Thank you for clearly explaining why a conservative would vote against a bill, when on the surface, that bill looks like a good idea. Appreciate all you're doing.
Thank you for this excellent analysis! It's a master class for anyone wanting to think independently and critically about legislation.
The ability to think logically about long-term effects rather than short-term intent or political advantage is key to a good legislator and good legislation. I wish we had more legislators who relied on open dialog, clear-eyed analysis, and independent thinking rather than the opinions and pressures of lobbyists, donors, and political agendas.
A big issue for legislators is TIME! With literally hundreds of bills on the docket, analyzing each one is a gargantuan job. I invariably find Idaho Freedom Foundation's analyses to be spot on when forming opinions and looking into the inner depths of a bill (https://idahofreedom.org/2024-index-bill-analyses/).
It's always better to KILL a bad bill if fixing it is impossible in the time allotted. Also, deciding a bill's merit based only on the sponsor's statement of purpose (SOP) can be a recipe for disaster. (Think about how many doctors have made terrible decisions after reading abstracts and conclusions of scientific papers without analyzing the data presented. Often, there's a complete mismatch between data and conclusions.)
We also need to hold committee chairs accountable! So many bills simply rot in the chairperson's drawers because the chair "doesn't like the sponsors or the optics" or is motivated by lobbyist, political, and donor pressures.
All bills should be short, concise, and clear. If they aren't, they may reflect fuzzy thinking and probably should die for that reason alone.
Your reasoning on H613 mirrors my concerns about unintended consequences or impossible-to-enforce legislation in bills I reviewed such as H498 Online Child Safety Act, SCR112 Article V Convention (of States), H468 Rangeland Improvement Act, S1380 Health, social srvcs ombudsman, and H406 Fentanyl trafficking and drug homicide.
We MUST vote -- in the primaries -- for legislators who are willing to do the hard work and analysis rather than simply wanting to brag about how many bills they sponsored or passed. I'm so tired of hearing the "fighting for you" mantra when the legislator really is "fighting for him/her" or looking to the next donation rather than the long-term impact of a decision.
Thank you for clearly explaining why a conservative would vote against a bill, when on the surface, that bill looks like a good idea. Appreciate all you're doing.
Thank you Cindy for making things very clear and thank you for your ongoing excellent work for Idaho!
Thanks so much for your support!
Thank you for this excellent analysis! It's a master class for anyone wanting to think independently and critically about legislation.
The ability to think logically about long-term effects rather than short-term intent or political advantage is key to a good legislator and good legislation. I wish we had more legislators who relied on open dialog, clear-eyed analysis, and independent thinking rather than the opinions and pressures of lobbyists, donors, and political agendas.
A big issue for legislators is TIME! With literally hundreds of bills on the docket, analyzing each one is a gargantuan job. I invariably find Idaho Freedom Foundation's analyses to be spot on when forming opinions and looking into the inner depths of a bill (https://idahofreedom.org/2024-index-bill-analyses/).
It's always better to KILL a bad bill if fixing it is impossible in the time allotted. Also, deciding a bill's merit based only on the sponsor's statement of purpose (SOP) can be a recipe for disaster. (Think about how many doctors have made terrible decisions after reading abstracts and conclusions of scientific papers without analyzing the data presented. Often, there's a complete mismatch between data and conclusions.)
We also need to hold committee chairs accountable! So many bills simply rot in the chairperson's drawers because the chair "doesn't like the sponsors or the optics" or is motivated by lobbyist, political, and donor pressures.
All bills should be short, concise, and clear. If they aren't, they may reflect fuzzy thinking and probably should die for that reason alone.
Your reasoning on H613 mirrors my concerns about unintended consequences or impossible-to-enforce legislation in bills I reviewed such as H498 Online Child Safety Act, SCR112 Article V Convention (of States), H468 Rangeland Improvement Act, S1380 Health, social srvcs ombudsman, and H406 Fentanyl trafficking and drug homicide.
We MUST vote -- in the primaries -- for legislators who are willing to do the hard work and analysis rather than simply wanting to brag about how many bills they sponsored or passed. I'm so tired of hearing the "fighting for you" mantra when the legislator really is "fighting for him/her" or looking to the next donation rather than the long-term impact of a decision.
For information on how legislators voted and what might have influenced them, see https://eolson47.substack.com/p/idaho-voting-guide-updated-91423#%C2%A7how-did-my-idaho-legislator-vote