By Anthony Shallat
A recent article in The Idaho Statesman suggested that U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador might be poised to become Idaho’s next governor. The Statesman believed that ultra-conservative Labrador might be favored because of Idaho’s new closed primary. Labrador has not yet expressed any interest in becoming governor, but if Idahoans what type of politician would we get?
Labrador’s rise in both local and national politics happened quickly. Two years ago he was an obscure Representative from Eagle, not well liked even inside his party. A year in a half ago, he decided, almost on a whim, to run for Congress. Facing establishment favorite Vaughn Ward, Labrador was written off as a fringe candidate. After Ward imploded Labrador squared off against than Congressman Walt Minnick. Even then national pundits still considered him a long-shot. But Labrador, riding the Tea Party wave, upset Minnick and became a Freshman Congressman in the new GOP controlled House of Representatives.
Like Obama, Labardor’s personal narrative has made him appealing to his party. A strict conservative, Labrador has become a darling of the Tea Party movement. Also, as Puerto Rican immigrant, Republicans like to believe he represents the diversity of their party. But Idahoans should be weary of the type of conservatism Labrador would bring as Governor.
Although they share a political party, Labrador and our current Governor Butch Otter are fundamentally different. Revealed by a 2007 Idaho legislative vote, Otter is more supportive of civil liberties compared to Labrador. Otter, a staunch libertarian, tried vetoing a bill banning smoking in bowling alleys. Labrador and the rest of the legislature overrode his veto.
In 2009 they butted heads again on the 2 cent gas tax. Labrador and 42 other state representatives voted against the revenue increase on gasoline. The bill failed despite Otter’s support. The Governor, although being no friend to most taxes, blasted the legislature claiming that it continued to “ignore reality” in balancing the state’s finances.
Labrador’s behavior last week though shows the most significant divergence from other Idaho Republicans. On August 1, Labrador voted against the debt limit deal that easily passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. Congressman Simpson and Senators Crapo and Risch all hailed the bill as a viable solution to keep the country funded. Labrador, however, decided not to vote for the deal because the bill did not include a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
According to his vote, Labrador believed the U.S. should not be able to use credit to pay its bills but a Federal Default would be catastrophic for our state. If the Federal Government cannot pay its bills, Idaho might lose almost a quarter of its revenue. For every dollar Idaho pays to the Federal Government in taxes our state receives an extra 28 cents in subsidies.
Forcing the U.S. to perpetually balance its budget would mean huge cuts in domestic spending, including the Federal dollars our state thrives on. Idaho needs Federal help to fuel our agrarian economy. Idaho wheat farmers have received 1 billion dollars in federal money since 1995. That figure doesn’t even include the construction of irrigation systems and dams in our state that are almost entirely funded by the Federal Government. If Labrador’s vote would have caused the nation to default, Idaho would have been in a budget crisis. Our state would have to make up for Federal money by either gutting vital services, significantly raising taxes, or cutting off farmers from tax generated revenue.
Labrador’s stance during the recent debt crisis should not be forgotten if he chooses to run for Governor. His unwavering support of a balanced budget amendment, frowned upon by even conservative economists, shows a politician who is willing to risk a significant portion of Idaho’s economy to make a point.
Shallat has worked in local and national politics for the past six years and now is pursuing a Juris Doctorate at the University of Idaho College of Law
