Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in December 2020

Can order come from chaos?

December 15, 2020

rainey

What the Hell is wrong with us?

We’ve become a nation in which more than a third of its citizens refuse to accept facts, wallow in disinformation and damned lies, threaten public officials in the conduct of their jobs - or at their homes- parading around with guns. What the Hell is wrong with us? Or, more especially, them!

It would be simple - and wrong - to blame Donald J. Trump. He didn’t start it. Most of these people were already angry and looking for someone - or several someone(s) - to give them permission to openly express their anger and frustrations with government and society in general. Trump just showed up on the scene with his keen sense of showmanship and audacity. His specific talent was to offer a misguided and an angry population someone to coalesce around - someone to use the national platform of the presidency to give voice to the voice-less. Something he’s likely to continue in private life.

Before him, all they could do was scream at their radios when Limbaugh spewed his lies and said what they were thinking. They could vent their anger at the TV’s when Hannity blasphemed all over their living rooms and pilloried some public figure they also hated.

In my opinion, Trump’s biggest weapon was he hated the same people they do. He hated the same “liberal establishment” they do. He broadcast to everyone the same baseless accusations they’d made for years with only a spouse or a few friends to hear. He was the answer to a large, angry crowd just waiting for an unprincipled, boastful, lying “savior” to give voice to the voiceless. Their amplifier.

We know 74,223,030 Americans signed up to follow the false prophet while 81,282,903 said “NO” and voted to send their leader back among the populace.

Now, we’re seeing their undisciplined anger in meetings of school boards, health districts, county commission and city councils. They’re at the door with guns. Threatening community leaders at work and at their homes. Shouting their lies and disbelief of actual facts. Pointing dangerous laser lights through windows where they live. Threatening innocent families.

Here, in Arizona, the state GOP has issued an email that asks “Are you willing to die for the Republican Party?” “Die?” Yes, “die!’

Examples of the dangers falling out of this opened “Pandora’s Box” are everywhere. Southwest and North Idaho are under their ‘attack.’ Southern Oregon and Eastern Washington have their armed militias. Nazi swastikas being affixed to Idaho’s Anne Frank memorial. Murder plots found naming governors and other public figures. An itinerant divisiveness spreading lies about election fraud and the absolutely baseless claim that COVID-19 does not exist.

That latter lie is brain-numbing coming from the lips of people who are actually dying of the disease. The last words coming from their lips repeating a lie. A damned lie! Absent families not allowed to be with their loved one, nurses listen in disbelief. A public anger - now personal on a Gurney - a death bed - forming a victim’s last thoughts.

Speaking of Republican’s, where the hell are the 54 in the U.S. Senate?
What voices do you hear coming from the “tomb” - formerly the Senate Chamber? All of them - ALL - have sold their souls to Trump and his minions, accepting his lies as fact, unable to condemn in a trial when the evidence was stacked six-feet high, acting like political handmaidens standing by silently as Trump has repeatedly run amok. Given their subservience, why were a third of ‘em re-elected last month? Don’t we - us - care about their indolence?

President-elect Biden - Uncle Joe - is about to walk into a maelstrom. No president has faced a tougher situation since, probably, Andrew Johnson who became president after the assassination of Lincoln, at the end of the Civil War. Our nation, then, was deeply divided, too.

Biden has cast himself as a healer, someone who can bring us together. He talks of cooperation, of a national cohesion, of taking us to a better place. I’m certain he’ll try.

But, in the streets, how does he restore normalcy to a large population armed to the teeth, threatening elected officials in their work - in their homes? How does he disarm militias in nearly every state who believe - crazily - that a new “Civil War” is necessary and that they are the ones properly preparing for the “battle?” How do you bring COVID deniers to mask-wearing and other tools necessary to combat the deadly disease?

Can we expect he’ll be successful in bringing normalcy out of such chaos? Or, are we, as a nation, entering a time when such conditions are harbingers of the new “normal?”

I don’t have the answers. Nor do you. We’re entering a time - absent Trump - when most of us are wanting peace in our lives. We want cohesion. We want to rid the nation of anger, of discord, of armed interruptions in the conduct of our affairs. We desire a return of respect, of calm, living peacefully with our neighbors.

We want a nation healed. One we can be proud of. Uncle Joe needs all the help we can muster to get there. From all of us.

A government cover-up

December 14, 2020

jones

As I watched a recent TV news interview of a gentleman saying the government could not tell him what to wear, a memory floated back into my mind from the 1950s. My hometown, Eden, Idaho, was confronted with that very question. A local free spirit, Bill N, chafed at the idea of having to wear clothes in public. So, Bill would occasionally appear on Main Street without a stitch of clothing, other than a 4-inch-wide leather belt, apparently to show that the government could not force him to wear clothes. Needless to say, the government won the argument, causing Bill to spend some time at the State Hospital in Blackfoot for flaunting the law against indecent exposure.

The critical question nowadays is whether the government can require folks to wear a mask. We all seem to take it for granted that government laws can make us wear clothes in public to protect the sensibilities of onlookers. Doesn’t it make sense that it can take the extra little step of requiring us to cover our noses and mouths so as not to exhale potentially deadly virus-laden vapor toward others?

The scientific community tells us that masks work to help stop the spread of the coronavirus. A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found face masks to be “the most effective means to prevent the interhuman transmission” of the virus. An October report out of the University of Washington said that the extensive use of face masks could prevent 130,000 needless American deaths by the end of February. With the current Covid-19 daily death toll in the U.S. climbing above 3,000 and wide-spread vaccination months away, it is critical for everyone to mask up.

Masks are dirt cheap, compared to the staggering cost of all of the medical staff and facilities required to care for patients who are infected by those exhaling unfiltered breath containing the virus. And masking is something that everyone can easily do.

Some refuse to mask up, believing the pandemic is a hoax. However, it is considered to be a serious health threat by virtually every nation on the planet. Decisions by consumers, businesses and governments are driven by that belief. There will never be a real economic rebound until the great majority of our people believe the threat has been contained. That won’t happen until about 95% of us start wearing masks, regardless of any conspiracy theory. Masks can avert the need for costly lockdowns.

Idaho’s Disaster Medical Advisory Committee has asked Governor Brad Little to impose a statewide mask mandate because our hospitals are overflowing with Covid-19 victims, medical personnel are being run ragged and things are getting worse by the day. Governor Little is a decent person and I believe he would have mandated mask-wearing long ago, if it weren’t for a science-defying Lieutenant Governor and covey of like-minded legislators nipping at his heels. The time has come for the mandate, before the situation spins out of control.

I believe the vast majority of Idahoans would appreciate a mask mandate. Many anti-makers would comply because Idaho folk are basically law abiders. Some who don’t wear masks because of peer pressure from anti-maskers might be pleased to have an excuse to mask up. Mask mandates are in effect in 37 other states so there would be no shame in following the science and joining them.

As Bill N sadly learned, Idahoans have been happy for many years with the government requiring them to cover up certain body parts in public. Just adding a small covering over our noses and mouths to protect the lives of our friends and neighbors shouldn’t be a big deal.

He called for martial law

December 13, 2020

 

A guest opinion from Everett Wohlers, an Idahoan and long-time deputy in the state's secretary of state's office. It previously appeared in the blog Informed Comment.

On Tuesday, December 1, Michael Flynn, the beneficiary of President Trump’s recent pardon, published a manifesto calling on President Trump to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law so that the military could organize and run a new election for President to void the recent election which was lost by the President. The core of the manifesto called for the President to “immediately declare a limited form of martial law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote.” Flynn’s position was immediately amplified in print and electronic media by far-right groups such as We The People Coalition (WTPC).

It appears that the President was listening because on the day after Flynn’s manifesto and the related WTPC ad were released, his 46 minute Facebook rant included a call for a re-vote. While Flynn’s manifesto is ludicrous on its face because it amounts to incitement of a coup against the Constitution, the President has demonstrated in the weeks since he lost the election that he is becoming increasingly unhinged such that it is not inconceivable that he could take Flynn’s call-out seriously.

That begs the question of what would happen if President Trump were to actually adopt Flynn’s position and declare a suspension of the Constitution and attempt to impose martial law. Because of the President’s fragile mental state and desperation to overturn his loss of the election, this question needs to be considered so that we know what the range of outcomes would be and what to expect.

If the President were to decide to act on Flynn’s proposal, he would first issue an order to declare martial law, to suspend the Constitution, to declare the recent election void as to the office of President, and to order a new election. He would then have to give orders to the military leadership to implement martial law and to undertake organization and administration of the election. By decapitating the civilian leadership of the Pentagon in early November, including Secretary of Defense Esper and the leadership layer immediately below him, and replacing them with totally incompetent, but personally loyal, operatives, Trump has assured that he will get no pushback against such orders from the civilian level.

The same cannot be said of the military leadership, both at the Joint Chiefs level and at the level of operational commands. Military leaders and the Judge Advocate officers who support them tend to take their oath of appointment to “support and defend the Constitution” very seriously. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley, is the leading case in point. In August of this year, in responding to questions from members of the House Armed Services Committee about how he would respond to an order from the President to use the military for political gain, he said forcefully, “I will not follow an unlawful order.”

More specifically with respect to the possibility of an order to have the military intervene in the electoral process, he said, “I foresee no role for the U.S. armed forces in this process.” At the levels of command below the Joint Chiefs, a commander who receives an order that is of questionable legality will automatically consult with his or her Judge Advocates, who will assess the legality of the order. If it is determined that the order is unlawful, the commander is obligated not to obey it. The question of whether President Trump’s order to implement martial law will be implemented by the military, then, comes down to whether it is determined by the military leadership, with the support of their Judge Advocates, to be lawful.

There are two possible ways in which the President could order the military to implement martial law. One might be called “martial law lite” because it is not true martial law, but rather the use of the armed forces as a “posse comitatus,” i.e. as a law enforcement body to carry out the President’s directives. The other is actual martial law, whereby civil authority is suspended and military authority is imposed in its place, i.e. the military takes control of all law enforcement and judiciary functions pursuant to a suspension of the Constitution and existing laws. The military leadership and their Judge Advocates would have to determine the lawfulness of whichever of these two forms they were ordered to implement, as follows:

– Posse comitatus – Federal law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S. Code Sec. 1385, prohibits the use of the armed forces as a posse comitatus, i.e. in civilian law enforcement, except as “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. . . .” There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes use of the armed forces as a posse comitatus. The only statutory provision to which the President could potentially point for such authority is the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S. Code Sec. 252, which is supplemented by the provisions in 10 U.S. Code Sections 332 through 334. Sections 252 and 332 both provide that if the President finds “that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” he may call the National Guard of the state to active duty or use the active duty armed forces “to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.” [Emphasis added.] The scope of the Insurrection Act is, then, limited to specific cases of unlawful actions or rebellion against federal authority. Further, it may be invoked only against actions within a state, not across the entirety of the United States. It is clear, then, that a Presidential order to suspend the Constitution for the purpose of holding a new election under military control, purportedly under the authority of the Insurrection Act, would not be lawful. First, there are no ongoing actions that could reasonably be deemed to be an “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion. . . .” Second, there is no way that conducting a new election could be framed as a response to such actions, even if they existed. And third, such an order would apply to the entire country, not a state. Therefore, an order to the military based on the Insurrection Act would on its face be unlawful, and therefore would not be obeyed by the military.

– Martial law – The imposition of full-blown martial law whereby all of the existing law enforcement and judicial functions are displaced by military law and structures pursuant to suspension of the Constitution is nowhere permitted by the Constitution, so would be unlawful on its face. The only provision for suspension of any legal protection in the Constitution is the provision in Article I, Section 9, paragraph 2, which provides that, “. . . Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Note that this limited provision is in Article I, which governs the Legislative branch, so it is not available to the Executive branch. Flynn’s manifesto and the related WTPC ad cite President Lincoln’s invocation of martial law, which required the suspension of Habaus Corpus, as precedent supporting a President’s power to suspend the Constitution in its entirety and to impose martial law. Aside from the fact that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus would in no way serve as precedent for wholesale suspension of the entire Constitution, as Flynn and WTPC suggest, Flynn and WTPC totally overlook the fact that the Supreme Court held Lincoln’s action to be unconstitutional in the case of ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Court in Milligan closely limited the circumstances in which martial law is permissible in saying, “If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority. . . .” The Court went on to say, “Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.” There is no “actual war” going on inside the United States, nor are the civilian courts “actually closed.” It could not be clearer that imposition of martial law under a suspension of the Constitution is absolutely impermissible, and any order given by the President in such case is on its face unlawful. Such an order would not, therefore, be obeyed by the military.

The conclusion is that the military, from GEN Milley down through the operational commands, would not obey an order to enforce martial law and to administer a new election. The question remains as to what would follow the military’s refusal. The simplest answer is that nothing would have to happen – civil authority would go on until the problem is resolved on January 20 when Donald Trump leaves the White House, either voluntarily or kicking and screaming at the hands of the Secret Service under the direction of President Biden. But it is likely that there would also be litigation that could reach the Supreme Court on an expedited basis, which should change nothing – not even the Republican-packed Court could find a way to make President Trump’s action lawful.

There is a question whether such an action by the President, as well as the contributing actions of Flynn, WTPC and others who advocated for the action, could be charged under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2385, which makes it a crime to advocate overthrow of the government. But that can be addressed at a later time, if it becomes ripe.

In closing, I will add a comment that is personal to me as a retired military officer. Michael Flynn is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General. When he was commissioned many years ago, he swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” That oath does not lapse. His call to suspend that Constitution, to forcibly implement martial law, and to conduct an election in violation of the Constitution, stains the uniform which all of us who are or were members of the armed forces wore. Even if he never faces legal consequences for his blatant violation of his sacred oath, he will forever bear the shame of it.

But it’s still a coup

December 12, 2020

johnson

A month and a half before the country voted in the November election, Barton Gellman wrote a long piece in The Atlantic predicting with uncanny precision what has happened over the last month.

“Let us not hedge about one thing,” Gellman wrote. “Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward.” By “Interregnum” Gellman means the period we are in right now, the fragile space between when one candidate for president loses – in this case Trump – and the winner takes office.

We still have 40 days and 40 nights to go. And it’s a chapter right out of the new book Strongmen, a book I highly recommend.

There was a fair amount to scoffing at Gellman’s prediction that a defeated Trump would never concede and might actually attempt to further corrupt American democracy by sowing widespread doubt about the election outcome, or that he would actively try to get fellow Republicans to help him steal an election he lost.

The esteemed journalist Walter Shapiro, a legendary political observer, was one who mostly dismissed concerns about the seriousness of Trump’s post-election nonsense. Shapiro quoted Sam Feist, CNN’s Washington bureau chief, as basically saying: don’t worry, the election outcome will be obvious when one candidate reaches the required 270 electoral votes.

Even if Trump prematurely declares his own victory, which is precisely what he did in the early hours of November 4, Feist told Shapiro, “We will all note that the facts do not support this declaration…”

But in the Trump Era, to most Republicans, facts don’t matter. Losing more than 50 desperate and often comically inept election legal challenges doesn’t matter. Having the Supreme Court dismiss a challenge to Pennsylvania votes with a one-sentence kiss off that must be the most obvious “bugger off” delivered by a court in presidential history doesn’t matter.

The loathsome Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz was actually ready to argue the case before the high court before the nine justices, three appointed by Trump, effectively told the president to go pound sand.

(Now Texas has rounded up 16 other states and more than 100 Republican members of Congress in another appeal to the Supreme Court that most every respected court observer believes is a ridiculous and futile effort to throw out millions of votes in four states Biden won.)

Trump lost the election – it really was not close, either in the popular vote or the Electoral College margin – but he has still salted democracy’s soil with the conspiracy theory that it was all a rigged, stolen election. This is and continues to be an unprecedented assault on free elections and a peaceful transition of power. And virtually every Republican office holder, including the backbone free enemies of democracy who represent Idaho and eastern Washington, have helped him do it.

The Turkish-born academic Zeynep Tufekci, who has experienced perverted or stolen elections in her home county, understands what is happening: “The U.S. president is trying to steal the election, and, crucially, his party either tacitly approves or is pretending not to see it. This is a particularly dangerous combination, and makes it much more than just typical Trumpian bluster or norm shattering.”

As Tufekci says, “Act like this is your first coup, if you want to be sure that it’s also your last.”

There is another aspect, equally frightening and anti-democratic, playing out across the country as Trump plots his next lie on Twitter. The political unrest he stokes to further his claim to hanging on to the White House has come, or is coming, to a courthouse or a statehouse near you.

The Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, pressured by Trump to do something, anything to reverse his loss there, said she had no choice but to acquiesce to the president’s pressure. “If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” Kim Ward said about signing a letter demanding her state’s congressional delegation work to overturn Biden’s win, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

Armed thugs shouting obscenities into bullhorns surrounded the home of Michigan’s secretary of state Jocelyn Benson last weekend, demanding that she “stop the steal,” even after the state certified its results confirming a Biden win in Michigan by 154,000 votes.

Benson said she supports peaceful protest, but that “there is a line crossed when gatherings are done with the primary purpose of intimidation of public officials who are carrying out the oath of office they solemnly took as elected officials.”

Similar efforts to intimidate local and state election officials have taken place in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin. And the trickle-down effects of Trump’s effort to further destabilize the political process are felt even in a very Trump friendly place like Idaho. The local health district that serves four counties in southwestern Idaho, meeting to discuss steps to counter the raging pandemic, had to end its discussion when armed protesters showed up at the homes of three board members. The area is overwhelmed by the virus with hospital administrators warning that they will be forced to ration care by Christmas.

The very Trumpy “anti-mask” protesters, clearly influenced by the president’s politicization of pandemic mitigation measures, were deemed a threat to public safety by Boise police. Ada County Commissioner Diana Lachiondo was forced to leave the health board meeting in tears in order to rush home and check on her 12-year old son.

The Associated Press reported that the protesters were organized “at least in part, by a loose multi-state group called People’s Rights. The group was created by Ammon Bundy,” the same dangerous clown who was arrested earlier this year during a violent incident at the Idaho state capitol.

Almost simultaneously the human rights memorial in downtown Boise – a place that honors both Anne Frank and the late northern Idaho human rights activist Bill Wassmuth – was vandalized when some imbecile placed swastikas on the memorial, one claiming Nazis “are everywhere.”

To his credit, Idaho Governor Brad Little immediately condemned the intimidation aimed at health district board members, but he remains – as do other Republican leaders – maddingly indifferent to the broader assault on democracy underway. The governor, the congressional delegation and legislative leaders have bully pulpits, but they never muster the guts to speak from them.

Fearing his fellow conservatives, Little purposely created the environment where local, part-time health officials have had to become the frontline in the virus fight. And he acted this week as if his plans to cut taxes during the next legislative session was an adequate response to the radical rightwing anarchy that now increasingly dominates the state’s politics, and surely will continue to do so in the future.

By refusing to confront attacks on democracy at the highest level, Republicans now contend with attacks at every level, and the attacks come from their own supporters that they refuse to confront. Republicans have sown this wind; we all will now surely reap the whirlwind.

An actual profile in courage

December 11, 2020

stapiluslogo1

It doesn’t happen especially often, but now and again you do see it: An actual, clear-cut, indisputable profile in courage.

Today’s rare example: Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden.

This arises from one of the misbegotten legal actions of recent years, coming out of - surprise - Texas, which is suing in federal court to interfere in how several other states conduct their elections. It is a completely unprecedented kind of interference - states historically always have left each other alone in the conduct of their elections, and even the federal government generally has stayed at a remove. But Texas is suing four states that voted for Democrat Joe Biden for president seeking to throw out millions of votes because it didn’t support the candidate Texas officials supported.

Do not be fooled by any - any - of the arguments about flawed election processes in those sued states (or any others, for that matter). Those states and their elected officials have been challenged in court over and over, dozens of times, in the last month, and no evidence of any substantial problems has been developed, with the result that nearly every legal challenge has been aggressively thrown from the courts - often by judges appointed by Republicans, including Donald Trump. If someone has evidence of significant electoral wrongdoing, they should bring it forward. So far, the most strenuous efforts of Trump supporters have come up dry. This was a clean election. These vague, unsubstantiated claims of fraud are the fraud.

Why do you hear of election fraud in rallies and press conferences but, from shame-faced lawyers, none in court? Because lying to judges in court can have serious professional repercussions.

Nevertheless, Texas has been assembling support from Republican officials in other states. At this writing 17 Republican states’ attorneys general have signed on. It’s become a national conservative litmus test.

Wasden said he wouldn’t join. Here’s the substance of why:

“As I have done since the day I took my oath of office – in which I pledged to uphold and protect both the Idaho and U.S. constitutions – I strive to protect the State of Idaho’s legal interests. As is sometimes the case, the legally correct decision may not be the politically convenient decision. But my responsibility is to the State of Idaho and the rule of law.
“This decision is necessary to protect Idaho’s sovereignty. As Attorney General, I have significant concerns about supporting a legal argument that could result in other states litigating against legal decisions made by Idaho’s legislature and governor. Idaho is a sovereign state and should be free to govern itself without interference from any other state. Likewise, Idaho should respect the sovereignty of its sister states.”
Actually, this is a sound conservative stance. He makes a fair states-rights point: If Idaho can sue Wisconsin and Georgia to try to get them to overturn the will of their voters, then why shouldn’t California and Oregon be able to sue Idaho to overturn its results? Open the door, and you never know who may walk through. (The Wisconsin rebuttal brief makes a similar point.)

That, of course, is in addition to the simple glaring dishonesty of the Texas project.

Wasden’s reference to political convenience also is on target. He will be taking no end of heat, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a flash mob of armed protesters show up at his house, since this seems to be the expanding modus operandi in Idaho on the right. Odds are his office has been fielding physical threats by the time you read this. (Idaho’s legislative leadership also called on him to join with Texas.)

Compare that to the craven response by Governor Brad Little who, following up on Wasden, said he would have an attorney file a brief supporting Texas. His statement as to why: "Idaho's elections are safe and secure, and we expect the same of other states. Protecting the sanctity of the voting process is paramount to ensuring a strong democratic process, and our citizens need the confidence that their vote counts.” (Notice the absence of actual specifics in other states.)

He does not say how spreading fake rumors and distrust in the elections held by other states, which is what the Texas suit does and is designed to do, will help give our citizens “confidence that their vote counts.”

There’s a reason profiles in courage are rare: It’s hard to stand up to the crowd. Wasden is not a newcomer to that role; he’s taken gutsy stands before. This may be his gutsiest.

Forecast

December 10, 2020

schmidt

As the darkest day of the year approaches, it’s time to consider just what the Idaho legislature will be up to in their coming January congealment in Boise. If this year is anything like the last few, there will be lots of talk, some bluster and hand wringing. Finally they’ll not agree on much and then go home near planting time.

One thing is for sure, there will be lots of grousing about Medicaid; there always is. I have often found the level of Medicaid dyspepsia a legislator burps is inversely proportional to their understanding of the program.

As an example, back when I was campaigning for office and participating in community forums, I always got asked about whether Idaho should expand Medicaid eligibility, since I had served on a governor’s task force to study it. My opponent at the time waxed on how Idaho should not expand Medicare, though his reasons were unclear. The other Republican candidates at the forum also proudly stated they opposed expanding Medicare. Their confusion permeated the audience, and the forum moderator who also repeated the mistake in his comments. Medicare is not Medicaid, though confusion persists.

This was way back in 2014, when the cost would have been zero dollars to the state. We missed that window, but through initiative the measure passed in 2018 (61% supported). The full rollout started January of this year. By October, about 90,000 Idahoans have enrolled.

The expanded Medicaid population is paid for with a 90/10 federal/state match. For every $1 in Idaho taxes spent, we get $9 federal support.
The Department of Health and Welfare gave the legislature a heads-up back in early November that they were spending about $90M more this year than they had expected. Less than half of that was attributed to the expanded Medicaid population. Most of the cost increases were in the other Medicaid programs.

Medicaid covers low income uninsured, pregnant women, children, and the disabled. The vast majority of enrollees are children and pregnant women, with the low-income adults a close third. But over half the costs for Medicaid go for the disabled, less than 20% of the enrollees.

Almost all Medicaid expenses go directly to providers: hospitals, pharmacies, doctors, and mental and rehabilitative health providers. About 2% goes to management and fraud oversight. That, by the way, is a fifth to a tenth of what your health insurance company spends on overhead.

How much providers get paid is a continual battle. If you pay less and less, pretty soon providers stop accepting Medicaid patients.

Why do costs go up? Increased enrollment costs more. We for sure got that with Medicaid expansion. But that only explains half of the bump. Did utilization (more doctor visits, surgeries, prescriptions) increase? Yes, it did. The department budgeted for average utilization in the newly covered population, but many folks had some pent-up demand. Heck, I can get that hernia fixed I’ve had since ‘05.

This is what every state has seen when they adopted Medicaid expansion. After a year or two, utilization normalizes. But realize, utilization went up in the non-expansion population also. This is long war, not a skirmish.
Legislators don’t like departments to spend more money than budgeted. I sure didn’t when I was working their budgets on the Finance Committee. Department budgets were pretty tight back then.

I watched our state government go through some pretty drastic cuts in 2011 when the real estate investors bankrupted Wall Street and Main Street. Back then, Medicaid cut services for dental coverage. Within two years they asked for a reversal of this, because they had found they were paying more in emergency room coverage for severe dental emergencies than they saved not paying for dental visits.

You can save money not changing the oil in your car too. It’s just stupid. I believe we have some smart legislators who understand the role of Medicaid in our economy and are responsible about taxpayer spending. Let’s hope they can convince the uninformed crowd.

Hail who?

December 9, 2020

malloy

If President Trump decides to take another run for the office in 2024, and makes his announcement on Jan. 20, Republicans in Congress will have an interesting choice to make.

The choice is whether they attend Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration, or Trump’s campaign rally. Former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, who was no stranger to partisan battles during his years in Congress, knows what he would do – assuming that no earthshaking evidence surfaces about voter fraud.

“I’d attend the inauguration,” he said. “I have been, and remain, a strong Trump supporter. But I think the responsibility of every sitting member of Congress is to attend the inauguration celebration of a new presidency, whomever that president may be.”

And there is no doubt that Biden will be president on Jan. 20. But Craig says he’s not comfortable about this year’s elections. “There are a number of investigations going forward, based on what appears to be substantial allegations of fraud.”

Allegations are there, for sure, but so far there is no proof. Judges have dismissed a multitude of cases brought up by Trump and states have certified Biden as the winner. But Craig thinks Congress should not be finished with the issue, starting with a vote-by-mail system that seems to heavily favor Democrats.

“If I were on the judiciary committee of the Senate, I would hold the most extensive investigation that has ever been heard. I’d want to go through how the election was handled, the software that was used and the computer companies that managed it,” Craig said. “If allegations are anywhere near right, and we actually had the manipulation on a massive scale, then we have a major problem. We’ve always had fraud in election – Pennsylvania and Michigan were notorious because of the labor unions – but those were spotted. Those were not nationwide in their scope.”

Republicans are under fire for standing with Trump and refusing to even recognize Biden as the president-elect. Craig says some of his GOP friends are telling him that the president should move on.

“Wait a minute. Remember that when Donald Trump took office, Democrats said the Russians elected him and they kept it up for months and months. So why not do it? And if there’s a reason to do it, then dammit, stay with it … drag it out a bit. Shame on us if we are going to turn our backs on this, when (Democrats) spent four years beating the ‘H’ out of Donald Trump,” Craig says.

“What he is doing is legitimate. He has the constitutional right as a candidate to test the process to make sure there was no fraud. One thing that must be sacred is the credibility and legitimacy of our election process,” says Craig. “I truly believe if the Democratic Party had thought Hillary Clinton would lose, Trump never would have won. They were thinking that this silly character out of New York City wouldn’t be elected by the American people. What they didn’t realize is he was speaking to the American people in the way that has never been seen.”

And Trump, apparently, is not going to give it up. If he runs in 2024, with strong backing from his party, he’ll keep his grip on the GOP for the next four years – and potentially the next eight years after that. Craig hopes Republicans will turn the page on the Trump era at some point in the next four years.

“I would hope we’d have someone as articulate and strong in the policies as Donald Trump, but I’m not sure if any of us wants to go through the personal style of Donald Trump again,” Craig says. “He has moved the party in the right direction. He has brought in minorities and working-class people who have never voted Republican before, and it’s tremendously important that we sustain that base and build on it if we are to be the majority party in the country.”

Craig makes solid points about base building. The question is whether Republicans decide to move forward without Trump, or dwell on the past with him.

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

Rape, ruin and run

December 8, 2020

rainey

Donald Trump’s last days in office are upon us and there seem to be stories in each day’s news of more political destruction, lies, firings and other bad acts

We knew his presidential death throes would be tumultuous and the incoming administration would have to clear away the wreckage before getting down to new business. But, it’s proving to be more than “Where are the hard drives” and more like “Where the Hell are the computers?”

Trump has never lost at anything without the ability to claim “success,” walk away and go on to some other scam - er, failed venture. He’s always had a way out. Declare “victory” and go home.

So, this is the first time he’s had to face flat-out losing. Big time! His greatest personal defeat. No exit. His disgraceful term in office will be constantly in the memories of everyone living today and will be his legacy for many millenniums. He has, as they say, “made his mark.”

It’s going to take the Biden team a long, long time to clean up the mess before starting to download what looks to be a significant entry to the new presidential term. Still, Biden is promising new legislation and his own handful of executive orders on day one. He intends to be a “hard charger” and a “game changer.”

One of the most important tasks he faces is restoring - or attempting to restore - citizen faith in the institutions of government. That may be the most damning legacy of Trump - his four years of denouncing and dismantling of trust in our own government. His attempts at blindly slashing budgets, firing of competent people not to his personal liking, installing completely inexperienced folk in offices of importance, impugning the honesty and reputations of people who “got in his way, and placing his own “spies” in crucial agencies to report on activities of the “unfaithful.”

Trump is not a builder. He’s a user. He’s a destroyer. His failed ventures have left no successes while dealing in bank loans involving billions of dollars over the years. Not one.

To his own discredit, you can add a failed presidency as well.

Trump has spent millions of dollars trying to overthrow one or all state reporting of the presidential election. To no avail. In fact, even A.G. Billy Barr has had to refute some of Trump’s wildest claims.

And, in the most egregious and unprofessional display of television “reporting” ever, Maria Barteromo of Faux Bizness Nuez let Trump have nearly a half-hour to threaten, charge, blaspheme and lie, lie, lie. And lie. Unchallenged. Unanswered and all B.S.. If that happened on “over-the-air” TV, there would’ve been challenges filed with the FCC up the old wazoo.

The late Idaho Governor, Cecil Andrus, used a phrase for individuals and companies that abused public lands. He called it “rape, ruin and run.” When it comes to personal and political conduct, Trump fits that definition to a “T.”

We’ve still got about 45 days of Trump in the White House. What more destructive actions he’ll take is anyone’s guess. But, you can bet, he’s not done.

We hear people talk about a pardon for DJT. Doubtful. He hasn’t been charged or convicted of anything. He may try to pardon his family members but they, too, haven’t been charged. Yet.

It’s not the feds Trump has to be worried about. If any crimes are lodged against him in the future, it’ll most likely be the Southern District of New York, the Manhattan District Attorney or the New York State Attorney General. That last office seems to have a large “working file” on the Trump doings in the “Empire State.” Don’t forget, that was the outfit that shut down the Trump “Foundation” and collected a multi-million dollar fine in the process.

Out of office, Trump still may face charges from Congress. Been some talk of that in the marble hallways. Then, there are those sexual assault charges. Some 28 at last count. Some may be beyond the statute of limitations. But, some may not.

People are talking about Trump getting into the broadcast business with a radio or TV outfit. Could be. With Limbaugh in Stage Four cancer, the Trumpers are going to need a new “voice” of the right.

Whatever he decides to do after 12:01pm on January One, you’ll continue to hear from him. Bet on it! Even if it’s from a jail cell.

“Rape, ruin and run.” Says it all about Donald.

More stimulus, please

December 7, 2020

jones

With the pandemic raging out of control, it is essential that Congress pass legislation in December to get money into the hands of millions of Americans who are facing eviction and hunger. The health of our economy depends on it. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell recently said that additional spending relief is “absolutely essential” to the country’s economic recovery.

The greatest urgency is to prevent millions of Americans from facing the prospect of eviction when the Center for Disease Control (CDC) eviction moratorium expires at the end of December. When the initial stimulus bill, the Cares Act, was passed in March, it included cash assistance payments to tens of millions impacted by the economic shutdown. Those payments ran out in July after Congress was unable to agree upon an extension.

The CDC issued an order in September, banning pandemic-related evictions for the rest of 2020, based on the public health risks of filling homeless shelters with evicted renters. The government has not provided any additional financial assistance to pay delinquent rent so that obligation has been accumulating and will be collectable when the moratorium expires at the end of the year.

According to a November 24 Fox News report, up to 23 million renters across the country are at risk of eviction when the moratorium expires. January will see a dramatic increase of evictions in Idaho and around the nation unless Congress provides substantial financial assistance during early December. One estimate indicates up to 37% of Idaho renters could be at risk. Many of those unfortunate souls are single mothers, who have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic.

The financial picture for renters is further complicated by the fact that 12 million Americans will lose unemployment benefits the day after Christmas. This also needs to be addressed in a new stimulus bill.

It is not just renters who are suffering. Landlords may be a less sympathetic group, but the pandemic and foreclosure moratorium have obviously impacted them, too. Many are essentially mom and pop businesses that operate on a thin margin and have limited access to credit. Financial assistance to help tenants pay rent to their landlords would certainly be preferable to bringing eviction suits.

And it is not just rent that has fallen into default because of the pandemic. Utility bills for water, power and sewer are being unpaid, threatening millions of Americans with a cut-off of these vital services in the middle of a winter pandemic. It is estimated that default in payment of electric and gas bills alone will exceed $24.3 billion by the end of the year.

Hunger is also reaching crisis proportions during the pandemic, as evidenced by the long lines at food distribution centers shown on television news practically every day. Recently-collected Census Bureau data shows that one in eight Americans, including about 10% of Idahoans, reported they “sometimes or often didn’t have enough food to eat.” This should not happen in the wealthiest nation on the planet.

Congress must rise to the challenge of addressing this looming national disaster by approving a substantial financial relief package to get the country through the pandemic. Donald Trump made a solemn promise on October 30 that, “We will have a tremendous stimulus package immediately after the election,” and it is now time for him and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver that package. Our Senators, Jim Risch and Mike Crapo, need to join in the effort.