Letter to the Editor:
S 1332 is a 16 page bill proposed by the Idaho County Commission that has major future implications for ambulance services and 911 response calls in Idaho County. It deftly transfers the Commission's statutory mandate to control and provide for ambulance services (SECTION 1 - 31-3901 Idaho Code) to local rural property owners. Is that a good idea? Was it ever discussed with those who will be impacted? How do they feel about it? Does it help the dedicated EMS volunteers who donate their time and money to train and serve Idaho County residents? To my knowledge, the Idaho County Commission has requested no public input or sounded out EMS and QRU managers about why they're fast-tracking what feels like total abdication of their duty as public servants. There are many informed people who could provide honest, realistic feedback on the feasibility and wisdom of creating new ambulance taxing districts that comply with the complex requirements of S 1332. I respectfully suggest calling a "time out" on this bill by contacting Idaho County Commission members and/or your legislators ASAP. Request that S 1332 be held until the next Legislative Session in order that the Commission can explain, educate, and obtain feedback on their intent and true objectives. If it’s a good idea, they could improve it by scheduling discussions with EMS and rural property owners. If the bill does pass this Session, be prepared for the following (hypothetical) phone call to the Courthouse later this summer:  "You're having a problem with your ambulance service or staffing for 911 response calls? Sorry, the County is no longer responsible. You might consider circulating a petition to get at least 50 signatures from local folks who want to create a new Ambulance Service Taxing District. Would you like me to email the necessary forms so you can get started? Good Luck!" 
Joe Cladouhos 
Grangeville

Redneck Review!
No. 255 - 3/16/2020
Three and out!  That is the purpose of this RNR, as we return one last time to the 4 householdexample being examined the last couple of reviews!  You might remember that the claim wasmade a week or two ago, that this simple example would clarify completely why America doesnot want a Bernie Sanders socialist as its president!  As if the dire example of 2020 Venezuelaand the history of all previous experiments with socialism has not already proved that it is adisaster system!
Recall the four primitive households, all EQUAL in their poverty, each being forced to spend 18hrs/day just to survive, spending 6 hrs to bring necessary water from a spring on a mountain upto the right, and work another 12 hrs/day just to survive.  18hrs/day each, so the village wasforced to spend a community total of 72hrs/day just to survive!
Then Household A, to the left of the others B, C, and D, all three between A and the mountain,decided a ditch from the spring would save each of them 6hrs/day,  But B, C, and D would notagree to help, so A went it alone for a couple of months, then sat back in leisure as the waterpassed by his neighbors on the way to his home. An observer might note that the EQUALITY that existed before the ditch,  had now become INEQUALITY, as A had to work 2 hrs morefor a total of 20 while digging HIS ditch, thus was the POOREST man in the community, nowtotaling 74 hrs/day!  But once completed, he immediately became the RICHEST, as he worksonly 12hrs/day!  So the community effort to survive is now 12+18+18+18 = 66, and thus hasimproved from the original 72, but Household A clearly stands out as the most well off!
At this point two weeks ago, readers were challenged to respond with a prediction what wouldtypically happen in this situation!  Several responded, with one definitely more thought out thanthe rest! So last week, readers were again invited to comment on the long range results of thefollowing three reactions named here at the time!  Reaction 1: B, C, and D simply start using thewater, threatening A who complains!  Reaction 2: The three decide to form a government, anddemocratically vote 3 to 1 to take over the water and allocate it equally!   Reaction 3: The threeother households agree to bargain with A for use of his water.  And at this time, we shouldmention a Reaction 4, in which Household D with four husky boys,  simply stops the water athis shack, then demands payment from the other three to allow use of the water!  Situationslike this have occurred several times in history where a dictator simply takes over by force!
So what  will happen in the future in each case?  The claim is made that historically provableand logically predictable, the following will result in each case:  In Nos. 1,  2, and even 4, Household A's extra effort is ignored, and the remaining community fails to realize that all suchextra effort will not happen in the future. In each case, none of the households will want to trysomething new and labor saving!  Hence, the future will remain stagnant, and in addition, anangry A may well attempt to stir up trouble for the other households. No PROFIT, no work!
Now think of the logical result of Situation 3.  B, C and D agree to bargain with A!  Note here,A can not charge too much,  nor be willing to accept too little if the four are to agree!  So a typical bargained agreement might be: A accepts 2 hrs labor from the others, thus reducing hisdaily effort 6 more hrs, while the other three save 2 hrs.obtaining water. Now, INEQUALITY isincreased, (Irritating the Bernie Sanders type!), as the labor statistics now read: A - 6,  B,C, Dnow 16 hrs, for a community total expenditure of 54 hrs! A definite improvement!  But WOW!Is that darn A not too wealthy? In closing, could A demand 3 or 4 hours from each of the otherthree, or maybe even 5?  If so, compute the results, and see what would happen!
Jake Wren

Home

Classified Ads