Press "Enter" to skip to content

Something new?

stapiluslogo1

Two data points are not much to draw conclusions for the future of a state for a whole year. But we may - may - have something to judge against in the preparing-for-office moves of Idaho’s two top incoming elected officials.

Governor-elect Brad Little has been announcing appointments to his impending administration, and they’re a varied (in Idaho terms) group. Some are people repositioned from the current C.L. “Butch” Otter Administration. Quite a few are brought in from outside. There are familiar names in the group (which for these purposes includes the transition committee), but many not so well known around the state.

In some respects this should be no surprise. Little is as broadly connected across the Idaho business, governmental and political community as almost anyone could be. He’s run a very long campaign which has brought in a lot of people around the state, and probably has exposed him and his closest staffers to people around the state who ordinarily might not appear on the radar.

It didn’t have to be that way. While there is plenty of precedent for incoming governors of the same party (and of both parties) changing out staff when a new chief executive comes in, this was an unusual case. Little and Otter were close, for a very long time. Otter appointed Little as lieutenant governor, and the two have served together in the top two jobs for about a decade. Little was a key personnel officer for the administration, too, vetting many of Otter’s appointees. Little ran in large part on the (honest enough) idea that he would be continuing much of what Otter has been doing. (His declaration that he will continue the Capital for a Day program was a smart early move.) You could easily imagine Little deciding to stick with most of the same people Otter had put in place, often with Little’s involvement.

That he didn’t offers some indication that, while he won’t be taking off in a wildly different direction from that of the last dozen years, he is open to making some significant changes. If so, we may see some indicators in the days ahead, as he delivers his first state of the state speech. It may be the most useful one to watch in some time.

The other incoming elected official signaling some change is the new first district representative, Russ Fulcher. He will be replacing Raul Labrador, a fellow Republican of like mind philosophically (don’t be surprised if Fulcher also joins the Freedom Caucus) but who also indicated he has interest in practical governing. In a 2015 New Yorker interview Labrador made clear that he was fine with government shutdowns, and his comments were cynical enough and reflected so little interest in doing anything useful that I could say in a column three years ago: “Labrador’s view seems to be that the whole project of governing, or at least of self-government, is terrible. And damaging to his political party.”

Ain’t nobody going to call Fulcher any kind of liberal. (Or shouldn’t, though in Idaho, almost everyone becomes a suspect eventually.) But I found notable some of his recent comments on getting started in Congress, in which he had little to say about bringing torches and pitchforks to the battle in D.C.

Instead, in interviews with newspapers, he spoke of putting strong emphasis on constituent service and working on the issues people brought up to him on the campaign trail, including areas like health care and natural resources.

And there was this: “My biggest fear is not the swamp or the corruption and it’s not the process — it’s doing something wrong because I didn’t know or didn’t have the right information in front of me.” That actually is - I can say unironically - a confidence builder, or should be. Same with this quote: “I’m trying to be as effective as I can be.”

A significant change from the Labrador days seems indicated here. Little and Fulcher will merit close attention in this new year to come.
 

Really happy

schmidt

Ever get a present that made you really happy? Ever get one that disappointed?

Well, the Idaho legislature got a present from the voters November 6th they didn’t really like: Proposition 2, Medicaid expansion. This citizen initiative passed in 29 of 35 legislative districts; in many of those districts legislators actively opposed it. So, the legislature got a gift. I hope they don’t throw a fit like my daughter did when we got her the knock-off athletic bag instead of the name brand. We still tease her about it.

There are many times when we look for excuses to not do the right thing instead of throwing a tantrum. It usually involves whining. The Idaho Freedom Foundation is giving legislators an excuse through their lawsuit about the constitutionality of Prop 2. I’m glad the Idaho Supreme Court has allowed folks with stronger standing to add their voices to the argument. And the whole question of whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, brought up by Republicans before a partisan Texas judge will get to play out. It’s just another excuse for those who want to whine.

But the excuse I hear from what I consider otherwise level-headed legislators is the handwringing, maybe with a little whining involved: “We just can’t afford it.” This excuse is just poppycock.

Every credible analysis of the funding requirements for Medicaid expansion have shown that in the long run, this policy choice either saves Idaho money, or costs very little. The ones that have shown minor costs have not included savings from keeping folks out of prison, expanding Idaho’s economy or keeping rural hospitals afloat. Anybody who has looked at the analysis understands this, even Republicans.

But there will be initial costs for Idaho, since the savings from reducing the CAT Fund and county indigent costs will take a few years to show up. Kind of like when you buy those expensive LED lights, they cost a bit up front, but the lower electric bills actually pay for them in a few years. But that initial cost can be an excuse for you to not conserve, not do the right thing. Please don’t whine as you pass the light bulb isle in Walmart.

This legislative whining about not being able to afford it comes from your representatives that don’t really know the numbers of Idaho’s budget. I will admit, it’s complicated, but after I served on the budget committee a couple years, I got some understanding. All legislators should serve on this committee. Many don’t; it’s hard work.

There is a ready source for over half the initial cost of Medicaid expansion from Millennium Fund money. This is money Idaho gets from the tobacco settlement, about $20M a year. We have passed a Constitutional amendment that this money must be used to build an endowment fund, so it can’t be used directly. The Millennium endowment fund now sits at $300M. That makes over $18M a year available.

Next you have to consider what we have been doing with your tax revenues for the last 10 years. Idaho has replenished our reserve funds to the tune of over $65M a year. One of the reserve funds is now at its maximum amount allowed by law. Even with last year’s tax cut and Idaho’s revenues coming in under projections the last six months, Idaho has plenty of revenue to fund Medicaid expansion. Once we get the train moving out of the station, repeal the CAT Fund, the momentum will take care of itself.

Brad Little knows this; he served on the budget committee. Most legislative leaders know this. Don’t listen when they whine about the present they just got.
 

Handing over Syria

jones

President Trump made four adversaries and an erstwhile ally extremely happy on Wednesday by announcing a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. The governments of Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey, as well as the Islamic State terrorists, have been hoping, praying and clamoring for just such an American retreat. They have to be very pleased with our Commander-in-Chief.

Turkey wants to go into eastern Syria to annihilate the brave Kurds who have been fighting and dying to help the United States eliminate the ISIS threat to America. Contrary to the President’s claim that the terrorists have been defeated, about 20,000-30,000 of these dangerous cutthroats still exist and they still are intent on doing our country great harm. The President has paved the way for a Kurdish bloodbath, while letting ISIS off the hook.

The announcement is an absolute betrayal of our Kurdish allies. They had been encouraged into our fight against the Islamic State terrorists with promises by America of military support and help to establish a safe enclave for their people in eastern Syria. The Kurdish forces worked in good faith to largely destroy the ISIS forces in Syria, suffering many casualties in the process. They and the rest of the world now see that America cannot be relied upon to keep its promises.

Of course, Russia and its Iranian and Syrian allies, have got to be tickled pink by the American decision to bug out of Syria and place the fate of the Kurds in their bloody hands. It is also a victory for the Lebanese terrorist group, Hezbollah, which has strongly supported the murderous Assad regime.

The President’s decision blindsided the Pentagon and State Department. Both had just publicly disclosed plans for continuing the American commitment to the Kurds until ISIS no longer posed a threat to our country and the Kurds were assured of peace and security. It is almost impossible to comprehend such an absolute about-face, apparently made on the spur of the moment.

Congress was also caught totally off guard as indicated by the response from Senators Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker. They and many other members of Congress have expressed surprise and befuddlement by the precipitous decision.

An immediate retreat from Syria will harm the security interests of the United States. It will let ISIS off the hook, result in untold grief for the Kurds, cause our other allies around the world to question the reliability of America, and essentially turn over the fate of the Middle East to our sworn enemies. Betraying the Kurds will come back to haunt the United States.

I was sickened by our unconscionable betrayal of an ally in 1975, when the U.S. failed to lift a finger to help the South Vietnamese turn back an invasion from the North, despite President Nixon’s iron-clad promise that our air power would be there to protect them. Nor did we make a concerted effort to evacuate our South Vietnamese friends and allies when the collapse of their country was imminent. Thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers and officials were killed or persecuted for siding with us, including many Catholic soldiers with whom I served. Let’s not let it happen again to the Kurds. If we do, what nation would want to partner up with America in the future?
 

Life after death

rainey

In the weeks since the November elections, Republicans in several states have reacted to losses at the polls by trying their damndest to cripple their duly elected replacements.

Acting like spoiled children on a playground who’ve lost while playing by the rules, they’ve been changing the rules. In those cases, new GOP laws (those rules) and legal responsibilities of governors, attorneys general, secretaries of state and similar officials now limit the powers of incoming Democrats.

Here, in our desert oasis, we’ve been given a similar “slap-in-the-face” by our - need I say it - Republican governor. He’s resurrected a political loser at the polls by giving her the U.S. Senate seat voters wouldn’t. Another loser “wins.”

Our two candidates to replace Sen. Jeff Flake were both members of the U.S. House. Voters in this “purple” state gave the job to the Democrat. So, the Republican was rejected with two more months in office. Most folks thought that was that.

Aha! But, wait! For defeated, voter-rejected GOP candidates, there’s “life after death.” At least for Martha McSally. Mitch McConnell’s choice for the open Seat of the late John McCain.

Former Senator John Kyl had been keeping the seat warm. But, guess what? A couple of weeks ago, Kyl said he’d quit the end of the this month, ahead of schedule, and before the January swearing in of the next Congress.

So, our Republican governor quickly announced his replacement - Martha McSally - who gets a couple of days seniority over the duly-elected Democrat. Important for choosing office space and other perks.

McSally was the made-to-order candidate for Republicans. An incumbent, of course. Pretty good on her feet when campaigning. Experienced on Capitol Hill. But, more than that, she was the first female USAF fighter pilot to see combat. A fact she kept way out in front in her campaign.

But, to me, the most important “out front” campaign claim was her repeated bald face lie that she had protected- and would continue to protect - our health care insurance, especially for those with pre-existing conditions.

Yes, a lie, if you bothered to check her recorded votes in the House the last two years. More than 50 times, she voted to kill the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare. Always “no.” Always. But, in her campaign ads, especially late in the race, there she was. Her voice. Her picture. She lied about other things as well, which seems to be accepted conduct these days for hungry office-seekers of both parties. But, who’s counting?

It was the “straight-into-the-camera” health insurance lies that were her most blatant. Black and white. Many Republican incumbents did the same this year. Some won with the lie - some didn’t. Those who won while lying did so because a poorly informed - or uninformed - electorate didn’t check and didn’t hold them accountable.

We’re living in a strange “Alice In Wonderland” political world at the moment. Where lies are used in place of truth. Where voters reject your candidacy, but you still win. Where losers in Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and elsewhere rewrite laws to cripple the winners. Where South Carolina Republicans want to cancel the 2020 presidential primary so Trump won’t have opposition. Where voter laws are ignored but the “winners” still “win” and the “losers” still “lose.”

I don’t know what’s happened to the Republican Party. No more Nelson Rockefellers, Barry Goldwaters, Bob Doles, Warren Rudmans, Jim McClures, Dwight Eisenhowers, Henry Cabot Lodges.

The “law-and-order” Party now conducts law-breaking operations to stop legal asylum-seekers from entering the country to make their cases. A Republican Congress refuses to exercise its constitutionally required “checks-and-balances” on an out-of-control President who’s operating like a banana republic dictator. It allows trade wars to be started unilaterally; international treaty obligations broken. It conceals scientifically-supported reports. Cuts academic, health and scientific research funding. Denies veteran’s their full benefits. Puts thousands of children in makeshift prisons.

None of that - none - could be assigned to the Republican Party I was raised to respect. It has become a home for congressional cowardice, ruinous policy-making, treacherous behavior in our international conduct, a “home” for racists, anti-Semites and radicals and a threat to the lives of people struggling with health problems beyond their control.

A responsible political party does not do those things. Does not countenance those things. Doesn’t make losers winners.

Oh, wait. There’s Arizona.
 

Trump and Santa

jones

It is well known that the President is a big fan of coal. It plays a central part in his energy program. In fact, he has repeatedly called for an increase in the mining and burning of coal. He has promised to revitalize the coal industry and bring back coal-mining jobs. During campaign appearances in coal country leading up to the midterm elections, his supporters passed out placards proclaiming “TRUMP DIGS COAL.”

Energy sector analysts point out that other sources of energy are cleaner and have become cheaper than coal, but that has not diminished the Chief’s passion for coal. He has directed Energy Secretary Rick Perry to implement a program to subsidize the use of coal. Perry, the candidate who famously forgot the name of the agency he now runs during the 2016 presidential debates, is working on a plan to keep coal-fired plants running with taxpayer help.

And, the President is not afraid of ruffling a few feathers in the process. During meetings in Germany and Poland in November and December, his people touted the benefits of burning coal at meetings designed to fight climate change. While participants from almost every country were pointing out the planet-killing effects of burning coal, our guys were in there pitching for that much-maligned substance. It took some moxie to stand up for a fuel whose pollution contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths around the globe every year.

In a little-noticed report issued by the U.S. Geological Survey on Black Friday, it was disclosed that about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in our country come from coal and oil extracted from federally-controlled lands. The President wants to open up additional federal lands for extraction of fossil fuels.

Another federal report released the same day warned that damage from climate change is intensifying across the country, thanks to greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels--coal and oil. The President pooh-poohed the findings of his own governmental agencies. Apparently, it is full-steam ahead with heating up the planet.

This has created a real dilemma for Santa Claus. According to some sources, Santa has placed the President on a naughty list, partly for global warming issues but also for having a standoffish relationship with the truth and a too close relationship with a bunny and a star of prurient movies. In the President’s defense, his friends Vladimir the Russian and MBS, a Saudi prince who turned a Saudi human rights advocate into hamburger, were higher up on the naughty list.

The coal-burning/global-warming issue is personal for Santa because he lives and works at the North Pole. It is not a secret that global warming is melting the ice at Santa’s workshop and he is sore that he will eventually have to move his operation or close it down.

Santa normally puts lumps of coal in the stockings of people who are on his naughty list. But, if the purpose of doing so is to admonish the naughty person, what do you do with the delinquent who actually love coal and lots of it? It presents a real dilemma for the Jolly Old Elf. My thought is that we ought to take the coal away from our leader--leave it in the ground. That would help Santa and all of the rest of us to breathe easier.
 

Idaho Weekly Briefing – December 24

This is a summary of a few items in the Idaho Weekly Briefing for December 17. Would you like to know more? Send us a note at stapilus@ridenbaugh.com.

TO OUR READERS: This edition is the last of 2018, as we take a one-week break for the Christmas holidays. We’ll return on January 7 with an edition covering the end of 2018 and first week of 2019.

More growth in business news continued through the week as unemployment levels dropped to near record lows. How long will those levels persist? Meanwhile, as much of the state saw snow or slush, Idahoans prepared for the Christmas-New Year’s holidays.

Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill and Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Terry L. Myers will step down from their roles as the chief judges effective January 1. U.S. District Judge David C. Nye and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Joseph M. Meier will assume the role of chief in their respective courts on January 2, 2019. Judge Winmill and Judge Myers will continue to carry full caseloads.

Idaho’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 2.6% in November, down slightly from October and continuing at or below 3% for the 15th consecutive month. The state’s labor force – the total number of people 16 years of age and older working or looking for work – was 854,243, increasing by 0.1% and essentially unchanged since July.

Governor-elect Brad Little’s transition committee continues its work. Kelley Packer will lead as Bureau Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licensure. Packer is a former Idaho State Representative from McCammon. Tom Kealey will be the new Director of the Department of Commerce. Kealey is a co-owner of the restaurant chain Chicago Connection and a former executive at Morrison-Knudsen. The chairman and executive director of the Idaho Democratic Party have announced their impending exits which will take place March 16. Chairman Bert Marley, will not seek re-election when the post is next up for election on March 16. Marley has been chair of the IDP since August 2015.

Legislation championed by senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch to bring into wide use newer, more efficient energy reactors cleared the United States Senate by a voice vote.

Idaho’s growing economy, a consistent decrease in layoffs and a solvent Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund are all contributing to a 6.6% decrease in unemployment insurance tax rates for 2019.

Boise Kind is a community-wide initiative that highlights, protects and promotes the community’s core values and helps to ensure Boise remains kind and welcoming.

IMAGE Higher elevations in Idaho saw increasing snow levels in December, and road managers scrambled to clear them. (photo/Idaho Department of Transportation)
 

Idaho needs a governor’s house

johnson

Idaho officials need to get serious about an official residence for the governor - or, failing that, they need to end the increasingly dubious practice of padding the governor's salary in the disguise of a "housing allowance."

Goodness knows the state is frugal about most things - look at the parsimonious spending on public schools, higher education and highways - but the Governor's Housing Committee (there really is such a thing) seems to display little compunction about spending thousands of dollars a year on a housing allowance for the chief executive.

The Housing Committee - four legislators and the director of the Department of Administration - voted earlier this month to increase the housing allowance new Gov. Brad Little will receive next year. The new amount is $4,551 per month or $54,612 per year, a figure that is more than the average Idaho salary. And for what?

To their credit, the two Democratic legislators on the committee voiced concern about the practice of what amounts to paying the governor to live in his own home and ultimately voted against the increase. Idaho hasn't had a governor's residence since the state sold the old official residence in Boise's north end in 1989 after then-Gov. Cecil D. Andrus said he preferred to live in his own Boise home. At this point, the state started providing a housing allowance.

The old house, built in 1914 by architect Walter Pierce - incidentally the chairman of the committee that oversaw construction of the Idaho Capitol Building - had seen better days by the 1980s. Warped doors didn't work well and one first lady complained that plugging two appliances into the same kitchen outlet was a sure way to blow a fuse.

Andrus occasionally used the place for a quiet meeting away from the Capitol. I remember one time when he and then-Sen.Jim McClure convened in the dining room, and away from prying eyes in the Statehouse, to work on a plan for an Idaho wilderness bill.

The original Idaho residence - it would be an overstatement to call it a "mansion" - was purchased by the Republican-led Legislature when Benewah County physician C.A. "Doc" Robins was elected governor. Robins was not a wealthy guy, unlike recent Idaho governors, and needed a place to live. The Legislature obliged.

Now Idaho is one of only six states without an official residence. It should. I've had the good fortune to visit several official residences in other states where the governor's house is often a historic building that reflects the culture of the state.

The Utah residence, for example, is a marvelous old house, beautifully restored to its 1902 style and located in a historic Salt Lake City neighborhood.

The Michigan governor has the use of two houses, including a summer place in a marvelous setting on Mackinac Island where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron.

A better approach for Idaho, despite what the naysayers have long held, would be to actually provide an official residence for the governor and devote the cash that currently goes to padding the chief executive's salary to maintaining a facility that would soon enough become an iconic part of the capital city.

Dirk Kempthorne tried to accomplish that goal with what turned out to be an ill-considered notion to have the state accept J.R. Simplot's donation of his monstrosity on the hill in Boise and convert it to an official residence. The house, with all the charm of a Soviet-era apartment building, was a money pit. After costing the state a bundle, the property was returned to the Simplot family who improved the aesthetics of the Boise foothills by demolishing the place.

Another property in the foothills and long envisioned as the site of a governor's residence was wisely abandoned to a higher and better use as open space.

Still, despite this star-crossed history, with a little effort and not that much money, Idaho could set out to acquire a suitable executive residence, a place where governors would want to live and entertain. An appropriate location would be along one of Boise's stately and historic avenues - Harrison or Warm Springs. Locate a suitable structure, hopefully with some history and Idaho style, set aside some money in an endowment to maintain the home and devote a room or two to showcasing the history of Idaho's governors.

With the current arrangement, Idaho will just keep paying thousands of dollars annually to its governor for housing, while the state accumulates no equity and no real benefit. Some day the state may have a governor who is not independently wealthy or a near-Boise resident and may actually need a place to live.

Little, like every governor in recent times, wants nothing to do with this conversation and says he plans to live in a condo owned by a subsidiary of a company owned by his family.

For the more than $200,000 the state will hand him in housing allowances during the next four years Idaho could make a nice down payment on a real house. It would be money better spent.

Johnson served as press secretary and chief of staff to the late former Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus. He lives in Manzanita, Ore.
 

In review

stapiluslogo1

I for one take note that what may be the most important thing to happen in Idaho this year - ballot placement and voter passage of the initiative to expand Medicaid access in the state - wasn’t even mentioned in the looking-ahead column I wrote a year ago.

Why not? The initiative effort was active and rolling by the end of 2017; the ballot effort was filed and the campaign in place; the advocates were at work. But it looked then like a long shot. Getting any initiative to Idaho ballot status has been, in recent years, a daunting task completed by few. And what would be the odds of Idaho voters backing one of the key components of Obamacare, which so many of their elected officials have described for years like the work of the devil?

But here we are, with the measure passed (and under challenge in court, though - prognostication alert - the challenge probably will fail). Goes to show how many of the most important developments in the course of a year also are the most surprising.

Last year I couched much of the look-ahead column in the form of questions, such as: “Should we shut the door on Democratic prospects in Idaho? And even if major offices prove elusive, might Democrats see substantial gains in the legislature or in the courthouses?”

These remained fair questions through much of the year, though the answer on election day seemed close to what had been broadly expected: Democrats did a little better in 2018 than usual, both in filling key ballot slots and in the final vote, but not by a lot. Republicans remain solidly in control. Makes you wonder now if the Medicaid expansion measure had an effect on that.

Another question I raised then turned out to be relevant, though not in the way anticipated: “There are candidates from the establishment Republican world (Brad Little for governor and David Leroy for Congress), and from the outside-activist wing (Raul Labrador and Russell Fulcher, respectively), and candidates a little harder to easily classify. Will we see a consistent thread running between them? Will this year’s Republican primary turn into a battle between slates of candidates the way 2014 did? Will it lead to bitter conflicts the way that one did, or settle out more easily?”

The inside and outside question was on point. But unlike in 2014, when the two sides split cleanly into de facto slates, the races in 2018 did not cohere so simply. The governor’s race featured three significant candidates, enough to splinter the vote and alter the conversation - and alliances - in important ways. Republicans up and down the ballot were not lumped together in groups as they had been four years earlier, maybe reflecting the complex governor’s race. Republicans came out of this year’s election no doubt with some hard feelings (tough primaries almost always generate at least some, and did on the Democratic side too), but of nowhere near the depth or scope that the party had to deal with after 2014.

I did say that “2018 stands to be a lively political year,” and it was, with several hard-to-predict primaries (the Democratic gubernatorial primary result was a surprise to a lot of people) and a heated general election contest. But the end result in most of the major races, and in overall control of the state legislature, were never much in question. 2018 did not change the basic political equation in Idaho except for the Medicaid expansion (and a subtle but maybe significant voting shift in western Ada County).

2019 won’t feature a major election in Idaho (at least, not that we can foresee right now). But the after-effects of 2018 will be in evidence. I’ll get to that next week.