Home | Donate | Why Elect David Larsen? | Compare the Candidates | | 208-659-3779
My character. My willingness to analyze the issues from multiple perspectives. My willingness to work with other legislators to seek solutions to the state’s problems. My conviction that Education is the most important service the state can provide and that it be required for all our children. My belief that our small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. My recognition that serving in the legislature is for the good of our citizens and is not a long-term career.
To work to provide a quality educational opportunity for our children. One that will prepare our young citizens to enter the workforce with a minimum of additional training for some careers and to see they are prepared to continue the education needed for other careers. I would vote for bills that promote this.
To help examine the state’s revenue/expenditure situation with the goal of reaching a long-term solution, not just a “survive another year” approach. This must recognize the need to provide our citizens with needed services and at the same time to assist businesses grow and create more good paying jobs. Look closely at the state’s revenue sources to make certain that taxation is fair and balanced.
The third priority would be the one that would make itself known and would not allow itself to be ignored. This would not necessarily be the budget crisis, although it could be. I would consider the action needed to be carefully thought out, with the long-term solution as the goal. Listening, learning, and being open to a variety of proposed solutions would be an appropriate approach to solve these types of problems.
As a legislator, I would be receptive to federal funds to improve our infrastructure needs. These have the potential of putting large numbers of citizens to work.
Any suggested solutions would get my attention and of course one would have to examine the positives and possible negatives of those proposals.
If there were easy proposals out there, surely the existing legislature must have or should have considered and adopted them.
There are three reasons I am more qualified than my opponent.
My six years experience in the legislature along with my seniority in the House of Representatives.
If his experience counts so much, why is it that the state is in worse shape at the end of his 6 year tenure?
I have spent a career in the private sector and my opponent spent a career in the public sector. I believe that government involvement in our lives ( both personal and business ) should be limited. My opponent believes that the government should have greater involvement in our personal and business lives.
Bob’s past 6 years have been in the public sector as an employee of the state, eligible for health care coverage, an annual salary, and credits towards the Idaho State Retirement System.
The only difference I see between us on this issue is that I spent significantly more time working with and educating students. Bob, on the other hand, has spent more time with lobbyists.
I do consider my military service as not only public service, but I am proud that I wore the uniform of my country. I’m sorry if Bob begrudges me that experience. He would probably feel differently had he served.
I am actively running my insurance practice and my opponent is a retired school teacher. The Idaho Legislature has the second highest percentage of age 65 year olds or older that are retired. I believe that high of percentage of retired persons is not healthy in creating state laws. Those retired people are no longer dealing with the everyday issues that affect businesses.
I’m sure Frank Henderson will be happy when he reads this response! The obvious response to Bob’s statement is that his distress is probably just connected to his realization that we “old folks” have simply forgotten more than he ever knew!
Balancing the 2012 state budget. The 2012 budget is facing a shortfall of between $350 and $450 million. We will need to be frugal and not increase taxes in this continued recession and period of high unemployment. I will not support any new taxes.
Balancing the budget is certainly admirable. No new taxes will be embraced. But balancing a budget projected to have a $350-$450 million shortfall means something must have to go. I and my fellow citizens would like to know what he will cut since that appears to be a necessity.
Generate new revenues for the state without raising taxes. We can do that by making Idaho more tax friendly toward businesses. As those businesses grow they hire more people which generates more tax revenue. I am working on specific legislation with my District mates that will help small businesses.
Generate new state revenues without raising taxes seems to be something that would work, provided all the new businesses Bob wants to attract will actually show up and hire new employees. Making Idaho more tax friendly to businesses sounds good. But how, and where will the tax shift go?
Restore funding cuts to education. We can do that by aggressively developing renewable resources on state endowment lands. That process has already started and the state needs to push hard in that direction as our western neighboring states will buy all of the excess renewable power we can generate in the near term. I was the sponsor of HB500 two years ago that created this opportunity.
The renewable energy idea is certainly one to pursue. Since Bob was the sponsor of this bill HB 500 two years ago, I am wondering how that program is working and how much money it is bringing into the state?