Bill Description: House Joint Resolution 2 would amend the Idaho Constitution to reduce the percentage of the vote required to approve government indebtedness.
Rating: -5
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
Section 3, Article VIII of the Idaho Constitution currently says, in part, "No county, city, board of education, or school district, or other subdivision of the state, shall incur any indebtedness, or liability, in any manner, or for any purpose, exceeding in that year, the income and revenue provided for it for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified electors thereof voting at an election to be held for that purpose. …"
House Joint Resolution 2 would amend the above language to strike the reference to "two-thirds" and add a new provision stating, "If the election is held in a year in which statewide elections are not held, a two-thirds majority approval shall be necessary to approve such indebtedness; and if the election is held in a year in which statewide elections are held, including presidential election years, a fifty-five percent majority approval shall be necessary to approve such indebtedness."
This would allow just 55% of voters to impose massive debt on their neighbors rather than the current requirement for two-thirds of the qualified electors.
This change would make it easier for government to engage in the abhorrent practice of going into debt.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
All government debt must eventually be repaid by taxpayers. Making it easier for government to go into debt has a high likelihood of requiring increased taxes compared to what the taxes would be without the additional debt.
(-1)
Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth?
Many of the purposes for which governments take on debt are redistributive in nature. Making it easier for the government to go into debt has a high likelihood of increased wealth redistribution.
(-1)
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
The size of government is directly related to its access to funding. The more money government is able to expropriate from the people, the larger government grows. Making it easier for government to go into debt has a high likelihood of increasing the size and scope of government.
(-1)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
Within the context that rights are recognized and not granted by constitutions, it is possible for a proposed constitutional amendment to violate various rights. Property rights are one of our most foundational rights, and property taxation — which is the most common method for repaying government debt — violates this fundamental right. This proposal, by making it easier for government to go into debt has, a high likelihood of increasing property taxes. As such, it will likely lead to more violations of property rights.
(-1)
