Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in January 2023

Freedom

January 19, 2023

Our founders thought some freedoms should be in our Constitution. They couldn’t agree on all of them, so they became the first ten amendments. amendments. The Bill of Rights was passed after the Constitution was ratified. These first ten amendments had the effect of limiting how government could impose itself on a citizen.

The Idaho legislature has worked hard for many years to define freedoms for “the unborn”, so now we have a real mess of conflicting laws saying abortion is illegal. I doubt they will get to work cleaning up any of these conflicts this session, but I wonder, given the recent events in my town, whether any legislator would consider protecting us against unwarranted searches.

By the way, if you didn’t know, I live in Moscow, Idaho. Yeah, we’ve been in the news a bit lately.

The Fourth Amendment protects us from “unreasonable search” and specifies that warrants for searches shall specify probable cause. The courts describe the details, and they are being redefined as the world changes.

No founder knew about DNA. But we have a case in our town that just might pivot on such evidence.

Some states have decided to weigh in on their interpretation of this freedom. Idaho should too. Clarity for the investigating agencies helps convictions stick when the rules are followed. Otherwise, convictions can become lake house payments for appellant lawyers.

Defining this freedom for modern times would take some careful consideration and study. DNA databases are often proprietary. And these private companies can and do develop their own rules for how their information can be used. But they can also be bought and sold. And with these transactions, their assets, their DNA databases, are transferred.

Think about it. You sign on to get some genealogical information. Maybe you read the long legal document before you give them your credit card info. You don’t plan on committing any major crimes soon, so you figure it’s just for the lawyers to argue about.

But your information can also tell an investigator about your relatives. The DNA they got from a crime scene might suggest some relation of yours. That relative didn’t give permission. You may not know your crazy uncle really was crazy, maybe homicidal. But you just fingered him. Maybe you’re alright with that use of that information. Uncle Charlie might not be. And if he has good lawyers we’re now on shifting sands.

I would challenge the Idaho legislature to consider this work. Indeed, given their embrace of freedom, I would hope the Idaho Freedom Foundation would get on board. Maybe they have, I don’t know.

I have no idea if any legislators are considering this. Given their track records, I bet they are just waiting for some “model legislation” from ALEC. That’s too bad. I believe we here in Idaho have some thinking and some work to do.

We want crimes solved. We want to feel safe in our communities. Given the crowds down at the pool hall last week, I’d say the students have returned here to our college town from their Christmas break and feel pretty safe. But there is a long road ahead for trial and conviction. Maybe just seeing a suspect in orange coveralls makes people feel safe.

Defining the legal limits of DNA database searches will help law enforcement know how to search. Further, it should protect us from unwarranted searches by our government. Balancing this is the work our legislators should be doing. I want our system of justice to serve us all.

(image)

 

The campaign against Little

January 18, 2023

Gov. Brad Little, who by his admission is not known for his great oratory skills, must be feeling good about the quality of his State of the State address that he delivered to kick off this legislative session. In fact, better than normal.

Mind you, there was nothing spectacular about the speech. There were lots of platitudes, and not many specifics on his overall agenda. His speech will be long forgotten as legislators dive into the details and begin looking at other side issues.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation’s Wayne Hoffman wasted no time attacking the speech. “My advice to lawmakers is to ignore everything Gov. Little said. Every last word,” Hoffman said. “This was arguably the worst speech I’ve ever heard an Idaho governor give.”

To Little, that’s a signal that his speech could go down in history as one of the best. If Hoffman had his way, there would be no government funding for public education – and Little was nowhere close to that mark.

The governor’s speech also was panned by the Idaho Freedom Caucus, led by Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard and Sen. Tammy Nichols of Middleton – two of Hoffman’s best friends in the Legislature. They were “dismayed” with the speech. “What Idaho needs is more Ron DeSantis, less Gavin Newsom.”

Little will treat that criticism, along with their rants on the Legislature’s floors, with the seriousness of a fly on the wall. They will be ignored.

But the governor, perhaps to his delight, received a bonus “rebuke” from another leading Hoffman ally, Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon. Her vision appears to be turning the state party from being a cheerleader for Republicans to a policy enforcer.

“While the governor is right to emphasize education as a pathway to economic prosperity, his embrace of teacher’s union policy objectives – including a vast increase in spending without increased accountability metrics – is deeply disappointing,” Moon said. “Our concern is not about being seen to rebuke Idaho’s Republican governor, but rather to stand with the people of Idaho, who have made it clear that they want policies consistent with conservative principle.”

So, this is what we are going to get for the next four years. Little spent most of his first term doing battle, and eventually, ignoring Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. Now, it appears that Little will spend the next four years at war with the Idaho Republican Party.

We should have seen it coming.

Don’t expect Little to do anything other than brush aside the likes of Moon, Hoffman and McGeachin. To some of the “mainstream” Republicans I talk to, these are the true RINOs – people who claim to be Republicans, but are philosophically closer to the Libertarian Party, or the John Birch Society.

The group has managed to take over the state party and many of the county central committees, but they are a long way of capturing everything. Little easily defeated McGeachin in the last primary election, even though she was endorsed by former President Trump. Debbie Critchfield, Idaho’s new superintendent of public instruction – and a Little ally – defeated the freedom foundation’s golden boy, Branden Durst. Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke, who promised to bring sanity to the office, defeated Rep. Priscilla Giddings, another Libertarian/Republican. Then, there was Phil McGrane taking out Moon in the race for secretary of state.

The state party has a proposed rule change that would allow the state central committee the authority to call Idaho’s U.S. senators, representatives or state officials to a “meeting” about their “conduct.” Penalties could range from a censorship (on the first offense) to barring candidates from using the Republican label for five years.

Good luck with calling Gov. Little on the carpet. He has no reason to care what these RINOs do. If they want to remove him from the party, they might as well boot out Critchfield and Bedke while they’re at it.

Critchfield praised the governor, saying his agenda for education lines up with hers. Bedke has made it clear that he will not turn his office into a right-wing circus when the governor does business out of the state. To Moon’s central committee, those could be grounds for censorship, if not outright expulsion from the GOP.

If you thought that the political campaigns were over, think again. It’s going to be a rocky ride for Little, Critchfield and Bedke over the next four years.

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

Some things just don’t change

January 17, 2023

I covered the Idaho Legislature off and on from 1967 through 1978. Sometimes an interesting experience.  More often than not, pretty dry and usual stuff.

Oh, there was that one time when, sitting at the press desk in the Idaho Senate, the over-the-top pastor of the city's largest Protestant denomination charged in late.   He dropped his bowler, calfskin gloves, silk scarf and camel's hair overcoat in my lap, reached for the pen in my hand to write an overdue opening prayer and said "God will bless you, my Son."

Given that long-ago history, and not living in Idaho now, I haven't paid much attention to legislative comings and goings.

But, catching up with the new cadre of usually mostly rural Idaho legislative folk in recent days, it appears not much has changed.  You can always be sure they'll do something to others they've railed against others doing to them.  And, there's always at least one voice suffering from public "foot-in-mouth" disease.

So, here we are at the beginning of just the second week and both "regularities" have already struck.  In spades.

First, the "new-low-in-the-spoken-word."  Credit Republican Rep. Jack Nelson, of Jerome, with this barn-floor-scraping piece of wisdom.

When discussing with his "peers" matters of women's health, Ol' Jack stopped the conversation with this jewel during a meeting of the House Agriculture Committee.

Quote - I've milked a few cows, spent most of my time walking behind lines of cows.  So, if you want some ideas on repro(duction) and the women's health thing, I have some definite opinions.  End Quote.  Mercifully.  Note, he said "repro.

Those are the kinds of spoken legislative expressions that keep Boise bars so busy when the "body" is in session.  Regular "frog stranglers."

Now, there's that other always-present legislative prerogative of doing to others what they fear will be done to them.  Rep. Bruce Skaug's abortion-related bill is an excellent example.  If said bill were to become law - and there's some very valid arguments to oppose that - the State would withhold sales tax and other revenues that normally flow to the cities and counties.  Revenues on which local governments depend. Life's blood.  The State would do so, if - IF - local governments would not investigate violations of- or not enforce-Idaho abortion laws/rules.  Boy, howdy!

Skaug's bill would amend a foul piece of 2021 legislative handiwork called the "No Public Funds for Abortions Act."  His bill, according to the author, would also target any local government that declares itself a "sanctuary" city or takes similar action.

Skaug said if cities are allowed to go unchecked on the subject of abortion, "We're going to end up like Portland or Seattle and (see) the anarchy that has started to enter those cities."

In my old days around the press room, we used to bet on which early bills - such as Mr. Skaug's - would make it to the Governor's desk.   Were I there today, I'd bet "No" on this one.  But, some bad bills - worse than this - have cost me some loose betting change.

From its earliest days, Idaho's legislatures could always be counted on to hold to one precept.  Looking upwards on the old federal government "food chain," the constant has been "Don't be telling us what to do when you give us your money."  Somewhere, in the bowels of the Capitol, I swear, those words - or something similar - are inscribed on a piece of faux marble.

The Idaho Legislature spends a lot of time on its hind legs flailing away at the perceived "evil" feds for such outrageous demands as "accountability" when dealing with the downwards flow of government money.

But, that same body sees no shame in putting strings all over a package of State dollars headed to cities and counties.  Often, more like ropes.

It's said only two things in life are certain: "death and taxes."  I would submit, for your consideration, an unqualified third: the Idaho Legislature.  One: for outrageous quotes from supposed "wise" lawmakers.  And, two: turning a blind eye to genuine double-think when it deals with dollars and lower levels of governments.

Was then.  'Tis now.  Seems it ever shall be.

 

Conflicting interests

January 16, 2023

It did not take long for newly-elected Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador to be confronted by two troubling conflict of interest situations. He mishandled the first case and will soon have to act on the second. The two cases will give Idahoans a flavor of the manner in which he will operate the AG office during his tenure.

During his first week as AG, Labrador moved to dismiss a misdemeanor trespassing charge against Sara Brady, a prominent supporter of his campaign. Brady was charged with trespassing by the City of Meridian for allegedly refusing to leave a playground the City had closed to curb the spread of COVID-19. Because the City’s contract prosecutor had a conflict of interest concern, the AG’s office agreed to handle the prosecution.

Labrador’s office presented some feeble grounds to justify the dismissal, but there was certainly enough evidence for a jury to convict Brady. The elements of the charge were documented on video. Brady had unsuccessfully sought dismissal of the charge in lengthy court proceedings. Fortuitously for Brady, the trial was scheduled for after the change of administration, partly because of COVID and partly because of delays occasioned by Brady’s attorneys.

City officials were caught off guard by the dismissal. Meridian Mayor Roger Simison said Labrador’s “apparent philosophy to selectively dismiss cases of his choosing and endorse illegal behavior is abhorrent.” Police Chief Tracy Basterrechia expressed concern about the appearance of “political grandstanding.”

Labrador had a clear conflict in handling the case because of Brady’s prominent support for his election and because of his widely-publicized opposition to COVID restrictions during the last two years. He should have advised the City of his conflict and its need to secure other prosecution counsel, instead of unilaterally seeking to dismiss the charge.

An equally troubling decision awaits action by Labrador in a Bonneville County court case. Idaho Falls lawyers Bryan Smith and Bryan Zollenger filed suit against an individual to collect a $777 medical debt. The defendant, David Lyon, claimed the suit violated Idaho’s Patient Protection Act (Act), which is designed to curb debt collection abuses for medical indebtedness. The attorneys, whose abusive practices caused Melaleuca CEO Frank Vandersloot to propose the Act, then challenged the constitutionality of the Act in the lawsuit. They were able to get a ruling in their favor on some of their constitutional claims.

Upon learning of the ruling, former Attorney General Wasden filed a motion to intervene in the action, claiming the Act was constitutional and that the debt-collecting lawyers had failed to comply with a statute requiring notification of their constitutional challenge.

Wasden sought to join the action in order to uphold the constitutionality of the Act. A hearing on the motion is set for February, unless Labrador decides to withdraw it.

The case puts Labrador smack dab on the horns of a dilemma. Smith and Zollinger are big wheels in the far-right Bonneville County GOP. Smith is Vice Chair of the Idaho Freedom Foundation. The lawyers greatly benefitted from excessive attorney fee awards in medical debt cases before the Act went into effect and would love to have the judge’s ruling remain in effect. Vandersloot, on the other hand, has no use for these lawyers who prey on medical debtors and is dedicated to keeping the Act intact. He is also a major contributor to GOP candidates, having given $15,000 to Labrador in the general election.

Vandersloot claimed that Smith and Zollinger worked with Lyon to present a test case to the court in hopes of overturning the Act. In a recent story in the East Idaho News, he points to past relationships between the lawyers and the defendant. Taking his claims at face value, there do appear to be valid concerns as to whether the suit was set up as a vehicle to cripple the Act. It is fairly unusual to file a 47-page brief in Magistrate Court to challenge the constitutionality of a statute when the amount in question is only $777.

If Labrador drops the motion to uphold the Act, it will be a sign that having the support of extremist Republicans is more important to him than standing up for the law and for the interests of people plagued by abusive medical debt collectors.

 

Decriminalizing effects, or not

January 15, 2023

This makes for a simple and compelling storyline: Since Oregon has loosened its marijuana and other drug laws – through ballot measures in 2014 and 2020 – law enforcement agencies have been reporting massive seizures in the state of illegal pot and large-scale illegal operations in rural parts of the state. The implicit message is that drug abuse is exploding.

Some of the seizures are massive, amounting to more than 105 tons in the state so far this year, much more than just three years ago.

Beyond those headlines, however, the connections aren’t so simple, and some perspective is needed.

One way to approach this is through the organization that is the source of the 105-ton figure; it is especially useful because of the way the group is set up: a little counter-intuitively. This is the Oregon-Idaho High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force, a little odd as an integral unit both for geographic reasons and because Oregon and Idaho have such different drug regimes and issues. The contrast is also useful, because the differences between the two help shed a little light on the challenges each of the states face.

The task force focuses its efforts on 16 counties (a dozen in Oregon) and four Indian reservations (two in each state). Most of these house local-regional “initiatives.” Statewide, Oregon reported a drop in arrests over drug offenses from 10,684 in 2020 to 4,892 in 2021; the report suggested the passage of Measure 110, which decriminalized some personal possession of illegal drugs, may have been a reason. While not a strict comparison, Idaho reported that of more than 8,000 inmates in its correction system, the largest portion (34.7%) was behind bars for drug crimes, a contrasting picture.

Although the legal scene was very different, the task force’s Drug Threat Assessment sounded very much the same for both states when it came to specific problem areas.

“Fentanyl and methamphetamine were the most significant threats to Oregon and Idaho during 2021 based on drug seizures, drug related death data, initiative interviews, and surveys conducted in early 2022. The 18 Oregon-Idaho HIDTA enforcement initiatives based their survey responses on a criterion of drug availability, impact on caseload and community impact,” the report said.

That message coincides with recent reports from other regions showing shifts of trafficking in rural areas.

It went on: “One-third of HIDTA initiatives listed methamphetamine as their single greatest drug threat, while one third stated fentanyl alone as their greatest threat. However, three task forces stated that fentanyl and methamphetamine pose an equal threat in their jurisdictions. Sixteen initiatives identified methamphetamine as being the most available substance in their jurisdiction – either individually or in combination with other drugs.”

Those substances were reported by far as the largest problem area across both states, and both seem to be less affected by the law changes in Oregon than a number of substances illegal in one state but not, or less so, in the other. The report said that fentanyl trafficking into Oregon increased massively in 2021.

There was also this: “The Oregon State Police (OSP) forensic laboratory statistics for 2021 showed 50.7% of the samples submitted for analysis were methamphetamine. Heroin made up another 17.6% of submitted samples. Fentanyl accounted for 8.9% of samples. Cocaine and cannabis/THC each were roughly 3% of submitted samples. Another 2% of samples contained multiple drugs. Finally, all other drug types represented 13% of samples.” In Idaho, “methamphetamine represented 43% of samples analyzed in 2021, while marijuana was 23.5%. Heroin accounted for 8.8% of samples and fentanyl or fentanyl analogues were 5%.”

As for marijuana, law enforcement in both states this year continue to report significant amounts of illegal marijuana and cannabis extracts, though just a quarter of enforcement officers surveyed indicate “a rise in prevalence.” Prices for the illicit goods continue to fall, they said, especially in southern Oregon, where some of the largest illegal grow operations have been reported.

What to make of this?

No doubt more effort is going to be needed to go after illegal marijuana operations. (Is there some temptation to grow in a state where, the theory may be, the illegal product can be hidden among the legal?) Still, the ability of law enforcement to focus on the big traffickers rather than individual users may account in part for their success in cracking some of the large operations.

The task force’s report may in effect be a call to think carefully about where the most serious problems are, and how we measure them – hopefully, in context.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image/Getty)

Legislative smashup

January 13, 2023

The Idaho Legislature, back in regular session this last week, is about to be yanked in two radically different directions on one of its core subject areas: education.

That split was apparent in two vivid events on the same day, the first day of the session.

The first event was the state of the state speech by Governor Brad Little, which had a strong standout section aimed at sharply changing the trajectory of Idaho public education.

Following on the big surplus-driven cash infusion from last fall, he proposed a string of funding efforts from scholarships to raising teacher pay and an emphasis on bolstering public schools. “Our commitment to public schools is both our constitutional obligation and it is our moral obligation,” he said. “When I started this job four years ago, Idaho was 41st in the country for starting teacher pay. In four short years, we will have catapulted starting teacher pay in Idaho from the bottom 10 to the top 10. We’re also going to grow the salaries of all teachers, including the most experienced ones, to ensure students have the classroom support they need.” Nor was that all; he outlined support for other aspects of public schools as well.

It was the kind of ambitious push many governors even in blue states would have been happy to give, and Idaho can (with its ongoing strong revenue) readily afford it. Little will have all or nearly all of the education community in the state in his corner as budgets and education policy are set this session.

But will that be enough?

Little’s agenda was, within the world of Idaho Republicans, highly controversial, and a big question arises about just how many votes he will get when bills are proposed in the Idaho Legislature.

You can get a look at what’s coming from a statement shortly after the State of the State from the Idaho Republican chair, Dorothy Moon: “While the Governor is right to emphasize education as a pathway to economic prosperity, his embrace of teacher’s union policy objectives — including a vast increase in spending without increased accountability metrics — is deeply disappointing. Idaho is not Colorado. And yet, the Governor’s vision for the next four years sounded no different than the vision offered by Colorado’s incumbent progressive Democrat governor. These policies do not benefit students. Much like the failed remote schooling policies pursued during the COVID-19 pandemic, the policies that Governor Little is advocating exist to benefit unions, not to educate students. Unsurprisingly, then, the State Legislature’s leading Democrats have all publicly acclaimed the Governor’s address and offered their full support for his agenda.

“Some might dismiss these concerns as an unnecessary rebuke. But our concern is not about being seen to rebuke Idaho’s Republican Governor but rather to stand with the people of Idaho, who have made it clear that they want policies consistent with conservative principle.”

This was the state Republican chair speaking about the Republican governor. (For the historically minded, it brings to mind the period around 1965.)

With that in mind, your attention is drawn to a local school board meeting held about six hours later and 25 miles west of the Statehouse, in Caldwell. The board was considering a new policy on gender and sexual identity, and as will happen these days it drew a shouting crowd.

The pivotal speaker was a new Republican senator from Caldwell, Chris Trakel, who effectively yelled that the proposed policy would damage children and added, "You will face litigation ... You call that a threat, I'm telling you that is what will happen. It's already happened in several states and there's already been rulings on it. So, before you waste taxpayer money, before you put a kid in harm's way, you better throw this policy out."

He knew his audience, apparently: Only the torches and pitchforks were missing.

Don’t think the state budget proposal was necessarily the central story of that opening legislative day, and the Caldwell meeting a sideshow, or that they’re about two different things. They're both about the future of Idaho schools.

Collision is dead ahead.

 

Immigration

January 12, 2023

Since Joe Biden finally visited the southern border, I want to know when Brad Little is going to close Idaho’s borders. Who are all these people?

For the sixth year in a row, we are in the top tier of fastest growing states. We had a minor slip this year to the second spot, after coming in first for the previous five. Estimates have us a little north of 1.9 million. The state has more than doubled since I moved here to hunt mastodons in my youth.

No wonder the legislature sits on a budget surplus. I guess all these newcomers buy things and pay taxes. Those elderly legislators have reserved parking there in the Capitol garage, so they don’t see the crowds swarming in. And they go home when the legislature adjourns to their 500-acre gated ranches where the ag designation protects them from property taxes. I doubt many have a mortgage. Maybe some.

But they for sure have health insurance. Even if they are on Medicare, they can still get taxpayer paid health insurance as a state employee, even though they are part-time. Maybe they consider themselves full time now that we said they can call a session whenever they get a few colleagues to sign on. That health insurance benefit is quite a perk. Right up there with the reserved parking.

And now they are talking about how much it costs them to fund Medicaid expansion. They are still butt-hurt about that initiative that passed back in 2018.

I understand the worry about Medicaid funding. I watched the costs go up for years. Though I am proud to say, the 4 years I did the DHW budgets on JFAC, the cost increase was comparable to inflation. What we had no control over back then was the Catastrophic Health Care Fund for the uninsured. That cost doubled in ten years.

So here I am whining about all these folks moving in, but I don’t think we should be going back to “the good old days”. I saw a case of “the good old days” in the clinic a few weeks back. Fifty-year-old working guy made $200 bucks a month more than made him eligible for Medicaid. He didn’t go on the exchange, took his chances. His shortness of breath finally took him to the ER. They gave him an antibiotic and sent him home. When he couldn’t breathe the next day, he went back. This time they found the pulmonary emboli and the 10-centimeter mass in his chest. Who should pay for this?

He's not going to be back at work for a while. The bill for the two ER visits would probably take his home and tools. Or they could go unpaid, and the hospital could cut a couple nurses from their staff. I wonder just what the Idaho legislature sees as a solution for this. I expect we’ll hear some proposals.

I am greatly disappointed that we haven’t made much investment to look at how we pay what we pay in the Medicaid program. A recent legislative study suggested Medicaid payment rates hadn’t been evaluated for many years. If you want to pay less, and I do, it seems worth evaluating just exactly what you are paying for and whether it is worth what you are getting.

So, the Idaho legislature will gavel into session this week, the Governor has been inaugurated and the interns have been hired, trained, and warned. The bars in Boise have stocked their shelves, the reserved parking spaces are swept free of the pigeon droppings and our elected leaders will gather to serve our common good. All is well.

 

Despicability

January 10, 2023

O.K.

We've made it out of 2022 alive.  Somehow.  So, here we are.  Stepping off into 2023 with high hopes it'll be a better 12 months.  And, maybe it will.

After moments of resolution-making and reflection, have you given a thought lately to about how many of us there are in the old U.S. of A. as we enter a new cycle?

Folks at the U.S. Census Bureau have.  They've been sifting through the huge stacks of data in the back room and have come up with an educated guess.   Or two.

The first guess is a projection that 334, 233, 854 of us now take up residence border-to-border and coast-to-coast.  That number has grown roughly 1,571,393 in the last 12 months.

Another piece of minutia from the Bureau.  There is one birth every nine seconds and one death every 10 seconds.  Net international migration adds about one new face every 32 seconds.

So, if you combine the number of births, deaths and international migration, we gain one person every 27 seconds.  How 'bout that?

As for how many of us there are on the entire planet at the moment, that would be an estimated 7,942,645,086.  And counting.  Worldwide, the four-point-three births and two deaths each second.

The Bureau maintains a "Population Clock" which displays the simulated, real-time growth of both the U.S. and world head count.  And, it's constantly in motion.  (You can keep a daily watch at www.census.gov/popclock.)  There, you'll see a moving headcount from birth to age 100, growth by male/female, the most populous and highest density states.  You can also link to a world clock from that site with even more information.

If you localize things a bit, Washington State is largest in the Northwest with about 7,800,000 residents at the beginning of the year.  Next comes Oregon with some 4,240,137 souls and Idaho is third with about 1,940,000.

But, it's not the number of us that matters.  No, we should be more concerned with how the enumerated behave.  And, if you've been watching our newly elected members of Congress the last few days, the enumerated have been not only an international disgrace but they've shown a callous disregard for our national security.  Forget decorum.

Whatever hollowed out, empty, worthless victory Kevin McCarthy surrounds himself with in his new Speaker's Office, he's made so many enemies - given up so much power formerly in that powerful position - created so much enmity and distrust with Representatives of both political parties - that he's Captain of a rudderless ship.

The next 24 months are going to see nothing - n-o-t-h-i-n–g - of meaningful legislation.  No coordinated efforts to address the needs of the citizenry, a political party devoid of direction, powerless to conduct even the most diminutive tasks and without vision or goals.

Whatever crackpot, personally vindictive and dangerous bills emanate from that severely damaged and diminished body will face a Senate and a President ready to fill the legislative ash can.

One-half of one-third of our Constitutionally created government is in chaos and totally disabled.  The anger, the desire to payback and willingness to destroy another member's work will haunt the hallowed halls of half our Congress for possibly years to come.

And Mr. McCarthy - like some wounded Captain Bligh - will have rendered one of the most powerful political offices of Congress - powerless.

There will be no legislative accomplishment count because of the Republican body count.

Happy New Year!

Mountain States Policy Center

January 9, 2023

The Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) recently burst upon the political scene in Idaho with ten policy recommendations for the legislatures of Idaho, Washington, Montana, Wyoming. The policies include spending public money for private schooling, lowering income tax rates and rejecting additional federal Medicaid funding. A legislator friend recently asked me about MSPC, telling me, “I’m thinking they are almost like the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), but hoping not.” That description is close to the mark.

The most unsettling similarity between MSPC and IFF is that both are affiliated with the State Policy Network (SPN) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). SPN supports right-wing “think tanks” in every state and has been appropriately described as “the tip of the spear of a far-right, nationally-funded policy agenda in the states that undergirds extremists in the Republican Party.” ALEC furnishes cookie-cutter legislative measures to extremist legislators for enactment of that agenda into state law. Both SPN and ALEC are affiliated with a web of other national far-right groups.

The President and CEO of MSPC is Chris Cargill, who previously served as the Eastern Washington Office Director of the Washington Policy Center (WPC). If you guessed that WPC is another affiliate of SPN and ALEC, you are absolutely correct. It is not clear what the appropriate catchphrase is–”birds of a feather flock together” or “you’re known by the company you keep”--but when the parent groups and policy aims of WSPC and IFF are so closely aligned, you have to wonder what the difference is.

MSPC contends it is an enlightened think tank that will present its policy ideas in a non-combative, non-political manner. And, to its credit, the board of directors of MSPC is not quite as extremist as that of IFF.

Education policy rates high on the agenda of both groups, but their differing approaches present a stark contrast. MSPC promotes “school choice,” but contends that it does not wish to harm the public school system. Compare that with the scorched earth tactics of the IFF, which is committed to getting rid of the public school system in Idaho. On December 31, IFF’s head honcho, Wayne Hoffman, said IFF was dedicated to “ending government schools to improve education in Idaho.”

Any comfort one may get from MSPC’s more genteel approach quickly dissipates when you read the following language in its education policy recommendation: “Opponents of education freedom have claimed that state constitutions in Idaho and Washington, specifically, forbid public money from being used for religious schooling. Unfortunately, this belief is the result of an extreme anti-Catholic bigotry put into the language of state constitutions at the time of statehood. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down these discriminatory laws. As the Institute for Justice writes, ‘these obstacles to educational freedom are now largely a dead letter.’”

Idaho’s Constitution strongly prohibits use of taxpayer money for religious schooling. As any Idaho history student knows, the prohibition was prompted by anti-Mormon bias. The prohibition is not a dead letter. The Supreme Court ruled that states would have to fund religious schooling if, and only if, they used taxpayer money for other private schooling. And, it should be noted that the Institute for Justice is a right-wing organization linked to SPN, ALEC and other such groups. Based on just this one paragraph, it would be unwise to put a lot of store in what the MSPC has to say.

My working theory is that the IFF has sustained substantial damage to its credibility over the last year or so because of its vicious tactics and that MSPC was called in to present a kinder and gentler voice in advocating for the same basic goals–a good cop/bad cop approach to achieve the same basic results. The onus is on MSPC to demonstrate that such is not the case. See more on the MSPC education policy later in Part Two.