBSTACLE THAT WILL KEEP
THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO FILL
TEACHING VACANCIES IN THEIR
DISTRICT.
I'VE HAD TEACHERS TELL ME
THEY'RE GOING TO RETIRE AT THE
END OF THE YEAR AND CREATE MORE
VACANCIES.
>> MR. BUJAK.
>> BRIEFLY, WHAT CONCERNS ME
ABOUT THE PLAN, WE CAN'T
GUARANTEE THAT EVERY LEGISLATURE
FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS IS GOING
TO FUND THE PLAN.
SO WE CAN ONLY FUND IT ONE YEAR
AT A TIME.
ONE LEGISLATURE CAN'T BIND THE
NEXT.
I WORRY THAT THE FUNDING ISN'T
IN PLACE TO THE DEGREE THAT THE
GOVERNOR THINKS IT IS AT THIS
POINT IN TIME.
>> IN THE FIRST PLACE, LET ME
RESPOND TO WHAT A.J. SAID, I
THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR.
HE SAID THEY'RE GOING AROUND THE
STATE AND THEY'RE LISTENING TO
PEOPLE.
WHY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE DOING
THAT?
THEY WANT TO PERFECT IT.
THEY WANT TO MAKE IT WORK.
FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST
STANDING BY AND SAYING WE DON'T
WANT ACCOUNTABILITY, WE DON'T
WANT ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE
CLASSROOM, WE JUST WANT
INCREASED PAY, YOU DON'T WANT
ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FINDING OUT,
AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING OUT
AND LISTENING AND THAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE IN PROCESS AND
PRODUCT.
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
>> I'VE NEVER HEARD ONE TEACHER
OR PRINCIPAL OR SUPERINTENDENT
SAY THEY DIDN'T WANT
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THEY'RE FOR IT.
THEY WANT FAIR ACCOUNTABILITY.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT
QUESTION --
[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]
>> ON THE TIERED LICENSURE
PROGRAM, YOU HAVE A LOT OF
TEACHERS VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS,
ABOUT THE PROCESS, THEY FEEL
LIKE THEY'RE BEING CUT OUT
AGAIN.
HOW DO YOU ASSURE THEM THAT THIS
IS NOT DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ASSURE BY THE TIERED LICENSURE
IS SHOW THEM THAT THEY'VE GOT AN
OPPORTUNITY, THEY'VE GOT A
CAREER LADDER, THEY'VE GOT AN
OPPORTUNITY BY INCREASING THEIR
PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES, BY
INCREASING THEIR LICENSURE FROM
RESIDENCY ON UP TO TEACHER ON UP
TO PROFESSIONAL, THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO ALSO GET THAT INCREASE
IN PAY.
AND THE IDEA THAT'S BEING SPREAD
AROUND BY A.J. AND THE REST OF
HIS FOLKS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO LOSE THEIR LICENSE IS
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT'S A
WORK IN PROGRESS ON THE TIERED
LICENSURE AND THAT IS WHY THAT
SUBCOMMITTEE IS GOING AROUND AND
TALKING TO PEOPLE AND LISTENING
TO PEOPLE.
WHAT WILL WORK, WHAT WILL HAVE
ACCOUNTABILITY, WHAT WILL KEEP
THE BEST TEACHERS IN IDAHO?
THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO US.
>> ROCKY HAS A YES OR NO
QUESTION FOR ALL THREE OF YOU.
>> A SIMPLE YES OR NO.
DO YOU SUPPORT THE TIERED
LICENSURE PROPOSAL?
YES OR NO.
>> NO.
>> NO.
>> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON.
THE NEXT QUESTION IS FROM ROCKY
BARKER ON JOBS FOR GOVERNOR
OTTER.
>> GOVERNOR, FOUR YEARS AGO,
WHEN WE TALKED, YOU TALKED ABOUT
IDAHO'S ECONOMY BEING BASED ON
ITS RESOURCES.
WE TALKED ABOUT FARMING, WE
TALKED ABOUT LOGGING AND YES,
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT ALL TIED IN
TO THOSE.
THIS YEAR, YOU'VE TALKED A LOT
ABOUT PEOPLE.
THE PEOPLE ARE OUR RESOURCES.
TELL ME WHAT'S DIFFERENT.
HOW HAS OUR ECONOMY CHANGED?
>> OUR ECONOMY HASN'T CHANGED.
IT'S PEOPLE THAT'S GOING TO MAKE
THINGS HAPPEN.
IT'S HOPEFULLY THAT CHILD THAT'S
SETTING IN THE CLASSROOM TODAY
BEING CHALLENGED, THEIR CREATIVE
GENIUS BEING CHALLENGED BY A
GOOD TEACHER THAT'S GOING TO BE
THE NEXT GENERATION OF FARM
PRODUCTS AND THE NEXT DYNAMIC
RAM ACCESS MEMORY CHIP AND THE
NEXT SOFTWARE SYSTEM IN THE
STATE.
SO IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO HAPPEN
WITH PEOPLE.
I DON'T THINK I EVER DENIED
THAT.
WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING IS WE'RE
THE FIFTH FASTEST GROWING
ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES AND
WHO IS OUTGROWING US?
WHO'S AHEAD OF US?
WYOMING, NORTH DAKOTA, WEST
VIRGINIA AND OKLAHOMA, ALL
NATURAL RESOURCE STATES, GAS,
OIL AND COAL.
THE REASON WE'RE IN FIFTH PLACE
WITHOUT GAS, OIL AND COAL IS
BECAUSE OF OUR PEOPLE.
AND BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT
THEY'RE THE MOST IMPORTANT
INGREDIENT IN OUR ABILITY TO
GROW OUR COMMITTEE, TO CREATE
THE NEXT GENERATION OF PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO AND THEY'VE DONE IT.
THAT'S WHY PROJECT 60 WORKED.
>> ROCKY, YOU HAD A FOLLOW-UP?
>> GOVERNOR, THAT SOUNDS GOOD,
BUT THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T MAKING
VERY MUCH MONEY AND THEY'RE
STILL HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING
BY.
>> WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND
WHAT YOU'VE HEARD IS THAT THE
STATE OF IDAHO HAS ONE OF THE
HIGHEST RATES OF $7.25 AN HOUR.
ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS, ONE OF
THE GREAT VALUES AND VIRTUES IN
IDAHO IS THE WHOLE FAMILY LOOKS
THEIR POSITION AND THEY ALL WORK
TO IMPROVE THAT POSITION.
I WAS RAISED IN A FAMILY OF NINE
KIDS.
AND THERE WERE A LOT OF JOBS
THAT I WENT OUT AND WORKED AT AT
THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WHAT
HAPPENED TO THE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME?
WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT IS ONE
THING.
LOOK AT THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND
YOU'LL FIND WE'RE WAY UP IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE PACK, NOT NEAR
DOWN WHERE WE WERE.
SO YES, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS
THAT ARE MAKING 6% OF OUR
WORKFORCE THAT'S MAKING $7.25 AN
HOUR.
BUT THEY'RE ALSO STARTING JOBS
AND THEY'RE STARTING TO
UNDERSTAND PAYING TAXES AND
BEING ON TIME AND THE DISCIPLINE
OF A JOB AND WORK.
>> MR. BALUKOFF YOU WANTED TO
RESPOND TO THAT?
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, ARE YOU
RECOMMENDING THAT PARENTS PUT
THEIR KIDS TO WORK TO MAKE ENDS
MEET?
IS THAT THE ECONOMIC PLAN?
>> NO, THAT IS NOT THE ECONOMIC
PLAN AND YOU KNOW --
>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT
WE ARE NOT THE FIFTH FASTEST
GROWING ECONOMY.
THERE ARE THREE STATES, ONLY
THREE STATES, WHOSE ECONOMY IS
GROWING SLOWER THAN IDAHO'S,
FROM 2006 TO 2013, IDAHO'S
ECONOMY GROW 1.4% WHEN THE
NATIONAL AVERAGE WAS 2.5%.
SO WE ARE NOT GROWING IN THE
MOST ROBUST WAY.
WE'RE BARELY GETTING BY.
OUR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT IS
STILL UNDER $51 BILLION.
>> MR. BUJAK, YOU WANTED TO
RESPOND?
>> THIS IS AGAIN TO MY POINT
FROM MY OPENING.
WE NEED TO GET ACCESS TO THE
LAND.
YOU LOOK AT HIGHER PAYING JOBS
IN IDAHO AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE
RELATED TO GETTING ACCESS TO
THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES,
LOGGING, MINING, SO WE CAN TAKE
A FASTER PACE LIKE THE OTHER
STATES THE GOVERNOR'S TALKED
ABOUT.
THAT'S HOW YOU GET IDAHO OUT OF
THE SERVICE BASED INDUSTRY THAT
WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW.
>> YOU HAD A QUESTION ROCKY?
>> SO MR. BUJAK, THAT'S ALL WELL
AND GOOD ABOUT THE FEDERAL
LANDS.
EVEN IF YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL,
FIRST YOU'VE GOT TO WIN A COURT
CASE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE YEARS
AND THEN IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS
CORRECT, THIS IS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, IT'S GOING
TO TAKE 10 TO 15 YEARS JUST TO
GET THE FOREST INTO THE SHAPE
THAT WE'LL START MAKING ANY
MONEY ON THAT.
AND IT'S GOING TO COST THE STATE
A LOT OF MONEY.
THAT'S A LONG WAY DOWN THE ROAD
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS AN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM,
ISN'T IT?
>> I THINK YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A
COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ANGLES.
YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE COURT.
I THINK THAT'S THE LEAST
EFFICIENT WAY TO DO IT.
I THINK A BETTER WAY IS TO WORK
COOPERATIVELY WITH OUR
DELEGATION IN D.C. AND HAVE
CONGRESS GIVE US ACCESS TO THOSE
LANDS AND PROVE THAT WE CAN
MANAGE IT IN A SUPERIOR WAY AND
A RESPONSIBLE WAY SO THAT WE CAN
BALANCE ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES HERE
IN IDAHO SO MAYBE IT'S A LONG
PATH, BUT EVEN THE LONGEST
JOURNEY STARTS WITH A SINGLE
STEP AND IF YOU DO THAT IN
CONJUNCTION WITH LEVELING THE
PLAYING FIELD FOR SMALL
BUSINESS, WE CAN JUMP START THE
ECONOMY THERE AND WORK TOWARDS
THIS GOAL DOWN THE ROAD AND
BRING IDAHO TO A BRIGHTER
FUTURE.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, DO YOU THINK
THIS WOULD WORK?
WHAT MR. BUJAK HAS OUTLINED?
>> WE CANNOT AFFORD TO OWN THE
FEDERAL LAND.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS
ALMOST $400 MILLION A YEAR TO
MANAGE THE FEDERAL LANDS IN
IDAHO.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WOULD GET
THAT MONEY.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO RAISE TAXES OR
SELL OFF THE LAND.
AND NEITHER ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS
ARE GOOD.
ONE OF THE REASONS MANY OF US
LIVE IN IDAHO IS TO HAVE ACCESS
TO THE PUBLIC LANDS.
WE LIKE TO HUNT AND FISH AND
CAMP AND HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE
LANDS.
IF YOU SELL THEM OFF, YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE NO TRESPASSING
SIGNS AND WE'LL HAVE OUR ACCESS
CUT OFF.
I THINK THAT WE CAN WORK
COOPERATIVELY WITH THE FOREST
SERVICE AND BE SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMICALLY AND ECOLOGICALLY
RESPONSIBLE TIMBER HARVEST, BUT
IT'S A FOOL'S ERRAND TO TRY TO
TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP OF THE
FEDERAL LANDS.
IF WE WANT TO GROW OUR ECONOMY,
WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON THE
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE
ALREADY HERE IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO.
WE HAVE 40,000 OF THEM AND WE
KNOW THAT 80% OF NEW JOB GROWTH
COMES FROM SMALL BUSINESS.
IF WE CAN HELP THOSE SMALL
BUSINESSES THRIVE AND GROW, AND
JUST THINK, JUST 10% OF THEM
ADDED ONE EMPLOYEE, THAT WOULD
BE 4,000 NEW JOBS.
AND IT WOULDN'T TAKE MONEY AND
TAX BREAKS TO GET THOSE SMALL
BUSINESSES TO GROW.
WE CAN HELP THEM THROUGH
PROVIDING THE RIGHT KIND OF
COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL
GRADUATES THAT THEY NEED TO HIRE
AND WE CAN THEM WITH
INFRASTRUCTURE, HELPING THEM TO
FIND INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALLOW
BUSINESSES IN THEIR COMMUNITIES
TO GROW.
I WAS TALKING WITH A NAMPA HIGH
TECH FIRM WHO IS EXPERIENCING
TREMENDOUS DEMAND AND THEY WOULD
LIKE TO EXPAND, BUT THEY CAN'T
FIND THE GRADUATES THEY NEED IN
IDAHO SO THAT COMPANY IS
EXPANDING IN INDIANA BECAUSE
THAT'S WHERE THEY CAN FIND THE
GRADUATES.
WE SHOULD BE HELPING THAT
COMPANY FIND THE GRADUATES HERE
IN IDAHO SO THEY CAN EXPAND IN
NAMPA.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER YOU WANTED TO
RESPOND?
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.
NUMBER ONE IT WAS INTERESTING
THAT BALUKOFF HAD TO GO ALL THE
WAY BACK TO FIND A YEAR WHERE
IDAHO HAD MAYBE NOT PERFORMED AS
WELL AS OTHERS.
I'M TELLING YOU TAKE A LOOK AT
THE FIGURES FROM THE FEBRUARY OF
2013 TO FEBRUARY OF 2014, AND
YOU'LL SEE THAT IDAHO IS THE
FASTEST GROWING PERSONAL INCOME
STATE IN THE UNITED STATES AND
FIFTH FASTEST GROWING ECONOMY
BEHIND THOSE OTHER STATES THAT
HE MENTIONED.
NOW, HE JUST MENTIONED ABOUT
THIS FIRM MOVING TO INDIANA.
I GOT A LETTER FROM THAT VERY
FELLA BECAUSE A.J. HAD TALKED TO
HIM ABOUT WE NEED TO RAISE THE
MINIMUM WAGE AND HE SAID THAT'S
HOW I TRAIN MY PEOPLE UP, IN
SOME CASES THAT'S HOW I TRAINED
THEM UP, THEY GET TO GO TO CWI,
BUT I CAN TRAIN THEM UP FOR THE
DISCIPLINES THAT I NEED.
I DON'T WANT TO INCREASE THE
MINIMUM WAGE AND BY THE WAY,
BUTCH, I'M NOT MOVING TO
INDIANA.
I GOT THE LETTER.
I CAN SHOW YOU THE LETTER.
>> DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO
THAT?
>> THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A
FACILITY IN INDIANA AND THEY'RE
HIRING EMPLOYEES AND DOING THE
MANUFACTURING IN INDIANA.
>> MR. BUJAK, DID YOU WANT TO
WEIGH IN?
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE
FEDERAL LANDS ISSUE.
MR. BALUKOFF WAS SAYING THAT
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE IN IDAHO
BECAUSE OF THE HUGE PRICE TAG
THAT GOES TO MANAGING THE LANDS.
THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO
BUILD THE ECONOMY WITH THAT ONE
PIECE AND THEN MOVE ON FROM
THERE.
IF YOU TAKE IT BACK ALL AT ONCE
IT'S GOING TO BANKRUPT THE
STATE, BUT A PIECE AT A TIME AND
WE CAN DO IT RESPONSIBLY AND
MAKE IT HAPPEN FOR IDAHO.
>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
AND UNDER THE NEW FARM BILL THAT
WAS PASSED IN FEBRUARY, STATES
WERE ASKED TAKE A LOOK AT THE
FEDERAL LAND WITHIN YOUR STATE
AND THOSE THAT ARE UNDER THREAT
FROM DISEASE, BUG KILL OR
OVERGROWTH, INVENTORY THOSE FOR
US AND IF YOU'LL SHOW US CERTAIN
SECTIONS WHICH IDAHO HAS ALREADY
DONE, IF YOU'LL SHOW US CERTAIN
SECTIONS WE WILL WORK OUT AN
AGREEMENT FOR YOU TO MANAGE
THOSE AND WHATEVER YOU CUT OFF,
WHATEVER YOU TAKE OFF THE LAND,
YOU CAN USE WITHIN YOUR OWN
ECONOMY AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED
1,800,000 ACRES THAT HE CAN DO
JUST THAT WITH.
AND WE CAN DO THAT THROUGH OUR
LANDS DEPARTMENT.
SO BUJAK IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
YOU'VE GOT TO PROVE, YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO PROVE TO THE
REST OF THE WORLD THAT A.J.'S
WRONG, THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST
GOING TO SELL OFF THE LANDS
WILLY-NILLY.
THAT YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO
KEEP THOSE UNDER YOUR CONTROL
AND YOUR ECONOMY.
WHY WOULD WE TAKE CONTROL OF
THEM AND THEN GIVE CONTROL TO
SOMEBODY ELSE?
>> ALL RIGHT, ONE MORE QUESTION
ON JOBS FROM KEVIN.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, LET'S LOOP BACK
TO THE ECONOMY THAT WE HAVE NOW
AND THE METRICS THAT WE HAVE
NOW.
THROUGHOUT THIS CAMPAIGN YOU'VE
CITED A LITANY OF STATISTICS
THAT SUGGEST THAT THE ECONOMY IS
STAGNATING OR WORSE.
SO LET'S FAST FORWARD A COUPLE
OF MONTHS AND LET'S SAY YOU'RE
ELECTED GOVERNOR AND YOU'RE
MEETING WITH A CEO OF ANOTHER
STATE.
WHAT STATISTICS WILL YOU SAY
SHOW IDAHO IS A GOOD PLACE TO
INVEST?
ARE THERE ANY?
>> YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS
THAT INDICATE WE'VE GOT A GOOD
VIBRANT ECONOMY.
WHAT'S THE PER CAPITA ECONOMY?
IS THAT RISING?
ARE FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS
ABLE TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILY ON
WHAT THEY'RE EARNING OR DO THEY
HAVE TO WORK TWO OR THREE JOBS?
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE JOBS THAT
ARE BEING ADDED.
ARE THEY GOOD-PAYING JOBS?
ARE WE HELPING THE SMALL
BUSINESSES IN THE STATE, AROUND
THE STATE TO GROW?
ARE WE GROWING ACROSS THE STATE
OR JUST ONE LITTLE ECONOMIC OR
GEOGRAPHIC SECTOR OF THE STATE?
SO WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE ECONOMIC
INDICATORS THAT WOULD INDICATE
WHETHER WE ARE GROWING AND
GROWING AT A FAST ENOUGH RATE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE
GOING TO MAKE ANY SIGNIFICANT
PROGRESS UNTIL WE GET OUR
SCHOOLS OFF THE BOTTOM.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD
REPUTATION IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THE KIND OF
SCHOOLS THAT ARE NOT ONLY
PRODUCING THE KINDS OF GRADUATES
THAT COMPANIES WANT TO HIRE, BUT
THE KIND OF SCHOOLS PARENTS WANT
TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO.
THEY HAVE TO BE PREPARING THE
KIDS FOR WORK AFTER HIGH SCHOOL.
THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS
TRULY MAKE EDUCATION THE TOP
PRIORITY AND FUND IT PROPERLY
AND GET A GOOD REPUTATION FOR
THE SCHOOLS ALL ACROSS THE
STATE.
AND WHEN WE DO THAT, THAT SHOULD
HELP THE ECONOMY GROW AND IT
WILL HELP COMPANIES FIND THE
WORKERS THAT THEY NEED TO THRIVE
AND GROW.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR
ALL THREE OF YOU IF YOU COULD
ANSWER IN 10 SECONDS OR ELSE.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET HIGHER
PAYING JOBS IN IDAHO?
GOVERNOR OTTER?
>> WE ARE GETTING THEM.
HORCHATA JUST ADDED 35 JOBS IN
SAND POINT, IDAHO.
WE JUST GOT AMY'S KITCHEN FOR
POTENTIALLY 1,000 JOBS IN
POCATELLO.
WHAT IS IT, SKY WEST JUST
ANNOUNCED THEIR NEW SATELLITE
RIGHT HERE IN IDAHO.
SO ALL OF THOSE ARE PRETTY
GOOD-PAYING JOBS.
AND WHEN BUSINESSES RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS IS A GOOD, SAFE PLACE
TO PUT CAPITAL BECAUSE IDAHO'S
PREDICTABLE AND WHAT WE HAVE IS
SUSTAINABLE, THEY'RE GOING TO
COME.
>> MR. BUJAK?
>> I THINK THE KEY IS GROWING
SMALL BUSINESS, NOT ATTRACTING
BIG BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL
INTEREST TAX EXEMPTIONS.
THAT'S BEEN DISASTROUS IN THE
PAST.
THE GOVERNOR REMEMBERS THE HOKU
PLANT THAT WAS A BUST.
IT EATS UP A LOT OF MONEY AND
ECONOMISTS WILL TELL YOU THAT
DOESN'T WORK.
SO IT'S BUILDING SMALL BUSINESS
AND THEN AGAIN GETTING
MANUFACTURING AND ENERGY
EXPORTING JOBS.
>> MR. BALUKOFF.
>> PROPERLY FUNDING OUR SCHOOLS
SO THEY ARE PRODUCING THE
GRADUATES THAT COMPANIES NEED,
FOCUSING ON THE SMALL BUSINESSES
THAT ARE ALREADY HERE IN IDAHO.
THE GOVERNOR'S ECONOMIC PLAN OF
TAX BREAKS AND CHEAP LABOR IS
NOT A GOOD LONG-TERM PLAN FOR
GROWING THE ECONOMY.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT QUESTION
IS FROM ROCKY BARKER FOR
MR. BUJAK.
>> MR. BUJAK, YOU SAID YOU'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.
BUT YOU WANT TO FIND EXISTING
FUNDING TO FILL THE NEED.
THAT SEEMS TO BE YOUR SOLUTION
TO ALL OF IDAHO'S FUNDING WOES
BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT?
TRANSPORTATION'S REALLY BEEN A
TOUGH ISSUE FOR US.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ROADS AND
BRIDGES THAT ARE IN TROUBLE.
CAN WE CUT MORE FROM THAT?
>> AND I DON'T KNOW -- YOU LOOK
AT ME AND SAY YOU'RE A SLASH AND
CUT KIND OF A GUY.
I JUST AM NOT INCLINED TO
INCREASE TAXES OR FEES WITHOUT
TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT'S ALREADY
BEING SPENT AND COMING UP WITH A
MORE EFFICIENT MODEL.
AS I TRAVEL AROUND THE STATE AND
I REALIZE THAT GOVERNOR OTTER
SAID HISTORICALLY MAINTAINING
OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS A
BIG DEAL AND WE NEED TO FOCUS ON
THAT.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE PREDOMINANT
ISSUE ON THE VOTERS' MINDS
AROUND THE STATE, AND I THINK
THAT HAVING THE MONEY TO FIX
ROADS OR INVEST IN OTHER
PROJECTS IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY
RELATED TO GROWING THAT PIE AND
GROWING THE PIE ISN'T ABOUT
RAISING FEES AND TAXES.
IT'S ABOUT STIMULATING THE
ECONOMY AND GROWING OUR ABILITY
TO SPEND BASED ON THAT ECONOMY.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR
MR. BALUKOFF FROM ROCKY.
>> A SURVEY OF IDAHOANS SAID
THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ROADS
AND BRIDGES, BUT THEY'RE GUN SHY
ABOUT PAYING MORE TAXES.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
IN.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER'S FIRST TERM,
HE TRIED TO RAISE THE GAS TAX
AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WOULDN'T LET HIM.
THAT POINTS OUT A COUPLE OF
THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE GOVERNOR DOES
NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RAISE
TAXES.
THAT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
THE SECOND THING THAT WE NEED TO
TAKE A LOOK AT IS GOVERNOR OTTER
CLAIMS TO BE BALANCING THE
BUDGET.
WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
THAT REQUIRES A BALANCED BUDGET
AND THAT'S A REQUIREMENT ON
WHOEVER IS IN THE GOVERNOR'S
CHAIR AND WHOEVER IS IN THE
LEGISLATURE, YOU HAVE TO BALANCE
THE BUDGET.
AND ALTHOUGH GOVERNOR OTTER MAY
HAVE TECHNICALLY BALANCED THE
BUDGET ON PAPER, WHEN YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT THE UNDERFUNDING OF
SCHOOLS AND THE DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE ON ROADS AND
BRIDGES, DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IS
LIKE TAKING ON DEBT, BECAUSE
SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO PAY
FOR THE REPAIR OF THOSE ROADS
AND BRIDGES IN THE FUTURE.
AND WE NEED TO FACE UP TO THAT
FACT AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION
OF HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY THE
MAINTENANCE ON ROADS AND BRIDGES
AND OVER WHAT PERIOD OF TIME
WILL IT TAKE AND HOW ARE PEOPLE
WILLING TO PAY FOR THAT?
AND ONCE WE'RE DOING THAT, THEN
WE WILL TRULY BALANCE THE
BUDGET, BUT AS LONG AS WE IGNORE
THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND THE
DETERIORATING ROADS AND BRIDGES,
WE ARE NOT REALLY BALANCING THE
BUDGET.
EVEN THOUGH YOUR PAPERS MAY SAY
YOU ARE, YOU'RE NOT REALLY
BALANCING THE BUDGET.
>> YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR
GOVERNOR OTTER?
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, LET'S GET
BACK TO THAT.
THAT WAS THE CENTERPIECE OF THE
2009 SESSION.
THAT WAS YOUR SHOWDOWN WITH THE
LEGISLATURE.
NOTHING MUCH HAS HAPPENED IN
TERMS OF FUNDING HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION SINCE THEN.
ARE WE NOT FIVE YEARS FURTHER
BEHIND THAN WE ARE IN 2009?
>> YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER WHEN WE
WERE -- THAT WAS ACTUALLY '08
AND '09.
WE WERE GOING INTO THE
RECESSION, THERE WAS A LOT OF
CONCERN FROM THE LEGISLATURE
ABOUT ADDING MORE TO THE
GASOLINE TAX.
I LOOKED BACK ON THAT TODAY AND
THE LAST TIME THAT I ASKED FOR 2
CENTS FOR A GAS TAX INCREASE,
THE GASOLINE WAS $1.39 A GALLON.
I HOPE WE'RE HEADED BACK THERE
AGAIN BECAUSE I SEE NATIONWIDE
IT'S ABOUT $3 AND A PENNY TODAY
AVERAGE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S REAL
INTERESTING BECAUSE THE FIRST
THING I HEARD BALUKOFF SAY WAS
I'M GOING TO RID OF ALL THE
WASTE AND I'LL HAVE MORE MONEY.
AND THE FIRST THING THAT WE WENT
THROUGH BEFORE WE ASKED FOR ANY
MORE MONEY FOR TRANSPORTATION
WAS WE MADE THEM GO THROUGH AND
ZERO BASE BUDGETING BASICALLY
AND SAID HOW ARE YOU SPENDING
EVERY DOLLAR?
WE TOOK OUT $51 MILLION OF COSTS
THAT WE HAD BECAUSE WE DECIDED
WE WEREN'T BOTH TIP TOE OUTSIDE
THE FOG LINE.
THERE WAS SOME OTHER ECONOMIES
THAT WE FOUND AND WE FOUND $51
MILLION BEFORE I WENT TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND ASKED FOR MONEY.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN WE LOOK AT
WHERE WE'VE GOT TO FIND MONEY
AND ROCKY, THE POLL WASN'T
EXACTLY THAT WAY.
IT SAID THE LOCAL DISTRICTS, THE
CITIES AND COUNTIES, ROADS WERE
TERRIBLE.
IT SAID THE STATES WEREN'T THAT
BAD.
BUT IN 10 YEARS, THEY WERE GOING
TO BE BAD.
SO THAT POLL GIVES US TWO
SIGNALS, BUT THE BIGGEST SIGNAL
WAS YES, WE NEED TO RAISE MONEY
BUT DON'T TAX MONEY.
>> MR. BUJAK, YOU WANTED YOU WANTED TO
RESPOND?
>> YOU TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVE
FORMS OF FUNDING AND ONE THING
WE NEED TO LOOK AT, THERE ARE
OTHER WAYS YOU CAN ADJUST THE
MODELS THAT GOVERNMENT USES IN
ORDER TO GET MONEY.
ONE WOULD BE THE PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
IDAHO IS REALLY WELL RUN, AND
IT'S USED NOT JUST FOR THE STATE
LEVEL GOVERNMENTS, BUT FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AS WELL AND THEY
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT ECONOMY
OF SCALE.
WE COULD DO THE SAME THING WITH
HEALTH INSURANCE HERE IN IDAHO
AND NOT HAVE SEPARATE CONTRACTS
FOR THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES.
LET'S PUT STATE AND EDUCATION
INSURANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE ALL UNDER ONE
UMBRELLA, NEGOTIATE A MORE
FAVORABLE CONTRACT, MAYBE ADJUST
THE PREMIUM ON THE POLICY AND
SUPPLEMENT IT WITH HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AND WE COULD
SAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THERE,
AS WELL.
THERE'S WAYS WE CAN THINK
OUTSIDE THE BOX AND GENERATE
MORE INCOME.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION
BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
SO IF THAT'S WORK, FAILING THAT,
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE
WILLING TO LOOK INTO INCREASING
THE GAS TAX?
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS
AVAILABLE, IF THERE'S NO WAY TO
SQUEEZE THE MONEY OUT OF WHAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK
AT THAT OPTION, BUT IT'S NOT ONE
I WOULD FAVOR AND IT WOULD A
COURSE OF LAST RESORT.
>> SAME QUESTION FOR YOU
GOVERNOR OTTER.
>> YOU USED THE RIGHT WORD,
SQUEEZE.
I TRIED IT.
I'VE TRIED IT TWICE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS AND
THROUGH THE POLLING THAT ROCKY
JUST REFERRED TO, A LOT OF
PEOPLE SAID YES, WE NEED MORE
MONEY, BUT WHEN THE QUESTION
CAME DOWN WELL WHO DO WE TAX AND
WHAT DO WE TAX?
IT WAS ALWAYS TAX EVERYBODY, BUT
ME.
DON'T TAX ME.
TAX THE GUY BEHIND THE TREE.
AND THAT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC.
THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE AND SENATE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES ARE
TAKING UP THAT POLL RIGHT NOW
AND THEY'RE GOING TO START
HAVING HEARINGS ON IT TO FIND
OUT EXACTLY WHERE WE GET THE
MONEY.
I DON'T THINK -- I CAN TELL YOU
THIS FOR SURE.
I AM NOT GOING TO BE PART OF
TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL
FUND BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO BE
SPENT ON SOME TRANSPORTATION
THING.
THERE'S A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT OUT
THERE NOW THAT WHEN YOU BUY A
TIRE FOR YOUR CAR OR YOU HAVE
YOUR CAR SERVICED FOR OIL AND
FILTER CHANGE, YOU PAY SALES TAX
ON THAT.
AND THERE'S A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
THAT THEY WANT THAT MONEY TO
COME IN.
YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE IT FROM
EDUCATION, CORRECTIONS OR HEALTH
AND WELFARE.
AND I'M ONE A -- I'M A HUNTER.
WHEN I GO TO A STORE AND BUY A
SHOTGUN OR A FISH HOOK, I PAY
SALES TAX ON THAT, TOO.
WHY SHOULDN'T THAT GO TO THE
FISH AND GAME?
WHERE DO YOU STOP THAT?
SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME
COURAGE, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE
SOMEBODY THAT CAN WORK WITH THE
LEGISLATURE IN ORDER TO SOLVE
OUR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
PROBLEMS.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS --
>> WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER
A GAS TAX INCREASE?
>> CONSIDERING THAT THE GAS TAX
HAS NOT BEEN INCREASED SINCE
1996 --
>> IS THAT A YES.
>> 25 CENTS A GALLON, YES, IT
DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME PURCHASING
POWER IT DID IN 1996, WE OUGHT
TO TALK ABOUT THAT OR PERHAPS
VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES
BECAUSE THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR YOU
MR. BALUKOFF FROM BETSY RUSSELL.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, WHAT ROLE WOULD
YOU TAKE ON THE ADD THE WORDS
LEGISLATION, TO AMEND THE IDAHO
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TO ADD THE
WORDS SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND
GENDER IDENTITY AND TO BAN
DISCRIMINATION ON THOSE BASES?
>> WELL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING
FOR A HEARING FOR EIGHT YEARS
AND THEY'VE BEEN STONE WALLED BY
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
HASN'T SHOWN LEADERSHIP ON
ALLOWING THOSE PEOPLE TO HAVE A
HEARING TO ADD THE WORDS.
I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE
HEARING.
I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD ADD THE
WORDS.
IT'S JUST MAKING A STATEMENT
THAT WE BELIEVE IN TREATING ALL
PEOPLE WITH FAIRNESS AND RESPECT
AND OUR REFUSAL TO ADD THE WORDS
IS HURTING IDAHO'S REPUTATION.
WE HAVE NINE CITIES AROUND THE
STATE NOW THAT HAVE ON THEIR OWN
PASSED ORDINANCES TO DO THAT
VERY THING.
SO IT SEEMS ONLY REASONABLE THAT
WE OUGHT TO GIVE THE HEARING AND
I'M IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE WORDS
AND I WOULD SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP
ON THAT.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION FROM BETSY?
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, YOU'VE SAID
THAT THE ADD THE WORDS ISSUE IS
UP TO THE LEGISLATURE, BUT YOU
HAVEN'T SAID WHERE YOU STAND.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE IN
IDAHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE FIRED
FROM THEIR JOBS OR EVICTED FROM
THEIR HOMES SOLELY BECAUSE THEY
ARE GAY?
>> BETSY FIRST OFF, I DON'T
BELIEVE ANYBODY IN IDAHO IS IN
FAVOR OF DISCRIMINATION AND FOR
ANYBODY TO SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE
I BELIEVE THEY'RE DEAD WRONG AND
THEY DON'T REALLY APPRECIATE THE
VALUE THAT WE HAVE IN IDAHO FOR
HUMANKIND.
NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, WHEN THE WHOLE ISSUE
CAME UP DURING THE LAST
LEGISLATIVE ISSUE TWICE I MET
WITH THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE ASKING
FOR A HEARING.
TWICE WE SAT DOWN AND THEY SAID
THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
I THEN WENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE
LEADERSHIP AND SAID, YOU KNOW,
YOU GUYS OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT
HAVING A HEARING.
I CAN'T CALL A HEARING.
I'M IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT AND WHEN THE ANTICS
GOT SO FAR THEY FOUND PEOPLE
HIDING IN CLOSETS, THEY WERE
STOPPING THEM FROM DOING THEIR
DUTIES, THEIR ELECTED DUTIES, I
THINK THE LEGISLATURE JUST KIND
OF BOWED THEIR NECK AND SAID IF
THAT'S THE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO
ACT, IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU'RE
GOING TO ACT JUST ASKING FOR
THIS TO HAPPEN, WHAT ARE YOU
GOING TO DO IF WE DO LET IT
HAPPEN?
>> GOVERNOR, IF THAT BILL WERE
TO PASS, WOULD YOU SIGN IT?
>> IF THAT BILL WERE TO PASS.
>> YOU WOULD SIGN IT?
>> YES.
>> THE NEXT QUESTION IS FOR
MR. BUJAK.
>> MR. BUJAK, WHAT ROLE WOULD
YOU TAKE IF YOU ARE GOVERNOR ON
THE ADD THE WORDS ISSUE?
>> IT NEEDS TO HAVE A HEARING.
IT REALLY OFFENDED ME WHEN
PEOPLE CAME INTO THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE, THEY ENDED UP BEING
ARRESTED FOR WHAT I VIEWED AS
THEM EXERCISING THEIR FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD A HEARING
AND SENT THAT ADD THE WORDS
LEGISLATION TO MY DESK, I WOULD
SIGN IT, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER
ISSUE OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE NEED
TO RECOGNIZE.
THERE'S A GROUP OUT THERE THAT
IS WORRIED THAT AS WE HAVE GAY
RIGHTS EXPAND IN IDAHO IT'S
GOING TO INFRINGE ON ANOTHER
PORTION OF THE STATE THAT
BELIEVES IN THEIR RELIGIOUS
FREEDOMS AND THEY BELIEVE
THEY'RE GOING TO BE AFFECTED.
WE NEED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT
THAT AS A STATE AND THAT NEEDS
TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S CARRIED
ON OPENLY.
WE CAN'T CONTINUE TYING MORE IT.
I CAN TELL YOU HAVING BEEN
PREVIOUSLY COUNCIL TO THE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION, IDAHO DOESN'T
HAVE A GOOD HISTORY ON
DISCRIMINATION.
THEY DON'T EMPOWER OUR HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION ENOUGH.
THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE SUBPOENA
POWER IN THIS STATE.
PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE A FIRM LOOK
AT THAT AND MAKE SOME CHANGES IN
IDAHO IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AN
ANTIDISCRIMINATION STANCE AS A
STATE.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT QUESTION
IS FROM KEVIN RICHARD FOR
GOVERNOR OTTER.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER, WE HAVE SPENT
ABOUT $90,000 IN TAXPAYER MONEY
AT THIS POINT FIGHTING THE GAY
MARRIAGE ISSUE IN COURT.
HOW MUCH MORE ARE YOU WILLING TO
SPEND ON THIS AND DOES A TIME
COME WHERE THE STATE HAS TO SAY
THAT THE FIGHT IS OVER?
>> WELL, I'M NOT READY TO
SURRENDER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO AS THEY
EXPRESSED IT IN 2006 IN AN
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.
I'M NOT READY TO SURRENDER THAT
TO A FEW FOLKS IN BLACK ROBES.
I THINK THOSE PEOPLE THAT VOTED
FOR THAT WERE VOTING FOR A VALUE
THAT THEY HAD AND THEY WERE
EXPRESSING THAT.
MY JOB WHEN I RAISED MY HAND AND
TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE WAS TO
DEFEND THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.
NOW, IF THESE GENTLEMEN FEEL
DIFFERENT ABOUT THAT, THEN THEY
NEED TO BE PREPARED, THAT SHOULD
THEY HAVE THE CHANCE TO TAKE THE
OATH OF OFFICE, THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO SAY EXCEPT THE BALANCED
BUDGET, EXCEPT ARTICLE THREE
SECTION 28 AND ANY OTHER PART OF
THE CONSTITUTION THEY DON'T WANT
TO DEFEND BUT THAT IS NOT A
FEDERAL -- THAT IS NOT A
DELEGATION OF A FEDERAL POWER.
THAT IS A STATE POWER, THE
POLICE POWER BELONGS TO THE
STATE, NOT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
>> KEVIN YOUR NEXT QUESTION WAS
FOR MR. BUJAK?
>> I'M JUST WONDERING MR. BUJAK
WHAT YOU FEEL THE GOVERNMENT'S
ROLE IS IN THE INSTITUTION OF
MARRIAGE AND THE CONTRACT OF
MARRIAGE.
>> YEAH, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE
TO SAY GOVERNMENT GET OUT OF THE
MARRIAGE BUSINESS.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE HAVE
LAWS IN THIS STATE CONCERNING
MARRIAGE, WE HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
CONCERNING MARRIAGE.
WHERE I DIFFER FROM THE GOVERNOR
IS BEING A LAWYER I CAN TELL YOU
THIS WAS A LOSING BATTLE OUT OF
THE GATE IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
A BETTER COURSE IF THE GOVERNOR
HAD WANTED TO STAND FIRM WOULD
BE TO FIND A GOOD ARGUMENT BASED
ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY WHICH WE
CAN'T BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT ENOUGH.
AT THIS POINT, THE SHIP HAS
SAILED.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WIN THAT
BATTLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL START ARGUING
ABOUT INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE IN
IDAHO AT THIS POINT.
IT'S JUST THROWING GOOD MONEY
AFTER BAD IN THE COURT.
>> YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR
MR. BALUKOFF?
>> MR. BALUKOFF, YOU HAD
INDICATED THAT YOU THINK IT'S
TIME TO DROP THIS ISSUE AND DROP
THE LEGAL APPEALS ON THIS BUT
DOESN'T THAT PUT YOU IN AN
UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION SAYING
WE'RE GOING TO PICK AND CHOOSE
WHICH POPULARLY ELECTED AND
APPROVED RATIFIED AMENDMENTS
WE'RE GOING TO DEFEND?
>> I DON'T THINK IT DOES BECAUSE
BESIDES TAKING THE OATH TO
DEFEND THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION,
YOU ALSO TAKE AN OATH TO DEFEND
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND WE HAVE JUDGES, ALL OVER THE
UNITED STATES, THAT HAVE FOUND
SIMILAR TO THE JUDGE IN IDAHO
AND TO THE JUDGE PANEL IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS THAT HAVE SAID
THAT THE IDAHO BAN ON GAY
MARRIAGE VIOLATES THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION.
THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED IN
THE COURT SYSTEM RIGHT NOW.
AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE WON IF
WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT IT.
GOVERNOR OTTER'S STANCE TO
CONTINUE TO FIGHT THAT RULING
REMINDS ME VERY MUCH OF WHAT
HAPPENED IN 1957 IN ARKANSAS
WHEN GOVERNOR CHAVEZ STOOD ON
THE STEPS OF CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
TO TRY TO KEEP BLACK KIDS FROM
ATTENDING CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
WITH THE WHITE KIDS OF CENTRAL
HIGH SCHOOL.
HIS REPUTATION HAS BEEN TAINTED
BY THE INCORRECT STANCE HE TOOK
IN THE NAME OF STATES' RIGHTS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY
TODAY THAT WOULD JUSTIFY OR TRY
TO DEFEND RACIAL SEGREGATION IN
THE NAME OF STATES' RIGHTS AND
LOOKING BACK ON HISTORY DOWN THE
ROAD WHEN PEOPLE LOOK BACK ON
2014, AND SEE THE COURT
REGULATION AND SEE GOVERNOR
OTTER CONTINUING TO FIGHT THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN
THE SAME OF STATES' RIGHTS, THAT
WILL BE A BLEMISH ON HIS RECORD.
>> WELL, THE DIFFERENCE IS AND
QUITE FRANKLY A.J. DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND THIS, AND THE ONE
THAT HE QUOTED IN THE LAST
DEBATE WAS THE 14th AMENDMENT,
WHICH IS THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
I'M QUOTING THE 10th
AMENDMENT, THOSE POWERS NOT
DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES
BY THE CONSTITUTION NOR DENIED
TO THE STATES BY IT OR RESERVED
TO THE STATES RESPECTFULLY OR TO
THE PEOPLE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION ABOUT MARRIAGE.
THERE IS THE POLICE POWER
BELONGS TO THE STATE OF IDAHO.
>> THE 14th AMENDMENT REQUIRES
EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW
AND WHEN YOU DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE AND
DON'T HOLD THEM EQUAL UNDER THE
LAW, YOU ARE VIOLATING THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
>> ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT QUESTION
IS FROM ROCKY BARKER FOR
MR. BUJAK.
>> MR. BUJAK, YOU'RE OPPOSED TO
EXPANDING MEDICAID.
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT
THAT IDAHO HAS A SERIOUS
INDIGENT HEALTHCARE PROBLEM
THAT'S COSTING COUNTIES A LOT OF
MONEY.
TELL US YOUR SOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
I DO HAVE A SOLUTION.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S WORKING IN
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND I
RECOGNIZE THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON HAS EXPANDED
MEDICAID, BUT THEY HAVE A MODEL
THAT THEY'RE USING THAT CAN BE
USED IN THE STATE OF IDAHO WITH
EXISTING FUNDS TO PROVIDE BETTER
HEALTHCARE TO MORE PEOPLE WITH
LESS COST TO THE STATE AND
THAT'S THE DIRECT PRIMARY CARE
MODEL.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT DOCTORS HERE
IN IDAHO HAVE ALREADY STARTED
USING.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT SENATOR
THANE HAS INTRODUCED AND THE
NOTION IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A
PRIVATE COMPANY THAT HIRES
DOCTORS, 600 TO 800 PATIENTS SO
THEY'RE ABLE TO HAVE A GOOD
PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
AND WORK ON PROACTIVE HEALTHCARE
INSTEAD OF RESPONDING IN THE
EMERGENCY ROOM WHEN PEOPLE COME
IN.
PEOPLE PAY BETWEEN 20 AND $80 A
MONTH DEPENDING ON AGE AND THEY
HAVE ALL OF THEIR PRIMARY CARE
COVERED.
THAT'S MUCH CHEAPER THAN WE CAN
DO USING MEDICAID RIGHT NOW AND
IF THERE'S SOMETHING
CATASTROPHIC THAT HAPPENS, YOU
DEAL WITH IT WITH THE
WRAP-AROUND CATASTROPHIC POLICY
AND YOU SUPPLEMENT WITH
HEALTHCARE SAVINGS PLANS.
AND IT'S WORKING IN WASHINGTON.
IT COULD WORK HERE AND IF WE
FUND IT, WE MAY BE SURPRISED AT
JUST HOW FAR THOSE DOLLARS GO.
THAT'S SOMETHING IDAHO NEEDS TO
TRY BECAUSE IT'S A BETTER
SOLUTION.
IF YOU JUST EXPAND MEDICAID AND
WE JUST PUT MORE FEDERAL MONEY
THAT THE FETING DON'T HAVE AND
MAY OR MAY NOT DEFUND IN THE
FUTURE OR FORCE THE STATE TO
BEAR MORE OF THE COSTS AND YOU
TAKE THAT MONEY AND THROW IT AT
A MODEL THAT'S BROKEN, YOU DON'T
CREATE BETTER HEALTHCARE.
>> MR. BALUKOFF, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO RESPOND TO THAT?
>> I WILL LIKE TO RESPOND
QUICKLY.
YOU KNOW, MOVING FROM A FEE FOR
SERVICE MODEL TO MANAGEMENT OF
POPULATION HEALTH IS WHERE
HEALTHCARE IS MOVING BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, WE DO NEED TO EXPAND
MEDICAID COVERAGE TO COVER
IDAHOANS WHO ARE NOT COVERED
NOW.
THE WAY WE PAY FOR THEIR
HEALTHCARE RIGHT NOW IS THEY GO
TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AND THE
COUNTY INDIGENT CARE FUNDS PICK
UP THE FIRST $11,000 OF THAT
BILL.
IF IT'S MORE, THE CATASTROPHIC
FUND PICKS UP THE BALANCE.
WE ARE CURRENTLY PAYING BETWEEN
80 AND $90 MILLION A YEAR TO
CARE FOR UNINSURED PEOPLE.
IF WE EXPAND MEDICAID COVERAGE,
WE WILL GET BACK SOME OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX WE PAY INTO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CARE
FOR UNINSURED PEOPLE WHO WILL
THEN BE COVERED BY MEDICAID AND
THAT WILL FREE UP MOST OF THAT
80 TO $90 MILLION A YEAR THAT WE
ARE CURRENTLY PAYING --
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> THAT MONEY CAN BE USED FOR
EDUCATION OR WHATEVER THE HIGHER
PRIORITIES WOULD BE.
>> WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR
GOVERNOR OTTER TO RESPOND
BRIEFLY.
>> WELL, I AGREE WITH JOHN.
I THINK EVERY PRIVATE SECTOR
THAT WE COULD LOOK AT, EVERY
PRIVATE -- LET'S EXHAUST ALL OF
THE POSSIBILITIES.
IN FACT, I WOULD TELL YOU, EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS A TOUGH STRUGGLE
WHEN WE ADOPTED THE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE IN IDAHO, ONE OF THE
FEW STATES THAT DID THAT, I AM
QUINCE WITH THE PRODUCTS THAT
I'VE SEEN BEING RESPONDED TO BY
NOT ONLY THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, BUT ALSO,
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A
GOVERNOR-RUN INSURANCE EXCHANGE
AND PROBABLY NOT MEDICAID IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO IN THE FUTURE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH GOVERNOR
OTTER.
IT IS TIME FOR CLOSING REMARKS.
I'M SO SORRY WE'RE OUT OF TIME.
MR. BALUKOFF, YOUR COMMENTS.
>> I'M NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN.
I'VE BEEN A BUSINESSMAN FOR 44
YEARS, A SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE
FOR 17 YEARS AND I'VE SERVED ON
MANY NON-PROFIT BOARDS.
I GOT INTO THIS PRICE BECAUSE
I'VE SEEN HOW GOVERNOR OTTER'S
POLICIES HAVE DECIMATED IDAHO'S
SCHOOLS AND COMMITTEE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO
PITCH OTTER IS NOT THAT OUR KIDS
GET A GOOD EDUCATION OR THAT YOU
HAVE A GOOD JOB.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO
BUTCH OTTER IS TO GIVE TAX
BREAKS TO BIG BUSINESS AND
FAVORS TO BIG DONORS.
HIS MANTRA HAS BEEN I RECUSE
MYSELF, BUT WE CANNOT AFFORD
ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF AN
ABSENTEE GOVERNOR.
IS OUR STATE BETTER OFF UNDER
GOVERNOR OTTER?
THE ANSWER IS NO.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING I'VE LEARNED
IN BUSINESS, IT'S THIS.
THE BEST PREDICTOR OF FUTURE
BEHAVIOR IS PAST BEHAVIOR.
IDAHO DESERVES BETTER.
I'VE MADE MY VISION CLEAR.
WE MUST REINVEST IN OUR SCHOOLS,
WE MUST CREATE GOOD-PAYING JOBS
AND WE MUST RESTORE BALANCE,
TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST IN STATE
GOVERNMENT.
LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE
IDAHO NOT JUST A GREAT PLACE TO
LOVE, BUT A GREAT PLACE WHERE
IDAHOANS CAN MAKE A LIVING.
YOUR CHOICE HAS NEVER BEEN MORE
CLEAR.
I'M A.J. BALUKOFF, I'M ASKING
FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. BUJAK,
YOUR CLOSING REMARKS.
>> I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
TALK TO THE VOTERS.
MAYBE SOME OF YOU VOTERS WHO
HAVE GIVEN UP HOPE.
YOU HAVE VOTED FOR REPUBLICANS,
YOU HAVE VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS,
YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF
CHANGE.
YOU'VE HEARD THE SAME PROMISES
EVERY ELECTION CYCLE.
I WATCHED SOME OF THE PRIOR
DEBATES AND SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
TODAY WERE TALKED ABOUT FOUR
YEARS AGO, EIGHT YEARS AGO,
CRONYISM, CORRUPTION, WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT IMPROVING
HEALTHCARE, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO
GET MORE MONEY AND AS TIME
PASSES AND WE JUMP FROM
REPUBLICAN TO DEMOCRAT, WE END
UP IN THE SAME PLACE SO I
UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S A LARGE
GROUP OF IDAHOANS THAT DON'T
THINK THEIR VOTE COUNTS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THE POLLS,
THEY'RE NOT THINKING THEY CAN
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE STATE.
I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT ONE
MAN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT AND IT
COUNTS MORE THAN EVER IN THIS
ELECTION CYCLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE
A REAL CHOICE.
A CHOICE THAT DOESN'T BEHOLDEN
TO NATIONAL POLITICS, THAT ISN'T
INTERESTED IN LETTING THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IN IDAHO.
SOMEBODY WHO HAS A PRACTICAL
PLAN TO IMPROVE IDAHO USING A
CONSERVATIVE PLAN THAT DOESN'T
INVOLVE SPENDING MORE MONEY.
THIS IS A TIME WHEN WE CAN MAKE
HISTORY AS A STATE.
I'VE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE IF YOU
GO OUT AND FIND A FRIEND AND
BRING THEM TO THE POLLS, YOU'LL
MAKE A STATEMENT.
IF YOU GO OUT AND FIND TWO
FRIENDS AND BRING THEM TO THE
POLL AND VOTE FOR BUJAK, WE'RE
GOING TO MAKE HISTORY.
AND WITH AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNOR
WHO CARES MORE ABOUT THE PEOPLE
THAN SPECIAL INTERESTS, YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE REAL POSITIVE
CHANGES AND IN FOUR YEARS YOU'RE
GOING TO BE GLAD YOU WENT TO THE
POLLS AND CHOSE SOMETHING OTHER
THAN POLITICS AS USUAL.
I'M JOHN BUJAK, A LIBERTARIAN
CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR AND I'M
ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE ON NOVEMBER
4th.
>> GOVERNOR OTTER.
>> THANK YOU TO THE PANEL AS
WELL FOR THOSE PIERCING AND
REVEALING QUESTIONS.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUDIENCE, AS
WELL.
AND CERTAINLY IDAHO PUBLIC
TELEVISION AND THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS FOR CUTTING US YOU
HAVE WHAT WE NEEDED TO BE CUT
OFF.
IDAHO'S GREATNESS IS BECAUSE OF
ITS PEOPLE.
IT'S BECAUSE OF ITS PEOPLE THAT
IT'S ALWAYS STAYED THE COURSE.
WHEN FOLKS ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE
THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T DO
EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO
YET THEY KEEP COMING BACK
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALSO
DONE THE CONSERVATIVE THING.
THEY'VE RECOGNIZED THE VALUES OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
AND THAT IS WHAT HAS BROUGHT US
OUT OF THIS RECESSION FASTER
THAN ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE FOLKS
HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT IDAHO'S A
GOOD PLACE TO DO BUSINESS.
IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO RAISE A
FAMILY.
IT'S A GOOD PLACE TO MOVE TO AND
IF YOU'RE HERE, IT'S A GOOD
PLACE TO GROW YOUR COMPANY AND
GROW YOUR FAMILY AND GROW YOUR
INFLUENCE.
AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT THESE
OTHER STATES AND THE THINGS THAT
THEY HAVE HAD, AND WHAT WE HAD
IN IDAHO AS I SAID EARLIER IN
THE DEBATE, WE HAD THE PEOPLE.
WE HAD THE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVED
IN US BECAUSE WE BELIEVED IN
THEM.
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T STRAY FROM OUR
VALUES.
WE DIDN'T STRAY FROM FAMILY.
WE DIDN'T STRAY FROM KNOWING
THAT THE STRENGTH OF OUR
GOVERNMENT WAS THE STRENGTH IN
THE HOME.
IT WILL CONTINUE THAT WAY.
AND I'M ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE
HUMBLY I'M ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE.
I'M BUTCH OTTER, I'M YOUR
GOVERNOR AND I WOULD APPRECIATE
YOUR VOTE FOR THE NEXT FOUR
YEARS.
THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE
CANDIDATES FOR THE TIME TONIGHT.
THANKS TO THE REPORTERS FOR THE
PIERCING AND REVEALING QUESTIONS
AND THE VIEWERS AT HOME FOR
WATCHING.
YOU CAN LEARN MORE ABOUT THOSE
CANDIDATES ON OUR WEBSITE,
IDAHOPTV.ORG/ELECTION/2014.
AND REMEMBER TO STAY TUNED FOR
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DEBATE
UP NEXT.
THANKS SO MUCH AND WE'LL SEE YOU
AT THE POLLS.
*
*
>>> THE IDAHO DEBATES IS A
ARE MADE POSSIBLE BY BOISE STATE
UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF PUBLIC
SERVICE, DEVOTED TO BUILDING
FUTURE CIVIC AND COMMUNITY
LEADERS THROUGH
INTERDISCIPLINARY PROBLEM
SOLVING, REAL WORLD RESEARCH AND
POLICY STUDIES.
AND THE HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE YOU
CAN ONLY GET HERE AT THE STATE
CAPITOL.
THE IDAHO DEBATES ARE ALSO
BROUGHT TO YOU BY CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION
ENDOWMENT.
THANK YOU.