Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in July 2021

Banning health protocols

July 16, 2021

stapiluslogo1

For many years pilots of American aircraft, small as well as large, routinely have executed a protocol before takeoff, often written-down, often spoken aloud: “Landing gear position lights - checked, altimeter - set, directional gyro - set, fuel gauges - checked …” It slows things down a minute or two, and probably mildly aggravates some experienced pilots. But partly as a result, American aviation has for decades had a remarkably excellent record of avoiding accidents.

In 2001, a parallel thought hit a Johns Hopkins physician who was looking into the large number of patients who died or nearly died because of infections. He came up with a checklist protocol - a series of mostly simple things medical personnel could do to avoid infections - things usually done but sometimes missed; the approach called for a specific check to see that all those things were done. The end result was a dramatic improvement, far fewer infections, far better health.

Each of those things - proper patient cleaning, draping sterile covers in the right place, and so on - meant that medical personnel were in various ways circumscribed. But those little requirements turned out to be highly helpful.

No government agency required any of this. There was no need: Once better procedures were found, not just in this case but in many others, medical providers tended to adopt them as standard practice.

Consider: If we had known that many thousands of lives could be saved by a simple checklist procedure and medical providers weren’t using it, might we then want to require it, even governmentally? Probably, if the trade off is thousands of lives against minor inconvenience … but again, we haven’t had to go there.

This relates to Idaho’s biggest current political dustup.

One of the largely unheralded aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic is the degree private businesses and notably medical providers have gotten on board with taking steps, understood and accepted through long medical experience, to avoid contributing to the problem: masking in stores, social distancing in public spaces, and so on. Much of it was never formally mandated by a government; often, these private organizations simply did what they needed to keep their customers, employees and other people safe. (Many deserve far more credit for this than they’ve tended to get.)

And while it’s a short-term annoyance for us all, I’ll count myself among those who do appreciate it, and pay attention to who is keeping my safety in mind, and who isn’t. I wouldn’t go to a doctor’s office or medical center, for example, that wasn’t taking reasonable steps to keep the people there - staff, patients, visitors, others - safe.

In Idaho, as in most places around the country, medical professionals largely have been doing just that. Headlines popped up when a few of them (I imagine there are many more), including the St., Luke’s and St. Alphonsus medical centers said they would be requiring staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19.

And why not? They don’t (I presume) allow into work staffers who are sick with something contagious, or filthy, under the influence, or otherwise presenting themselves as a hazard to the people around them. Protection against Covid-19 really is little different, and the inoculation requirement probably ought to be a standard across many kinds of organizations wherever many staffers, customers and others routinely interact. As an employer or employee, I wouldn’t think twice about it. It makes sense. People have a right to decide what to put into their bodies, but they have no right to endanger other people.

This is by way of context for the current proposal by Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin to call the Idaho Legislature (of which the state already has seen altogether too much this year) into a special session largely to ban hospitals from taking steps to keep people from getting sick. And there have been public protests in support of that: One sign said “Mandatory Vaccination is a Human Rights Violation.”

If it is, then so is any kind of requirement - from sterile procedures to driving on the right hand side of the road - that inhibits our actions in the interest of keeping us safe. Any of those could be on the legislature’s hit list next (but only if they join the never-ending rotisserie of culture war outrage de jour).

Whether the health and safety of Idahoans is of any interest to most of Idaho legislators is an unsettled question. In the days to come, legislators will decide (they haven’t yet as this was written) whether to return to session to ban hospitals from setting life-saving procedures.

Just don’t tell them about aviation checklists, or Idaho might start seeing planes dropping from the sky every day.

Fulcher and cancer

July 14, 2021

malloy

Serving in Congress is a tough job for anyone, but you’ll never hear Idaho Congressman Russ Fulcher – a self-described workaholic – complaining.
“You know me … I’m going all the time and I don’t stop,” he says.

Until now. Fulcher has been diagnosed with renal cancer and he’ll be going through rounds of energy-zapping chemotherapy. He’ll stay engaged with his job and the political turmoil that goes with it, but he will have an additional focus for a while.

Beating cancer. For now, he might be doing less traveling and voting by proxy – a relatively new rule that he has railed against.

“But as (Minority Leader) Kevin McCarthy told me, if anybody has a good excuse for voting by proxy, it’s me,” Fulcher said. “Overall, I need to do a better job prioritizing,” he said.

Fulcher has had one round of chemotherapy, which he describes as “willingly having poison kicked into my system. Since round one, there are days that I’ve been dragging and other times that I don’t feel much different. Doctors have told me that my cognitive skills are there, but physically I won’t be able to do as much. I’m still learning.”

After his diagnosis, Fulcher told only a few people about his cancer – his family, the three other members of Idaho’s congressional delegation and Gov. Brad Little. Fulcher entertained the notion of not making his diagnosis public, but only briefly.

“Constituents deserve to know, and they have a right to know. If I were on the other side, I’d want to know,” Fulcher said. “I released a statement within about 72 hours of the diagnosis.”

The cancer, he said, was discovered during a routine physical examination and basically came from nowhere. There was no family history of cancer. “I’m young in my 50s (59). I’m very active and play sports on a routine basis. I have no idea of what the cause might be; it just showed up. It probably was a stroke of luck that it was caught when we did.”

Fulcher just happened to mention during his examination that his energy was not at its typically high level, a revelation that probably saved his life. From there, a few tests were taken, and the cancer was discovered.

One thing for sure is that Fulcher will not drown in self-pity. He’s more likely to look at the lighter side, with his self-depreciating sense of humor.
He opened our conversation with this: “My life was not complicated enough – the partisanship, the conflicts, the worldwide drama, the spending we’re going through and all the debate – it just wasn’t quite complicated enough. So, I needed something else to make it more interesting.”

He later added that when he loses his hair, “I’m not going to be one who stands in front of the mirror watching it fall out. I will take it to the cue-ball stage. If you think I’m ugly now, just wait until I’m bald.”

At another point, he said, “You’d be gratified to know that I’m not going to get any dumber.”

Of course, neither cancer nor what he’s going through in general are laughing matters. But his spirits are high, with a lot of help from his family, friends and colleagues.

“When going through something like this, you find out who your friends are – the people who have your back.” Fulcher said. “I haven’t made it a point to go out and be best pals with anybody, because that’s not my job. I haven’t asked for sympathy, or any kind of help. But word does circulate, and when you start getting a string of texts and phone calls from colleagues, you realize that they really do care.”

Topping the list of supporters are the other three members of Idaho’s congressional delegation and the governor. “To a person, they have said they will be there if I need anybody to stand in for me – whether it’s a hearing or attending an event. I may need to take them up on that at some point,” Fulcher said.

“This sucks. It is not insignificant and it is not fun. But this is happening for a reason, and I need to learn something from this. I’m going to be OK, and when this is over, I will be a better legislator and a better person.”

He also says he will have a greater appreciation for others battling with cancer.

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

Government by fear

July 13, 2021

rainey

There’s a lot of blame and anger in the air these days over the actions of legislative bodies in 28 states to limit voting access.

“This state.” “That state.” Pick one.

But, truth be told, that blame and anger is being directed at the wrong target. Those legislative folk are doing what the law allows. Now. If you’re angry about people - mainly people of color - being limited in voting access, I suggest the proper target is Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme court.

More specifically, you can direct your anger at both Roberts and the U.S. Congress. That latter body did nothing specifically about voting access when it came time to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2006. And, that renewal - without dealing with a previously struck access portion - was a huge mistake. Huge!.

Let’s take a step back to a case before SCOTUS - a year or two before Congress got to the renewal stage. The case - the one Roberts was addressing - was Shelby County versus Holder.

In the original Voting Rights Act of 1965, there was a provision requiring states with a history of shutting out voters, to submit to SCOTUS any changes in their voting laws prior to adoption. With that law on the books, incidents of voter exclusion dropped dramatically. For years, things stayed pretty calm.

Then came Shelby v Holder. The petitioners claimed - with good evidence at that time - that the portion of the Voting Rights Act requiring SCOTUS approval of new voting laws was no longer necessary. The states being “punished”by the pre-approval process were doing just fine. No problems.

Stepping up to write the opinion was Chief Justice Roberts. The states in question - mainly in the South - had so few voter access problems, he reasoned, that pre-approval of changes to voting laws from then on was “unnecessary.” So, that portion of the law was eliminated.

Later, when it came time to renew the law - without the pre-approval requirement - Congress went ahead and did so. And, therein lies the problem. That missing “pre-approval” had been challenged four previous times. And Robert’s ruling was upheld four previous times.

So, States like Georgia, North/South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas stopped sending SCOTUS the new laws - because of the Roberts ruling - and they were off to the races.

Now, largely Democrat communities within those states are, in many instances, being handcuffed. New laws are being passed, so restrictive, that people - mainly people of color - are being stopped at the polling place door. At the same time, Republicans have begun purging elections officials not to their liking and, as in our Arizona “fraudit,” beginning to challenge voting results for the same reason.

Naturally, with the despicable leadership/assistance of one D.J. Trump, the next step is to undermine voter confidence in our tried-and-true elections systems. An action already underway.

It would seem - to this non-attorney mind - the only way to stop what 28 states are doing to disenfranchise voters they don’t like is for Congress to again take up the 1964 Voting Rights Act and reinsert some voter protection. If not the original pre-approval requirement, then something else that will stop what’s happening in Red states.

A good case can be made that the underlying motivation for these largely
Republican attacks on our voting system is fear. Fear this nation will soon be no longer one with a White majority. Fear of emerging minorities. Fear younger voters are less attracted to the traditional two-party system. Fear the nation will be governed less by the previously White majority and more by the new multi-racial collaboration of minorities. Fear. F-E-A-R.

It’s a sad fact legislatures in certain states, now in largely Republican hands, can’t be trusted to “serve and protect” all their citizens in the most valued right of citizenship: the right to vote. The right to govern. The right to choose. Those offending legislative bodies have to be disciplined - be held accountable - be made more responsible to the very people who gave them their authority - the voter. All voters.

Congress has failed us by not re-authorizing the state accountability portion of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice Roberts has failed us by apparently letting himself be fooled - some years ago - by temporary acquiescence on the part of previously bad actors at the legislative level. He certainly can see now, from his lofty quarters, what’s been happening in 28 states as they’ve made voting access more restrictive.

Robert’s ruling has been proven to be a tragically flawed one. He let the GOP Genie out of the jar. It would appear only our seemingly stalemated Congress can reset the voting system. Will It?

A hot time on the old planet

July 12, 2021

jones

Every scouting family knows that Lord Robert Baden-Powell was the founder of the world scouting program. Included in his last message to the scouts was this piece of wisdom: “Try and leave this world a little better than you found it, and when your turn comes to die, you can die happy in feeling that at any rate, you have not wasted your time but have done your best.” Ever since, scouts have understood the imperative to make things better for future generations.

Many who have been in power in America and across the world for the last three decades have not only wasted their time, but actually made things much worse, when it comes to the single most important issue of our time--climate change. The scientific community began issuing increasingly alarming warnings about the existential threat of a warming planet in the early 1990s. They told us that the greater the concentration of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet would get. They said we had to stop burning fossil fuels if we wanted to keep the Earth from becoming an uninhabitable hothouse.

For the most part, we and our policy makers ignored them, and the planet has continued to get hotter. The Pacific Northwest reached record highs through the end of June. Lytton, B.C., broke Canada’s all-time heat record, reaching 121 degrees, while most of the village went up in flames. Authorities think that over 800 deaths in the region may be linked to the extreme heat. While the Pacific Northwest was sweltering, the land surface temperature in Verkhoyansk, Siberia, reached 118 degrees.

The heat now trapped in Earth’s atmosphere has almost doubled since 2005. NOAA scientists announced in April that CO2 levels were higher now than at any time in the last 3.6 million years. Consequently, NASA tells us that 2020 tied 2016 as the hottest year on record and that the world’s seven warmest years have all occurred since 2014.

We routinely see headlines that should cause our leaders to jump into action to keep the Earth from frying. “Earth is now losing 1.2 trillion tons of ice each year. And it’s going to get worse.” “Antarctica just hit 65 degrees, its warmest temperature ever recorded.”

Yet, the most we get from Republican Senators, including our Idaho Senators, is a ho- hum response and no action.

This is not just an academic issue--scientists sitting around trying to justify their existence. We see evidence of climate disaster all around us. Massive wildfires have ravaged California, Australia and even Siberia. The heated atmosphere is disrupting weather patterns, bringing searing heat to temperate regions, as we recently witnessed in the Pacific Northwest, and causing unimaginable deluges to the U.S. southern states and elsewhere around the world. Violent weather has become commonplace. The oceans are heating up, which promises to compromise the world’s food supply. We will see more wars being fought over scarce resources. Mass migrations of people fleeing areas where food can no longer be produced because of heat, drought or massive deluges, will dramatically increase. The present situation at our southern border will pale in comparison.

We have it within our power to salvage a livable planet for our grandchildren and their offspring. It will take a herculean effort and massive financial investment, but it can be done. If we don’t use our best efforts to avert further climate disaster, future generations will curse us for handing them an unbearably hot and hostile planet. Historical accounts will identify the short-sighted culprits who deprived them of a livable world. The rogues’ gallery may well include Senators Crapo and Risch. Future Americans will wonder why these officials wasted their time on Earth, failing to take the action scientists identified as essential to save the planet.

Meet the capital doorman

July 11, 2021

meador

Can you answer a question for me? In my ignorance, I just can’t get an apparently-simple concept through my head. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

Lately, several local elected officials have been holding forth about the sanctity of the will of the voters. For the record, I agree with them. Well, I mostly agree, anyway. The will of the voters is sacrosanct except for very rare occasions when extraordinary circumstances render the voters’ choice unfit to serve.

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know we’re talking about Oregon House District 23, the one former Rep. Mike Nearman fled when his colleagues unceremoniously expelled him on June 10.

It all began when Oregon Gov. Kate Brown temporarily closed the capitol building to visitors as a COVID constraint. Most of us agree the place where the people’s business is conducted should be freely accessible. But in this case, all legislative business was livestreamed to anyone who wished to see it and the usual methods constituents use to reach out to their House and Senate members — telephone, email and social media — were readily available. No problem, right? I mean, it’s just for a few weeks. But in the current civil wasteland of menace and suspicion, hundreds of people suddenly decided the best time to visit the capitol in person was during the temporary closure. With attitudes, angry signs and plenty of firearms, they descended on the capitol to voice their discontent on the morning of Dec. 21, 2020.

Meanwhile, Nearman decided the need for the capitol to be open superseded any need for medical caution. While I understand his point, I do not understand the way he decided to prove it. As the disgruntled throng milled around outside the capitol, Nearman met a group of them at a side door and happily let them in. Once inside, Nearman’s minions broke windows and maced half a dozen Oregon State Police troopers before initiating an armed standoff, according to most reports.

While Nearman’s act was caught clearly on video, many people were willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt, believing his lie that he was just leaving the building — even though “leaving” involved him walking briskly to the rear side of the building where he let himself right back in. Not buying Nearman’s story, Speaker of the House Tina Kotek stripped Nearman of his committee assignments and commission appointments. No one was surprised.

Then another Nearman video surfaced. This one starred Nearman coaching a group of people on how they could text him in the capitol building when they were assembled outside a door and ready to invade — er, enter. “Operation Hall Pass,” Nearman dramatically called it. Immersing himself in what he undoubtedly believed to be something like plausible deniability, Nearman repeated a “random” telephone number several times on the video — a number that just happened to be that of his cell phone. Worse, this video was recorded several days before Nearman opened the infamous door.

When confronted with the Nearman-as-doorman and Nearman-as-insurrection-coach videos, Nearman admitted he’d lied and that, yes, he’d intentionally let the angry horde into the closed capitol. Because his own caucus had no trouble recognizing a monumental blunder when they saw one, a unanimous vote expelled Nearman from the House — the first time an expulsion ever happened. Well, the vote was almost unanimous. The single vote to retain him was rendered by Nearman, himself.

The rusty mechanism to replace an expelled House member involves local-level precinct committeepeople presenting nominees to the county commissioners of each county overlapping a House district. A commissioner’s vote is then weighted according to the portion of the district encompassing his or her county. As luck would have it, there’s no rule preventing a previously-expelled member from being appointed to his own vacant seat and — you guessed it! — the nominating precinct committeepeople think Mike Nearman is a fine gentleman, thank you very much.

Fortunately, level heads prevailed and the twelve commissioners (ten of them anyway) wisely selected the fifth choice of the precinct committeepeople, roundly rejecting their first choice, Mike Nearman, himself.

Which brings me to my question.

Can someone please explain to me why the will of the voters of Oregon House District 23 supersedes the will of all other voters? I don’t need you to explain the sanctity of the will of the voters in general — I already understand that. But I must know why House District 23 gets special treatment. I am having a difficult time understanding this.

When an elected official commits an act that threatens harm to his elected colleagues, he effectively removes his ability to work within the body because some of his colleagues are now afraid of him. Don’t get me wrong — I hear Nearman is actually a nice guy but when a nice guy intentionally causes his colleagues to feel threatened — to fear for their safety — no one should be surprised when some of those colleagues can no longer work with him. When other House members cannot come to work because they’re afraid Nearman might pull another juvenile and dangerous stunt, it effectively usurps the will of the voters in their own districts.

In the private sector, such thoughtless defiance would never be tolerated — no one would question the resulting termination. But I know, I know: this is the legislature so the rules are different than those of a mere business. Still, our duly elected governor enacted some temporary restrictions in the face of a health crisis clearly outlined by countless researchers, scientists and physicians. Yes, I get it — you have doubts about the agendas of all those credentialed experts but, really, isn’t any such disagreement a matter for the courts? Or even a matter for debate within your own elected body? When medical experts say there’s a crisis, I would be stupid using my non-medical education to question or second-guess them, even if I do have reservations.

And as for due process, you can pine for legal adjudication until the cows come home but for the vast majority of Oregonians, the moral jury has already very clearly ruled. It did so in the face of laughably overwhelming evidence. Frankly, at this point, I think the moral judgment trumps the puny legal one anyway.

Now, I’ve called Nearman’s rude guests “thugs” but you can call them whatever you like. Protesters, demonstrators, rioters, tourists, Baptists — I don’t care, they were armed, they assaulted half a dozen Oregon State Police troopers and they caused thousands of dollars of damage to our capitol building. Whatever term you prefer is unimportant. Their abhorrent actions caused widespread fear throughout the capitol building.

The crux of my problem is this: when a guy like Nearman commits an act that allows angry armed thugs to enter a building and imperil all of his elected colleagues and their staffs along with capitol personnel, he damages the ability of his colleagues to effectively govern. Why is the will of the voters of House Districts 1 through 22 and 24 through 60 subordinate to the will of District 23’s voters? The actions of District 23’s member should not be permitted to diminish or damage the abilities of up to 59 other districts’ members. Several dozen other legislators shouldn’t have their ability to serve constituents hobbled because they’re afraid of the potential actions of one member with questionable self control.

From another perspective, if the member representing District 44 had disobeyed the governor’s orders and admitted an angry group of armed Antifa rioters into the capitol — rioters who assaulted the police and vandalized the building — I’m pretty sure the member representing District 23 would’ve felt a teensy-weensy bit threatened and I’m even more confident that those all-knowing District 23 voters would’ve been downright outraged that someone from another district threatened their beloved member. Further, if other members were fearful District 44’s representative might repeat her bad judgment, you can be certain there’d be all sorts of clamoring for her removal from the other caucus.

Which brings us back to my original question once again. Why, please tell me, does the will of District 23 voters remain unquestioned when that will imperils the choices of the voters of 59 other districts?

McGeachin’s Salvation Dog & Pony Show

July 11, 2021

hartgen

We might label June’s indoctrination inquiry the Janice McGeachin-Priscilla Giddings-Wayne Hoffman dog and pony show, but that would be an affront to dogs and ponies everywhere.

Following the four-hour, mind-numbing social vetting June 24, McGeachin was still milking it and her “Endorse me, please, endorse me” meeting with former President Donald Trump the same week. (KIDO, 6/26). She referred to him repeatedly as the “President,” saying they exchanged ideas on American greatness and other points in Trump’s wide agenda.

It must be lonely indeed at Trump Towers for Trump to invite McGeachin from a state he couldn’t be bothered to visit, apparently after she snockered her way onto Fox’s Tucker Carlson show which garnered the Trump invite.

Asked if she sought Trump’s endorsement, McGeachin said no, but that’s belied by her groveling and posturing to the hard-righters who form the core of her support. But hey, she is what she is.

As the old political advertisement puts it, “where’s the beef?” McGeachin’s so-called “task force” to uncover Marxist, communism/socialism and critical race theory teaching in Idaho schools has produced not a single incident of these actually occurring in the state. No one testified that they’d seen any such thing. Indeed, no one testified at all, on anything. (IdahoEdNews, 6/24).

It was four hours of rightist blah-blah-blah on how the world is going to ruin and all that. The rambling time was filled with conspiratorial “what if it’s here” rants, but no Idaho examples. Listeners endured diatribe beatings from McGeachin, Giddings, Hoffman and even jester Branden Durst, a one-time Democrat legislator and sometime teacher now running as a “conservative” for state schools superintendent.

Giddings opined that the very words “equity” and “privilege” were the smoke from a yet-undiscovered fire of critical race theory teaching. Well, she seemed to say, we’ll just have to keep looking. Salem witch trial redux: we’ll just keep burning people ‘til we find the heresy.

There were some revealing moments nonetheless in all of this. In an obvious effort to squelch free speech, McGeachin tried to silence high school students wearing “Hands Off Our Schools” t-shirts. They wouldn’t budge. Good for them. To the McGeachin-ites, the First Amendment means free speech for themselves only; that’s how they dishonor the Constitution they claim to follow.

Giddings blamed Idaho Public Television for a technical glitch allegedly preventing her words of wisdom from going statewide, an odd position for someone who had voted against the station’s funding. Then it turns out that either McGeachin or Giddings had inadvertently turned off the television audio feed. (IdahoEdNews, 6/28). Geeze Louise, these folks can’t even leave on an audio system, then blame their failure on others. So much for competence.

Then there’s snarky Wayne, who sees government evil everywhere, particularly in the funding of public schools, but who’s never been elected to anything but a rightist precinct position. Govern? These inquisitors couldn’t find their way out of an empty paper bag.

The so so-called “proof” of indoctrination at Boise State University, which Hoffman’s Idaho Slavery Foundation hypes, just turns out to depend on an unproduced, so-called “video” which now can’t be found, but which supposedly fingered by (wait for it) an Idaho legislator, who conveniently hasn’t stepped forward.

Humm. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to wonder if one of McGeachin’s legislative hotties was the source of this manufactured account which is now suddenly unavailable. It’s an old trick of propogandists everywhere: make a whispered allegation, which then gets reported by slanted media, which then serves it up as “true” in subsequent huff- and-puff commentary. You just invent what you can’t find otherwise, ala the Gulag Archipelago of the Soviet Union or the Brown Shirts of the Third Reich.

This kangaroo court isn’t up to Joe McCarthy’s 1950s waving sheaths of alleged names of communists in the federal government, but they’re trying their best to replicate McCarthy’s star chamber. The McGeachin-ites are said to be rifling through school curriculum records in both Boise and Coeur d’Alene hoping to find something – anything – to bolster their assertions. (IdahoEdNews, 6/24). What have they found? Nothing. Nada.

So the task force stumbles on as a cheap snake-oil, Brother Love’s Travelling Salvation Show, giving its crazies yet another forum for wacky assertions. The main purpose seems to be to keep the McGeachin-Giddings-Hoffman circus act in the public eye. Sadly, the student protesters saw Idaho officialdom at its worst. “They’re not listening to us,” one disappointed student remarked. (TN, 6/27). True enough.

It used to be that you had to go to the carnival barker’s side-show tent to see the tattooed ladies and two-headed calves. Now they’re on tv. Not about elections? Yea, sure. That’s all it’s about.

Stephen Hartgen, Twin Falls, is a retired five-term Republican member of the Idaho House of Representatives, where he served as chairman of the Commerce & Human Resources Committee.  Previously, he was editor and publisher of The Times-News (1982-2005). He can be reached at Stephen_Hartgen@hotmail.com

(photo/IdahoEdNews)

The West’s homegrown threat

July 10, 2021

johnson

America has some history with populist demagogues.

A Catholic priest from Detroit became a major figure in the 1930’s by playing to fears about economic collapse. Charles Coughlin, a kind of Rush Limbaugh-like character, had a national radio following. Coughlin advocating monetizing silver as a panacea for the depression decimated economy. It was later revealed the priest was trading in the metal, using his secretary to conceal his purchases, but knowledge of that scam still didn’t derail him. He moved on to stoking anti-Semitism.

In the same period, a fantastic character skyrocketed onto the national scene touting a plan to make “every man a king.” Huey Long appealed to the have nots by building highways, hospitals and schools in Louisiana, but he also presided over a virtual police state where, among other things, he required state employees to hand over a portion of every paycheck to his political operation. Huey would almost certainly have made a play for the White House had not an assassin shot and killed him in a hallway of the state capitol building in Baton Rouge.

A more recent variety of domestic demagogue – Joe McCarthy, Pat Buchanan, a guy named Trump to name a few – came into being playing on old American tropes: fear of “others,” hatred of our government or the evil threats of vicious foreign elements bent on our destruction. Much of the American story has been built on need to defend the country against someone or something determined to undermine or demolish all that is good.

Usually, the demagogue defines the threat as “endangering the American way of life,” a statement so broad and ill-defined as to satisfy the grievance of that segment of our society that is always upset about something.

Until Donald Trump inspired an insurrectionist attack on the U.S Capitol six months ago, the American demagogues have sought, often in odious and fundamentally destructive ways, to achieve political power by winning elections. Or at least they attempted to crush their opponents in the marketplace of ideas. But Trump has brought a new reality to American life: the demagogue as commander of what can only be called an armed militia.

A significant number of the Americans who assaulted their own seat of government on January 6 identify with certain militia movements – the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers. The Guardian reported in March on leaked documents from some of these groups indicating that have attracted hundreds if not thousands of members who are current or former military or law enforcement personal, but the groups also “include men and women, of ages ranging from their 20s to their 70s, doing jobs from medical physics to dental hygiene and living in all parts of the country.”

One Three Percenter patch says: “We’re everywhere.” Another proclaims: “Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.” As evidence of the January insurrection has made clear, these militia groups are heavily armed and certainly dangerous. Chants of “Hang Mike Pence” were not a statement of abstract political theory.

Which bring us to the West latest home-grown demagogue: Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate and anti-government militia crusader Ammon Bundy.

It’s easy to dismiss Bundy with his big hat and attention attracting antics as a joke, a marginal figure much like the usual marginal figures who pay the filing fee and show up on a ballot somewhere in the West. I’ve been guilty of dismissing Bundy as someone few people should take seriously. I was wrong. He’s different.

The Catholic priest in the 30’s or a Pat Buchanan, who proclaimed himself the head of the “pitchfork brigade” in the 1990’s, certainly had followers who could be and were stirred up at the drop of a microphone, but until recently American demagogues didn’t command armed militias. Now they do.

In a Los Angeles Times profile of Bundy this week one sentence stands out: “Standing in his kitchen, Bundy recently used his smartphone to pull up the latest stats for People’s Rights — nearly 60,000 members organized in 29 states and Canada, all promising to protect their fellow members if called, he claimed. Bundy is quick to describe it as a linked network of ‘neighbors’ who make independent choices and are not under his direction.”

The lie to that last claim is put to rest by a visit to Bundy’s YouTube channel where he certainly is directing those 60,000 folks. In other statements he has called his followers “neighborhood watch of steroids.”

An American demagogue like Huey Long certainly called his followers to action, but the action was aimed at winning elections. We know what kind of action Bundy is capable of. He masterminded the armed takeover of a wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon, he defied federal agents in a grazing standoff in Nevada and he led a violent demonstration inside the Idaho capitol building. The $750 he was fined recently for failing to leave a legislative meeting room in Boise is less than a slap on the wrist and will almost certainly embolden Bundy and his followers for the next action.

“We have the potential for multiple Malheurs in multiple states, in that at any moment they could bring hardened far-right activists, often heavily armed, into any one event,” Devin Burghart, executive director of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, told the Los Angeles Times in February.

Bundy’s play for political office in Idaho is a joke, at least in this sense. He doesn’t believe in his own government or the idea that a democratic society runs on rules and law. He flouts such conventions as easily as he summons a mob to intimidate a local elected official. His political campaign is a means to an end and the end is to menace real elected officials into silence and acceptance.

Who knows what Ammon Bundy, a true believer secure in the sacredness of his own opinions, is ultimately capable of? He has certainly given us a preview of coming attractions. No elected official in the West – and particularly in Idaho – should be surprised when he ratchets up his pressure campaign, as he surely will.

And while some elected Republicans, the fringe of the fringe, have embraced and encouraged Bundy’s anti-government nonsense most others have sat quietly, apparently hoping he will just go away. But he’s not going away. He’s now injected himself into the very heart of their party.

There is a stark choice here for most elected Republicans: risk alienating Bundy’s militia followers by pushing back on all that he stands for, or choose to support the rule of law and democracy. The recent Republican track record on that choice isn’t very encouraging.

Housing can be affordable

July 9, 2021

stapiluslogo1

Ask people about the on-the-ground, real world problems hitting them hard, in Idaho and nationally, and you won’t need long before you hear about affordable housing.

The widening gap between what housing - owned or rented - costs and what most people can afford is growing almost beyond belief. In theory, the marketplace should cover that: Broadly, what people can afford to pay ought to match up, roughly at least, with what’s being charged. But when the median price of a for-sale house in Boise is $523,250, the question should arise: How many people can afford to buy? And if they can’t, where will they live? Rentals, as you no doubt know, are in no better situation: The median price there is $1,303 a month.

The reasons for this are many and complex, and limited supply is only one cause. (Speculation and commodification in real estate are among the other issues, which I’ll come back to in a few weeks.) There’s no one-shot solution. But useful patches to help and improve the situation can be found, some of them in the area of state government.

In Idaho’s case, that’s a sort-of, because the Idaho Housing and Finance Association has some public aspects (the governor appoints its governing board, for example) and some private (it gets no money from the state, though it does from the federal government). It describes what it does this way: “Idaho Housing’s mission is to provide funding for affordable housing opportunities in Idaho communities where they are most needed and when it is economically feasible.”

Finding money to actually get that done is another matter. The association does provide help, for homebuyers and developers, where it can. But Idaho’s resources are more limited than those of almost all other states. Nearly all states have housing trust funds, but unlike Idaho, nearly all of them have put money in. As one national group reports, “State housing trust funds collected in excess of $1.6 billion in 2020 to advance affordable housing initiatives in their states. The most common revenue sources collected by state housing trust funds are the real estate transfer tax and the documentary stamp tax - used by twelve states and the District of Columbia.” Idaho’s trust fund is empty.

A report last week in the Idaho Capital Sun about a new relatively affordable Boise rental development outlined the patchwork of resources needed to make it happen. It’s a complex patchwork unlikely to be easily replicated very often.

Cory Phelps, a vice president at IHFA, was quoted as saying, “If a developer is looking to build affordable housing, they’ll probably look to where there’s more resources. We are getting a little more interest (from developers), but if you’re a developer and Oregon has all these resources, it just makes it easier for you to make the deal work. The more resources you have, the more housing you’re going to be able to build. It’s all about finding all of the necessary financial components to cover the cost of the project.”

The article then noted, “Oregon has a robust list of grants and tax credits available for affordable housing, along with a long list of more than 2,700 developments by county.”

Idaho could do this. Housing finance is an area where a relatively small outlay can have an enormous impact and directly improve the lives of many thousands of Idahoans. The state now has a massive revenue surplus, and relatively small payments - which could be used as leverage - together with some changes in property tax law could make a big difference.

But the whole subject was essentially ignored at the last legislative session. The Sun reported that the governor’s office is looking into it, but also quoted one Boise developer as saying, “The Idaho Legislature has a very ill-advised — and so far as I know, unique among the 50 states — view of how affordable housing should be for tax purposes.”

It doesn’t have to be that way in 2022 (though the odds are it will). But legislators who do take it seriously will find, not a complete solution for their constituents, but a significant help.

Idaho Laboratory

July 8, 2021

schmidt

“…a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” USSC Justice Brandeis

Us dang Idaho citizens foisted Medicaid expansion on a reluctant legislature through the initiative, Proposition 2 in 2018. For a couple years now all they have been doing is pounding sand. First, they tried adding on every limit the Freedom Foundation told them to: work requirements, private option, sorting out the sick.

This was after the Freedom Foundation’s lawsuit to overturn the initiative failed. Now, in a supreme act of petulant pouting, legislators have tried to virtually eliminate the tool we used, the Constitutional initiative process.

Instead of reading the landscape and trying to figure out the best process, they want to turn the clock back. I suggest, forget trying to invent the flux capacitor; get to work on some real public policy experiments.

They have the data. You do too. Thanks to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare sharing public information (which legislators are reluctant to do), we can study the information and make some suggestions for some courageous experiments.

Do you get a sense these legislators are more interested in keeping their seats than serving the citizens? But that’s a different rant.

After just six months of Medicaid expansion enrollment data, a study was presented to the Idaho legislature about what was happening. There was no legislation, no policy reactions, no meaningful comments after last December’s presentation.
So, let’s look at the information ourselves.

First, enrollment is a bit ahead of the expected numbers. We did have a significant economic downturn what with the Covid shutdowns and bump in unemployment. I don’t find those numbers alarming. Honestly, I can’t believe the economic gurus sitting on a $800M 2020 surplus in Boise are much alarmed either. But the hand wringing will continue about paying for 10% of the costs. Remember, Idaho pays 10% of expansion costs, the federal government prints the dollars for the 90%.

One of the beauties of Medicaid is that the data about where the money goes is open for us to scrutinize. Somebody should: maybe our elected representatives?
No, they want to fight off the CRT boogeyman, so I guess it’s up to us.
Let’s drill down.

The first six-month data shows the Per Member Per Month costs. PMPM is a useful number to understand. If you pay $300/month for your health insurance and your employer pays $400 and you don’t pay any copays or deductibles, your PMPM is $700. Add in all the annual copays/ deductibles/ out of pocket costs and divide by 12 and then you have the full PMPM.

The Idaho Medicaid Expansion population in that first 6 months sat at $517 PMPM.
In Idaho, Medicare PMPM (remember, older, more expensive) is $707PMPM.

Where did that big chunk of money go? The folks who studied that population for the first six months noticed some interesting things.

Idaho Medicaid Expansion enrollees had spinal fusions at a rate 5X that of comparable expansion states. Their length of stay in the hospital was shorter, but the greater number added $6.50 to the PMPM.

100,000 Medicaid Expansion enrollees x 12 months x $6.50 = $7.8M

Expansion enrollees got general physical exams from specialists, not their primary care physicians. This added about $.80 PMPM, or $960,000.

They looked at knee and shoulder arthroscopic surgeries ($1.80 PMPM), hip replacements ($2.67 PMPM), and a lot of others. Each penny adds up.

If you want to control health care costs you have to find the tools and be willing to use them. The variability and waste in health care spending has long been known. Let’s get to work on it. Be courageous.