Wage disparity

Betsy Russell reports on the new ITD director's pay. Brian Ness will make $165,000 per year. He was making $118,000 in Michigan. The person he replaced, Pam Lowe, was making $143,000 annually. A spokesman for the ITD, Jeff Stratton, said that after accounting for the higher cost of living in Idaho, Ness' salary represents about a 10% increase in spending power.

Let's break this down a bit. $118,000 increased by 10% would add $11,800 per year. Let's round that to $12,000, add it to $118,000, and we get $130,000. So, if Ness got his 10% increase in Minnesota, he'd be making $130,000.

That $130,000 is equivalent to $165,000 in Idaho, per Stratton. The difference is, per Stratton, due to a 15% higher cost of living in Idaho, higher costs for insurance and for retirement plan contributions.

Let's take this to the level of a run of the mill State of Idaho employee. Half of $130,000 is $75,000, and half of that is $37,500. I'd say that is a decent number to use for comparison. It's about $18/hour. Next, half of $165,000 is $82,500, half of that is $41,250, or about $20/hour.

I don't have a huge point here, other than State employees aren't getting all that good a deal. To keep cutting benefits while freezing wages is to increase the disparity between what State of Idaho employees earn as compared to their counterparts in other states.

One thing that surprised me was, MinnesotaMichigan has a 15% lower cost of living. You know, MinnesotaMichigan, heavily unionized, more Democrats than Republicans (though the current Gov is a Republican), hard, cold, long winters, all that. Cheaper to live there than in Idaho. Who'd a thunk it?

Mom must be so proud

Meet the Poole sisters: Aubrey, 21, Rochelle, 20, and Tiffany, 18. The three were each recently arrested for Petite Theft. This gives a new meaning to the idea of family togetherness. And just in time for the holidays!

Cronyism and good ol' boy politics

The Statesman has a story about Lazy Y Ranch, LTD, settling a grazing dispute with the state of Idaho. Idaho's land board has refused to allow environmentalists to lease grazing lands, instead discriminating in favor of ranchers.

Hailey architect Jon Marvel, who I believe used to act alone but is now associated with the Western Watersheds Project, and Gordon Younger of the Lazy Y, would out bid ranchers for grazing leases. I'm working from memory so if I'm incorrect, please correct me in the comments, but I think I recall that Marvel's motivation was to bid up the lease to a more accurate market value, believing that the land board was allowing sweetheart deals to favored ranchers. In some cases, only one rancher would bid on the parcels. Some parcels had been leased to the same family for generations. Marvel also said that he wanted to rehabilitate the overgrazed and depleted land.

Younger "planned to manage the lands to restore what he called 'their degraded streams and wildlife habitats.'"

The settlement requires the state to revise the bidding rules. The Deputy Attorney, Clive Strong, who is well known for his expertise in natural resource issues, said this:

Idaho's new leasing rules will help create a level playing field for all parties interested in securing a lease - and help the state avoid costly lawsuits.

This is fascinating, for two reasons. One, he's admitting that the prior rules did not have a "level playing field." Two, he's acknowledging that the Land Board's discrimination is costly to the state. In this case the state is paying the Lazy Y $50,000 as part of the settlement.

One wonders how much more money the State of Idaho would have received for schools over the years if the leases had been competitively bid. One also wonders in how much better environmental shape the parcels would be, and how much better hunting and fishing would in the parcels, if the Board hadn't favored ranchers all these years. Cronyism and good ol' boy politics exact a price from the many in favor of the connected few.

Politicizing murder

I heard Senator Risch on the radio today calling for the prosecutors in the Fort Hood shooting case to add one more count of murder, from 13 to 14.

Apparently one of the victims was pregnant, and Risch wants a count for that. I don't know how far along the mother was.

Conservatives will applaud this, of course, which is why Risch is doing it. But geez, there are already 13 counts of murder; another one won't accomplish anything tangible. My main beef is that this is simply injecting politics into a tragic situation. And really, isn't going on the radio to announce this position simply political opportunism?

Isn't Risch just exploiting these murders for his own political gain?

Sparkling Sarah Palin

In conjunction with her book release, Sarah Palin has been going on a book tour. And, Newsweek put her on the cover of its magazine.

Newsweek chose the Runners World of Palin in running shorts for its cover, which is clearly a cheesecake type of photo. Oprah Winfrey asked Palin about the choice to use that picture, and Palin said she's thinks it's kind of cheesy.

I was thinking about that. Using a cheesecake photo of a woman in politics for its cover does seem a bit cheesy, at first. But, upon further reflection, I think it is the exact right photo.

Such a photo, of a powerful woman, highlights sexuality over any other trait, and probably tends to objectify the woman. But in Palin's case, her attractiveness is her defining trait, and is the reason she's where she's at.

Conservatives like her because she seems to share their views. But she's also liked because she's attractive. In fact, she doesn't have much going for her beyond attractiveness. She's certainly no policy wonk. She doesn't have much of a record of achievement (Governor of Alaska is obviously an achievement, but she underachieved in the position then quit early to cash in on, yes, her attractiveness.) She didn't even write her own book. She'll say any ol' thing that she thinks might work at the moment, truth be damned, and she says all kinds of nonsensical stuff (she justified her foreign policy experience in part by saying that there are places in Alaska from which you can see Russia). It's not her brain that got her where she is.

So in her case, using a picture of Palin in tight running shorts, really captured the essence of her.

Update: In thinking about this a bit more, it seems that some conservatives have a peculiar weakness for attractive females. And by that I mean, it's peculiar that the attractive female seems to be allowed to say anything, fact-based or not, and it's accepted and applauded. To wit: Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann. Malkin is the deepest thinker of that bunch, but that's like saying "You have good breath, for a dog."

Preying on the elderly and incompetent

Have a look at the "bill" I got in the mail today from Reader's Digest. As you can see, they're sending me my "FINAL NOTICE" giving me one last chance to "reinstate" the "terminated service" on my "lapsed account.

This pisses me off, because it's so dishonest and unscrupulous. Here's how the scam works.

They get your address from wherever, then start to send you the magazine. When the first one arrives, you might think "I didn't order this" or "Did I order this?" Either way, there's no bill with it so you don't worry about it. Then they send them monthly for quite a while, months, maybe even a year. After you've been getting them, and time passes, then they send a bill

Unless you're on the ball and paying attention, its pretty easy to think after a year of getting the mag that you probably wanted it in the first place. Maybe you've come to enjoy it, and if so, fine. You got a few free issues and now you can start paying.

But if you don't pay the bill, they start to send notices like the one below, peppered with references to your account, your terminated service, the preferred previous subscriber discount, and all that hooey, all designed to trick you into thinking you once wanted the mag.

This a problem because the elderly and infirm get these, and they often don't pay attention. It's easy for them to think, gee, I've been getting this, I'd better pay for it. That very thing happened to my sister.

Wait, there's more. One the back it says "We will continue your subscription each year with interruption until you tell us to stop." You're signing up for life if you ever send them any money.

And one more thing. It also says if you don't want to renew, "just write cancel on the bill and return it." Well, Reader's Digest bombards you with all kinds of magazines and books and offers. If you make the mistake of confirming your address to them, Katy bar the door because you will have opened the junk mail spigot wide open. I also believe they aggressively shop your information and sell it to other direct marketers.

And again, remember that elderly folks get this stuff and are especially susceptible to it. It's preying upon the weak among us, pure and simple. It ought to be illegal.

Here's the bill. Click to enlarge. I outlined various part in red boxes.

What's the real reason?

Note the letter from a panel of economists that says the House health care bill will save money and reduce the deficit. Some discussion of it here.

So, Mr. Minnick, really, what is the problem with it? Are you voting against it so you won't disappoint you new BFF Mike Simpson? How about if you just go ahead and switch parties so you can be even closer to him.

Minnick should switch parties. Now!

Congressman Walt Minnick has issued a press release saying that he will not vote for the House health care bill. You know, the one that the AMA and the AARP just announced that they support? The one that is still struggling to get the necessary 218 votes? The one that will cover the most Americans, that will reduce the deficit, that has the best changes to lower health care costs? Yeah, that one.

Well, for me, that's the last straw. Walt, please switch parties. Now, so a Democrat can prepare for the election a year from now. Oh, but wait, that might mean you were actually willing to do something to help Democrats. I guess it's better from your perspective to do all you can to stop Democrats from getting anything done.

Walt, please, just be honest and switch parties. You masquerading as a Democrat is embarrassing and dishonest.

Idaho Democrats should not support Walt, and if he gets primaried (assuming he doesn't switch parties), we should get behind his opponent.

There are too many Blue Dog Democrats, and they're screwing up the progressive cause. Congressional Democrats won't be losing a vote, obviously, because Walt never votes with them, and they have a large enough majority without him.

See, having any ol' Democrat is not better than any Republican. Minnick gives the Republicans cover by hiding their absolute total lack of any effort toward bipartisanship, and by lending a fake bipartisanship to Republican initiatives.

Walt, please switch parties and get it over with.

Boehner's a bonehead

I saw a clip of Rep Boehner speaking to the tea party rally today in Washington, D.C. He pulled out what appeared to be a copy of the US Constitution (it was the prop de jure, I saw others waving it around as well), he waved it around, and said (this is close, but not a quote):

I've got a copy of the Constitution here. Let me read what it says in the preamble. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; they they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I was a bit surprised to hear this from him. First off, I thought, that's rich. In Boehner's world, all men are created equal, except gay men. Those guys we have to deprive of the liberty to get married and pursue unhappiness.

And next, of course, I realized that he was quoting the Declaration of Independence. The Preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Man, those guys could write! I wish I had a fraction of their ability.

****

I am reminded of a story, true or not I don't know but I like it anyway. Supposedly lawyers and doctors in Texas wanted to foster better relations with each other, so they set up some social events. At one dinner, after eating, and of course drinking - after all, there were lawyers there - one lawyer rose to make a toast. It went something like this. "A toast to our professional forebears. To ours, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and to yours, who tried to cure George Washington by bleeding him."

****

And along those lines, I saw a commercial on TV tonight by some lawyers trying to drum up some mesothelioma cases. They included some testimonials, in which one lady said this (and I am quoting): "They were not just lawyers; they were human beings." Unlike most lawyers, I guess. Good grief, how low is the bar for lawyers that they brag about being human beings.

What's that supposed to mean?

The Boise Guardian has a post carping about the low turnout in the election, and tossed in this graf at the end.

At the risk of being accused of a quantum leap in irony, we have to ponder how many “warriors” of the Idaho National Guard and their loved ones didn’t vote in local elections, but risk their lives so the people of Iraq and Afghanistan will have a democratic government.

Note the quotation marks around the word warriors. TBG isn't quoting there, so the quotation marks appear to have the function of calling attention to the word in an ironic way. How that hit me was, okay, everybody calls these people warriors, but we know they're not really warriors.

If that's not what you meant, TGB, please explain. And if it is, bite me.