Press "Enter" to skip to content

Three amigos

October 5, 2024

In the early 1970’s voters across the Pacific Northwest – Idaho, Oregon and Washington – could boast, and often did, that the region was home to three of the most accomplished, most interesting and most engaging governors in the country.

Cecil Andrus in Idaho, Tom McCall in Oregon and Dan Evans in Washington – the self-described three amigos – formed a political and personal partnership that hasn’t come close to being replicated in the intervening 50 years.

Ironically, the most conservative Northwest state, Idaho, elected Andrus, a Democrat, in 1970 – the first of his four terms – while the more liberal coastal states elected two progressive Republicans. Washington voters put Evans in the Statehouse in 1964 for the first of three terms, while Oregonians gave McCall the first of his two terms in 1966.

Andrus and Evans defeated incumbents to win the governorship, while McCall defeated a popular Oregon secretary of state. Each man became a vote gathering machine, often defying their own national parties and in the process developed legacies unmatched in the region.

All three were pioneering state-level conservationists. McCall’s landmark efforts to preserve public access to Oregon’s magnificent beaches continues to mean to this day that the public interest in the state’s shoreline is paramount. McCall, like Andrus and Evans, believed not every tree had to be cut or mountainside despoiled in the name of economic progress.

The gruff McCall famously told a television interviewer that Oregon was a special place, too special to be ruined by too much development and too many people. “Come visit us again and again,” McCall said. “This is a state of excitement. But for heaven’s sake, don’t come here to live.”

Andrus’s four terms were the bookends for his history making tenure as Secretary of the Interior, a time that saw Jimmy Carter, with encouragement and strategy by Andrus, champion protections of millions of acres of wilderness, wildlife refuges and national parks in the nation’s last frontier, Alaska.

All three governors championed public and higher education and wise economic development. McCall and Andrus were early champions of land use planning. And each man understood the wisdom of joining forces on issues of regional importance, putting aside partisan considerations to give the region greater clout and more ability to attract national attention and money.

Their mutual regard extended so far that Republican McCall came to Boise in 1974 to headline a fundraiser for Idaho’s Democratic governor. When Evans was appointed and then elected to the U.S. Senate after the death of legendary Washington senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Andrus endorsed Evans as the only man big enough to fill Jackson’s shoes. When Andrus made his gubernatorial comeback in 1986, Evans endorsed his Democratic friend with such conviction that the Andrus campaign turned the endorsement into an incredibly effective political ad.

McCall, a terrific writer whose early journalism career included a job at what is now the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, was the first of the amigos to go, dying of cancer in 1983. McCall was a one-of-a-kind character, brash, outspoken, clever with a quip and determined to make change.

As McCall’s biographer Brett Walth has written, “McCall dominated everything around him … because of all he represented in his state.”

Andrus was a similar personality. Quick with a quip and just as quick, as he often said, to “throw an instant fit” when he encountered unfairness or ineptitude. Andrus dominated the politics of his conservative state through three decades because he was the genuine article – tough, empathic, a strategic thinker determined to make a difference while keeping the trust of voters who just plain liked “Cece.”

Andrus’s death in 2017 left only the last amigo, Dan Evans. And now that towering figure has died at 98.

Evans, who demanded in the 1960’s that the hard right wing of his own party, including the John Birch Society, just leave the Republican Party is the last of a breed: the determined individualist, willing to buck party and ideology in the cause of genuine progress.

Long-time Washington journalist Joel Connelly wrote of Evans: “He was a lifelong Republican, part of a now critically endangered species of conservation-minded members of the Grand Old Party. Nowadays, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference has panels debunking Theodore Roosevelt.”

The legacy of the three amigos will not diminish. You’ll continue to see it in the Andrus White Clouds wilderness in central Idaho, the Alpine Lakes in Washington and a dozen other places championed for protection by Evans and the waterfront park in Portland that carries Tom McCall’s name.

It requires courage and vision and action to make our fractured politics work. The get-along, go-along types can win elections by catering to the worst instincts in their party and appealing to the lowest common denominator in the electorate, but in the end these types merely occupy a place on the ballot or hold down a desk. They do little or nothing for democracy and the next generation.

It’s tempting to say that we’ll not soon – or perhaps ever – see the like of Evans, McCall and Andrus again. And ask yourself why?

The answer won’t be found in partisan politics or fealty to a corrupt leader or even the obvious desire for popularity that too often requires trimming and hedging. Leadership of the type Andrus, Evans and McCall demonstrated was all about character – the moral and ethical qualities of any individual.

Scandal never touched any of these men. They kept their word to their voters. They stood for real and important things like clean air and water and the thrill of wide open spaces where humans are but temporary visitors. They built schools, spoke candidly about challenges, demanded excellence of themselves. They behaved honorably.

The Pacific Northwest once had three amigos and we are better, much better for having had them.

 

Voter self-respect

Voter self-respect

October 4, 2024

In 1994, voters in Idaho approved, with 59.3% in favor, an initiative to limit the number of terms a person could hold an office in Idaho. The issue was on the ballot again in the next two elections, and Idaho voters renewed their call for term limits each time.

Courts soon threw out the elements related to congressional offices (qualification for those being a federal matter), but despite many legal cases, the voter-set term limits on, among others, state legislators remained on the books.

Until early 2002, when sitting legislators were about to be impacted by it. The Idaho Legislature passed a bill repealing the voters’ term limits decision; it was vetoed by Governor Dirk Kempthorne, but the veto was overridden. Idaho then became the first state legislature (Utah later did likewise) to throw out a popularly-enacted term limits requirement. The politics of this was notable: The move for term limits started with Republican groups pushing for it, and ended with Republican legislators killing it.

This piece of history demonstrates a legal fact: An initiative passed by the people has the same legal status as any law passed by the state legislature, which means the legislature can, if it chooses, alter or kill it. The only practical limitation on the legislature’s willingness to do this would happen if voters are willing to punish - at the polls - legislators who disregard their will. In the case of term limits, no legislators suffered any political ill effects, despite their blatant rejection of their own voters’ intent.

This history is relevant because legislators today already are positioning themselves to kill or eviscerate a current initiative, Proposition 1, if it is passed by voters next month.

There’s no certainty it will pass. The Idaho Republican Party - the party organization, and most of its affiliated groups and top elected officials - is lined up against it, and so are other interests, and that’s no small thing. Idahoans have been buried under warnings about how awful, and how California-based (much the same thing) the measure is.

But a strong organization was formed to get the measure on the ballot - not an easy task under Idaho’s initiative laws - and to keep it there in the face of repeated challenges. If it does pass, that will constitute a direct repudiation of the state’s Republican leadership. If it passes in the same election Donald Trump easily wins Idaho’s electoral votes for president, as he likely will, that will represent a stunning piece of cognitive dissonance.

If you were a legislator in the 90s watching the voters enthusiastically support turnover in the legislature, you might understandably feel some, uh, lack of support from people out there. And there’d be a temptation to reverse their verdict, which is what they did.

So a recent story in the Idaho Capital Sun, outlining how legislators already are thinking of changing or killing the initiative as soon as they get back into session, isn’t surprising.

House Speaker Mike Moyle told the Sun, “If voters pass it and we have what’s happening now where people who signed the initiative say, ‘that’s not what they told me it did,’ if enough people have been misled, then I think that there would be an opportunity there to fix it. But I hope the voters do their research and kill this thing.”

If Moyle’s comments seem to have an air of diffidence, don’t be mistaken. This is better called a semi-subtle statement of intent. The legislation to “fix” Prop 1, should it pass, probably already has been drafted. The next question is what legislators, acting in the (prospective) face of Idaho voters’ opinion, will do about it.

The second question, of course, would be: Will Idaho voters once again show zero self-respect and shrug their shoulders, again, at the flouting of their preferences by their elected officials?

We’ve seen the answers to those questions before. The issue now is whether history will repeat.

 

Diabetes awareness

October 2, 2024

Writing political columns is what I do professionally (OK, it’s more like a hobby), but raising awareness about diabetes is at least a few notches higher on my “care” meter.

That’s because I have been battling the disease for more than 20 years and playing on “house money” throughout that time. I was on death’s doorstep 20 years ago, with a clogged heart slowly, but steadily, sucking the life out of me. A five-way bypass surgery took care of that problem and here I am today.

Working for free and enjoying every minute of it.

I belong to the Meridian Lions Club, which is a marvelous outlet for my passion. Globally, the Lions have been long recognized for its focus on eye and vision care and, in recent years, diabetes has moved toward the top of the priority list.

For good reason. Diabetes is a leading cause of blindness and the Lions figure, correctly, that stopping diabetes is a key to improving vision care.

The battle is never-ending. According to the American Diabetes Association, 37 million people have diabetes (it was just 25 million when I started making pitches more than a decade ago) and 95 million people have this ticking timebomb called pre-diabetes. So, that’s more than 100 million people in this country dealing with diabetes in some form.

Worldwide, the number jumps to nearly 540 million – with no signs of slowing down.

So, please forgive me for making a pitch for the Breakthrough T1D (formerly Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) walk, which will be held Oct. 12 at Kleiner Park in Meridian (9 a.m.). Around 400 people are expected to participate, and the fundraising goal is more than $63,300. That may not be huge numbers or big dollars, but it is one small step toward stopping this horrible disease.

The event may not have great relevance outside of the Treasure Valley, but the Breakthrough group is an important one – and especially for individuals and families dealing with type 1 diabetes. As the folks there put it, “no other does more to improve the everyday lives of people with type 1 diabetes – from therapy development and access, to expanding research advocacy and community support.”

Yes, they make the world a better place.

So, what does diabetes have to do with politics? More than you think. The insane cost of insulin is at the forefront of political discussions, with politicos battling to take credit for lowering the monthly cost of insulin. Republicans remind us that it was President Trump that got the ball rolling for some Medicare recipients, and Democrats want to make the $35 monthly cost available for everybody. And every year, Congress decides on increasing funding for continued research through the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health. Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, for one, has long been singing praises for those agencies.

Here’s another connection – a political figure who is raising a child with type 1 diabetes. Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who is spending much of his time these days to ensure fairness in elections, knows all about the trials and tribulations. His 12-year-old daughter, Kennedy – known for her infectious smile and joyful personality – has type 1 diabetes.

“There are no days off, or breaks from diabetes,” McGrane told me. “It was particularly hard at the onset, and remains a challenge. My phone buzzes and I get alerts when her (glucose) readings are high or low.”

The saving grace is that today’s technology has phone apps, insulin pumps and precise monitoring to keep parents and patients informed. Years ago, test strips and glucose meters were hard to find. There is no cure for diabetes, but the sophisticated monitoring systms are byproducts of research and development.

McGrane and his wife, Angella, have been through it all – from the parental nightmare that went with learning about their daughter’s diabetes diagnosis to doing everything under the sun to ensure a normal, and healthy life, for their daughter. And make no mistake, type 1 diabetes does not have to hold back their daughter from anything.

The McGrane family will be in good company when they line up for the start of the Breakthrough walk on Oct. 12. They will be with some 400 other people who are going through the same challenges.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Where’d they go

October 1, 2024

Try as I might, I can't think of a good thing to say about Republicans at the moment.

I was raised to believe - and lived most of my life believing - there were two trustworthy political parties in this country.  And, that their differing, entrenched positions were what kept our national political affairs in balance.  The constant 'push and pull.'

I was comforted by such instruction.  It seemed the normal, natural way of things.  It really did.

But, such is not the case anymore.  The Republican Party has morphed into something my life-long GOP father wouldn't recognize were he alive today.  It has become a party offering nothing in the way of positive change.  It's now a refuge for angry people who have trouble separating fact from untruth.  It's a haven for book burners.  For anti-this-that-and-the-other.  It offers nothing but anger, untruths and has become a haven for demagogues.

I hate having to write those words.  I hate the what they say.  But, that's the way things seem.

In today's GOP, if you're not an "unquestioning" member of the Party, then you must be a "liberal" Democrat.  And, if not a "liberal Democrat," you're judged to be a just plain "liberal."  Period.  Or a lib-tard.  Automatically.

This seeming near-collapse of what was once a thriving Party, compared to its political rival, has caused many problems.  Not the least of which is a Congress so divided and so convoluted it's only a shadow of its former self.  Meaningful work from such a contorted political entity is badly crippled.

There's also a distinct nastiness emanating from some members.  Name calling.  A North Carolina Lieutenant Governor comparing school shooting survivors to "Communists."   Character assassination.  GOPers attacking young people over their sexual orientation.  Republicans, in some cases, trying to eliminate abortion, no matter the reason.  Florida, Texas, Arkansas and our beloved Idaho Republicans enacting new laws limiting otherwise permitted freedoms of citizenship.

I know many Republicans.  But, I don't know many responsible ones who speak well of their "Grand Old Party" at the moment.  Many feel the Party has either deserted them or has become something they can no longer support.  The base of the Party is getting ever narrower.

Now, rather than the measured political thoughtfulness of a Mitt Romney or a Colin Powell, you hear the right-wing cadences called out by a Tommy Tuberville or a Raphael Cruz.  Attacks on the President are shrill, harsh and often unfounded.  Political differences, yes.  But, Biden's foes have their  'knives' out.

The lack of a full-throated, honest political opposition is being seen all the way down to local community races.  In our little Oregon backwater,  three such radical "righties" ran as a GOP team for the school board a few years ago.  If successful, our typical, functioning school district would've been in the hands of people who want to purge libraries, ban books and disapprove of health care for children with special needs.

These Republican right-wingers no longer hide their true intent.  They've become brazen enough to put it right out there.  And, in many cases, they're finding a willing audience.  So far, most of the time, that audience is a minority.  But, not always.

What's absolutely necessary to combat these folks, who want to change everything to their way of thinking, is a renewed emphasis for an informed majority.  This infiltration of our way of life is not simply a far-off attack limited to Congress - where that battle has been real for a decade or two.  It's appearing on our local ballots right down to dog catcher.

Most voting age Americans tend not to focus daily on the ever-changing political currents in our country.  They'd rather sort 'em out at the polls come election time.  That's worked for a long time.

But, it's very different now.  The choices on the ballot are not just one of two political parties, both with the good of community at heart.  Some of those choices are trying to recast our democracy - our Republic - in their own 'image.'  They want everyone to support their candidates - their decisions - their way of looking at things.

We can't - we must not - fall victim to their false flags.  Extreme choices mean it's more important than ever to have a well-informed electorate.  One that knows the dangers on the ticket and votes to remove them.

That means me.  And YOU and ME!

 

David, Goliath

September 30, 2024

Most Idahoans would agree with Thomas Jefferson’s observation that “the government closest to the people serves the people best.” In fact, that nugget of wisdom is right there on page 2 of Idaho’s present-day Republican Party Platform. Idaho schools have greatly benefited from governance by locally-elected school boards. Those boards are knowledgeable about local educational issues and responsive to the needs of their school communities. Our local governance is now under attack by dark-money-funded know-it-alls who seemingly believe that Idahoans are incapable of educating their kids.

The Idaho School Boards Association will likely take a strong stance against forcing taxpayers to fund religious education at their annual meeting in November. Their Resolution 8 correctly states: “A voucher, tax credit, or scholarship program would irreparably harm our existing  system of public school districts and charters, especially in rural Idaho, and would likely harm overall student achievement.”

Our school board trustees are acutely aware of the budget busting effects of so-called “school choice” programs in other states and of the fact that “about 91% of this year’s voucher recipients attend religious schools.” Most of the recipients already send their kids to private/religious schools, so these programs essentially provide a public subsidy to well-heeled families. Kids with disabilities are left out in the cold under these programs. On the other hand, a choice program would be a bonanza for those like Doug Wilson of Moscow, who wants to build a Christian nationalist school system in Idaho.

Trustees from rural school districts are particularly concerned about the impact of choice schemes on their communities. Public schools are the heart and soul of communities around the Gem State. School sports and other activities bring communities together, providing a common identity and sense of purpose. Folks in those small communities will travel across the state to watch their kids participate in public school activities of all sorts. That community spirit would disintegrate as schools are privatized.

School choice schemes would particularly impact those communities that don’t have church-supported schools. It is of interest that legislative candidates in the eastern part of the state who opposed subsidizing private/religious education fared better in the GOP primary election as compared to other parts of the state. School subsidy programs would definitely harm education in rural communities, as stated in Resolution 8.

But unelected out-of-state interests who are intent on privatizing education in the United States seem to think Idaho’s common-sense school trustees are just a bunch of country bumpkins. The head of one such group, the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), recently penned an op-ed sneering at Idaho’s school trustees and Resolution 8. Before putting great store in the writer’s belittling words and dismissive attitude, it would be well for Idahoans to consider the pedigree of MSPC. Its parent organization is the extreme-right State Policy Network (SPN), which makes MSPC a sibling of the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), another SPN offspring. We all know that the IFF has been trying to do away with the Idaho public school system for years.

MSPC is also a member of a political venture that Donald Trump has disavowed as too extreme. Yes, MSPC is a proud member of Project 2025, which advocates for eliminating the U.S. Department of Education and establishing universal school choice.

Make no mistake, MSPC, IFF and Dorothy Moon’s extremist branch of the GOP are doing everything possible to defeat opponents of voucher programs in the November election and elect those who will support the voucher gravy train. Together with billionaire-financed outside groups like the American Federation for Children and Young Americans for Liberty, they are supporting candidates like Codi Galloway in District 15 and Dan Foreman in District 6. Both are cheerleaders for the out-of-state efforts to privatize education in Idaho. Voucher opponents Julia Parker and Rick Just are facing an onslaught of vicious campaign tactics and false charges. However, they have truth on their side.

The battle between Idaho’s School trustees and the out-of-state billionaires is much akin to the struggle between David and Goliath. The only advantage is that David, Idaho’s school trustees, know the lay of the land and are genuinely committed to educating Idaho kids.

 

A mistake, not a policy choice

September 29, 2024

A reader reacting to the news of noncitizens being registered to vote in Oregon recently sent me an email, saying: “Oregon does such a great job they register illegals to vote. That’s democracy for sure the Democrat way.”

Wrong registrations did happen: First, state officials reported 306, and then on Monday, they said the number was really 1,259 and that nine people who were not U.S. citizens had voted.

This latest announcement is likely to fuel a bigger political uproar among a number of  Republican legislators. Republican secretary of state candidate Dennis Linthicum said, “It’s no longer a conspiracy that illegal immigrants can successfully register to vote in Oregon. But now they actually have, so our conspiracy theory has turned from hot air to fact.”

The subject of noncitizens voting has national resonance, with Republicans in the U.S. House considering a shutdown of the federal government over the subject of noncitizen voting in elections.

Federal law passed in 1996 specifically bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections, for president or Congress. A few local jurisdictions, mainly in Maryland and Vermont, do allow noncitizen voting in some cases, mainly when property taxes, which may be paid by noncitizens, are at stake. But repeated studies have found that actual illegal voting is rare. One study by the Georgia secretary of state found a total of 1,634 cases of noncitizens “potentially” registering to vote over 25 years – but it found no illegal votes.

The policy in Oregon is clear. According to the Secretary of State’s Office: “Only U.S. citizens may vote in Oregon elections. People must verify and attest they are U.S. citizens when registering to vote, and only voters who have registered in Oregon will have their ballot counted. Providing false information when registering to vote is a felony.???”

So what happened in the case of those 1,259 noncitizens?

Oregon’s voter registration system provides for automatically registering people to vote when they obtain a driver’s license or state identity card. There are exceptions. Some people are not included, including those too young to vote and others who are barred, including noncitizens. The first group is flagged by birth date, and the second by the type of identification people provide – as they must – when they obtain the license.

Since 2021, Oregon officials have accepted a wider range of identity documents at the Driver and Motor Vehicle division, including foreign passports and birth certificates. State officials said in September that the 306 noncitizens registered to vote had presented foreign passports that were marked as U.S. passports. The other 953 people who were wrongly registered to vote had presented foreign birth certificates as proof of ID. The nine people who actually voted were referred to the Department of Justice for investigation.

In the context of Oregon’s 3 million registered voters, this is not a massive mistake. It’s the kind of error a bureaucracy usually can handle, and state elections officials said they’ve change their procedures to prevent more mishaps.

It isn’t a policy decision, either: What happened is actually directly counter to the state’s stated policy.

My email correspondent implied that a mistake was made and that it was intentional. The first suggestion was on target. The second isn’t, and that’s worth bearing in mind when considering how much weight to give in the case of the improper registrations.

 

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

September 27, 2024

Idaho has a limited water supply, and hanging onto - and carefully using - what it has is among the most pertinent topics for Idaho’s leading public officials, both as a matter of politics and policy. But the details, and breadth, of the threat to Idaho water users are worth bearing in mind.

Governor Brad Little spoke on September 23 about a report developed by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is seeking more information about how the states use their groundwater.

The Council said “in many parts of the country, the quality of groundwater has become so poor that it seriously impacts the health of communities that rely on it. This is especially true for farming and Tribal communities with no other access to potable water. Groundwater is managed locally, with best practices that vary from state to state,  but there is an opportunity to develop and scale approaches to restore clean water in every community.” Which is true, and also a fact that groundwater sources sometimes cross state boundaries (as the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer does in Idaho).

The Council was speaking only about gathering technical data; no specific changes or expansion of federal activities were proposed.

Little and Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke said in response that, “Management of water is a state issue. We do not invite or welcome the involvement of the federal government in making decisions about this precious resource."

The point that states should maintain general control over water, which in some ways even is written into federal law, is valid. But while the Council report was described on the governor’s website as a “groundwater grab,” it isn’t. Wariness about federal involvement is appropriate, but specifics matter. Without federal reclamation projects, for example, there would be no Magic Valley.

If control of water is a major concern for Little and Bedke, as it should be, they should have been rocked by comments by not just an advisory council but by the Republican nominee for president.

At a press conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on September 13, Donald Trump said: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down. And they have, essentially, a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn, and it’s massive … and you turn that, and all of that water goes aimlessly into the Pacific. And if you turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

Translating from Trumpspeak: He is proposing to take the Northwest’s water and send it to California. Okay, this is a fantasy. There is no “faucet” and no water diversion system now exists that would even allow this to happen, and if one were built the project might take decades. Tricia Stadnyk of the University of Calgary, said of Trump’s remarks that, “It’s somebody that doesn’t fully understand how water works and doesn’t understand the intricacies of allocating water not only between two countries but also for the environment.” To say the least.

Still, Trump said that if he is elected, he would do it. It would be Trump Administration policy.

For generations, Idahoans have been concerned about the idea of California reaching up to the Columbia River system and piping its water down to the big-population centers of the southwest, drying large parts of Idaho (and Washington and Oregon too, for that matter). Now a major-party nominee for president is proposing, explicitly, to do exactly that.

This is not just gathering information. This is not a study. This is an actual literal proposed water grab.

And what has been the reaction to that devastating water proposal from Idaho’s public officials?

Crickets.

It’s quite a contrast from the state’s reaction to the Biden Administration study. Wonder why that is?

 

Congress and the health care mess

September 25, 2024

Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho and Ron Wyden of Oregon have more common ground than most Republicans and Democrats, given the fact that they represent neighboring western states. Life in rural Idaho is not much different than Oregon – where some folks are trying to become part of Greater Idaho.

But the senators are deeply divided when it comes to big-ticket matters such as the Inflation Reduction Act – one of the Biden administration’s hallmark pieces of legislation. The differences were on full display during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) health-care provisions.

The opening statements submitted by Wyden (the committee chairman) and Crapo (the ranking member) also serve as an illustration of why health care in America will continue to be a mess. Wyden is married to the Democratic agenda, which also is the case with the party’s nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. Crapo, an avid supporter of former President Trump, is a good soldier for the Republican Party, and has been for decades. He isn’t about to sign on to an IRA, health-care plan or anything that has the Democratic Party’s stamp of approval.

This is not to fault Crapo and Wyden. They have been in office for a long time and know how politics is played. If left to their own, without partisan politics getting in the way, Crapo and Wyden are the kind of guys who could come up with a bipartisan solution to health care. The senators are as congenial, thoughtful and intelligent as they come in the U.S. Senate. But their political parties are looking for one thing – a clear-cut victory over the other party. And that isn’t going to happen with the numbers so close in the Senate and House.

So sit back and enjoy a bit of the partisan gridlock – courtesy of the Senate Finance Committee.

Wyden said in his opening statement there are two choices. “One choice is to sign up for concepts of a plan by Donald Trump. The other choice in America is to sign up for concrete health care results delivered by Democrats through the IRA, which was passed into black-letter law two years ago.”

So much for getting Republican support on the issue. For good measure, Wyden took a swipe or two at the GOP’s vice presidential candidate, JD Vance.

Crapo, taking a more statesman-like approach (initially) said that health-care access and affordability are in everyone’s best interest. This committee has proven that bipartisan consent and deliberating policymaking can yield real solutions, from driving down prices at the pharmacy counter to ensuring patients can confidently select a mental health provider who fits their needs. Unfortunately, the IRA took the opposite approach, advancing top-down problematic program overhauls through a rushed, partisan process that sidelined the minority and ignored constructive input.”

Those darn Democrats, anyway. The bill probably was put together in a smoke-filled room, with no Republicans allowed inside.

As Wyden sees it, the IRA has taken on “price gouging” practices by Big Pharma, allowing seniors to save through out-of-pocket caps on prescription drugs while allowing working families to pay lower insurance premiums.

“Taken as a whole, this new law is making a concrete difference in the lives of millions of working families and seniors in Medicare,” Wyden said. “These cost-saving measures need to be protected and strengthened in the years to come, not watered down or erased by putting Big Pharma or insurance companies back in charge.”

Who could possibly be against all those good things? Your turn, Sen. Crapo.

“Bureaucratic price fixing, under the guise of negotiation, may sound appealing, but it comes at a massive cost – particularly as firms begin to look elsewhere to launch new life-saving treatments. The implications for the therapeutic (research and development) pipeline are already apparent, with at least 21 drugs and 36 research programs discontinued since the law’s enactment. Even for approved drugs, delays and denials in care have started to skyrocket – and yet the Biden-Harris administration inexplicably excluded medications from its price authorization reforms.”

Leave it to Democrats. They never tell the whole story.

But Crapo (back to his statesman mode) offers a solution. “Instead of perpetuating a tax-and-spend agenda, we can and should work together to improve health-care choices, affordability and reliability.”

Unfortunately, the “working together” part is the sticking point.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Home stretch

September 24, 2024

Imagine the goodly number of Republicans - in or out of political office - who've been disenfranchised by their own political Party.

Now, imagine those millions of GOP voters - cut off by their own ilk - watching the rise of Vice President - and candidate for President - Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on the national stage.

Forget political Party.  Just think of the media spotlight on someone who's new, female, 20+ years younger than most other candidates, mixed race and charismatic.  Someone who signals a younger, and immensely qualified candidate, regardless of political labels.

Now, add a guy in Tim Walz, that looks like everybody's favorite uncle - twinkle in the eyes and a smile that could warm a cold convention hall.

Then, imagine the millions of Independent and otherwise disaffiliated voters sizing up the upcoming national elections.

Democrat Harris-Walz.  Or, Republican Trump-Vance.

I suspect most of us have made our selection in that race.  Still, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on advertising and campaign staffing before it's all over.

Even before this Presidential business got off the ground, there was something in the air - something different.  Something that felt like there would be change.  Something new.  Something that indicated this election would be unlike others.

There certainly are major differences in the candidates.  Many major differences.  Hard to imagine these four people - President and Vice-President wannabees - could be so unique in so many ways.  But, they are.

Donald Trump is throwing the "kitchen sink."  Fact checkers are trying to keep up with his steady stream of falsehoods.  It's not that Harris or Walz are above criticism.  Nobody is.  But, much of what we're hearing from the Trump camp doesn't stand the light of day.

We - voters all - are being offered the clearest choice in races for the top spots.  Republicans Trump-Vance - standard GOP fare - versus Harris-Walz - a mixed-race woman Vice President and a former social studies teacher.  And Governor.

As the candidates get better established, it will be interesting to see if - in the days from now till the election - we have discussions of issues or just personal attacks on character and race baiting.

Given the current state of jumbled politics in our nation, we badly need more of the former and less of the latter.

And, there's this.

Which ever team comes out on top, remember, there are all those important appointments of cabinet members, department heads and others necessary to run things.  Hundreds and hundreds of vacancies to fill.  By whom?

Used to be - when times were more settled and the pace was slower - there could be a period of "on-the-job" training.  Time for the new office holders to get things in order.  No more!  Now, we expect those new faces at the top to "hit the ground running"

In these turbulent days, with the introduction of artificial intelligence, realignment of the inner workings of both political parties, an economy struggling to find its footing and all those appointments to be made, leadership at the top has never been more important.

All this facing a Republican Party that's been discarding those who aren't in lock-step with the hard-core GOP base.  As that base eliminates those who won't get in line, where do the outcasts go?  Where is a moderate Republican supposed to hang his/her hat?

Yes, Sir.  These next eight weeks are going to be interesting.  This election night is going to be something special.