Press "Enter" to skip to content

Mature

When I’m feeling old, I try to consider that I am mature. That means I have aged, not become decrepit. Maybe wisdom comes with maturity. Perspective is everything.

Idaho needs some maturity. We have aged as a state, and recently we have grown. We have not matured.

I first began considering this as I watched the legislative oversight committee on Child Protection. You can see their hearing online. It’s worth watching.

The committee, and their citizen partners were very frustrated with how care is being provided for our foster children. One Senator even asked for heads to roll.

They may. But is that a mature response? Sometimes it is the right one. But I like to consider systems.

I have asked for the funding and enrollment history for foster care from the Department of Health and Welfare. Even though I am a Board member, I have not received it. I will continue to study this. But I need some more information to really understand the problem. I hope I get it. If not, I can see why heads should roll. That’s the reaction I feel when frustrated.

Then I got informed of another very interesting study with lots of good information. The Idaho legislature directed their stellar Office of Performance Evaluations to look into Idaho death investigations and coroners.

This is close to my heart.

I was a county coroner for 15 years. I saw the poor performance we were doing investigating deaths in Idaho, me included.

But we are the wild west out here, aren’t we? I didn’t wear a Stetson or ride up on my bay mare at a death scene, but I often felt like it.

Frontier justice might satisfy frontier times, but it doesn’t serve a mature state. It’s time we decide if we have passed puberty.

The report, and many other good reports from OPE are available online. You have broadband, don’t you?

The short story about death investigations here in Idaho is that we are dismal. We do the least autopsies of child deaths of any state. This state that claims to revere the life of the child (maybe only the unborn?) doesn’t seem to want to know why the child has died.

We were the last state in the union to establish a Child Fatality Review panel. It was only put in force by Governor Otter’s executive order. And since it was an executive order, the panel cannot subpoena records. They can politely ask county coroners for their reports, but refusal is allowed.

Did the county coroner do their job? Do you, the electorate even care? If a child dies, shouldn’t the cause of death be a concern for the state?

It sure is if it’s in an Idaho woman’s womb.

Idaho has not grown into the maturity of seeing the whole system.

Children dying is worth protection.

Our state has the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation. Our legislators are very proud of this.

They should be ashamed that they do not care to protect the lives of children out of the womb.

As I said, I was a county coroner. Children in my county were killed. Children in my county died. It was a tragedy. I did my best to investigate. But I was on my own.

Investigating is the first step to understanding.

The Idaho legislature seems to be very preoccupied with protecting children from books in libraries. But they seem to have no concern for children who die.

Unless they are inside a woman’s uterus.

A mature response to this would not be a flurry of laws or resolutions. We see enough of this from our immature legislators.

Instead, we need to understand the systems and change them. That would be a mature response.

 

Government stays open, for now

At long last, Congress has quit kicking the can down the road in regard to keeping the government open. And that’s good news for the federal employees drawing government paychecks.

But don’t get too excited about this reprieve. Congress will be back to kicking cans down the road sometime in late September, and as usual, the members won’t do anything before then.

The bad news is political in nature. House Speaker Mike Johnson is back in the hotseat for relying on Democrats to keep government running. And Republicans, including the three voting members of Idaho’s congressional delegation, see the spending package as a bad deal. So bad that a government shutdown would be preferable. The exception is Congressman Mike Simpson, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, who did not vote on the spending bill for medical reasons.

As his office explains: “Congressman Simpson missed votes this week due to a previously scheduled medical procedure. Mr. Simpson is in good health and will return to the nation’s capital shortly. He is pleased to see the second round of Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations bills pass the House – legislation he would have supported on the House floor.”

Idaho’s lone House vote – First District Congressman Russ Fulcher – outlined his objections, starting with the timing. His first view of the 1,012-page spending package came just 32 hours before he voted. And what he read wasn’t pretty in his eyes.

“The total is $1.2 trillion, but the American border remains open,” Fulcher said. “In this bill, taxpayers dollars are appropriated to expand FBI facilities, support transgender treatments with the (Department of Defense), and fund facilities that provide late-term abortions. There’s even some money for the World Health Organization … but there’s nothing in the bill to curb inflation. We are $34 trillion in debt. We need to cut spending and encourage economic growth. This bill does the opposite.”

Fulcher was not alone with his opposition. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch also voted against the spending bill, joining most of their Senate Republican colleagues and most House Republicans.

Says Risch: “From excessive spending to political handouts, procedural failures to irresponsible oversight, this spending bill fell grossly short of what Idahoans need. It ignores America’s fiscal mess; prolongs the Biden administration’s border catastrophe, overreaching Environmental Social Governance (ESG) and Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives; and fails to provide any relief to Idahoans who pay more every day for President Biden’s inflationary agenda.”

Crapo has made no secrets about his objections to the spending package. “Over five months into this fiscal year, Congress has once again chosen to move 12 annual spending measures in two lump sum all-or-nothing packages.  Lumping multiple appropriations bills together without consideration of the merits of each individually and rushing through the process without the opportunity for a robust amendment process is irresponsible.”

As for the future of Johnson, who has held the job for only five months, stay tuned. Working with Democrats in any fashion is a sin to some Republicans, especially in an election year. There’s speculation that Democrats could save Johnson’s job if he brings up a floor vote on aid to Ukraine – something else that puts GOP hair on fire.

Fulcher told me that he will not be part of the effort to oust Johnson. As Fulcher sees it, few on the GOP side seem to have the stomach to go through another painful selection process for another speaker. Secondly, Johnson generally is better liked than the speaker who was booted out, Kevin McCarthy.

“We disagreed (on the spending bill), and we talked about it. We just saw it differently,” Fulcher said. “Just because we come to different conclusions doesn’t mean he should be booted out. Mike is a good man – a genially nice human being.”

And for Democrats, they are not going to get a better deal with someone else as speaker. “The spending bill had more support from Democrats than Republicans, so they should be relatively happy with Mike Johnson. They certainly don’t want to see Jim Jordan as speaker.”

Fulcher probably has the correct perspective, but the rumblings and political drama will continue.

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

 

Speaker woes

Something seems to be brewing in the U.S. House.  Republican side.

Within the last week, two prominent members - both regarded as responsible Conservatives - have walked off the job.  Ken Buck of Colorado and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.  Told Speaker Johnson on X (formerly Twitter) they were closing up shop and going home.  Right now.  This week.  Boom!  Just like that.

Publically, Gallagher didn't say much.  As for Buck, his most revealing comment was "The atmosphere around here has changed."

All of which gives new headaches to the Speaker.  With those two heading home, Johnson's majority in the House is 217-213.

That means if ALL Democrats vote in unison, Republicans could prevail with just two votes.  TWO votes.

Johnson has nowhere near the experience, the political "heft" or the deal-making, arm-twisting proclivities of many of his predecessors.  Think about Tip O'Neill or Sam Rayburn or Nancy Pelosi.  Not even close.

Now, it's only about eight months 'till our next national election.  Just eight months.  But, that can be nearly "forever" for the GOP with a majority of just TWO votes.

If any GOP member of the House - just one - was ever in a position to "wheel-and-deal" the Speaker for some largess for his/her district, "Katy, bar the door."  Johnson's inbox will have to be enlarged.

But, bottom line, there is no reason for Dems to apply political pressure at this time.  Lord knows, there's so much division in our politics these days that virtually nothing is being done legislatively.  We don't need more upheaval!

But, that didn't stop Marjorie Taylor Greene from lobbing in a hand grenade of her own on Friday when she filed an official motion to call for a vote to vacate the Speaker's chair.  BOOM!   She called it "a warning."

Truth is, no one in the "cheap seats" should be cheering.  There's enough fracturing in our politics without adding more.  That's why "good heads" like Buck and Gallagher are throwing in their towels and heading home.  They'll be missed.

Aside from passing the President's infrastructure act, there's been precious little in the way of meaningful - and nationally productive - legislation sent to the White House this Session.  Not one bill sponsored by Republicans.

But, while I could never be classified - in any way - as an "optimist" when it comes to our country's political wars, there may be just a hint - just a whiff - of hope for the Congressional future.

If right-minded people like Buck and Gallagher go back where they came from - and if they'll spend those eight months carrying the message that it's up to voters to change things for the better - we might get something done.

There's a hard rock nest of 40 or so in the House far-right caucus.  That means some 125 or so aren't part of the unruly mob.  If those "125 or so" can put aside petty grievances and lock arms, it might send a message home to the voters that change is not only possible but necessary to get back in positive territory.

In this instance of far right stupidity in the Halls of Congress, there could be - could be, I say - some positive reactions from the folks at home.  If enough can put aside their usual political preferences in favor of good candidates from either Party, things might get better and Congress might return to functionality sooner rather than later.

The system in Washington isn't there to be to be run by either major Party.  Its functions are best served by two healthy Parties with the nation's best interests at heart.  Pulling, turning, twisting.  But, open to compromise - always looking for what's best for the country in - any situation.

We need that.  Oh, Lord, how we need that.

 

Dereliction

Believe me, I did not want to write again about Raul Labrador’s failings, but this time his dereliction of duty is too glaring to ignore. The Attorney General is deliberately violating his clear statutory duty to provide written legal advice to legislators on proposed legislation. Idaho law requires the Attorney General to give a written opinion to “any senator or representative…when requested, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.” Labrador flat refuses to follow that law, even though he swore under oath that he would “faithfully discharge the duties” of the AG’s office.

Labrador’s  spokesman recently stated that the AG’s office has a “policy of not issuing written opinions to legislators” on proposed legislation that is likely to result in constitutional litigation. That is exactly the kind of legislation where a written opinion is indispensable. Why refuse to give an opinion that could discourage an unconstitutional bill and avert costly litigation? The answer is rather obvious–political self-preservation.

Lawrence Wasden was famous for giving honest, straight-forward legal opinions on legislation, even when he personally disagreed with the conclusion. He said it was his duty under the law to correctly call the balls and strikes, regardless of his personal beliefs. That is what you do if you believe in the rule of law. We hope that our private attorneys will not lead us astray by refusing to answer our questions on the legality of our actions. That would violate the legal profession’s ethical rules and could result in legal disaster for the client, particularly in the governmental arena.

Labrador used Wasden’s honesty against him in the 2022 election. He pointed to opinions on hot-button bills where Wasden had reluctantly concluded that legislation was likely unconstitutional, wrongfully claiming Wadsen was expressing his personal views against the legislation. That included LGBTQ discrimination bills, legislation to stifle free speech, some abortion bills and legislation to allow below-market rental for state lands. Since most of the present unconstitutional legislation comes from Labrador’s extremist friends, he certainly does not want to tell them their bills violate the U.S. or Idaho Constitutions, even when they clearly do. Nor does he want to put anything down in writing that could come back to bite him politically.

During a recent hearing on his funding request for two additional lawyers, legislators of both parties were not buying Labrador’s excuses for refusing to carry out his sworn duty to issue written opinions. One legislator suggested that there would be no need for additional lawyers if he complied with his opinion-writing duties. That is, he could avert costly, time-consuming litigation by providing written opinions on bills of questionable constitutionality. Labrador huffed, “the argument that my office would need fewer attorneys if we issued more opinions is absurd.” His contention is patently absurd. A short legal opinion can often prevent passage of a bill that the state would have to squander significant time and resources in defending.

Labrador has claimed that he can simply talk legislators out of pursuing unconstitutional bills. He told IPTV host Melissa Davlin last December that “sometimes you have to say no, that the law does not allow you to do that.” That strategy has not kept legislators from tossing numerous unconstitutional bills into the hopper this year. Those bills would likely have been put on the books and successfully challenged in court, had attorneys outside of government not stepped forward to point out clear constitutional flaws.

Former Secretary of State Ben Ysursa and I pointed out that House Bill 652, which would allow unchecked removal of signatures from initiative petitions, was clearly violative of the Idaho Constitution. Labrador failed to tell legislators that two bills which infringed on the Governor’s right to fill judicial vacancies–House Bill 713 and Senate Bill 1347–had obvious constitutional flaws. Nor did Labrador warn legislators of the glaring constitutional problem in House Bill 521, which ties income tax cuts, school facility financing and several other subjects together in a single constitutionally-infirm bill.

There are many other bills with constitutional problems that could come back to haunt the state, including the numerous book-ban proposals and transgender bills. They could have been stopped or toned down by written, well-researched AG opinions. All Labrador has to do is to follow the law and do his duty. Otherwise, as in the military service, he ought to be brought to account for his dereliction of duty.

 

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

Two years ago, the Democratic majority in the 60-member Oregon House slipped from 37 seats to 35. But could Republicans win a majority this year?

Probably not, though it’s not out of the question: Democrats have more vulnerable state House seats this time than Republicans do.

But Republicans have some statistical vulnerabilities of their own.

All 60 House seats are up for election this year, compared to about half of the Senate. That gives both parties an opportunity to make a significant shift all at once.

Realistically, the chances of that happening are limited. A big reason is that about two-thirds of the members of the House were elected last time by landslides, with a lead of at least 20% of the vote over their nearest competitor, if any. In our polarized world, most Oregon legislative districts are simply out of reach for candidates from the other party.

That includes 21 districts now represented by Democrats, and 18 held by Republicans. The party strength in those areas mostly aligns with party registration. Only four House legislators – all Republicans – represent districts where the other party holds a registration edge.

About two-thirds of Oregon’s House members were elected in races with more than a 20-point margin, normally a marker of not just a personally strong incumbent – which is not always the case – but also of a district where one of the major parties is dominant and nearly invulnerable. And some additional districts, like that of House Majority Leader Julie Fahey in Eugene and retiring Republican Rep. Brian Stout of Columbia City, fall just short of that 20-point mark and would be just about as tough to flip.

But 13 House races were decided last election by fewer than 10 points, and in that range, seats can be relatively competitive. Attention is likely to be focused this year on many of those districts. Incumbents have filed for reelection for nearly all of those seats.

Many are in compact geographic areas east and south of Portland – into Clackamas and Hood River counties – and in and around Salem. Others are in regions that have become politically marginal, such as around Springfield, the Hillsboro-Forest Grove area and the north coast from Astoria through Tillamook. It’s not coincidental that in an area of what looks like the hottest U.S. House race in the state this year, District 5, overlaps a number of these districts.

The good news for Republicans is that nine of those districts are represented by Democrats who won tight races. If Republicans flipped as many as six of those, without losing any of their own, they could control the House.

On March 12, the Evergreen PAC, which supports Republican candidates, released a statement highlighting Republican House candidates “in some of Oregon’s most competitive districts,” with a list that included Districts 7, 19, 26, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50 and 53 that saw many of the closest House races in 2022.

The two closest House races of 2022 both were won by Democrats: Annessa Hartman (District 40, Oregon City), who won by half a percentage point, and Emerson Levy (District 53, Bend), who won by 1.3%. Their districts could be highly competitive again this year. But they do have some advantages, starting with a Democratic edge in voter registration in their districts, and the fact that since this year is a presidential election year, turnout is likely to be higher. That usually provides a small advantage to whatever party has the registration advantage.

The other Democrats with winning margins in the last election within 10%, starting with the closest election, were: Hoa Nguyen (District 48, Portland), Ricki Ruiz (District 50, Gresham), John Lively (District 7, Springfield), Zach Hudson (District 49, Troutdale), Courtney Neron (District 26, Wilsonville), Susan McLain (District 29, Hillsboro) and Tom Andersen (District 19, Salem).

That’s a significant collection of realistic targets for Republican candidates who would like to collect the five seats needed for a tie or six to take control of the House. It’s a tall order, though, because all of those districts have Democratic advantages in voter registration.

Republicans, in contrast, have just four seats that were won by 10% or less: Cyrus Javadi (District 32, Astoria), Tracy Cramer (District 22, Woodburn), Jeffrey Helfrich (District 52, Hood River) and Kevin Mannix (District 21, Keizer).

All four of these incumbents are in fragile positions, partly because Democrats hold registration advantages over Republicans in each. Javadi won by 2.5% over a Democrat, but he faces the headwind of a 9.3% Democratic registration edge. Cramer has a more extreme case: a 3.2% win last election, and a 15.1% Democratic advantage. Those four Republicans likely will be top Democratic targets this year.

Of course, the strength of the campaigns of these candidates, and their opponents, has yet to develop. In close contests, that could be decisive and it could decide what the Oregon House will look like next term.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Review: How Migration Really Works

The many pits and pieces floating through the mediascape - and the political world - about immigration carry a feeling of uncertainty: What do the pieces really add up to? We're regularly harangued about this crisis or that, but what's the larger perspective?

So often, after all, we need to know how something works, or at least is intended to work, to understand whether we'd got a real problem here, or something solvable, or instead just an uncomfortable part of the real world we have to live with.

The recent book How Migration Really Works, written by the academic Hein De Haas - who has devoted his career to studying the realities of migration, both historically and currently - addresses exactly this. It is not an ideological polemic: His views are not designed to give partricular comfort to any place on the political spectrum.

They also make a surprising amount of real world sense.

Here's a list of propositions drawn from some the chapter titles, some of which will appeal to the left and others to the right:

  • "Migration is at an all-time high"
  • "The world is facing a refugee crisis"
  • "Development in poor countries will reduce migration"
  • "Immigrants steal jobs and drive down wages"
  • "Immigration lifts all boats"
  • "Immigrant integration has failed"
  • "Immigration sends crime rates soaring"

Here's what I left out: Every one of those chapter titles also describes each of these ideas as a myth, and De Haas does an effective job of demolishing all of them. Or nearly all; I had minor quibbles in some places. But his case appears overall to be solid.

What causes immigration, specifically immigration from a distance to places like the United States? (Did you know that not only our country and western Europe but also much of the Middle East and southeast Asia are immigrant magnets as well?) The are driven to travel not primarily, he argues, because of conditions on the ground in the countries of origin, and usually not extreme poverty or emergency. Traveling at a distance usually takes planning and financial resources; emigration from origin countries actually is low where economic and other conditions are especially weak, rise mainly in the case of moderate prosperity, and then slacken when higher-level prosperity is achieved. Rather than being effectively expelled from their home lands, most are attracted by economic prospects  in the destination countries. One reason the level of immigration is high now in the United States is that our economy is so strong; immigration was far lower after the big crash of 2008.

De Haas posits too that strong border security actually leads to more immigration and causes many more people who do enter the country, legally or not, to stay rather than have to go through the tougher border situation; a more fluid border leads to more of a revolving-door effect.

There's much more, all backed by extensive studies - in many places, world wide - and well worth reviewing. If you'd open to thinking about migration in a serious way, as opposed simply enjoying the emotional trigger, How Migration Really Works would be more than worth your time.

 

A boast fulfilled

Some months ago people at the Idaho Democratic Party said something striking: This year, we will run at least one candidate in every legislative district in Idaho.

In other words, they wouldn’t do what they’ve been doing cycle after after, which is to leave so many Republican nominees unchallenged that the legislature would be conceded to the GOP before the election even was held.

My thought was: Okay, show me.

Turns out they have.

The regular two-week candidate filing window closed on March 15, and the legislative field is mostly set. (A note: Candidates still can drop out, or can file as write-ins for the primary election, so the numbers cited below still could rise or fall a little.)

In contrast to the typical 50 or so candidates Democrats have been fielding (some of those competing against each other in the primary), this year 99 have filed for legislative seats.

Some of those are in fact running against each other in the Democratic primaries. But: When the filing deadline closed, at least one D had filed in all 35 legislative districts. How many years has it been since that last happened? I’m not sure, but I’d guess you have to go back a few decades.

Democrats have filed for 27 of the 35 Senate seats, which means 20 of those candidates will be running in current Republican-held seats.

In the House, where Democrats now hold 11 of 70 seats, D candidates have filed for 55 seats.

For the first time in, what? - a generation? - Idaho Democrats have not conceded the legislature, either chamber of it in fact, immediately after the filing deadline.

I don’t mean to press the point too hard.

Obviously, these currently Republican districts are not going to be easy to win, and it’s entirely possible that Democrats will wind up in November with no more seats than they have now. (If that: In Idaho, presidential election years tend to tilt just a bit more Republican than in off-years.)

We have yet to see how much or how well they campaign, and what kind of campaign money and organization they can put together. Those will not be especially easy tasks either.

But the significance of this candidate recruitment shouldn’t be overlooked.

First, the party’s leaders made what sounded like an awfully daring boast in promising a presence in every district - and they carried through. This is something we haven’t seen for a while among Idaho Democrats.

Second is the fact that Idaho Democrats will be seen this year, locally, in places where they’ve been simply invisible for a long time. Here are some of the home communities of this year’s Idaho Democratic candidates: Spirit Lake, Dalton Gardens, Cottonwood, New Plymouth, Weiser, Emmett, Kuna, Homedale, Kimberly, Paul, Arco, Salmon, Preston, Soda Springs, Driggs, Irwin. I can remember when Democratic candidates (and sometimes winners) were not a rarity in such places, but it’s been a long time.

The fact that other voters in the area will have a human face - rather than a dark myth built out of demonic and perverted constructions - to associate with Democrats, could make some long-range difference.

A quick mention here is also warranted for the Democratic efforts to organize their local county parties. A short time ago, only a few were even thinly organized. Now, according to the state Democratic web site, all 44 counties have a Democratic chair at least, and all but a few have considerably more than that. That’s a major change.

These can be considered good initial steps.

If you’re going to change politics in Idaho, at least somewhat, you’re not going to do it all at once. But, one step at a time, this is a place to start.

 

Deal

It seems Republicans everywhere want to have work requirements for people who receive Medicaid health insurance. Our governor has said he’s on board, as has the interim director of the Department of Health and Welfare. The legislature has long argued for this, and they are again. Idaho has a request pending. It has not been approved by the Trump administration or this Biden one.

I understand their concern. Why should us taxpayers give our tax money to folks loafing on the couch all day? If that’s the case.

I first ran into this sentiment when I was campaigning for office. The local laborer’s union gave me a chance to make my pitch to them. Democrat, Union, you’d think we were simpatico. Maybe not.

I introduced myself and then asked them what they wanted from the state government. The young guys were reluctant, but finally a guy spoke up. “Why don’t we drug test people who want welfare?”

I told him I would look into it. After I got elected, I did.

Some states had imposed this testing. It had become a meme. That is, there was widespread belief that druggies were taking our tax dollars.

The actual numbers showed that the cost of drug testing and the administration of this requirement had added significantly to the taxpayers cost of the program. Further, the number of folks using drugs on Welfare was well below the number of the general population. So just what is your point?

I believe most folks do not want to give something out through government-imposed taxes to another of their fellow citizens who might be undeserving of their generosity. I understand this sentiment. And I’m an Idaho Democrat.

But the laws we write are supposed to promote domestic tranquility and the common good. Anyone remember that?

So, let’s look at the work requirement proposed for Medicaid health insurance. Idaho’s proposal has many exceptions for “work”. Caretakers, moms, folks recently unemployed are exempted. So, who might be abusing this government benefit? I would argue, it’s a very small fraction of the Medicaid population.

I guess you want to build a department of government to look for these scofflaws and make sure they don’t have health insurance that we are all paying for.

Given our current system assumption that health insurance is a work-related benefit, it makes sense that we should be pushing people to gain employment, and then their health insurance would be the employers problem, not us taxpayers.

So, here’s the deal I offer you “work requirement” afficionados. And I believe it is a plan that would be accepted by our federal partners. Neither Trump nor Biden have approved our current proposal.

Idaho should propose to the federal government, our Medicaid partner since they pay 70% of the bill, a study.

We get to impose Medicaid work requirements on half of the folks who apply for Medicaid. We study this half, and the half that don’t have the requirements. We watch them for their long term, let’s say five years, outcomes. How many become employed and off the dole? How many just stay uninsured and a burden on us all.

Do we really help anybody with this program?

I have my bias.

You probably do too.

Let’s study the question.

It comes down to the question of whether you believe people, our society, your neighbors, all of us, are better suited to serve the common good if we have health insurance.

Since the health insurance industry is a significant portion of many people’s retirement portfolios, I doubt any major disruption is in the cards.

But if you want to drain the swamp, this is a good place to start.

Let’s make a deal.

 

A break in the rancor

Here’s something that you don’t normally see in Washington – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Finance Committee standing side-by-side at a news conference, talking about a bill aimed to help pharmacists and patients.

There was no casting of political blame, no bashing of President Biden’s policies, and no disparaging comments about former President Trump. It was two senators – Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon – talking about a problem that has been around far too long.

They did not hide their frustrations about how pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) were making it challenging for patients (especially seniors) to obtain their needed medications. And there was no “diplomacy” when they talked about how these benefit managers, and their regulations, were driving community pharmacies out of business. Wyden and Crapo told the crowd of supporters at the virtual news conference that it’s high time for Congress to take action.

“This is not a complicated issue, folks,” said Wyden, who chairs the finance committee. “This is about the fact that two of us, two United States senators, believe that we should be helping patients, pharmacists, and taxpayers rather than the PBMs that are hijacking their money.”

The list of political supporters for the cause goes beyond two senators. The full committee has approved a reform bill by what Wyden jokingly described as “a very narrow vote – 26-0.”

That’s a noteworthy accomplishment in today’s political environment; it’s tough to get 26 Republicans and Democrats to agree on the color of the sky on a given day. But even the most partisan of senators can agree on who the “good guys” are on this matter.

“Unfortunately, certain pharmacy benefit management practices continue to jeopardize the viability and stability of pharmacies,” said Crapo, the committee’s ranking member. “This (reform) must happen now. Oversight protections for Medicare Part D have fallen short of the promise to protect seniors and their ability to access the pharmacy of their choice and cause far too many pharmacies to close shop.”

A strong reform bill, he said, will mean lower out-of-pocket Medicare and Medicaid costs for seniors, while enhancing accountability in federal health-care programs.

Crapo is not a newcomer to this cause. Last summer, he was in Twin Falls talking about the committee’s reform bill, targeted at a $500 billion PBM industry. The Times News of Twin Falls reported on Crapo’s Magic Valley visit.

“Our legislation takes aim at a wide range of problematic PBM practices, from inappropriate patient steering to opaque and unreasonable network contracts,” Crapo said in Twin Falls.

The bill hardly qualifies as “fun reading,” but the senators are clear about the bottom line. PBMs, as they are operating, are a nightmare for consumers and pharmacy operations. It’s not surprising that Wyden and Crapo have the support of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the National Community Pharmacists Association, for starters.

A number of Idaho groups are backing PBM reform, including the American Nurses Association, the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Idaho Retailers Association and the Idaho State Pharmacy Association.

According to a letter to Crapo from the group, the benefit managers “have used their control over the prescription drug supply chain and the high costs of some medicines to line their own pockets with record-setting profits. In the process they have increased costs for patients, narrowed where Americans can choose to access their prescription medications and in turn pushed long trusted independent pharmacies across the country out of business.”

Wyden and Crapo hear the message, loud and clear.

“The time for PBM reform was yesterday,” Wyden says. “It’s past time to crack down on the shady practices of these pharma middlemen that result in higher drug prices for consumers across Oregon and nationwide. The Senate Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, is not backing down today, tomorrow, or ever until we get PBM reform in America to help pharmacists and patients. We want to put patients over profits and we’re going to stay at it until it gets done.”

A reform bill may not be the end-all political solution to the nation’s health-care problems, but it does get to the front lines of the battle. And while bipartisan unity is not a new venture for Crapo and Wyden, who are longtime colleagues from neighboring states, it’s refreshing to see it on display.

We’re not going to see much bipartisanship during this election-year campaign.

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