Our View: Surplus won't solve 's highway problems

Idaho Statesman, July 28, 2008

A year ago, as Gov. was just trying to lay the groundwork for new taxes and fees for road repairs, state Controller Donna Jones went out of her way to get crosswise with the guv.

The state's elected bean counter fired out a press release touting a $247 million surplus and recommended putting $200 million into roads.

Jones didn't go quite so far this July. But with Otter and his transportation crew touring the state to get the word out about a $240-million-a-year road shortfall, Jones is again making life more difficult for Otter.

On July 14, the same day the Otter public meeting road show hit Caldwell, Jones trumpeted the state's year-end surplus of $223.8 million.

The suggestion - albeit unstated - is that the surplus is again a dandy way to fill the Idaho Transportation Department's budget potholes. But it seems like we're comparing apples and oranges and saying both resemble watermelons.

A little reality check:

The surplus, while certainly robust, isn't permanent money. The state's road and bridge needs are ongoing, requiring a permanent spending solution.

Legislators anticipated a surplus during the 2008 session, and have committed most of this money already. This is what lawmakers do with a projected surplus; they don't wait until the June 30 end of a budget year to make plans. As a result, only about $50 million of this surplus is "new" money.

The $223.8 million surplus sits in the general fund. Idaho does not pay for highways and bridges from its general fund. Starting to use general fund dollars to pay for roads is a significant precedent - and a treacherous one, putting our state's road needs in direct competition with public schools, higher education, Medicaid and prisons.

Consistent with his "everything-on-the-table" mantra, Otter isn't ruling out using some surplus dollars to reduce the need for additional taxes and fees for roads.

Fair enough. But let's not fool ourselves. The state has serious highway problems, and there's not much mileage we can get from using this year's surplus dollars.

WILL THE 'BEAT-UP-BILL' ADS BACKFIRE?

National Democrats are pouring $349,000 into an advertising buy targeting Rep. , but conservative Republican blogger Dennis Mansfield isn't impressed.

Mansfield says the "Beat-Up-Bill" buy will backfire on Democrat , because Idahoans tend to reject national campaign ads. "If Walt Minnick quietly allows/supports this type of national campaign (which I bet he'll be tempted to accept), he is a political dead man. His obituary will already have been written by Idahoans."

I don't reject Mansfield's theory out of hand. The guy has run for Congress, so he knows a thing or two about the game. And the Democrats' money does come with the risk of a backlash.

Sali won the GOP primary two years ago, and sits in Congress today, thanks in no small part to an infusion of out-of-state cash from the . Imported ad buys are a trickier commodity; while voters have to dig out the arcana lurking in campaign finance reports, ads are right in their face. I guess it comes down to the content of the anti-Sali and pro-Minnick ads. If they feel like canned chain-restaurant political ads, they may not help Minnick.

I also suspect the $349,000 may be spec money in what appears to be a close race. If the Democrats poll and see their ads have moved the needle, it wouldn't surprise me to see more money closer to Election Day.

TWO DEBATES, AND NO MORE

Republican Senate candidate has agreed to a second debate in October - but that may be the end of the road.

On Friday, Risch decided to skip The Idaho Debates, a live event aired statewide on Idaho Public Television and co-sponsored by a broad consortium, including the Statesman. The longstanding Idaho Debates have offered Idahoans a unique chance - border to border, and in real time - to watch their candidates in action.

Risch, a candidate running an arm's length campaign, has chosen to go with a disappointing duck and cover.

Say this for the lieutenant governor: At least he's consistent. In May, Risch also declined an invite to a Public Television debate before the GOP primary. The debate went on without him - and chances are, there will be another Senate debate on Public Television this fall, even if Risch insists upon playing the role of no-show.

Risch says he will take part in a debate in Lewiston. He is also committing to a Oct. 21 event sponsored by a media group headed by KTVB.

I will give Risch credit for saying yes to the Lewiston debate. Extra credit too for saying yes to a debate outside Boise and agreeing to a debate that will occur before an audience and will be televised live. These latter two concepts seem lost on the KTVB consortium, which barred reporters from attending its debates this spring and did not air the events live.